Understandint Accounts

"The profits" ======== I'm sure one could make the "profit" appear to be whatever you wanted. What counts as a related cost and what doesn't?

AIUI, Soton sub-contracts this service, so apparent "profit" may actually be barely covering the capital cost of the land and building.

Some of the figures from Which? suggest they think the only cost is manpower.

All the "profit" goes into providing NHS care, a tiny addition to tax, charitable receipts, charges for private rooms etc.

And I don't doubt these Trusts make money from their coffee machines, catering services, bed-side TVs etc, too.

"The parkers" ==========If non-hospital parkers hadn't started abusing the system decades ago, many more hospitals might well provide free or cheaper parking. There would soon be complaints from patients and their visitors if there were no spaces because charges were too low.

Evidently it's no problem for the parkers - if they choose the high-cost option of travelling by car, instead of the public transport alternative, they can clearly afford to pay.

Soton do a deal for regulars for £2 a day, and less in some cases.

So I don't know what your point is - unless you think taxes should increase to subsidise the motorist.

I can see no reference to car parking. I do, however, see £4m or £5m in litigation costs, dwarfing the alleged car-parking surplus.

Please provide a link for this - although it's obviously a typo.

And finally... =========If all the staff park in the local residential areas, as some were threatening, wouldn't the daily walk count as one of their "5 a day".

I wish I had never bothered - many thanks for the demonstration.

That's an abominably flawed way of arguing. You're obviously biased in favour of public transport, so let me present the argument from the opposite point of view.

It appears that your argument justifies high parking charges on the basis of ability to pay. Your premise is that travelling by car is the high(er) cost option compared with public transport, and you say that because of this, those who exercise that option must be so rich that they'll take any (even unreasonably high) parking charges in their stride.

Well, even if the premise were true (which it isn't, see below) the argument is silly. To see why, just apply it to the position of the premise being the opposite. You would have to argue that, if public transport were more expensive than going by car, then clearly users of public transport would be rich enough to afford to pay hospitals a facility fee for using their on-site bus terminals.

Now to the premise itself. I would argue that travelling by car is generally cheaper than using public transport. To illustrate by example:

Where I live, a single bus journey costs £1.20, and so a return is £2.40, that's if you're lucky enough that you don't need to change buses. If you do, it'll cost you more.

I estimate the cost of using a (modest) car (assuming you have one anyway, i.e. I'm talking about the marginal cost) at not much more than 10p a mile, so the break-even distance (if no changes of bus are needed) is 12 miles each way. So if you live nearer to the hospital than 12 miles, the car is cheaper.

For some people there are no convenient buses and they have to opt for the only other form of "public" transport available: taxis. 'Nuff said.

OK, there is the possible scenario of people who have chosen not to have a car, and to opt for a bus pass instead. For those, the marginal cost of visiting hospital will obviously be zero, but how many people are in that boat?

First, I'm delighted you only take issue with one of the many points I made.

Second, I'm delighted that you haven't found anything I *actually* said in the [ above re-quoted ] sentence to disagree with.

Obviously - it keeps the roads and car-parks clearer for me.

In which case, please re-read what I wrote, noting carefully what I didn't write. For the sentence with which you've taken issue doesn't attempt to justify high [ your word, not mine ] charges, it merely observes that the level of charges evidently isn't a problem. (In fact, the car parks remain so hugely popular, they're building more.)

"So rich"...? A few quid? A maximum charge of just over one litre of petrol? A daily rate for "regulars" of £2 or less? Now who's being "abominably flawed"?

They doubtless do - indirectly, by using the coffee machines and newspaper vendors while waiting for their infrequent bus.

What novel accounting. First you must almost certainly be talking diesel to get 55+mpg, and hence only 10p-ish a mile on fuel.

Second, what on earth do you mean marginal cost? If you mean the only cost directly and concurrently incurred in making the journey, then simply don't top-up en route. Cost = zero. But if you mean the "variable" costs, then you must include servicing, tyre wear, mtbf, insurance (yes - have you noticed how we have to declare annual mileage these days), the mileage-related element of depreciation, car washes (hospital patients being too ill to wash the thing themselves). That leaves the age-related bit of depreciation, the cost of financing (zilch-ish at today's rates, for those who simply dip into savings to buy the car), and, er, MOT as the remaining costs. (I discount VED since, with that mpg, your dream car has got to be emitting no CO2 thingies at all at all)

Not quite a 'nuff. South of the wall, we have hospital cars, voluntary car services, bus passes for old fogies, friendly neighbours only too happy to help with lifts (drop off / pick up - no parking fee!), hitch hikers, push bikes and ... walking sticks!

Chosen? That was my word in "the sentence" - and I thought you were trying to argue it wasn't a choice...!

None - it's a trick question cos they're all in the bus.

Now you've gone and spoiled my Egg weekend :-(

Yippee.

OK - but my post was challenging the OP's implication (as I saw it) that the cost of parking was a big problem - not so much because of affordability, but because there is apparently a surplus being made by a number of NHS hospital Trusts.

Sorry - I should have been clearer. You'll see that my original "high" referred to the cost of motoring, whereas you've taken my "high" as referring purely to parking charges.

Because the OP implied it *was* a problem.

Absolutely - but I cannot see how one can address the parking fees in isolation (especially as, presumably, those on low income are far less likely to run a car. Would it not be fairer to provide [ means tested? ] free travel for patients and their visitors?

Supermarkets are trying to attract as many customers as possible. That's the last thing NHS wants. And they surely don't want to divert health funding to subsidize car owners?

An excellent idea. :-)

It does for the majority of car owners - whose pence / mile would be much higher.

Maybe you're one of those "in the same boat", without a roof...?

Wait until you need a new injector pump, at well into 4 figures wihtout labour :-((

I disagree - it's what's generally misunderstood.

Yes, but you were treating all non-fuel costs as fixed. Which is patently incorrect. Even the HMRC "approved" figures presume 25p a mile after the first 10k has covered fixed costs. Ditto the AA (upon whose figures I gather HMRC's are based).

That's going some... £300, say, for 4 mid-range tyres, life of 18k miles, say - that's a conservative assumption, but runs out at 1.67p.

You can economise by ignoring the "so many months" recommendation. Manufacturers need to keep the dealers sweet, so they only say that to keep the little old low-mileage ladies spending. (There are exceptions, at the extremes, but that's not the point here.)

Oh, come on - I know you can do better than that. The extra £20 is wholly attributable to the extra 1,091 - i.e. 1.8p/mile.

But in a year - even on your incorrect basis - it's £20. That dwarfes the average motorist's annual spend on hospital parking.

Good one :-)

How often do you get breakdowns without doing any mileage? Or is this the damp start problem again? You really must get off that boat. :-)

Absolutely you do. It's built into the per-mile claim rate. Or would you refund some of your expenses at year end if you hadn't broken down?

Was it a boat or is your car strapped to one of those spooky subs going up and down the Clyde?

Well, it's 4 or 5p/mile in parkers !

Convenient? Is that an issue when visitng a loved one in a hospital ward?

Maybe, esp given your personal car costs. But why regard the parking fees as the one of several costs which tips the balance?

Oh, come on - I thought that was really quite funny !

I still do.

Ambulances are only used for Accident and Emergency visits. If you are going to a scheduled outpatient appointment or for a scheduled operation, you usually have to make your own way there.

So you would think, but I've often seen (to my surprise) ambulances used as a non-emergency patient transport service.