FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Nurses leave UK to work abroad
Nurses leave UK to work abroad
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Converting training bursaries to repayable student loans, charged interest at 5.6% while the bank rate was near zero for a decade PPE shortages putting nurses and medics at risk during the pandemic, staff food banks reported in some hospitals. While baroness mone does a bunk with £203 million of taxpayers now, and the now chancellor, then healthcare secretary spent £44,000 of nhs budget on his office en suite. " That’ll do it. No doubt some on here will position nurses (or potential nurses) as entitled for daring to want better pay and conditions. The whole “you are a public sector worker so you work for me and should be grateful for whatever you get” attitude is prevalent with a fair few posters. If a sector has a recruitment crisis then you need to incentivise that sector/job role. Want more British nurses? Reinstate training grants! Put a lock in clause so they must work X years before leaving otherwise the grant must be paid back. Same with Doctors. That way the UK/taxpayers get a ROI. And maybe, just maybe, some sectors of the public and media should just stop slagging them off! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn." How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious? | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?" how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?" How is it Marxist lol I think you just like being contrary for the sake of it. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. " Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious? How is it Marxist lol I think you just like being contrary for the sake of it." See above…. And I think you added one line too many in your reply….  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. " Hmmm might be missing your point but plenty of private sector companies used to (do they still) sponsor people through university and pick up the cost in return for a contract lock in to get ROI. They certainly did for things like MBAs. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. " It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. | |||
| |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before." Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life." Which is not much different from the status quo... | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life." Grants were scrapped years ago. Student loans can be crippling. Being sponsored by a company or public sector organisation covering cost if degree/higher education in return for a guaranteed period of employment to pay them back seems like a good alternative to me. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life. Grants were scrapped years ago. Student loans can be crippling. Being sponsored by a company or public sector organisation covering cost if degree/higher education in return for a guaranteed period of employment to pay them back seems like a good alternative to me." Ah you might have read “self fund” as not including student loan. The poster meant self fund the student loan payments. | |||
"This is another Blair policy coming home to roost - as most polciies do 15-20 years after being enacted. In the days before enlightenment (may Bliar be upon us!) we had State Enrolled and State Registered nurses, a similar pathway to most other countries. SENs didn’t need degrees and were trained vocationally to “nurse”. Move forward 20 years and all nurses need degrees to largely do what SENs used to do in years gone by, but with the qualifications but not the eperience of an SRN. What were SENs are now called Healthcare Assistants (HCAs). Nurses in the NHS can earn up to £90k a year if they are on the band 8 payspine (£99-114K for band 9). Most will sit in band 5-8a avereaging £48-57k a year, which is about the international average. That is before shift allowances and overtime. Should they be paid more? I’ve no argument against this, but the detail is in the workforce plan - a lot of nurses (and doctors) don’t want to work in the NHS, they prefer to work via agency as they are paid more and are happy to exhange the job certainty for the hourly rate. Many of the agency staff are qualified overseas and never intended to remain in the UK permanently, and so all you are seeing is an extent of pragmatism and market forces. If you want to really understand the shortages of clinical staff then you have to look at the protectionism of the Royal Colleges. Once you have come out of the training process as a dr or a nurse you have to join a Royal College and qualify if you want to specialise and they have a habit of dramatically slowing down the training pipeline as it suits their interests to do so. Hence, we rely on o/s qualified staff who work via agency. " So much inaccurate info | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn." Disagree - it should be a year for every year needed to train. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life. Grants were scrapped years ago. Student loans can be crippling. Being sponsored by a company or public sector organisation covering cost if degree/higher education in return for a guaranteed period of employment to pay them back seems like a good alternative to me." Bursaries do exist. You're out of date. The bursary covers training (uni and placement) and a small amount towards cost of living. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?" You are missing something I take a country I know too well Switzerland To obtain a medical degree as a qualified doctor it is 7 years 4 years hard studies ( no asking Dr Google )then you repay the 'community' by working 2 to 3 years in a hospital. No coping out The salary is basic and shifts of 16 hours a normal With this their loans if given are repaid as their obligations to society. Just by the way Switzerland is missing 10,000 qualified nurses Germany around 70,000 nurses The Guardian makes a song and dance about all but forgets that countries like Albania have lost 90 % of their nurses and 87 % if their doctors to Germany and UK, Greece has had a drain of 78 % going either to Germany and UK. By the way conditions in Germany and Switzerland are not better then UK to be honest and frank foreign nurses are treated with contempt UK trained doctors have to pass further exams as their qualifications are so bad... | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life. Grants were scrapped years ago. Student loans can be crippling. Being sponsored by a company or public sector organisation covering cost if degree/higher education in return for a guaranteed period of employment to pay them back seems like a good alternative to me. Bursaries do exist. You're out of date. The bursary covers training (uni and placement) and a small amount towards cost of living." Nursing bursaries? Were they reinstated after being scrapped? Are they available for any other industry/sector? | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. Disagree - it should be a year for every year needed to train." That’s not how ROI is calculated though because while they are working they are initially still training and receiving a salary right? Plus the whole point is retention for the good of society rather than losing them to better paid overseas or private sector jobs. | |||
| |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life. Grants were scrapped years ago. Student loans can be crippling. Being sponsored by a company or public sector organisation covering cost if degree/higher education in return for a guaranteed period of employment to pay them back seems like a good alternative to me. Bursaries do exist. You're out of date. The bursary covers training (uni and placement) and a small amount towards cost of living. Nursing bursaries? Were they reinstated after being scrapped? Are they available for any other industry/sector?" Bursaries: Funding is available if you're studying to become a doctor or dentist and you're: studying a 5 or 6-year undergraduate course (you can apply from year 5) studying a 3 or 4-year graduate-entry course (you can apply from year 2) NHS Learning Support Fund (LSF) If you're starting and continuing your course from 1 September 2020 onwards, you can apply for NHS LSF if you're on one of the following pre-registration undergraduate or postgraduate courses: dental therapy or dental hygiene (level 5 and 6 qualifications) dietetics midwifery nursing (adult, child, mental health, learning disability, joint nursing, and social work) occupational therapy operating department practitioner (level 5 and 6 qualifications) orthoptics orthotics and prosthetics paramedics (DipHE and FD courses are not eligible for NHS LSF) physiotherapy podiatry or chiropody radiography (diagnostic and therapeutic) speech and language therapy If you're eligible, you can get: a training grant of £5,000 per academic year parental support of £2,000, if you have at least one dependent child under 15 years, or under 17 years if registered with special educational needs money back for excess travel and temporary accommodation costs (Travel and Dual Accommodation Expenses) while you're on your practice placement students experiencing financial hardship (Exceptional Support Fund) | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. Disagree - it should be a year for every year needed to train. That’s not how ROI is calculated though because while they are working they are initially still training and receiving a salary right? Plus the whole point is retention for the good of society rather than losing them to better paid overseas or private sector jobs." It would be unfair to have the same level for doctors (6/7 years training - four years with wages?) compared to nurses and allied professionals (three years, no wages). | |||
