View Full Version : The NHS In Name Only?
To my mind the Lib Dems have allowed the Tories in through the back door in breaking up the NHS as some kind of unwieldly conglomerate, a subtle form of de-nationalization applied to our welfare state on a monetarist basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism). I am apolitical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolitical).
The NHS was born back in 1948 after WWII to perform as a holistic and state run National Health Service available to each and every citizen free of charge - and then I read this,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7266691.stm
My angst isn't just where this article is going but where it isn't exploring further. Top notch report from the BBC journalist who wrote it within defined parameters. However, I am a not a journalist and I am free to express my point of view. These views are mine alone here in off topic.
Think about it, our GPs are now given a specified fixed budget to work within. To my mind the up and coming medical students who are studying and working very hard to become doctors now have to take on board a 'new freedom' in how they will in the future dispense their medical practice on a MONETARY basis. This means that they have to balance the books when deciding who gets what care - i.e. ~ is this patient going to be 'expensive' to care for?
Dramatic(?), yes(!) as this is the thin end of the wedge.
Think about it for just one moment, you arrive at A&E and you are asked who is your doctor as you sit there with a possible broken leg from a household accident. Even before you see the triage nurse you are assessed as to whether your doctor has the 'funds' to support you in your emergency - far fetched?
Do you think so?
I know as do you that doctors take priority patients very seriously but what worries me is that what the National Health service provides right now at this moment in time is a holistic service, that does include the louts on Friday and Saturday nights who due to inebriation and other drugs can and are an actual threat to medical staff the world over in every A&E department - but our NHS is taken for granted as we do not have to pay for their hard work and their coping within our society of our incumbent bad behaviour at times from society.:(
Our Prime Minister is obviously occupied with business abroad as are all of our media whilst these subtle changes have been going on and the opposition party is not shouting loud enough to check the balances. Our Prime Minister said that the NHS would be safe in Tory hands, forgive my scepticism, as opposed to others.
,
Are you using a BBC report from 2008 to support slagging off the tories?
It's difficult to tell
I don't think the plan includes the newly qualified GPs to act as decision makers for how a regions budget is to be spent.
It is more likely going to be the senior GPs around that region that decide the regions allocation of resources. After all they have been at the coalface for sometime treating the local residents and have a good idea on how the demographic is made up. So if they felt they are working in an aging population (e.g. Eastbourne) then they may decide to target with additional funding those illness that worsen the patient's quality of life in old age.
They may also decide regional supercentres with the aim of speciaising in one or two field which reduces the costs due to the number of consultants required.
Are you using a BBC report from 2008 to support slagging off the tories?
It's difficult to tell
No dooks, there are many substantial articles concerning the NHS that are in fact too numerous to mention - including on the BBC but also specifically other concerns.;)
No dooks, there are many substantial articles concerning the NHS that are in fact too numerous to mention - including on the BBC but also specifically other concerns.;)
But the point of your post was to build upon the BBC report:
My angst isn't just where this article is going but where it isn't exploring further. Top notch report from the BBC journalist who wrote it within defined parameters. However, I am a not a journalist and I am free to express my point of view. These views are mine alone here in off topic.
I don't think you've been clear about how it's the fault of the current government
To clarify, the article I quoted as the point is now being actually actioned, my point is that it does not matter what the colour of your political party is the NHS should never be under any threat by differing governments.
I remember getting free milk at school, little quarter pint cartons with a straw. It just so happens that Thatcher stopped that free milk for many kids who are now adults.;)
But the point of your post was to build upon the BBC report:
I don't think you've been clear about how it's the fault of the current government
For goodness sake , no it it was not, I referred to it.
:(
We need to get this mob out of power as soon as is humanly possible. Thing is though - who do we replace them with?
The NHS is the worlds 3rd largest employer, the largest being the Chinese armed forces. Does the NHS need to be this big, no. To many managers taking up the resources that should be paying for new treatments, medicines, research, hospitals, doctors & nurses.
The amount of managers compared to doctors & nurses is unreal, I don`t have the figures available to me but it`s about 50/50, why?
We spend more on the NHS than any other thing. More than Benefits, more than policing, more than defence, foriegn aid, roads, industry, research, manufacturing etc.
The Government brought in the chairman of one of ouir largest retailers to see how money was being spent, they discovered that the health authorities didn`t even use the same type of paper. Within one authority it wouldn`t be unfair to say that dozens of types of paper were being used from various suppliers. This resulted in an extended supply chain & extra costs etc, this is just an example of paper. The same has been found for medical supplies, uniforms, bedding, computers, food, cleaning supplies, courses, etc. The list just goes on & on.
I know I want my taxes spent wisely & not frivously, giving value for money.
Oh by the way before any body starts saying I`m a biased Torie voter you`ll be wasting your breath, I vote for who ever I believe will do the best for our country & not for me & Yes I have voted Labour in the recent past.
