FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Understaffing in the NHS putting cancer patients at risk.
Understaffing in the NHS putting cancer patients at risk.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"“ An overstretched, understaffed health service with exhausted workers under “unsustainable pressure” is putting cancer patients at risk, England’s health ombudsman has warned. England’s health ombudsman Rob Behrens is now calling for “concerted and sustained action” from the government to allow NHS leaders to put patient safety first.” So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? " Re introduced bursaries for training to start with. Increase wages to incucage more to stay and more to start training in the fist place. If you employ a plumber or an electrician to do work in your home the cost per hour, £25 an hour PAYE, should nurse be paid about the same. | |||
"“An overstretched, understaffed health service with exhausted workers under 'unsustainable pressure' is putting cancer patients at risk, England’s health ombudsman has warned"." Only cancer patients? Are all the other patients doing just fine? Or has he picked cancer patients as an emotional ploy to get more attention? | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? " Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. | |||
"“An overstretched, understaffed health service with exhausted workers under 'unsustainable pressure' is putting cancer patients at risk, England’s health ombudsman has warned". Only cancer patients? Are all the other patients doing just fine? Or has he picked cancer patients as an emotional ploy to get more attention?" He’s the ombudsman responsible for unresolved complaints, so I imagine it has something to do with the type of complaints he is dealing with. Also, delays to cancer treatments generally result in death more often than delays to knee replacements. | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS." Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. | |||
| |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. " This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed | |||
"“ An overstretched, understaffed health service with exhausted workers under “unsustainable pressure” is putting cancer patients at risk, England’s health ombudsman has warned. England’s health ombudsman Rob Behrens is now calling for “concerted and sustained action” from the government to allow NHS leaders to put patient safety first.” So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Re introduced bursaries for training to start with. Increase wages to incucage more to stay and more to start training in the fist place. If you employ a plumber or an electrician to do work in your home the cost per hour, £25 an hour PAYE, should nurse be paid about the same." Reintroduce what bursaries? Or are you simply way behind the times? | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed" The NHS model worked in 2010, in fact it worked so well that the NHS was rated the most efficient health system in the world. | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed The NHS model worked in 2010, in fact it worked so well that the NHS was rated the most efficient health system in the world." I’m not convinced that is the reality of the headline then, and it isn’t now some 14 years later. It is not a simple answer and there is no one thing thing contributing to the under performance | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed The NHS model worked in 2010, in fact it worked so well that the NHS was rated the most efficient health system in the world. I’m not convinced that is the reality of the headline then, and it isn’t now some 14 years later. It is not a simple answer and there is no one thing thing contributing to the under performance" Well it does seem like funding nose dived under the last 14 years....if you would like to Google NHS investment over time graph this may bring you some clue as to what might be the issue. | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed The NHS model worked in 2010, in fact it worked so well that the NHS was rated the most efficient health system in the world. I’m not convinced that is the reality of the headline then, and it isn’t now some 14 years later. It is not a simple answer and there is no one thing thing contributing to the under performance Well it does seem like funding nose dived under the last 14 years....if you would like to Google NHS investment over time graph this may bring you some clue as to what might be the issue. " Funding is the one thing that seems to be different. People talk about ‘record funding’ for the NHS bug you can’t underfund something for a decade, increase the funding because of a pandemic for a couple of years, then pretend that underfunding isn’t the issue. | |||
| |||
"BMA: A cumulative underspend of 322 billion despite pandemic injection, since 2010. Only one country lower in the G7 spending of it's GDP (10%). 18% lower than EU 14 per person. England has the lowest funding of the four countries. Staff have had sub-inflationary pay rises since 2008. That's the response to record funding. " It’s almost as if the NHS model isn’t out dated, it’s just for the last 14 years the government has chosen not to fund that model appropriately. | |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed" It was working fine up until 2010. Underfunding something until it doesn’t work properly is a pretty crass way of making the point that it needs to change. | |||
"BMA: A cumulative underspend of 322 billion despite pandemic injection, since 2010. Only one country lower in the G7 spending of it's GDP (10%). 18% lower than EU 14 per person. England has the lowest funding of the four countries. Staff have had sub-inflationary pay rises since 2008. That's the response to record funding. It’s almost as if the NHS model isn’t out dated, it’s just for the last 14 years the government has chosen not to fund that model appropriately." How very dare you accuse the pious ministers who work so very hard for the public, making constant sacrifices, of underfunding the NHS   | |||
| |||
" So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? Modernisation, service improvement and tax benefits for private healthcare lowering the demand on the NHS. Since we have a limited pool of clinicians, people going private can in fact increase the demand on the NHS. This is why I said modernisation and service improvements, I can see no reason for a tax reduction system based on % of healthcare taken privately, allowing more people to access the private healthcare, mix and match for want of a better phrase. The NHS model doesn’t work, new ideas are needed The NHS model worked in 2010, in fact it worked so well that the NHS was rated the most efficient health system in the world. I’m not convinced that is the reality of the headline then, and it isn’t now some 14 years later. It is not a simple answer and there is no one thing thing contributing to the under performance Well it does seem like funding nose dived under the last 14 years....if you would like to Google NHS investment over time graph this may bring you some clue as to what might be the issue. Funding is the one thing that seems to be different. People talk about ‘record funding’ for the NHS bug you can’t underfund something for a decade, increase the funding because of a pandemic for a couple of years, then pretend that underfunding isn’t the issue." The Blair government introduced a lot the debt and problems we have today in the NHS. RFI projects using private companies to build manage, rent back property and facilities, the government cost of repayments on that was huge, this decision by Blair could be argued was the start of the infrastructure breakdown. The Famous IT project that cost 40 billion and didn't deliver, and we should remember tax went up to pay for improvements. I standby the NHS model is broken and not fit for todays society, fresh thinking and moving away from the idea that the NHS is for everyone and continually pumping money into something that clearly isn't working is my starting position for change. The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour." From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over." If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view," I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption." In 2019 public satisfaction in the NHS was higher than at any time during Blair except his last 2 years. It's fallen drastically since covid. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. In 2019 public satisfaction in the NHS was higher than at any time during Blair except his last 2 years. It's fallen drastically since covid. " Aye, if you remove the bits of data that you don’t like, you can make stats say different things | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. In 2019 public satisfaction in the NHS was higher than at any time during Blair except his last 2 years. It's fallen drastically since covid. Aye, if you remove the bits of data that you don’t like, you can make stats say different things "No different to selecting a particular point in time to get the data to agree with your point 
Would you like to disagree with my analysis?