"I think the agenda for change banding system is brilliant in a lot of ways, but one area it lacks imo is the ability for nursing and allied health professionals to be suitably remunerated for their knowledge and experience, without the need to go for more senior roles (for which they are often not suited) As well as that anyone that trains as a nurse or AHP and does 7-10+ years in the NHS in the UK working gets funded training that they don’t have to repay." Agenda for changed has changed big time since it first came out. Much less increments and no overlaps with higher bands, which is shameful. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before." There must be a fundamental reason for nursing to be so poor in retention or recruitment. If public sector roles are also not attractive what is the core reason? I’ve read ideas on these forums that are varied, but what has been a constant is the way in which shortages in staff are being addressed. never through shortfalls in the industry of maybe how times have changed and the roles are no longer considered worthwhile. I mentioned earlier a job is not just about money, increasing salaries doesn’t make the job more enjoyable, so why don’t we think differently. Why not keep salaries the same and reduce the working week to 32 hours, as an example. Same money less hours, which would provide a much better work life balance. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. There must be a fundamental reason for nursing to be so poor in retention or recruitment. If public sector roles are also not attractive what is the core reason? I’ve read ideas on these forums that are varied, but what has been a constant is the way in which shortages in staff are being addressed. never through shortfalls in the industry of maybe how times have changed and the roles are no longer considered worthwhile. I mentioned earlier a job is not just about money, increasing salaries doesn’t make the job more enjoyable, so why don’t we think differently. Why not keep salaries the same and reduce the working week to 32 hours, as an example. Same money less hours, which would provide a much better work life balance. " The NHS is always looking to reduce the wage bill. The biggest way is to upskill nurses so they take on doctor duties (think nursing practitioners and advanced nursing practitioners). This also reduces the need for as many doctors (but increases the need for nurses). As nurses upskill, support workers have to upskill to take on a greater level of work. So you have support workers at levels 2-4, where once you just had a nursing auxiliary. Also at band 4 is the nursing associate (2 year degree). The support worker 4 is like the old SEN, the NA is more like the SRN but more field/department specific, and then the degree nurse, which is like a management version of SRN. But pay depends on years in service, so you can have a degree nurse teaching a diploma nurse things and be on less money. Now I've forgotten the point I was going to make  | |||
| |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. Those sounds like you have scraped student grants and loans. Leaving the poor working for the state and the rich how self fund having more choice in life." No. You don’t want to be tied in to a ten year work contract in the public sector then you self fund your student loan. | |||
"You can't reduce the hours when there are vacancies of 43-44 thousand nursing vacancies in nhs England. Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers (yet they got a better rise)?" Not today.. If you look at what is important to younger generations, time is going to be right up there. If you reduce the working hours in a week, it starts to tick the right boxes, and that in turn attracts people and maintains staff levels. 4 working days for the pay of 5, why wouldn't you? I would expect sick days to reduce considerably, and although shorter weeks would be worked the staffing numbers could be maintained through better attendance. It also allows for overtime that does not mean working super long hours, this would boost the pay and reduce the amount of money being spent on agency workers. Well that is how it works in my head, there will always be people stuck in the way we do things now, but that doesn't seem to be working either. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. There must be a fundamental reason for nursing to be so poor in retention or recruitment. If public sector roles are also not attractive what is the core reason? I’ve read ideas on these forums that are varied, but what has been a constant is the way in which shortages in staff are being addressed. never through shortfalls in the industry of maybe how times have changed and the roles are no longer considered worthwhile. I mentioned earlier a job is not just about money, increasing salaries doesn’t make the job more enjoyable, so why don’t we think differently. Why not keep salaries the same and reduce the working week to 32 hours, as an example. Same money less hours, which would provide a much better work life balance. " Even at 36 hours that's only 3 x 12 hour shifts. I think I'm right but most only get time ad a 1/3rd for over time not time and a half. Or double time. When you are under staffed you can make a mistake......... Make a mistake and you lose your registration so can't work at all. And this is a fear for meany and a stress when going long shifts. One mistake on a Drug card and your in the shit even if you got the run right but wright 50mg not 500mg. Just need more and quick. Some how .. | |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers?" Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers? | |||
"You can't reduce the hours when there are vacancies of 43-44 thousand nursing vacancies in nhs England. Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers (yet they got a better rise)? Not today.. If you look at what is important to younger generations, time is going to be right up there. If you reduce the working hours in a week, it starts to tick the right boxes, and that in turn attracts people and maintains staff levels. 4 working days for the pay of 5, why wouldn't you? I would expect sick days to reduce considerably, and although shorter weeks would be worked the staffing numbers could be maintained through better attendance. It also allows for overtime that does not mean working super long hours, this would boost the pay and reduce the amount of money being spent on agency workers. Well that is how it works in my head, there will always be people stuck in the way we do things now, but that doesn't seem to be working either." I can see the value in what you're saying. It could reduce burn out big time. Overtime is a constant plea (as agency staff is a no no). Not only that, bring back holistic care rather than work through careplans which are scheduled drastically below required time. Unpaid/unclaimed hours to finish documentation are an every shift occurrence. | |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers? Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers?" Why do you think teachers are more valuable than nurses? I'd like to see the same banding for teachers, social workers, nurses and allied workers. | |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers?" "Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers?" "Why do you think teachers are more valuable than nurses?" I don't. I have expressed no opinion on their relative values. But you haven't answered the question. "I'd like to see the same banding for teachers, social workers, nurses and allied workers." What do you count as "allied workers" in this context. Do you really see all those jobs as equally valuable? | |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers? Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers? Why do you think teachers are more valuable than nurses? I don't. I have expressed no opinion on their relative values. But you haven't answered the question. I'd like to see the same banding for teachers, social workers, nurses and allied workers. What do you count as "allied workers" in this context. Do you really see all those jobs as equally valuable?" I never expressed an opinion either therefore felt your question didn't warrant an answer. Allied workers are professionals who also spend three years studying a degree such as physio and occupational therapists. Value is subjective. The medical professionals in their entirety have a combined value for the ill/diseased person. I put the value at the fact all take on a degree for three years. Nurses have to learn more (and that is depicted by most other countries' students take four years to complete their nursing degree (probably why our attrition rate is high - the intensity). | |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers? Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers? Why do you think teachers are more valuable than nurses? I don't. I have expressed no opinion on their relative values. But you haven't answered the question. I'd like to see the same banding for teachers, social workers, nurses and allied workers. What do you count as "allied workers" in this context. Do you really see all those jobs as equally valuable?" "I never expressed an opinion either therefore felt your question didn't warrant an answer." You did say "Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers?". That sounds a lot like you expressing the opinion that nurses are worth more than teachers. "Allied workers are professionals who also spend three years studying a degree such as physio and occupational therapists." So you mean other 'caring profession' workers that have a similar educational background? Not, say, accountants or engineers. "I put the value at the fact all take on a degree for three years. Nurses have to learn more (and that is depicted by most other countries' students take four years to complete their nursing degree." So is this why you believe that nurses should be better paid than teachers? Because they've put more effort into learning their craft? | |||
| |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers? Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers? Why do you think teachers are more valuable than nurses? I don't. I have expressed no opinion on their relative values. But you haven't answered the question. I'd like to see the same banding for teachers, social workers, nurses and allied workers. What do you count as "allied workers" in this context. Do you really see all those jobs as equally valuable? I never expressed an opinion either therefore felt your question didn't warrant an answer. You did say "Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers?". That sounds a lot like you expressing the opinion that nurses are worth more than teachers. Allied workers are professionals who also spend three years studying a degree such as physio and occupational therapists. So you mean other 'caring profession' workers that have a similar educational background? Not, say, accountants or engineers. I put the value at the fact all take on a degree for three years. Nurses have to learn more (and that is depicted by most other countries' students take four years to complete their nursing degree. So is this why you believe that nurses should be better paid than teachers? Because they've put more effort into learning their craft?" Stop putting words into my mouth! I have NOT stated nurses should be paid more than teachers. Nurses are paid LESS! I also stated that I'd like to see nurses, teachers and social workers on the same banding. | |||
| |||
"Well when you look at it who wants to do 12 hours plus, days & nights, weekends, public holidays etc. Pay to park daily if you can find a space, have to pay each year to be on the nursing register, whilst paying of the student loan to become a nurse. Be told you can't have your desired leave as the department is under pressure. Be given to many patients to look after safely, hold in your piss because you can't get off the ward or department. To risk infection, verbal sometimes physical abuse,anger, sorrow,sharps injury's, piss, shit, vomit, puss, maggots, bad back, stress, anxiety, death of people or life changing injury or illness. " And then go from having the public clapping to slagging you off for daring to want better pay and conditions! | |||
"Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers? Why do you think that nurses are more valuable than teachers? Why do you think teachers are more valuable than nurses? I don't. I have expressed no opinion on their relative values. But you haven't answered the question. I'd like to see the same banding for teachers, social workers, nurses and allied workers. What do you count as "allied workers" in this context. Do you really see all those jobs as equally valuable? I never expressed an opinion either therefore felt your question didn't warrant an answer. You did say "Wages definitely need to rise. Why should nurses be pay worse than teachers?". That sounds a lot like you expressing the opinion that nurses are worth more than teachers. Allied workers are professionals who also spend three years studying a degree such as physio and occupational therapists. So you mean other 'caring profession' workers that have a similar educational background? Not, say, accountants or engineers. I put the value at the fact all take on a degree for three years. Nurses have to learn more (and that is depicted by most other countries' students take four years to complete their nursing degree. So is this why you believe that nurses should be better paid than teachers? Because they've put more effort into learning their craft? Stop putting words into my mouth! I have NOT stated nurses should be paid more than teachers. Nurses are paid LESS! I also stated that I'd like to see nurses, teachers and social workers on the same banding." There was a time when key workers were tied to the NHS pay band, but when the tories got in they disbanded that. | |||
"Stop putting words into my mouth! I have NOT stated nurses should be paid more than teachers. Nurses are paid LESS! I also stated that I'd like to see nurses, teachers and social workers on the same banding." I really am trying not to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to understand your thinking, and clearly not doing very well. I realise that nurses are paid less than teachers. I'm not sure what I said that makes you think otherwise. I did ask in an earlier post whether you believe that nurses, teachers and social workers are all equally valuable, and therefore deserve equal pay, but you didn't reply. From what you've posted above it looks to me as though you feel that nurses, teachers, social workers, and physiotherapists should all get equal pay because they have all studied for the same length of time. If I've got that right, I'm curious as to what you think all of the rest of society should be paid. Accountants and software engineers and architects mostly study for 3 years to get their relevant degrees. Do you feel that they should get the same pay as teachers? | |||
"Stop putting words into my mouth! I have NOT stated nurses should be paid more than teachers. Nurses are paid LESS! I also stated that I'd like to see nurses, teachers and social workers on the same banding. I really am trying not to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to understand your thinking, and clearly not doing very well. I realise that nurses are paid less than teachers. I'm not sure what I said that makes you think otherwise. I did ask in an earlier post whether you believe that nurses, teachers and social workers are all equally valuable, and therefore deserve equal pay, but you didn't reply. From what you've posted above it looks to me as though you feel that nurses, teachers, social workers, and physiotherapists should all get equal pay because they have all studied for the same length of time. If I've got that right, I'm curious as to what you think all of the rest of society should be paid. Accountants and software engineers and architects mostly study for 3 years to get their relevant degrees. Do you feel that they should get the same pay as teachers?" I have only chosen public sector professionals. Rather than one group be the pauper of the sector, I'd like to see equity. I do actually think nurses are more valuable than teachers as I think life is more valuable than education. However, there will always be counter arguments. | |||
"Stop putting words into my mouth! I have NOT stated nurses should be paid more than teachers. Nurses are paid LESS! I also stated that I'd like to see nurses, teachers and social workers on the same banding." "I really am trying not to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to understand your thinking, and clearly not doing very well. I realise that nurses are paid less than teachers. I'm not sure what I said that makes you think otherwise. I did ask in an earlier post whether you believe that nurses, teachers and social workers are all equally valuable, and therefore deserve equal pay, but you didn't reply. From what you've posted above it looks to me as though you feel that nurses, teachers, social workers, and physiotherapists should all get equal pay because they have all studied for the same length of time. If I've got that right, I'm curious as to what you think all of the rest of society should be paid. Accountants and software engineers and architects mostly study for 3 years to get their relevant degrees. Do you feel that they should get the same pay as teachers?" "I have only chosen public sector professionals. Rather than one group be the pauper of the sector, I'd like to see equity. I do actually think nurses are more valuable than teachers as I think life is more valuable than education. However, there will always be counter arguments." Having little experience of either profession, I'd find it very hard to determine whether I thought that either teachers or nurses were more valuable to society in general. But since there are more nurses available than teachers, teachers get the higher pay. Thanks for your answers. | |||