This country is on it`s knees & whether we like it or not pandering to the masses is not going to correct the frivolous manner in which our taxes have been spent in the past 10 years. If something isn`t done we will go down the pan, we have to repay our debts so everybody is going to feel the pinch, unfortunately.
Believe the union & Labour hyperbole as much as you like, after all they only do nice cuts, but does anyone actually remember why they lost the election?
Let me tell you now, that as someone who works as a nurse on a ward in a general hospital patients are not being cared for to a standard that they should be and it is solely down to the fact that nursing recruitment has been frozen and retiring staff are not replaced and we are now seeing redundancies in nursing staff.
I have nursed since 1970 and never thought I would see this day. ..Don't talk to me about the Managers...
Has there been as many redundancies amongst the managers? Doubt it they`ll be looking after No.1.
If you think that the NHS has it bad then take a look at what has happened to the military, our nation has been emasculated due to having spent money we didn`t have.
The same thing happened in the seventies with Labour spending all the cash , followed by the Tories having to be the bad guy. It`s now happened again but this time it`s probably worse. Now unfortunately we all have to pay the price.
Wish it were different but the only way Labour could have provided the services they wished to without bankrupting us (we are very close to this & it could still happen) would have been by putting up income tax but they were scared of doing it.
The thing I`m hoping that happens now is that the Government (whichever party it is over the next 5 years) actually make it easier for a business to be set up & run in this country so there is more taxes to pay for these extra services.
que-sera-sera
27-2-11, 18:37
The nhs is a wonderful idea in principle but with anything,if youve got more people taking out of it than are putting in then its not going to work as it should.
Unworkable in the real world.
To clarify, the article I quoted as the point is now being actually actioned, my point is that it does not matter what the colour of your political party is the NHS should never be under any threat by differing governments.
I remember getting free milk at school, little quarter pint cartons with a straw. It just so happens that Thatcher stopped that free milk for many kids who are now adults.;)
Well imagine the situation if it was not ring fenced from reductions... remember the Labour Party wanted it to be included in the cuts programme and were very critical of the current government for having larger cuts elsewhere and none planned in the NHS.
Of course one can argue whether the planned re-organization is the best option for ensuring most effective use of monies. However, don't forget what Labour plans where.
At the end of the day - pressure from the aging population and advances in medicine creates massive issues. The re-org goal is about saving monies from unnecessary bureaucracy to enable more to be pumped into front line services to cope with these issues. How well that is delivered will be critical but standing still and not trying to improve is not an option.
Let me tell you now, that as someone who works as a nurse on a ward in a general hospital patients are not being cared for to a standard that they should be and it is solely down to the fact that nursing recruitment has been frozen and retiring staff are not replaced and we are now seeing redundancies in nursing staff.
I have nursed since 1970 and never thought I would see this day. ..Don't talk to me about the Managers...
Good point bils! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12208126 Less staff means that this leads to more labour intensive input when people are knackered enough as it is instead of concentrating on the professional tasks at hand.
However, don't forget what Labour plans where. Which is why I referred to the 2008 article - nail on the head redjonn.
Wish it were different but the only way Labour could have provided the services they wished to without bankrupting us (we are very close to this & it could still happen) would have been by putting up income tax but they were scared of doing it.
I am not sure of the context of your point as to whether it is based in the 70s or to the economic collapse of banker speculation in the 2000s, RedGlass?
We need to get this mob out of power as soon as is humanly possible. Thing is though - who do we replace them with?
Exactly this.
I honestly can't believe I lie in a country where Cameron could be voted into office by apparently educated people. Having said that, none ofthe options we had were all that attractive. The only option was to stuck with the existing mob as at least they had to be accountable - anyone new coming in would always has the easy excuse of blaming their predecessor.
As for the NHS, I hope I don't need it of course, but particularly now the Tories (and worse than that, Tories with an incompetent leader) are in. I've had excellent service from the NHS in the last five years and just had to count myself lucky that when I needed them it was at a time when they were able to give that level of service
Out of interest - how many people are employed or the front line staff's man-hours are lost to either monitor or ensure targets are being met?
After all, if it is similar to the Police force spend time filling in forms (both electronic and manual) which stops them being out on the beat.
Exactly this.
I honestly can't believe I lie in a country where Cameron could be voted into office by apparently educated people. Having said that, none ofthe options we had were all that attractive. The only option was to stuck with the existing mob as at least they had to be accountable - anyone new coming in would always has the easy excuse of blaming their predecessor.
...
Which is what labour has been doing for the last 13 years. On QT/TW or news programmes - Labour politicians used the we had to sort the mess out from Major's govt and that is why some of our election pledges slipped to the right/not been honoured
Should there be a maximum time for a new government to be able to blame the previous administration when they are making changes to policy - especially if it is going to be unpopular? E.g. Student tuition fees, scrapping the carriers.
