People should be charged who fail to turn up.
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
People should be charged who fail to turn up.
How ironic the group of professionals that stopped the NHS being formed to its original purpose in the first place are lining up to put the nails in the coffin at the end.
But seriously scorza withing 20-30 years health care would be different anyway. The poor will die because they can't afford the new expensive antibacterial drugs that will need to be created whilst the rich won't. They've jumped it forward a bit. By the time we are ready to pass then the world will have changed quite a lot. At the end of the day we had a cheap resource to use sensibly (antibiotics) to aid human progress - we didn't though we used it selfishly, lazily, greedily and for profit. So why bother with opt-in organ donation when we won't be able to tackle the problems of immunosuppression, why bother with expensive cancer treatments when we won't be able to sustain the cost and support the body fight infection whilst it undertakes them. People lost sight of this during the progression of the NHS - the goal was never, and never should have been, to treat everybody no matter what. But the world changed after the Nuremberg trials and the world was very pro the rights of the individuals over that of society or the state. It is easy to see how it happened with the public and professionals enamoured with scientific endeavour.
Everyone lost sight of what the NHS was all about: Labour, the Conservatives, the professionals and the public. Everyone is complicit and everyone is to blame. From the rampant mismanagement, professional turf fighting, political mismanagement and manipulation for re-election, poorly thought out Labour social policy, Conservative underfunding and profiteering, public who wish to sustain life at all costs and professionals all too willing to indulge them and yet unwilling to challenge them.
But seriously scorza withing 20-30 years health care would be different anyway. The poor will die because they can't afford the new expensive antibacterial drugs that will need to be created whilst the rich won't. They've jumped it forward a bit. By the time we are ready to pass then the world will have changed quite a lot. At the end of the day we had a cheap resource to use sensibly (antibiotics) to aid human progress - we didn't though we used it selfishly, lazily, greedily and for profit. So why bother with opt-in organ donation when we won't be able to tackle the problems of immunosuppression, why bother with expensive cancer treatments when we won't be able to sustain the cost and support the body fight infection whilst it undertakes them. People lost sight of this during the progression of the NHS - the goal was never, and never should have been, to treat everybody no matter what. But the world changed after the Nuremberg trials and the world was very pro the rights of the individuals over that of society or the state. It is easy to see how it happened with the public and professionals enamoured with scientific endeavour.
Everyone lost sight of what the NHS was all about: Labour, the Conservatives, the professionals and the public. Everyone is complicit and everyone is to blame. From the rampant mismanagement, professional turf fighting, political mismanagement and manipulation for re-election, poorly thought out Labour social policy, Conservative underfunding and profiteering, public who wish to sustain life at all costs and professionals all too willing to indulge them and yet unwilling to challenge them.
I'm glad you brought up the subject of antibiotics because imo what has happened with these is exactly why I think the original NHS model of healthcare is the most appropriate. If we look at say France, most people going to the doctor have to pay and so expect a result when they come out of the doctor's surgery - partly as a result of this France prescribes more antibiotics than anyone else and has become known as a nation of hypochondriacs.
It's even worse in the unregulated third world (a free-market liberal's wet dream) where people buy antibiotics without a prescription. Dhaka in Bangladesh is the source for a lot of really nasty antibiotic resistant bugs.
People don't like the idea of the Nanny State, but it's what the general population needs. Sometimes we don't know what's good for ourselves, like taking too many antibiotics, so we need a nanny to tell us.
It's even worse in the unregulated third world (a free-market liberal's wet dream) where people buy antibiotics without a prescription. Dhaka in Bangladesh is the source for a lot of really nasty antibiotic resistant bugs.
People don't like the idea of the Nanny State, but it's what the general population needs. Sometimes we don't know what's good for ourselves, like taking too many antibiotics, so we need a nanny to tell us.
That's a very strange way to describe the nanny state in an example that makes complete medical sense as why we do need guidelines on such things...
I always see the nanny state as an ethical and moral way of living rather than a medical factual
I've always thought the term nanny state was a bit of a distraction tbh.
Laws & regulations which increase social cohesion & reduce net human suffering shouldn't be described as nannying, or rules which are clearly needed as the population isn't equipped to make those choices on a personal level.