No? Didn't think so. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption." My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. " I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. " There is a 2 tier system in place today, the ability exists for NHS staff and the NHS facilities to take private work, it is queue jumping in my opinion. I think this is where a change needs to happen, private healthcare should not be provided by the NHS hospital or staff members, private is private, NHS remain NHS. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. There is a 2 tier system in place today, the ability exists for NHS staff and the NHS facilities to take private work, it is queue jumping in my opinion. I think this is where a change needs to happen, private healthcare should not be provided by the NHS hospital or staff members, private is private, NHS remain NHS. " You’re still running two health systems from one pool of staff, though? | |||
| |||
"Is it understaffing or organisational inefficiency and poor use of resources? " Poor motivation due to bad management? A system that doesn’t know why it exists or what its expected outcomes are? A client (customer) base who abuse the system? The NHS isn’t a fixed by a ‘magic bullet’ solution. | |||
"Is it understaffing or organisational inefficiency and poor use of resources? Poor motivation due to bad management? A system that doesn’t know why it exists or what its expected outcomes are? A client (customer) base who abuse the system? The NHS isn’t a fixed by a ‘magic bullet’ solution." Probably all the above ....and more. But the NHS is held up as a 'national treasure' (it isn't!) and no government dare tackle the underlying issues. | |||
| |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. There is a 2 tier system in place today, the ability exists for NHS staff and the NHS facilities to take private work, it is queue jumping in my opinion. I think this is where a change needs to happen, private healthcare should not be provided by the NHS hospital or staff members, private is private, NHS remain NHS. You’re still running two health systems from one pool of staff, though?" This is what I'm saying, there should not be 1 pool of staff covering NHS and private health. Either contracted to the NHS or Private, it would not stop a surgeon as an example working for multiple private companies, or a NHS surgeon working at multiple NHS sites. The management of this is what is creating waiting lists some people are struggling to climb. I could enter a 12 month waiting list today, and my consultant could offer a fast track private route within 4 weeks with the same person and hospital who would have been seeing me on the NHS. if that is allowed to happen, those who cannot afford to pay will never be seen as long as people who can keep appearing on the list. | |||
| |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. There is a 2 tier system in place today, the ability exists for NHS staff and the NHS facilities to take private work, it is queue jumping in my opinion. I think this is where a change needs to happen, private healthcare should not be provided by the NHS hospital or staff members, private is private, NHS remain NHS. You’re still running two health systems from one pool of staff, though? This is what I'm saying, there should not be 1 pool of staff covering NHS and private health. Either contracted to the NHS or Private, it would not stop a surgeon as an example working for multiple private companies, or a NHS surgeon working at multiple NHS sites. The management of this is what is creating waiting lists some people are struggling to climb. I could enter a 12 month waiting list today, and my consultant could offer a fast track private route within 4 weeks with the same person and hospital who would have been seeing me on the NHS. if that is allowed to happen, those who cannot afford to pay will never be seen as long as people who can keep appearing on the list. " Even if you have NHS and private staff separate, you’re still operating from the same pool of people unless you increase the numbers undertaking medical training. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. There is a 2 tier system in place today, the ability exists for NHS staff and the NHS facilities to take private work, it is queue jumping in my opinion. I think this is where a change needs to happen, private healthcare should not be provided by the NHS hospital or staff members, private is private, NHS remain NHS. You’re still running two health systems from one pool of staff, though? This is what I'm saying, there should not be 1 pool of staff covering NHS and private health. Either contracted to the NHS or Private, it would not stop a surgeon as an example working for multiple private companies, or a NHS surgeon working at multiple NHS sites. The management of this is what is creating waiting lists some people are struggling to climb. I could enter a 12 month waiting list today, and my consultant could offer a fast track private route within 4 weeks with the same person and hospital who would have been seeing me on the NHS. if that is allowed to happen, those who cannot afford to pay will never be seen as long as people who can keep appearing on the list. Even if you have NHS and private staff separate, you’re still operating from the same pool of people unless you increase the numbers undertaking medical training." And you would also have to navigate the very complex issue of surgeon competencies. Surgeons have to complete a certain number of the same procedure each year to remain ‘competent’. If all a surgeon cares about is money, then they could quite easily work in the private sector, performing a very limited amount of different procedures over and over. Herein lies the problem, surgeons are very keen to learn and perform new procedures and techniques, the chances of them being able to do this in the private sector is very slim. Private healthcare is only financially viable because it rarely takes on complex patients who would require ICU and/or intensive post op rehab. This really limits the type of patients and procedures a surgeon can take on in a private setting. | |||