Out of interest - how many people are employed or the front line staff's man-hours are lost to either monitor or ensure targets are being met?
After all, if it is similar to the Police force spend time filling in forms (both electronic and manual) which stops them being out on the beat. .
Each new admission can take up to an hour of paperwork and computer work. that doesn't include any nursing intervention that needs doing depending on how ill the patient is. many nights I have had 1-13 admissions to deal with so you can see how time consuming that is and I still have to look after and observe the other patients in my care..these are babies and children who are often unable to vocalise their needs and concerns so constant close observation is required I sometimes have up to 12 patients to look after , while admitting and also checking drugs for other nurses so you can easily see why there is a mistake waitning to happen....Most nights after doing a 10.75 hr shift ( soon to be increased to a 12.50 hr shift to save the hospital money as they will pay us less shift allowance) Myself and colleagues can be putting in an extra hour just to catch up on the paperwork because we believe that the patients come first, we then get told off for not doing the paperwork in 'real time' ...it sucks.
I've been nursing for nearly 40 years , I love my job...the rest of it that goes with it I hate.
Exactly this.
I honestly can't believe I lie in a country where Cameron could be voted into office by apparently educated people. Having said that, none ofthe options we had were all that attractive. The only option was to stuck with the existing mob as at least they had to be accountable - anyone new coming in would always has the easy excuse of blaming their predecessor.
As for the NHS, I hope I don't need it of course, but particularly now the Tories (and worse than that, Tories with an incompetent leader) are in. I've had excellent service from the NHS in the last five years and just had to count myself lucky that when I needed them it was at a time when they were able to give that level of service
There is no point in making this a party political issue as they are all as bad as each other. The top heavy bureaucracy within the NHS is the issue that needs to be addressed and it doesn't matter which political party does that so long as it is done.
On a more positive note on the NHS I would like to thank the frontline staff ie the doctors and nurses who over the past 18 months have done a brilliant job of curing my mothers throat cancer.:)
I have just come out of Pinderfield hospital in Wakefield, the hosiptal is knackered but they are moving to a brand new building this week! the care I got was amazing and I thank them for it. the NHS in meltdown? my arse.
Bils
That is shocking but doesn't really surprise me. As Dave said the top heavy bureaucracy does need to be addressed and that goes across the various Govt Depts.
I swear I work with some of these (http://pugnaciousirishman.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/vogons22.jpg) in another Dept.
Mick
It may depend on where you are as there was a recent news story in the Bristol Area that someone gave birth to their son in the waiting area attended by a family member and a stranger. The hospital has apologised for the incident however no formal complaint has been raised so the hospital may not have had a chance to fully investigate it.
NinJaSkrtel
28-2-11, 13:11
http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=5120697&postcount=4
Good point bils! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12208126 Less staff means that this leads to more labour intensive input when people are knackered enough as it is instead of concentrating on the professional tasks at hand.
Which is why I referred to the 2008 article - nail on the head redjonn.
I am not sure of the context of your point as to whether it is based in the 70s or to the economic collapse of banker speculation in the 2000s, RedGlass?
The current situation is as much a governmental issue as a banker one, after all it was Brown who allowed the banks to have more freedom than they ever have had & they took it with all the aplomb of kid let loose in a sweetshop.
Basically the lunatics were given license to run the asylum & we can all see what has occurred because of this.
We now have a situation where the present government is to scared to make the banks pull their heels in because the banks have hinted that if they have to curb their excesses they`ll upsticks & move to the likes of China, Singapore, Hong Kong ect, leaving us in even more of a financial mess (catch 22).
The previous government also borrowed money above & beyond what the country could afford for ten out of the previous twelve years. I believe that to keep us on a firm financial footing we should`ve borrowed no more than 12% of GDP a year, the previous government went a few percentage points above that for ten of the last twelve years (sorry, but I don`t have the the exact figures for this).
If you like conspiracies how about this, most of the money lent by the banks to the USA before the banks stopped lending came from China! Do you reckon they were playing a long game to achieve world dominance, because they`ve almost achieved this.
Exactly this.
I honestly can't believe I lie in a country where Cameron could be voted into office by apparently educated people. Having said that, none ofthe options we had were all that attractive. The only option was to stuck with the existing mob as at least they had to be accountable - anyone new coming in would always has the easy excuse of blaming their predecessor.
As for the NHS, I hope I don't need it of course, but particularly now the Tories (and worse than that, Tories with an incompetent leader) are in. I've had excellent service from the NHS in the last five years and just had to count myself lucky that when I needed them it was at a time when they were able to give that level of service
Well actually I totally disagree with you on all your points, me old chap..... apparently educated people continue to forget previous history and vote in Labour party that ruins country with Tories picking up the pieces.
