Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Rubbish.
Way are you hear sir ?
I was playing golf and badly damaged my back.
Ahhh, golf eh ok we can fix you after some xrays and a needle or 2.
Great thankyou.
No problem sir, are you a professional golfer ?
No.
Ahh in that case here is a bill for £10k, try not have a accident whilst enjoying yourself.
Last edited:
I don't disagree that its dangerous, and as I said before I don't have the answer.
Maybe the charge through the roof for alcohol so it becomes a luxury and subsidise cheaper fruit and veg as someone said is a good start.
What a cute, trite little example you've coughed up.
I can't ski without insurance, why should people play golf without insurance?
Last edited:
I agree with what you say about forcing more accountability to the seller. But from what I've seen by an large it's students and the poor in the A+Es and I can't help but think it is effectively taxpayer's money they are spending to get that ratted in the first place. Would be the same for the fines.
In that case we may as well have insurance for everything as all of these things carry a risk and privatise the lot. I am not so sure that is the answer at all.
The thread was started over three years ago with the intention of saving the NHS from the damaging reforms proposed by then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. It failed and these reforms were implemented in 2012. Two years later the NHS is facing its worst ever crisis.
It might not be, but the obvious problem is that the NHS cannot afford to carry on running as it is. So what is the answer, if we want free at the point of treatment for all*.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
You already have duty on it and the change would probably have to be pretty massive to make any difference.
Banning alcohol multibuys in Scotland does not appear to have made any difference to off licence sales. We'll have to wait and see about minimum pricing.
The problem is nobody actually knows. Everyone has ideas and every few years we can have a vote to decide who gets to implement theirs.
On top of this I would wish food manufacturers would cut the amount of sugar used in breakfast cereals etc
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread and also in the press. I suspect it is intentionally driven by DOH and not challenged in the media.
Let’s take the 4 hour A/E target for example.
I have not come across anyone he who knows what this measures. It DOES NOT measure the time you wait to be seen by a doctor or any other qualified medical staff. What it does it measures TIME from registering in A/E till you physically leave the department either going home or admitted
What does it mean: well quite interesting, means that front door in A/E works pretty well. In real numbers there are more patients going in and also more staff working there so you are seen and dealt with well within 4 hours.
So if you do not need admission as inpatient (and in this category enters most of the ones that could have attended their GP– about them another story-, drunks, minor injuries..etc) you are dealt with in a timely fashion and send on your way.
Where the targets are missed is with really ill patients, the ones that need admission and THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HOSPITAL BEDS. They are unfortunately the ones that stay 12+ hours on the trolleys in A/E waiting for a bed and they are the ones that breach the target. This can not be sorted by increasing the number of GP, or A/E doctors, or OOH services. Those patients need secondary care and a hospital bed.
This is what the government and DOH does not want people to know because they can not blame anyone but themselves about the number of beds available and the continuous bed closure in NHS in last 10 years.
Here is a comparison about the number of beds in Europe and UK has half the number of beds compared to France
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_rs_bds&lang=en
(use top right filter to get the beds per 100.000 population)
At the end of the day we live longer, we have more co-morbidities and we need and expect more advanced and more specialised care. This cost money
I have loads of ideas that I strongly believe would work - they would however end up shafting the professions and remove power from the government so there would not be any chance of getting them implemented whatsoever!
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
But so did Michael Gove for schools and Andrew Lansley for health and so on. Why would your ideas be any more popular or effective?
It's the fundamental problem - lots of people have ideas and lots of other people think that they are wrong. Both groups can be quite intelligent and pursuing what they think is genuinely best for whatever service.
There's never enough time to let change bed in before the next vote, so the real impacts of change are never properly seen. The population does not generally take an evidence-based approach to giving their vote so reform becomes less about doing what is right (and often backed up by analysis) and more about doing what will win votes next time around.
Because unlike them I have worked and managed in the NHS and I have experience of working abroad in other health care systems.
The problem is quite simple there is an every increasing demand with a decreasing supply. Therefore, at a fundamental basis you have to reassess what it is you provide to enable supply to meet demand. Bevan actually had this pretty much sorted from the start but people then started to expand the remit to something it was never meant to cover.
I never said they would be more popular. I made it quite clear they wouldn't be to at least two groups. Would they work though - then yes. Would some people fall short - then yes. You can't provide meet infinite demand with a limited supply and to pretend you can is morally and ethically wrong because it encourages people to assume a safety net exists that does not and therefore miscalculate things.
damn... if only Andrew Lansley had read the thread
In this thread there were petitions people could sign, letters that could be emailed to your MP and details of protests people could attend if they so wished. Alternatives to apathy and sleep-walking into a healthcare crisis like we have at the moment.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
And any politician that said such a thing would soon be looking for another job, while any party that said it would be on the opposition benches for an eternity.
Democracy sucks.
(but I agree with you about demand/supply, although our devolved government would have us believe that this is Westminster's fault alone and can be easily solved)
Was it Lansleys fault people are living longer with more complex medical conditions?
"Guaranteed annual pay awards" - I love this
. When you start a clinical job in the NHS you go into a pay band. In this band there are 5 or 6 annual pay increase 'steps'. The top 'step' reflects the market rate for your particular job, so effectively you are underpaid for 5 years whilst you gain experience (sort of serving an apprenticeship.) That is a fact.
Secondly, 'gold plated pensions.' I really don't know how this all came about. I payed in around 13% of my monthly income and all I saw in my NHS pension reviews is my final amount going down year on year. I since opted out and went into a private scheme which is giving me a better return on the same 13%. However, as my retirement age has been raised to 68 and ambulance staff are notorious for popping their clogs just before or just after retirement then I doubt I'll see much of it
I don't accept that's the root cause of this, what I expect to be the first of many crises, and it's difficult to imagine this changed significantly in the past couple of years, however, even if it were true it is predictable so yes he should have put a plan in place to adapt to changes in demographics.