" The evidence is for all to see, even with tax rises, and initiatives from Blair the NHS looked good for a blip in time and then failed back to poor under labour. From 2000-2010 public satisfaction with the NHS grew year on year. Only declining post-2010 after the coalition took over. If labour had remained in power they would not have been in a better position with NHS perception, which had already faltered by then. The NHS is not simply about funding is my view, I’m not sure what part of NHS public perception peaked in 2010 is so difficult to understand. It literally didn’t falter until the Tories took over. You can argue that it would have slipped under Labour too, but that’s simply assumption. My first post on this topic was to suggest the NHS should be a focus for modernisation and service improvements. The country and world has changed so much over the last 76 years, but the NHS hasn't really changed its structure or ambitions since it was formed in 1948. The changes in the NHS always seem to be how it is internally administering or structuring, with the focus on healthcare for all. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of changing the focus from healthcare for all, to healthcare that you can afford, promoting private healthcare for those that can afford it with tax benefits for doing so? Another avenue for a better NHS service could be to complete an inventory of services offered by all NHS areas and consider removing anything that is not essential, something that should be taken down a private route. I have not got the answers, I'm suggesting things that seem obvious, throwing more and more money at something that is not working is not an obvious thing to do in my view. I know you’re an advocate of a two tier health service. It’s not something that IMO should be supported. There is a 2 tier system in place today, the ability exists for NHS staff and the NHS facilities to take private work, it is queue jumping in my opinion. I think this is where a change needs to happen, private healthcare should not be provided by the NHS hospital or staff members, private is private, NHS remain NHS. You’re still running two health systems from one pool of staff, though? This is what I'm saying, there should not be 1 pool of staff covering NHS and private health. Either contracted to the NHS or Private, it would not stop a surgeon as an example working for multiple private companies, or a NHS surgeon working at multiple NHS sites. The management of this is what is creating waiting lists some people are struggling to climb. I could enter a 12 month waiting list today, and my consultant could offer a fast track private route within 4 weeks with the same person and hospital who would have been seeing me on the NHS. if that is allowed to happen, those who cannot afford to pay will never be seen as long as people who can keep appearing on the list. Even if you have NHS and private staff separate, you’re still operating from the same pool of people unless you increase the numbers undertaking medical training." This why I said it needs modernisation and service improvements, it seems clear recruitment and training is very much a one way street at present and maybe needs to be looked at too. | |||
| |||
"The stupid degree quailfication scheme needs to end. Nursing could be an apprenticeship, different track training for different roles. I know someone who wanted to be a medical imaging specialist, they had already studied in the NHS and uni doing dental hygiene and therapy. They had to do the nursing course for a period of over two years before they could specialise, what a waste. The lack of co-ordination in the NHS is what is destryoing it, you would not manage an army of 1 million like the NHS, the regional trusts should go. Different trusts do things differently, I've seen it in the two hospitals either end of the M27." This government ended nurses training bursaries and converted to repayable student loans at usury rates of interest. | |||
"If you want European levels of service you have to pay European levels of tax and that means about everybody paying more tax/insurance not just the rich but the will is not here in this country as posts complaining about not razing income thresholds shows." But UK taxation levels are at a record high since WWII. But what do we get? pot-holed roads, aircraft carriers that don't work, crap healthcare ...... | |||
"If you want European levels of service you have to pay European levels of tax and that means about everybody paying more tax/insurance not just the rich but the will is not here in this country as posts complaining about not razing income thresholds shows. But UK taxation levels are at a record high since WWII. But what do we get? pot-holed roads, aircraft carriers that don't work, crap healthcare ......" It's called economic failure | |||
"The stupid degree quailfication scheme needs to end. Nursing could be an apprenticeship, different track training for different roles. I know someone who wanted to be a medical imaging specialist, they had already studied in the NHS and uni doing dental hygiene and therapy. They had to do the nursing course for a period of over two years before they could specialise, what a waste. The lack of co-ordination in the NHS is what is destryoing it, you would not manage an army of 1 million like the NHS, the regional trusts should go. Different trusts do things differently, I've seen it in the two hospitals either end of the M27." The nursing degree is pertinent to today's healthcare and is pretty much global. It is also field specific (adult, paeds, mental health, learning disability) And what has dental hygiene and radiology got to do with each other and/or nursing? | |||
"The stupid degree quailfication scheme needs to end. Nursing could be an apprenticeship, different track training for different roles. I know someone who wanted to be a medical imaging specialist, they had already studied in the NHS and uni doing dental hygiene and therapy. They had to do the nursing course for a period of over two years before they could specialise, what a waste. The lack of co-ordination in the NHS is what is destryoing it, you would not manage an army of 1 million like the NHS, the regional trusts should go. Different trusts do things differently, I've seen it in the two hospitals either end of the M27. This government ended nurses training bursaries and converted to repayable student loans at usury rates of interest. " Catch up | |||