| |||
"Stop putting words into my mouth! I have NOT stated nurses should be paid more than teachers. Nurses are paid LESS! I also stated that I'd like to see nurses, teachers and social workers on the same banding. I really am trying not to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to understand your thinking, and clearly not doing very well. I realise that nurses are paid less than teachers. I'm not sure what I said that makes you think otherwise. I did ask in an earlier post whether you believe that nurses, teachers and social workers are all equally valuable, and therefore deserve equal pay, but you didn't reply. From what you've posted above it looks to me as though you feel that nurses, teachers, social workers, and physiotherapists should all get equal pay because they have all studied for the same length of time. If I've got that right, I'm curious as to what you think all of the rest of society should be paid. Accountants and software engineers and architects mostly study for 3 years to get their relevant degrees. Do you feel that they should get the same pay as teachers? I have only chosen public sector professionals. Rather than one group be the pauper of the sector, I'd like to see equity. I do actually think nurses are more valuable than teachers as I think life is more valuable than education. However, there will always be counter arguments. Having little experience of either profession, I'd find it very hard to determine whether I thought that either teachers or nurses were more valuable to society in general. But since there are more nurses available than teachers, teachers get the higher pay. Thanks for your answers." More available? More employed certainly. But with nearly 44,000 vacancies in nhs England alone, availability is questionable. The NHS has had crises of nursing vacancies for nearly a quarter of a century. | |||
| |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. " The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. " 37% UK overweight, 26% obese, third children overweight, 6 million smokers, 3 million on drug abuse treatment, £21bn a year spent on fast foods Add up the costs treating all of these basket cases What’s wrong is the whinging public who don’t after their health, causing delays for genuine treatment | |||
"This is another Blair policy coming home to roost - as most polciies do 15-20 years after being enacted. In the days before enlightenment (may Bliar be upon us!) we had State Enrolled and State Registered nurses, a similar pathway to most other countries. SENs didn’t need degrees and were trained vocationally to “nurse”. Move forward 20 years and all nurses need degrees to largely do what SENs used to do in years gone by, but with the qualifications but not the eperience of an SRN. What were SENs are now called Healthcare Assistants (HCAs). Nurses in the NHS can earn up to £90k a year if they are on the band 8 payspine (£99-114K for band 9). Most will sit in band 5-8a avereaging £48-57k a year, which is about the international average. That is before shift allowances and overtime. Should they be paid more? I’ve no argument against this, but the detail is in the workforce plan - a lot of nurses (and doctors) don’t want to work in the NHS, they prefer to work via agency as they are paid more and are happy to exhange the job certainty for the hourly rate. Many of the agency staff are qualified overseas and never intended to remain in the UK permanently, and so all you are seeing is an extent of pragmatism and market forces. If you want to really understand the shortages of clinical staff then you have to look at the protectionism of the Royal Colleges. Once you have come out of the training process as a dr or a nurse you have to join a Royal College and qualify if you want to specialise and they have a habit of dramatically slowing down the training pipeline as it suits their interests to do so. Hence, we rely on o/s qualified staff who work via agency. " | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball." A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. " I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM. | |||
| |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before." I think you’d likely get some of the cleverest people in the country decide on another career, rather than tie themselves into a ten year contract with the state, especially with how junior doctors are being treated at the moment. | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM." Health tourism is something that is such a minuscule part of NHS activity as to be statistically insignificant. The main reason for it being a drain is that hospitals very rarely identify health ‘tourists’ and claim the money back. They generally fail to claim the money back because it’s not worth the hassle. | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM." Be very careful when you start taking things out of the NHS and give them to private providers. Businesses have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, when money becomes more important than patients you are treading a dangerous path. | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM. Be very careful when you start taking things out of the NHS and give them to private providers. Businesses have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, when money becomes more important than patients you are treading a dangerous path." I suppose this comes down to who you trust to run a business efficiently and economically, the government or private business. There are admittedly pros and cons Government : inept at running business, inefficient, bureaucratic, wasteful yet in the end accountable. Private : efficient, ruthless, profitable (seems a big no-no), unaccountable. Take your pick. Everybody will have a different take. | |||
"Personally I think that the state (public sector) should be able to contract students into a ten year work agreement in exchange for state funded university fees. That way, we get a steady and ongoing supply of Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants and other professionals who will be in the job for at least ten years after graduation. It’s an investment into the public sector that will address recruitment, retention and churn. How would this work for students who paid their own fees? Would they be facing a shortage of places in their chosen professions? It all sounds very Marxist, unless I’ve missed something glaringly obvious?how is it Marxist? To an extent it's how many private cos manage training cost. Private companies will be paying a salary and picking people from a wide pool of candidates, who also have options to work elsewhere. This sounds like anyone who needs support towards fees would automatically be awarded a contract for 10 years, no fees, and trained by the state, for the state, removing outside competition. It would be a simple choice as a student. For example 1) self fund your degree in medicine and be free to work as a doctor in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to a minimum ten year contract to work in the NHS and have your university fees covered. 2) self fund your degree in HR and be free to work anywhere in the private or public sector anywhere in the world. Or, commit to working for a local government organisation for a minimum of ten years and have your university fees covered. It would simply be an option for students and for the various public sector organisations and as I understand freedom of choice is far removed from Marxism. Tell me a better way of long-term recruitment, retention and churn management in the critical levels of the public sector? There are shortages in the NHS, Local Government, CPS, Probation Service, HMRC etc etc It might not be sexy working as an Accountant for HMRC but if you get your degree paid for and ten years solid experience guaranteed then anything is possible after that. I don’t see any downside and only considerable upsides… oops… where have I heard that before. I think you’d likely get some of the cleverest people in the country decide on another career, rather than tie themselves into a ten year contract with the state, especially with how junior doctors are being treated at the moment." Saying that though, it always used to be the case in the UK that to practice in private healthcare doctors/consultants had to do a minimum number of NHS hours too. Is that still true? | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM. Be very careful when you start taking things out of the NHS and give them to private providers. Businesses have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, when money becomes more important than patients you are treading a dangerous path." But an elective treatment is not by definition life threatening ergo there is an element of choice to have it done. That makes you a consumer rather than a patient. If NHS really cannot cope with demands then I want them focused on people who have no choice as their life or longterm health depends on treatment/intervention. | |||