Personally, I've got no problem with what some people would call a "nanny state" pending on if it's only used in the above & not to dictate preference on matters in which no harm is caused.
The general public & the business world will simply never take into account systemic risk, the world is stuck in a perpetual prisoner's dilemma with the individual ratting each other out as it works out beneficial on a personal level.
The problem is, on a social level it works out much worse - I mean, the same applies to anti-biotic's - really we shouldn't use them all the time, but on an individual level it makes sense to.
Government needs to plug the gap which resides between personal need & social need - as we all end up paying the price if the social needs are ignored (this doesn't just apply to this, but to pretty much every other political/social issue).
On a personal level, people don't want to pay tax - but on a social level it's taxation which allows us to maintain the infrastructure required for us to make the money we do - the same for paying for crime (helps prevent anarchy),. education (ensures we have a population educated to a level which enables them to work) & healthcare (helps prevent epidemics or severe plagues).
Last edited:
It's a headline scare story, it won't happen.
'The majority' of GPs = 51% in a poll.
The figure ranges from £25 to £150 (only a Doctor in Hertfordshire would think £150 was a 'small' fee'
)
The unemployed, elderly and children would be exempt....hmm, who are most of the people clogging up the waiting rooms anyway? So this wouldn't have an impact on what they are complaining about, that they are too busy and don't have enough time to see everyone.
And why are they so busy now? Oh yes, they have their own budgets to run and now have less time to actually be a doctor and see patients....what a surprise.
Also, the French system is mentioned as one where you pay for an appointment...23 euro, but they fail to mention you actually claim 22 euro of that back from their health insurance.
'The majority' of GPs = 51% in a poll.
The figure ranges from £25 to £150 (only a Doctor in Hertfordshire would think £150 was a 'small' fee'
)The unemployed, elderly and children would be exempt....hmm, who are most of the people clogging up the waiting rooms anyway? So this wouldn't have an impact on what they are complaining about, that they are too busy and don't have enough time to see everyone.
And why are they so busy now? Oh yes, they have their own budgets to run and now have less time to actually be a doctor and see patients....what a surprise.
Also, the French system is mentioned as one where you pay for an appointment...23 euro, but they fail to mention you actually claim 22 euro of that back from their health insurance.
The original NHS model was never implemented. It has been distorted over time. Everyone is responsible for that.
As for the actual change I doubt it will come in because it will most likely increase costs rather then diminish them. If we carry on with the treat everything strategy then all will happen is the ill will present later for more costly treatment. Not really the way I think it should be done.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/26/nhs-privatisation-fears-deepen-deal
Biggest NHS outsourcing deal ever announced. Who here is going to be comfortable with the likes of Serco providing the care for a dying loved one?
Biggest NHS outsourcing deal ever announced. Who here is going to be comfortable with the likes of Serco providing the care for a dying loved one?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Well at least they know how to get rid of stuff afterwards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Agree entirely, the only issue with paying to see the gp is the large number of emempt people will generate a system of forms and filling inof forms, that those who regularly see the gp won't be asked to pay in the first place.
They won't show, will miss appointments and as such the system win't be much better off, yet the self employed person who sees his gp once every five or ten years will be asked to pay.
He wont be happy about it, as hes never used or abused the system his taxes fund, while madam floppy flaps doesnt contribute a penny, isnt asked to pay a fee, and isnt charged when she fails to show up.
Pardon the pun but the tories have managed to bury that one rather well today.
I work with serco on a near daily basis as part of my NHS role, mostly chasing them up and telling them off for breaching contract/the law.
Shambles, mostly down to lack of staff development.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,671
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I was looking at a patients appointments today who had 10 DNA's out of 18 appointments
It makes my blood boil.
I was looking at a patients appointments today who had 10 DNA's out of 18 appointments
It makes my blood boil.
You have to try and trace why they have DNAs though. Not all are straight DNAs. I used to chase up (well get someone else to if I were honest) why they occurred and in most cases you could qualify it. Letters sent out to parents who couldn't get childcare easily and lost it at the last minute. Undelivered letters. Letters sent to parents who had significant problems themselves and were confused or just plain crazy etc.