| |||
"Banning treatment for alcoholics and drug users would be a good start for boosting morale. Failing that, move them to a totally separate entity to be dealt with." You radiate empathy | |||
"Banning treatment for alcoholics and drug users would be a good start for boosting morale. Failing that, move them to a totally separate entity to be dealt with. You radiate empathy" Been around enough of both to lose all empathy. It's all well and good telling others to tolerate the intolerable but we guarantee you if drug or alchohol addiction comes into your own family you'll shun it. | |||
"Banning treatment for alcoholics and drug users would be a good start for boosting morale. Failing that, move them to a totally separate entity to be dealt with. You radiate empathy Been around enough of both to lose all empathy. It's all well and good telling others to tolerate the intolerable but we guarantee you if drug or alchohol addiction comes into your own family you'll shun it. " Not as a HCP I wouldn't and haven't. | |||
| |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course." ‘Efficient’ private companies have already had a go at running parts of the NHS and handed their contracts back because they couldn’t make it profitable. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course." None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course." Like the failed Hinchingbrooke Hospital pilot? Great idea  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! " Who would do their work? | |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! Who would do their work?" What exactly do they do? | |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! " They could lower the bandings for the admin managers - it is easier to become an admin manager than it is an HCP. Many admin managers I know don't have a degree so I don't feel they should have a band 5, the point at which HCPs start. | |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! Who would do their work? What exactly do they do?" They run the hospitals, deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, all the data, targets, training, IT etc. they look after all the non medical stuff. And lots of things I’ve not included. | |||
| |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! They could lower the bandings for the admin managers - it is easier to become an admin manager than it is an HCP. Many admin managers I know don't have a degree so I don't feel they should have a band 5, the point at which HCPs start." If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band. Also most band 5 posts now require a degree or equivalent experience, which is often what happens as very few graduates find the prospect of managing secretaries etc. attractive. | |||
| |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! They could lower the bandings for the admin managers - it is easier to become an admin manager than it is an HCP. Many admin managers I know don't have a degree so I don't feel they should have a band 5, the point at which HCPs start. If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band. Also most band 5 posts now require a degree or equivalent experience, which is often what happens as very few graduates find the prospect of managing secretaries etc. attractive." We're actually singing from the same hymn sheet in the fact that managers (to get a band 5) should have a degree. | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? " is the understaffing from vacancies or lack of budget ? Some may complain. As a start I'd not give away 4pc in cuts. They've made it even harder to fund. | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? is the understaffing from vacancies or lack of budget ? Some may complain. As a start I'd not give away 4pc in cuts. They've made it even harder to fund. " From what I understand, it's vacancies not being fulfilled... though most industries are suffering the same. Quite a lot would complain, tories putting up taxes etc especially on here lol | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? is the understaffing from vacancies or lack of budget ? Some may complain. As a start I'd not give away 4pc in cuts. They've made it even harder to fund. " Vacancies. | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? is the understaffing from vacancies or lack of budget ? Some may complain. As a start I'd not give away 4pc in cuts. They've made it even harder to fund. Vacancies." However, if the pay was more attractive (funding), the vacancies could reduce. Or the very least tempt people to apply to uni. | |||
| |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! Who would do their work? What exactly do they do? They run the hospitals, deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, all the data, targets, training, IT etc. they look after all the non medical stuff. And lots of things I’ve not included." So, they do all the things that are failing the most. They aren't very good then, so are we better off without them? | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? " We certainly would complain. The NHS is overrated, over funded and inefficient. More 3rd world than world class. | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? We certainly would complain. The NHS is overrated, over funded and inefficient. More 3rd world than world class." Over funded  .... Tell me, you're here all week  | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? We certainly would complain. The NHS is overrated, over funded and inefficient. More 3rd world than world class. Over funded .... Tell me, you're here all week "It was around 5% of GDP in 1980, now around 12%. Yet the service is worse. | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? We certainly would complain. The NHS is overrated, over funded and inefficient. More 3rd world than world class. Over funded .... Tell me, you're here all week
It was around 5% of GDP in 1980, now around 12%.