| |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM. Be very careful when you start taking things out of the NHS and give them to private providers. Businesses have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, when money becomes more important than patients you are treading a dangerous path. But an elective treatment is not by definition life threatening ergo there is an element of choice to have it done. That makes you a consumer rather than a patient. If NHS really cannot cope with demands then I want them focused on people who have no choice as their life or longterm health depends on treatment/intervention." The NHS was coping perfectly fine with demand before the political choice was made to underfund it, around 2010. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill?" Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. | |||
"Dissatisfaction with NHS runs across staff and patients alike. A BSA survey just published shows patient satisfaction with the NHS at an all time low. GP and Dentists (24%), A&E (31%), inpatient services (35%), social care (13%). Pretty grim figures that indicate something is fundamentally wrong with the NHS. The dissatisfaction is due to the end at it has been ran, managed and funded. These issues did not appear overnight but over years and years of successive governments ignoring warning signs and taking their eye off the ball. A comparison with 40 OECD member states puts the UK mid-table of spend on healthcare. So it's not down just to funding alone. It's down to multiple causes, all of which have been allowed to fester because we dare not tinker with our 'national treasure' the NHS. As another poster points out, lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a factor too. I’d say there has been plenty of tinkering and that is possibly the root of a lot of problems. Death by a thousand cuts and the law of unintended consequences. Radical reform is needed but for ME that does not mean enabling full privatisation (we already have partial privatisation). Make the NHS purely about saving lives. Remove all elective procedures. Tackle health tourism. Return to central procurement for economies of scale. Detailed review of whether outsourcing is delivering real VfM. Be very careful when you start taking things out of the NHS and give them to private providers. Businesses have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, when money becomes more important than patients you are treading a dangerous path. But an elective treatment is not by definition life threatening ergo there is an element of choice to have it done. That makes you a consumer rather than a patient. If NHS really cannot cope with demands then I want them focused on people who have no choice as their life or longterm health depends on treatment/intervention. The NHS was coping perfectly fine with demand before the political choice was made to underfund it, around 2010." NHS funding went down in 2009 itself because of the recession. Our economy took a long time to recover from it. | |||
| |||
"What the article doesn't mention is where these foreign health workers can afford to live in the UK...Our country is about wealthy folk and barons notching as much as they can from the proles with near zero investment." Precisely, we are a relatively poor country, compared to our peers, which just have some very rich people living here. | |||
"What the article doesn't mention is where these foreign health workers can afford to live in the UK...Our country is about wealthy folk and barons notching as much as they can from the proles with near zero investment. Precisely, we are a relatively poor country, compared to our peers, which just have some very rich people living here." By GDP per capita we are in top quartile of countries and comparable with France, Italy and NZ. But yes, there's a big disparity in UK between the richest and poorest. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard." Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives." *oops NOT being able to have a child is not life threatening | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives." The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree." Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening?" They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously." Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money)." So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment?" Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut?" I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut?" Cut operatios for sex change. Cut fritillary treatment. Look at assisting end of live for teminaly sic. All had choices. But there are also lots out there that could get back to work if they could get the treatment they need. So at some point we as society need to make a choice. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it?" You say tax more I'm looking at going private tomorrow as can't access Ann operation to have a lump removed so I can get back work why should I pay more in tax. I want to pay less in tax if I have to fund private medical intervention. | |||
| |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it?" You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You say tax more I'm looking at going private tomorrow as can't access Ann operation to have a lump removed so I can get back work why should I pay more in tax. I want to pay less in tax if I have to fund private medical intervention." If you consider the people who can’t have children, who some on this thread shouldn’t be able to access fertility treatment, they will pay tax that contributes to schools other people’s children will attend but never their own. That’s the deal with tax, we all contribute to things we may never use but would be able to if required. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. " What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to?" Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. " Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues?" So it is offered then? | |||
"Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. " So you would ban a treatment that has proven health benefits for the tiny amount of people who have it out of some weird concept of principle? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then?" I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’?" It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered." I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. " So you agree that plastic surgery is offered 
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting. | |||
"I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it?" I understand the importance of individual wellbeing and health. However, increasing taxes for healthcare seems like a straightforward solution, but every action has a reaction. Relying solely on taxation to fund healthcare would strain the governments budgets elsewhere leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation for other services, unless your idea is to keep increasing taxes until there is only an agreed allowance left from individuals earnings? Going back to the NHS, we already see a lack of oversight and accountability measures, wasteful spending and mismanagement of funds, which ultimately undermines the effectiveness of the NHS and is damaging its reputation. Simply pouring more money into the NHS without addressing underlying issues such as inefficiencies, bureaucratic red tape, and demographic changes will not lead to significant improvements in healthcare outcomes because the world and the country have evolved beyond the outdated NHS model. Exploring alternative funding, incentivising preventive and private care, encouraging collaboration between the NHS and private healthcare providers and educating individuals to take greater control of their health surely needs to centre stage to improve the healthcare of the nation, not more of the same. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting. "Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment. I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea. | |||
"I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? I understand the importance of individual wellbeing and health. However, increasing taxes for healthcare seems like a straightforward solution, but every action has a reaction. Relying solely on taxation to fund healthcare would strain the governments budgets elsewhere leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation for other services, unless your idea is to keep increasing taxes until there is only an agreed allowance left from individuals earnings? Going back to the NHS, we already see a lack of oversight and accountability measures, wasteful spending and mismanagement of funds, which ultimately undermines the effectiveness of the NHS and is damaging its reputation. Simply pouring more money into the NHS without addressing underlying issues such as inefficiencies, bureaucratic red tape, and demographic changes will not lead to significant improvements in healthcare outcomes because the world and the country have evolved beyond the outdated NHS model. Exploring alternative funding, incentivising preventive and private care, encouraging collaboration between the NHS and private healthcare providers and educating individuals to take greater control of their health surely needs to centre stage to improve the healthcare of the nation, not more of the same." Can you point me to the wasteful spending and mismanagement of funds? I’m genuinely interested to see what you think that is. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