The problem is that people are always so willing to assume the immediately obvious answer is the true answer in such cases. But like all failures in the NHS and most likely elsewhere the problems are caused by a compounding of little problems and oversights.
You can instantly reduce the amount of DNA by removing the choice from the provider onto the patient. Forcing them to book their appointment instantly removes the unknown - naturally you need to chase up those who don't even make the appointment. But when they chose you can immediately tackle issues such as transport, childcare, etc.
Given the measurable performance of the nhs and personal experience of terrible treatment of loved ones in its caring hands, this is surely a loaded question.
I don't really care who is providing care as long as it is good, the nhs regularly fails in this regard, so I am more than willing to let other providers have a go.
Shock horror Dolph makes an appearance.
Shall I dig up that quote you know the one where you said that the birth of your daughter went really well and the staff did well.
Shall you then dig up that King's Report from 2008.
Shall I then refute it like I always do.
Shall you then go absent for a few weeks and then pop up and post the same old **** without actually defending your position as usual.
Or shall we not do that for once because it is tiresome that you can never back up your allegations.
Watching you defend poor care because of your vested interests has got rather tedious, so how about we don't bother because I don't have the time or inclination to watch you try and justify why poor care is fine as long as the state is doing it and the patient isn't allowed any choice.
Dolph using a fallacy. How ironic. I don't defend poor care I challenge it. But I challenge it with a perspective of actually not coming from one ideology. I don't willfully castigate a whole organisation and blame it for the inevitable failures. See that post before you entered - that's one that is saying to a NHS staff member that maybe the NHS is at fault partly for a problem. Doesn't quite fit with your assessment there.
You see practitioners do challenge bad care. There's case in the news today about that very thing. Assessment by experienced and excellent practitioners on failure.
And by the way Dolph - the man with a degree in Chemistry who could actually go in there an make a difference about poor care. What have you personally done to improve care if it is so woefully poor - bar moan that is? If not the fair enough no-one expects you to but if you truly believe in the need for progress people may just think you are a hypocritical bystander.
If you were to not invest time in your daughter, to not buy the things she needs to progress, to constantly criticise every failure without establishing what actually failed, to renege on your promises, to ignore the failures elsewhere and attributing all the blame on her, to falsely compare her against supposed peers, and to switch the subjects she is studying (when older) every 3 months - do you think she would come out well adjusted and motivated and reach the potential she was able to.
Yes, the NHS is failing in many ways - I've never denied it - but unlike you I can see the reasons why it is failing, the failures in other systems, and actually tried to do something about it.
You see practitioners do challenge bad care. There's case in the news today about that very thing. Assessment by experienced and excellent practitioners on failure.
And by the way Dolph - the man with a degree in Chemistry who could actually go in there an make a difference about poor care. What have you personally done to improve care if it is so woefully poor - bar moan that is? If not the fair enough no-one expects you to but if you truly believe in the need for progress people may just think you are a hypocritical bystander.
If you were to not invest time in your daughter, to not buy the things she needs to progress, to constantly criticise every failure without establishing what actually failed, to renege on your promises, to ignore the failures elsewhere and attributing all the blame on her, to falsely compare her against supposed peers, and to switch the subjects she is studying (when older) every 3 months - do you think she would come out well adjusted and motivated and reach the potential she was able to.
Yes, the NHS is failing in many ways - I've never denied it - but unlike you I can see the reasons why it is failing, the failures in other systems, and actually tried to do something about it.
There's no question that since the introduction of private sector best practices to the NHS, such as management targets, care has diminished to unacceptable standards. Yet I feel it speaks volumes that if you asked people who they think will provide a better standard of care, the NHS or Serco, I bet the overwhelming majority of people will say the NHS.
My first proper experience of terrible nhs care was in 1992, before most of the current changes.
as for the argumentum ad populum, a big problem with the nhs is that popularity, because of the unavoidable political association of a state run service, too frequently trumps evidence of what should be done.
So Dolph - any evidence to demonstrate that the providers you want to give a chance have the sufficient experience of any evidence of improved results to be given a chance? Any evidence for this at all?
Or is a case of I fancy a change I'll let anyone with sufficient leverage and lobbying have a crack?
Or is a case of I fancy a change I'll let anyone with sufficient leverage and lobbying have a crack?