Yet the service is worse."tbf pre COVID we were flat at 10pc. But pc of GDP is a broad measure. The UK population has grown by about 20pc. The number of over 65s more like 30pc. I'd guess the health of the average person is lower when measured by weight, activity, diet etc. Medical inflation also outpaces inflation normally. I'd also say one needs to define service. On the one hand waiting times are shit. On the other hand I'd wager the levels of recovery of conditions is much higher than 1980. It's a complex beast. | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? We certainly would complain. The NHS is overrated, over funded and inefficient. More 3rd world than world class. Over funded .... Tell me, you're here all week
It was around 5% of GDP in 1980, now around 12%.
Yet the service is worse.tbf pre COVID we were flat at 10pc.
But pc of GDP is a broad measure.
The UK population has grown by about 20pc. The number of over 65s more like 30pc.
I'd guess the health of the average person is lower when measured by weight, activity, diet etc.
Medical inflation also outpaces inflation normally.
I'd also say one needs to define service. On the one hand waiting times are shit. On the other hand I'd wager the levels of recovery of conditions is much higher than 1980.
It's a complex beast. "“We” don’t do complexity in here | |||
"I look at it from a different situation Understaffed, yet over 5m inactive economic people in the country. Underfunded, yet if the chancellor came out and said, income tax to go up 5p for everyone to fund the NHS... wonder how many would complain? We certainly would complain. The NHS is overrated, over funded and inefficient. More 3rd world than world class. Over funded .... Tell me, you're here all week
It was around 5% of GDP in 1980, now around 12%.
Yet the service is worse."Yet the lowest bar one in the G7. | |||
"BMA: A cumulative underspend of 322 billion despite pandemic injection, since 2010. Only one country lower in the G7 spending of it's GDP (10%). 18% lower than EU 14 per person. England has the lowest funding of the four countries. Staff have had sub-inflationary pay rises since 2008. That's the response to record funding. " Just thought I'd bump this for fooly | |||
"BMA: A cumulative underspend of 322 billion despite pandemic injection, since 2010. Only one country lower in the G7 spending of it's GDP (10%). 18% lower than EU 14 per person. England has the lowest funding of the four countries. Staff have had sub-inflationary pay rises since 2008. That's the response to record funding. Just thought I'd bump this for fooly" Oops I mean sexyhorny | |||
"Getting rid of the extra non-medical managers that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s for start! Who would do their work? What exactly do they do? They run the hospitals, deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, all the data, targets, training, IT etc. they look after all the non medical stuff. And lots of things I’ve not included. So, they do all the things that are failing the most. They aren't very good then, so are we better off without them?" Again, who would do their work? | |||
"If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band." Why? Who thinks that managers *must* be paid more than the staff that they manage? | |||
"If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band. Why? Who thinks that managers *must* be paid more than the staff that they manage?" Because they have greater responsibility, and they have authority over the people they manage. It’s also a method of career progression. I’ve never worked in an industry where it hasn’t been the case that managers are paid more than the people who are their direct reports. | |||
"If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band." "Why? Who thinks that managers *must* be paid more than the staff that they manage?" "Because they have greater responsibility, and they have authority over the people they manage. It’s also a method of career progression. I’ve never worked in an industry where it hasn’t been the case that managers are paid more than the people who are their direct reports." So are we saying that a manager hired for an oncology department to deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, data, targets, training, IT, and all the non medical stuff, absolutely must earn more than any of the medical staff in that department? | |||
"If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band. Why? Who thinks that managers *must* be paid more than the staff that they manage? Because they have greater responsibility, and they have authority over the people they manage. It’s also a method of career progression. I’ve never worked in an industry where it hasn’t been the case that managers are paid more than the people who are their direct reports. So are we saying that a manager hired for an oncology department to deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, data, targets, training, IT, and all the non medical stuff, absolutely must earn more than any of the medical staff in that department?" No, because they don’t manage the medical staff in the department. | |||
"If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band. Why? Who thinks that managers *must* be paid more than the staff that they manage? Because they have greater responsibility, and they have authority over the people they manage. It’s also a method of career progression. I’ve never worked in an industry where it hasn’t been the case that managers are paid more than the people who are their direct reports. So are we saying that a manager hired for an oncology department to deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, data, targets, training, IT, and all the non medical stuff, absolutely must earn more than any of the medical staff in that department?" I think DebauchedDeviants is only talking about the manager/admin roles not the medical roles based on the posts so far! | |||
"If a medical Secretary is band 4 (and they deserve to be) then their manager needs to be at a higher band. Why? Who thinks that managers *must* be paid more than the staff that they manage? Because they have greater responsibility, and they have authority over the people they manage. It’s also a method of career progression. I’ve never worked in an industry where it hasn’t been the case that managers are paid more than the people who are their direct reports. So are we saying that a manager hired for an oncology department to deal with all the HR, purchasing, maintenance, catering, cleaning, data, targets, training, IT, and all the non medical stuff, absolutely must earn more than any of the medical staff in that department? I think DebauchedDeviants is only talking about the manager/admin roles not the medical roles based on the posts so far!" Thank you, you are very unlikely to find a manager who is paid higher than a medical/surgical consultant anywhere in a hospital. | |||