"No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions. Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No."Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me? | |||
"I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? I understand the importance of individual wellbeing and health. However, increasing taxes for healthcare seems like a straightforward solution, but every action has a reaction. Relying solely on taxation to fund healthcare would strain the governments budgets elsewhere leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation for other services, unless your idea is to keep increasing taxes until there is only an agreed allowance left from individuals earnings? Going back to the NHS, we already see a lack of oversight and accountability measures, wasteful spending and mismanagement of funds, which ultimately undermines the effectiveness of the NHS and is damaging its reputation. Simply pouring more money into the NHS without addressing underlying issues such as inefficiencies, bureaucratic red tape, and demographic changes will not lead to significant improvements in healthcare outcomes because the world and the country have evolved beyond the outdated NHS model. Exploring alternative funding, incentivising preventive and private care, encouraging collaboration between the NHS and private healthcare providers and educating individuals to take greater control of their health surely needs to centre stage to improve the healthcare of the nation, not more of the same. Can you point me to the wasteful spending and mismanagement of funds? I’m genuinely interested to see what you think that is." You have chosen 1 thing out of everything I wrote.... However to answer you, I'm not getting drawn into the minutiae.. You will be aware of the procurement misses, overspending on unnecessary equipment and services, failure to account for changing healthcare needs, staff management etc, IT short comings and so much more, this is to be expected in an organisation that employees approx 1.4 million people and the reins have been dropped. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?"Fancy answering the question? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?"If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’."Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients? | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives." Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?"Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head."So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then.... Call it mental health if it helps you win  | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. " Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win "If you think grafting skin onto the areas of the body that have been damaged by fire is to help with a person’s self esteem then I’m afraid there’s really no hope for you. | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? " There are no plastic surgeons in the NHS who deal with self esteem issues. | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? There are no plastic surgeons in the NHS who deal with self esteem issues." The ebb and flow of the discussion is getting hard to follow! Do you think the NHS should provide all the services it currently provides? If so what if they do not have enough money (ergo staff and equipment and capacity) to provide these effectively (reduced waiting times and improved outcomes)? | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
If you think grafting skin onto the areas of the body that have been damaged by fire is to help with a person’s self esteem then I’m afraid there’s really no hope for you."What would it be for, if not for appearance? We're not talking open wounds here. | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? There are no plastic surgeons in the NHS who deal with self esteem issues. The ebb and flow of the discussion is getting hard to follow! Do you think the NHS should provide all the services it currently provides? If so what if they do not have enough money (ergo staff and equipment and capacity) to provide these effectively (reduced waiting times and improved outcomes)?" I’ve already said what I think. | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? There are no plastic surgeons in the NHS who deal with self esteem issues. The ebb and flow of the discussion is getting hard to follow! Do you think the NHS should provide all the services it currently provides? If so what if they do not have enough money (ergo staff and equipment and capacity) to provide these effectively (reduced waiting times and improved outcomes)? I’ve already said what I think." You said you would increase taxes but not if the NHS should continue to provide all the same services (unless I missed it?) | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win "It's to help tissue repair not self esteem  | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? " So reconstruction after trauma (accidents) is okay but reconstruction after acquired (removal of tumour) is not? That leads onto: surgery for a replacement hip (fractured neck of femur trauma) is ok but not as an elective procedure to replace worn out hip that is cheaper to do that would end up fractured, cos it's not saving lives? | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? So reconstruction after trauma (accidents) is okay but reconstruction after acquired (removal of tumour) is not? That leads onto: surgery for a replacement hip (fractured neck of femur trauma) is ok but not as an elective procedure to replace worn out hip that is cheaper to do that would end up fractured, cos it's not saving lives?" IMO NHS should offer surgery if the surgery can save a life or would fix a physical handicap. That would rule our reconstruction after both trauma and removal of tumour unless reconstruction is the only way to fix a physical handicap. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem "It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though. The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue. "So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS. | |||
| |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS."No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now. | |||
"@Amelie you know way more about the NHS than me. So is it sustainable? Is it sustainable without dramatic increases in funding paid by dramatic increases in tax? Or if tax take remains static, then taking money away from other govt svcs? Or you cut your cloth according to the funding you have? So are there svcs the NHS could stop providing to save money? What else could they do to save money. I have made clear I think life saving healthcare should be state provided. But at times it feels like the NHS is a bottomless pit and that feeds the argument made those who want to privatise. So what do we do?" Remove the politics from it. Have cross party agreement re funding. Stop the endless changing of governmental departments, eg PHE has changed into two departments fairly recently. Limit Trusts bidding for other Trusts (it's small scale Brexit with high admin costs and policy reviews). "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - don't change for the sake of change. Send innovators to countries where their health services are working efficiently and effectively and see what we can adopt. Hybrid of public and private sector should work. A full blown private take over will not! "Look after the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves", the formularies do much of this ensuring value for money products - a bit like putting ibuprofen instead of nurofen in your shopping basket. However, utilise knowledge that some things are false economy. Tie in staff cohesion days with rewarding departments when significant savings are made bi-annually (involving the whole team). Look at attrition both staff and students. Look at both the little and big pictures. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
"No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
"It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery" You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'. But sure, I have no knowledge in this area. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area. "Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed. Just in case you think elective means something else. Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others  , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge". | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area.
Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed.
Just in case you think elective means something else.
Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge"."Elective means by choice. Unless we're now redefining words? | |||
"Ever more money for the NHS is not sustainable. You cannot (well should not) tax people into oblivion. You also cannot sacrifice the budgets for all the other essential services provided by Govt. So the only option is a review of what the NHS is there for. It’s primary purpose. To me that is saving lives. You can save lives through preventative intervention too, it doesn’t have to be solely A&E. But the NHS cannot provide everything and trying to do so dilutes what it is good at and should focus on IMHO. There will always be outliers as described but then it needs to come down to proportionality. Do we want them doing an excellent job in a smaller number of areas or a middling job in a huge number of areas? And I say this as someone opposed to privatising the NHS - I want it focused on core principles. Saving lives. Agree with this stance to be honest. Having public healthcare is a moral decision that we took knowing very well that it operates inefficiently. One shouldn't die for lack of healthcare just because of money after we have made so much progress as a society. We could limit the list of things that NHS supports for and allow a thriving private healthcare in parallel. Indeed. The discussion above between others has gotten focused around plastic surgery. I don’t know what is and isn’t offered by the NHS and why, but I would question the niche nature of it. On the one hand this is pitched as relatively rare but then if that is the case, what is the overhead of maintaining the capability if not being fully utilised? I’d rather have a heart surgeon, brain surgeon, cancer specialist on the books than a plastic surgeon dealing with “esteem cases” regardless of psychological impact IF that is rare. Reconstruction after accidents would be different. Wherever we draw the line it will exclude and be unfair to someone. The key point again is proportionality. If it is niche then I cannot see how sustainable it is to provide an under utilised service? There are no plastic surgeons in the NHS who deal with self esteem issues. The ebb and flow of the discussion is getting hard to follow! Do you think the NHS should provide all the services it currently provides? If so what if they do not have enough money (ergo staff and equipment and capacity) to provide these effectively (reduced waiting times and improved outcomes)? I’ve already said what I think. You said you would increase taxes but not if the NHS should continue to provide all the same services (unless I missed it?)" It absolutely should, and take on the public health role that it pays local government to do. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area.
Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed.
Just in case you think elective means something else.
Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge".
Elective means by choice.
Unless we're now redefining words?"Elective, in NHS terms, is surgery that needs to be done but not immediately. And I said that suffering horrific burns rather messes with your head, in response to you asking why the NHS provides psychological services for people who undergo plastic surgery. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area.
Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed.
Just in case you think elective means something else.
Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge".
Elective means by choice.
Unless we're now redefining words?"Didn't think you knew what it meant. Thanks for confirming an assumption. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area.
Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed.
Just in case you think elective means something else.
Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge".
Elective means by choice.
Unless we're now redefining words?
Didn't think you knew what it meant. Thanks for confirming an assumption."So the NHS is redefining words? If a burn can wait to have an operation then it doesn't need an operation for medical reasons. It's really simple. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area.
Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed.
Just in case you think elective means something else.
Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge".
Elective means by choice.
Unless we're now redefining words?
Elective, in NHS terms, is surgery that needs to be done but not immediately.
