toothycat: (Default)

[personal profile] toothycat 2025-05-27 11:39 am (UTC)(link)
5. "It makes no sense to cut funding to mental health services when that costs you money in the long run" - sadly, the incentives don't work out that way:

* cost-cutting today means "savings" that you can claim credit for today

* long-term fallout will happen under a future government, who will take the blame - any pushback they might make on that will be lost in the general "everything bad is the fault of a previous government" rhetoric that previous governments flooded us with and so taught us to ignore
reverancepavane: (Default)

[personal profile] reverancepavane 2025-05-27 05:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Also in bureaucracies it often simply a matter of shifting the costs off your desk. It doesn't matter if the nett result to society as a whole is greater, it's no longer being paid by your department and you have achieved considerable cost-savings within your department. Well done!

Of course this means that [eventually] someone else will have to to pick up the slack, but that's not your problem. Or it gets placed back on your desk and you claim you don't have the funding for it, so you will need supplemental grants to administer the scheme.
hilarita: stoat hiding under a log (Default)

[personal profile] hilarita 2025-05-28 02:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Indeed - this is how we can spend more and more on healthcare, because running down preventative, early intervention, and/or GP care saves money in the short term, and we can watch the soaring cost of secondary care. (See also; cutting social care budget for similar consequences... and cutting Sure Start...)

It's really really depressing.