"I think DebauchedDeviants is only talking about the manager/admin roles not the medical roles based on the posts so far!" So you think DD is saying that the operational manager only needs to be paid more than the cleaner and repairman? How about the IT guy, or the MRI maintenance technician. Does the manager have to be paid more than them as well? | |||
"Thank you, you are very unlikely to find a manager who is paid higher than a medical/surgical consultant anywhere in a hospital." Ah! So managers don't need to be paid more than their staff then? | |||
 | |||
"I think DebauchedDeviants is only talking about the manager/admin roles not the medical roles based on the posts so far! So you think DD is saying that the operational manager only needs to be paid more than the cleaner and repairman? How about the IT guy, or the MRI maintenance technician. Does the manager have to be paid more than them as well?" If they are direct supports of the manager then yes. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how NHS trusts are managed. | |||
"Thank you, you are very unlikely to find a manager who is paid higher than a medical/surgical consultant anywhere in a hospital. Ah! So managers don't need to be paid more than their staff then?" Consultants are managed by clinical directors, they are other consultants who are paid more for taking on extra responsibility. | |||
"So you think DD is saying that the operational manager only needs to be paid more than the cleaner and repairman? How about the IT guy, or the MRI maintenance technician. Does the manager have to be paid more than them as well?" "If they are direct supports of the manager then yes. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how NHS trusts are managed." I have no clue how NHS trusts are managed. But I do know that management, while important, is not a particularly difficult skill to master. It doesn't deserve the salary level of a doctor, or a nurse. We need to get away from this old-fashioned idea that managers are somehow 'above' the normal staff. | |||
"So you think DD is saying that the operational manager only needs to be paid more than the cleaner and repairman? How about the IT guy, or the MRI maintenance technician. Does the manager have to be paid more than them as well? If they are direct supports of the manager then yes. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how NHS trusts are managed. I have no clue how NHS trusts are managed. But I do know that management, while important, is not a particularly difficult skill to master. It doesn't deserve the salary level of a doctor, or a nurse. We need to get away from this old-fashioned idea that managers are somehow 'above' the normal staff." I’m not sure you have the first idea of what a good manager does. | |||
| |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders?" Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow." Is what they offer free at the point of use? | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use?" No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy." I said free at the point of use. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use." Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare." Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow." If it is that easy why can't the NHS do this simple task with the £13.5 billion a month it has to manage demand? That is a hell of a lot money paid up front for services most people are not going to use on a monthly basis but still pay for it. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow. If it is that easy why can't the NHS do this simple task with the £13.5 billion a month it has to manage demand? That is a hell of a lot money paid up front for services most people are not going to use on a monthly basis but still pay for it. " It’s really very simple, specsavers is a business which decides how much it charges for every service it provides, if demand and or costs go up it raises its prices. It doesn’t have to do what’s needed for every person who turns up at its doors. The NHS doesn’t decide how much money it receives, it has to deal with everyone who turns up at its door. Also, demand management isn’t part of the NHS’s remit, that’s the responsibility of local councils, who have had their budgets drastically cut. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow. If it is that easy why can't the NHS do this simple task with the £13.5 billion a month it has to manage demand? That is a hell of a lot money paid up front for services most people are not going to use on a monthly basis but still pay for it. It’s really very simple, specsavers is a business which decides how much it charges for every service it provides, if demand and or costs go up it raises its prices. It doesn’t have to do what’s needed for every person who turns up at its doors. The NHS doesn’t decide how much money it receives, it has to deal with everyone who turns up at its door. Also, demand management isn’t part of the NHS’s remit, that’s the responsibility of local councils, who have had their budgets drastically cut." Why is £13.5 billion a month not enough? | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow. If it is that easy why can't the NHS do this simple task with the £13.5 billion a month it has to manage demand? That is a hell of a lot money paid up front for services most people are not going to use on a monthly basis but still pay for it. It’s really very simple, specsavers is a business which decides how much it charges for every service it provides, if demand and or costs go up it raises its prices. It doesn’t have to do what’s needed for every person who turns up at its doors. The NHS doesn’t decide how much money it receives, it has to deal with everyone who turns up at its door. Also, demand management isn’t part of the NHS’s remit, that’s the responsibility of local councils, who have had their budgets drastically cut. Why is £13.5 billion a month not enough? " Because funding hasn’t kept pace with demand. Over the years 2011-2020 the underspend was in the region of £330 billion, we’re paying the price for that now. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow. If it is that easy why can't the NHS do this simple task with the £13.5 billion a month it has to manage demand? That is a hell of a lot money paid up front for services most people are not going to use on a monthly basis but still pay for it. It’s really very simple, specsavers is a business which decides how much it charges for every service it provides, if demand and or costs go up it raises its prices. It doesn’t have to do what’s needed for every person who turns up at its doors. The NHS doesn’t decide how much money it receives, it has to deal with everyone who turns up at its door. Also, demand management isn’t part of the NHS’s remit, that’s the responsibility of local councils, who have had their budgets drastically cut. Why is £13.5 billion a month not enough? Because funding hasn’t kept pace with demand. Over the years 2011-2020 the underspend was in the region of £330 billion, we’re paying the price for that now." This numbers are horrific! Underspending 330 billion over 9 years and spending 162 billion a year would put the cost of the NHS at £2,538 for every single person alive in the UK. I can't see how this can be sustainable, I really can't. | |||