And I said that suffering horrific burns rather messes with your head, in response to you asking why the NHS provides psychological services for people who undergo plastic surgery."I'm aware of what you said. How do you fix the head? Have some plastic surgery, it'll make you feel better. | |||
"By way of an example… Why can people have three rounds of IVF on the NHS? I believe that is approx £5k each. Why not one? Why any? Having a child is a choice not a right and it is not essential to protect your own health. One could argue that if a couple cannot conceive then nature is telling them something. I know that is harsh but why should the state meet the bill? Infertility is, rightly in my opinion, considered a treatable health condition. You could equally argue that nature is trying to tell you something if you get cancer. All medicine is contrary to nature, or none is, which is it? Also, you don’t have the right to 3 rounds of IVF on the NHS, it’s recommended by NICE but some ICBs don’t offer it at all as standard. Thanks for clarification on 3 rounds. There may be a degree of subjectivity here but having a child is not life threatening whereas cancer is. IMO the former should not be available on NHS but the latter should ergo my point on prioritising saving lives. The 1 in 7 couples in the UK, a country with a declining birth rate, would probably disagree. Would disagree with what exactly? That not having a child is life threatening? They would disagree that fertility treatment shouldn’t be available on the NHS, obviously. Of course they would because they want it. But for me the NHS should prioritise their resources on saving lives. If they can do that with a budget deficit then we could consider some other areas (or save money). So you think the NHS should focus only on life saving treatment? Who should do the rest? How would you suggest surgeons maintain their skills if they aren’t doing trauma surgery for instance? Or if they aren’t doing elective surgeries? You will end up with deskilled surgeons, and if you’ve ever met any surgeons you will know that they like to be challenged and develop their skills. How would you deal with chronic long term illnesses like COPD, they’re not really life threatening in the sense that you can live for a long, long time with it. Or MS etc. Who would look after the needs of disabled people who require wheelchairs or prosthetics? What about rural areas with no private healthcare providers because the population won’t provide the required return on investment? Lots of good challenges there that would require more thought. But your point on disabled people, while not life threatening (in many cases) is not “elective” or a matter of choice for those people. I will consider your other points. Can you consider one for me? The economy and tax take in the UK is not a bottomless pit. There is only so much money. Now we could ALL pay more tax but do we ALL want to? Pretty sure the answer is no. So if we agree that there is only a finite amount of money, and that this money has to pay for every service provided by Govt for the citizens of the UK, then healthcare (NHS) can only ever be one slice of that pie. So if there is not enough money to continue to provide everything the NHS does currently, what would you stop/cut? I’m afraid I would tax more. There is nothing more important than the nation’s health. It’s essential for the economy. Far from not being able to afford the NHS, the country can’t afford to not have the NHS. Any party that runs on a ticket of privatising it would be destroyed at the polls. Even the Tories won’t go there because it’s their voters who rely on it the most. I would go further and return the responsibility for public health back to the NHS, it’s paid for out of the NHS budget so what’s the point in paying councils to do it? You said it yourself, there's nothing more important than a nations health. The problem is, some of the shit offered on the NHS has nothing to do with being healthy, the IVF one is a prime example. Cosmetic surgery is another. What cosmetic surgery are you referring to? Breast Surgery is the prime example. There's also Plastic Surgery, some of which is offered for 'self-esteem' issues. Now, you'll probably say very few people are offered breast surgery but it is offered, and that is the point. Breast reconstruction is offered after breast surgery, breast reduction is offered for women who experience back problems, and breast surgery may be offered to women who have uneven breasts and have been assessed by psychiatrists as suffering due to this. Even then the patient’s psychiatrist has to convince the ICB that the surgery will offer value for money as well as improve the patient’s wellbeing. The number of surgeries offered due to the final reason is minuscule, and saves the NHS money in the medium to long term. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem’ issues? So it is offered then? I’ve just told you in what circumstances it is offered. What plastic surgery is offered due to ‘self esteem issues’? It is offered is the point. I told you that initially before you replied with exactly what I said you would. You then went on to speak of 'saving money', the problem with the NHS isn't money. Its really easy to find out what plastic surgery is offered and for what. You'll speak of psychiatrists etc. But again, the point is that its offered. I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I want to know if you do, and it’s become apparent that you have no idea. You also have no idea how much breast surgery is performed, and why. Or indeed what benefits the patients, and the NHS get from it. I’m starting to think you just don’t like the idea of people who aren’t you benefitting from something. So you agree that plastic surgery is offered
You have no idea what I know because I have refused to continue to play your 100 question game.
I'm perfectly sound in my mind that I feel there's plenty in the NHS that shouldn't be free, it's got guck all to do with me not benefitting.
Aww bless, you think you’ve created a gotcha moment.
I didn’t say I agreed that plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues, I said I know what plastic surgery is offered for self esteem issues. You on the other hand, have no idea.
No one is trying to create a gotcha except you. That's why you're asking so many questions.
Is plastic surgery offered to help with self esteem issues? Yes/No.
Well it’s easy to find out, apparently, so why don’t you tell me?
Fancy answering the question?
If it will stop you getting your knickers in a twist. No, plastic surgery is not offered on the NHS for ‘self esteem issues’.
Then I have to ask why the NHS runs psychological services for plastic surgery patients?
Because if you suffer horrific burns it can rather mess up your head.
So they would be having a graft for self esteem issues then....
Call it mental health if it helps you win
It's to help tissue repair not self esteem
It may well be to help tissue repair. It's not always necessary though.
The poster said burns mess up your head, nothing about repairing tissue.
So what if the poster didn't say it, I'm saying it. When the NHS performs skin grafts on chronic wounds, I can assure you it is not for aesthetics. Chronic wounds are extremely costly for the NHS.
No one mentioned chronic wounds. I'll leave that one there as it looks like goalposts are being shifted now.
No you just lack knowledge in this area. Plastics are involved for wounds that are not healing (IE chronic wounds). They are also involved to prevent wounds becoming chronic - so for trauma, tumour removal, burns. Not for aesthetics but healing.
It's fucking crazy that I'm the one who lacks knowledge on the subject yet I know at least one trust says "We provide a comprehensive range of services, broadly divided into burn care, trauma, and elective plastic surgery"
You see where it says "elective", I know for absolute certain what that means, I didn't bother to offer it before for fear of 'your anecdotal evidence is bollocks'.
But sure, I have no knowledge in this area.
Trauma Vs elective, I gave a fractured hip Vs wear and tear hip as examples. Trauma means it has to be done operated on "now", elective means it needs to be done but there's leeway in time. There will be times when elective becomes emergency as too much time has passed.
Just in case you think elective means something else.
Oh and learn to read (I'm nicking/rephrasing what you say to others , lacking knowledge is not "having no knowledge".
Elective means by choice.
Unless we're now redefining words?
Didn't think you knew what it meant. Thanks for confirming an assumption.
So the NHS is redefining words?
If a burn can wait to have an operation then it doesn't need an operation for medical reasons. It's really simple. "I could elaborate but I'll let you stay with your ignorance (IE your lack of knowledge). | |||
| |||