HyppHyppHurray
28-2-11, 21:29
I'd genuinely be surprised if people were shocked that the NHS is being broken up.
But given our aging population, and the strains being put on the system, I've some sympathy with David Cameron saying that the NHS needs to change or die.
The part that concerns me is the speed of that change, though.
I'd genuinely be surprised if people were shocked that the NHS is being broken up.
But given our aging population, and the strains being put on the system, I've some sympathy with David Cameron saying that the NHS needs to change or die.
The part that concerns me is the speed of that change, though.
Don't agree with the words "broken up" as it is a re-organization. But otherwise I agree with your sentiments and have concerns about the speed. However, they are trying it in number of area's then rolling it out.
Plus lets not forget that the current structure has not always been as it is now. In that the Labour party introduced the current setup not that long ago - also I may add without it being in there manifesto and again with a view to improving. Seems quite similar to arguments put forward by those that dislike current attempt to improve. I wonder if they complained then?
There is no point in making this a party political issue as they are all as bad as each other. The top heavy bureaucracy within the NHS is the issue that needs to be addressed and it doesn't matter which political party does that so long as it is done.
On a more positive note on the NHS I would like to thank the frontline staff ie the doctors and nurses who over the past 18 months have done a brilliant job of curing my mothers throat cancer.:)
I was trying to avoid making it a party political issue as such - my main points were:
1) regardless of my dislike for brown, in order to make government accountable it would have been good to let labour deal with the ***** that occurred whilst they were in power
2) if a Tory government were to be bearable it could only be so without the useless slimy toad Cameron.
Which is what labour has been doing for the last 13 years. On QT/TW or news programmes - Labour politicians used the we had to sort the mess out from Major's govt and that is why some of our election pledges slipped to the right/not been honoured
Should there be a maximum time for a new government to be able to blame the previous administration when they are making changes to policy - especially if it is going to be unpopular? E.g. Student tuition fees, scrapping the carriers.
Alright Tory boy ;)
Seriously though, I'm no great labour fan. I tend to vote based on policies and my impression of the leader and the local guy. Having said that, the last ten years have been a hell of a lot better forthe majority of people then the previous ten, which says a fair bit.
HyppHyppHurray
28-2-11, 21:51
Having said that, the last ten years have been a hell of a lot better forthe majority of people then the previous ten, which says a fair bit.
It says the Conservatives left an economy in great shape in 1997. ;)
Well actually I totally disagree with you on all your points, me old chap..... apparently educated people continue to forget previous history and vote in Labour party that ruins country with Tories picking up the pieces.
Be it Tory, labour or other, the most dangerous people are those that will always vote for a particular party just because they always have and always do. I bet your folks voted Tory too and it wouldn't matter if they swapped policies with one ofthe other parties - you'd still stubbornly vote them in ;)
New-red-order
28-2-11, 22:05
Be it Tory, labour or other, the most dangerous people are those that will always vote for a particular party just because they always have and always do. I bet your folks voted Tory too and it wouldn't matter if they swapped policies with one ofthe other parties - you'd still stubbornly vote them in ;)
to be fair the people who would of voted Labour this time round can only of voted for them for that reason
after what they've done
Be it Tory, labour or other, the most dangerous people are those that will always vote for a particular party just because they always have and always do. I bet your folks voted Tory too and it wouldn't matter if they swapped policies with one ofthe other parties - you'd still stubbornly vote them in ;)
Well me old bean you would be totally wrong... I am passionately interested in politics, sad as it may be. I actively take an interest in politics and make my mind up based upon informed policy awareness and leader with at least having some understanding. To add, I have voted for different parties.
Being the son of a Docker and a Mother that went cleaning every morning to keep food on the table I do have strong views but I am prepared to listen, and change views accordingly. My Dad was an active communist at one time and very socialist most other times. But I know the cost of strikes and remember the 12 week Dockers strike in which my mam's stock piling of food enabled us to eat through. I too have been on strike many times in the 70’s and 80’s and lost my job as result of. But that history makes me much more cautious about people that often just repeat what they hear their own party favourite PR or spin puts out without having greater awareness themselves.
One thing my father taught me was to take such active interest in politics and stand-up for my views even if he disagreed. Plus he would not insult those views.
Be it Tory, labour or other, the most dangerous people are those that will always vote for a particular party just because they always have and always do. I bet your folks voted Tory too and it wouldn't matter if they swapped policies with one ofthe other parties - you'd still stubbornly vote them in ;)
Especially if that party thinks it is so easy that they would have a monkey nominated as the PPC and still be confident of winning the seat by a large margin.
That is one of the saddest things I heard in (I think) the 05 election. Someone in Sedgefield told Thomas Keys that she would be voting for Tony because she always voted Labour.
taffykopite53
1-3-11, 05:56
dont trust any of them after they cheated their expensis,,crooks the lot of them..