"Privatise the NHS. It's inevitable anyway, so we might as well crack on. Provided the principle of 'free at the point of need' is maintained, why not let efficient private companies run it? Who does the really clever stuff in medicine anyway? The new drugs, the scanners, lasers ....? Private companies of course. None of your examples are healthcare providers though. They are suppliers to healthcare providers. Can you name a healthcare provider that is delivering value for money for customers (patients and tax payers) and still delivering profit for shareholders? Specsavers. They provide prompt and efficient optical checks, diagnosis and correction. Value-for-money optical products and ear cleaning which the NHS are too incompetent to provide. I'd have Specsavers running the NHS tomorrow. Is what they offer free at the point of use? No, buy what in life is 'free'? Certainly not the NHS, that's a fallacy. I said free at the point of use. Well, the eye tests are free at the point of use and likewise any checks/treatment under the NHS. But what does 'free at the point of use' actually mean? It just means you've paid up front through NI - in exactly the same way as insurance funded healthcare. Yes but if you have no money and go to specsavers do they do what you need for free? The reason specsavers is efficient is because everyone is charged for what they offer, and there’s no obligation for them to look after everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. It’s easy to be efficient when you are able to control the flow of people into a service, and have all the resource required to deal with that flow. If it is that easy why can't the NHS do this simple task with the £13.5 billion a month it has to manage demand? That is a hell of a lot money paid up front for services most people are not going to use on a monthly basis but still pay for it. It’s really very simple, specsavers is a business which decides how much it charges for every service it provides, if demand and or costs go up it raises its prices. It doesn’t have to do what’s needed for every person who turns up at its doors. The NHS doesn’t decide how much money it receives, it has to deal with everyone who turns up at its door. Also, demand management isn’t part of the NHS’s remit, that’s the responsibility of local councils, who have had their budgets drastically cut. Why is £13.5 billion a month not enough? Because funding hasn’t kept pace with demand. Over the years 2011-2020 the underspend was in the region of £330 billion, we’re paying the price for that now. This numbers are horrific! Underspending 330 billion over 9 years and spending 162 billion a year would put the cost of the NHS at £2,538 for every single person alive in the UK. I can't see how this can be sustainable, I really can't." PFI contracts £80bn (for £13bn investment) Malnutrition £22.6bn annually Obesity £6.5bn annually and increasing Smoking £1.9bn annually and £14bn in later life Alcohol £3.5bn annually plus societal cost £21bn Drug abuse £3.5bn annually plus societal cost £20bn Big pharma £12bn 95.08% prescriptions are free, while nhs pays £80million annually prescribing Paracetamol which cosr 39p a box at Aldi | |||
"“ An overstretched, understaffed health service with exhausted workers under “unsustainable pressure” is putting cancer patients at risk, England’s health ombudsman has warned. England’s health ombudsman Rob Behrens is now calling for “concerted and sustained action” from the government to allow NHS leaders to put patient safety first.” So how do we make the NHS a more attractive place to work in order to attract the staff to fill the 110,000 vacancies? " I would think that the more important question is why are people using the health servive and what steps can be taken to ensure that people do not need to use it in the future . Some lifestyle choices result in unnecessary use of the service. The funding model needs to be changed to a similar system as operated in France or Germany. It is ridiculous to provide the service free of charge without any accountability . With part privatisation we can provide a more effective service which can be broken down into a number of specialist divisions . The problem with the NHS is not a shortage of funds , it is a lack of accountability. We should also refuse to treat health tourists , no other country in the world allows this | |||
| |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. " And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner." Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... " The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position," I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS." All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me." Profit if they can provide a service people are willing to pay for, why would that concern you? | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me." And to add when it does not become profitable, investors will pull the funds and it stops, profit before health is a bad gig. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me. Profit if they can provide a service people are willing to pay for, why would that concern you? " It doesn't, but privatizing parts of the nhs for investor profit does concern me. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me. Profit if they can provide a service people are willing to pay for, why would that concern you? It doesn't, but privatizing parts of the nhs for investor profit does concern me." are these areas being privatised for investor profit or to provide services that the government are losing money on? | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me. Profit if they can provide a service people are willing to pay for, why would that concern you? It doesn't, but privatizing parts of the nhs for investor profit does concern me. are these areas being privatised for investor profit or to provide services that the government are losing money on?" They will not do it for cost, the same money will be spent be it will be directed to pay dividends. | |||
| |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me. Profit if they can provide a service people are willing to pay for, why would that concern you? It doesn't, but privatizing parts of the nhs for investor profit does concern me. are these areas being privatised for investor profit or to provide services that the government are losing money on? They will not do it for cost, the same money will be spent be it will be directed to pay dividends. " I can see your view now, you think the private care will be funded by the government for people who used the NHS? I think that ship has sailed, nobody as I mentioned earlier will pick up the rot, it is not worth it. The only way forward will be to incentivise private investment for paying customers to remove them from the NHS demand. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. " The truth is we’ve a 37% overweight society, 26% obesity, processed food and more people than ever on takeaways All this is the main contributor to the nhs problems, the nhs is not the cause it’s being burdening with the life choices people make and the governments control over allowing unhealthy foods over supporting uk farming and its failure educating people on the benefits of healthy eating and exercise. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. All for profit, which does leave a bad taste with me. Profit if they can provide a service people are willing to pay for, why would that concern you? It doesn't, but privatizing parts of the nhs for investor profit does concern me. are these areas being privatised for investor profit or to provide services that the government are losing money on? They will not do it for cost, the same money will be spent be it will be directed to pay dividends. I can see your view now, you think the private care will be funded by the government for people who used the NHS? I think that ship has sailed, nobody as I mentioned earlier will pick up the rot, it is not worth it. The only way forward will be to incentivise private investment for paying customers to remove them from the NHS demand. " I'm cool with people having private health insurance for operations or treatment and I agree it does take some of the strain off the nhs, but as with all privatised ex nationalised company's they all get subsided by the tax payer. Even the energy companies got bailed out from the tax payer with the £400 we all got if you wanted it or not, I fear a privatised nhs would be the same to big to fail with no nationalised alternative. | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. The truth is we’ve a 37% overweight society, 26% obesity, processed food and more people than ever on takeaways All this is the main contributor to the nhs problems, the nhs is not the cause it’s being burdening with the life choices people make and the governments control over allowing unhealthy foods over supporting uk farming and its failure educating people on the benefits of healthy eating and exercise. " Agree 100%.  | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS." I think that’s what people mean by privatising the NHS. Trouble is that the private companies will cream off the simple, profitable procedures and treatments leaving the NHS with the complex and chronic patients, and of course the horribly expensive emergencies and Trauma. Fun fact, when private healthcare providers are used by the NHS the government does not require them to provide rehabilitation, guess who that falls on? | |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. And if your tax and nat insurance burden is lower than that you are on a winner. Tell that to the people on the waiting lists... The lockdown has had a knock on effect, plus the political elite want it privatised and are running it badly to get to that position, I'm not convinced with that argument, I'm not sure there is such a thing as simply privatising the NHS. I can't see many jumping at the chance to take on the costs associated to the infrastructure and outdated practices, let alone taking on the logistical nightmare of creating an IT system to move them onto. I can however see incentives for private companies to build their own that will be used to remove some demand from the NHS. I think that’s what people mean by privatising the NHS. Trouble is that the private companies will cream off the simple, profitable procedures and treatments leaving the NHS with the complex and chronic patients, and of course the horribly expensive emergencies and Trauma. Fun fact, when private healthcare providers are used by the NHS the government does not require them to provide rehabilitation, guess who that falls on?" A&E will no doubt remain with the NHS, I can see it running like the US, arrive at a trauma centre once stabilised, moved if you have private healthcare and a cost from the private healthcare company to cover the A&E. I think we need a model in terms of introducing the public to chargeable services. One that jumps off the page, arrive at A&E with a problem that could clearly have been dealt with outside of an emergency centre, once at triage a person is informed there will be a cost, with the free option of taking the advice on where best to find treatment and leaving. | |||
| |||
"People complain about the nhs, but for a cost of under 3 grand per person per year, you get a gold plated health service knowing you will get treated, operated, aftercare and medication. The truth is we’ve a 37% overweight society, 26% obesity, processed food and more people than ever on takeaways All this is the main contributor to the nhs problems, the nhs is not the cause it’s being burdening with the life choices people make and the governments control over allowing unhealthy foods over supporting uk farming and its failure educating people on the benefits of healthy eating and exercise. Agree 100%. "And as Mark Drakeford said this week, "many, many people who wait in hospital to be treated are not sitting there waiting in pain, they're sitting there waiting because they're d*unk". Harsh but true. | |||
"We absolutely do not need a system which introduces people to charging. That way leads to situations where people avoid anything they have to pay for and present at a later date and much more acute, occasionally too late. And you can’t charge people for turning up at A&E when primary care is so broken." Your view is admirable on paper but it is killing the service. So we can charge and we should charge for wasting time and resources, unless you want the NHS to collapse faster than it already is. | |||
"We absolutely do not need a system which introduces people to charging. That way leads to situations where people avoid anything they have to pay for and present at a later date and much more acute, occasionally too late. And you can’t charge people for turning up at A&E when primary care is so broken. Your view is admirable on paper but it is killing the service. So we can charge and we should charge for wasting time and resources, unless you want the NHS to collapse faster than it already is. " It’s really not killing the service, catching a condition is the difference between a small operation or course of drugs, and major surgery with extended hospital time. People talk about the major issue of the NHS being obesity (which is definitely a factor) but day to day the major issue is flow. Almost 15% of NHS beds are occupied by people who are medically fit to go home but there is no support for them to go there. This has increased by over 50% over the last two years, which corresponds with large reductions in funding to councils, who are responsible for adult social care. Sorting that would free up nearly 15,000 beds instantly. | |||
