Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 07, 2017, 09:25:36 AM
-
A humanitarian crisis in the NHS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38538637
-
Vote labour.
-
Vote labour.
Is there an election? What are their actual policies?
-
Vote labour.
its just a word , a concept, not an actual thing or group of like minded people, in actuality its meaningless.
-
Labour as opposed to Labour.
Must say, things improved dramatically in the NHS after 1997; I remember it well. It was a great relief after the NHS basically being run down for about ten years.
Now we are going back to square one.
-
A humanitarian crisis in the NHS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38538637
What do you expect the closure of so many hospitals and the A&E shutting has put millions of our people at risk. All part of entering the EU to stop them taking advantage of the services and make it private.
It is all about money making... THINK! What happens when just a few hospitals remain.
First come first served. We did not have enough before now we have less hospitals and further for people to travel to get medical help, HOW many lives will that cost?
The mess we will have will not be caused by any Brexit but the stupidity of a Government who treated our people like cattle and a number, who would allow a rule which demobbed our monarchy and our independance as the Greatest Nation the world has ever known.
You see I am under no illusion that if God had not used our nation we would be nowhere.
Israel was Gods chosen Nation and that has not changed. But I believe our nation greatly blessed because it was used by God to save Israel and the mass murder which Hitler enforced and others in the past.
As a Christian Country we cannot go against the ways of God and hope to survive.
We cannot join a union which would use it's power against the world.
Really power is born out of selfless love for ourselves and each other.
We want a world rid of starvation, sickness and disease and we can only do that when we change as individuals and care about what really matters. God loves us and gave us our freedom and built us into the Country we are today. He has given us a sovereign who has dedicated her life to God and the welfare of this Country. I am not one for throwing that in the bin no matter how much people might dislike me for it, because they cannot grasp the importance of us NOT being in the EU. It will become clearer in time however. But I know God has worked this for our good as a nation though we all do not see that right now.
-
Sassy -
Does Matron know that you are at the keyboard again?
Why not wait until your medication has taken effect before starting to type? Your very first sentence is incomprehensible.
What do you expect the closure of so many hospitals and the A&E shutting has put millions of our people at risk. Is it question? Are there words missing? It is incoherent. You then follow it with: All part of entering the EU to stop them taking advantage of the services and make it private. Who is "them"? And how does "entering the EU" stop "them" from doing ... anything?
If I knew what you are trying to say, I might devote some time to reading this, but it is incoherent. Could you please rewrite it in English?
-
its just a word , a concept, not an actual thing or group of like minded people, in actuality its meaningless.
Then the same is true for Conservative and UKIP.
-
Then the same is true for Conservative and UKIP.
I don't disagree.
-
Sass. You really need to study our history to undetstand why we became a powerful nation. Clue: it has very little to do with Christianity and a lot more to do with exploiting other nations.
As to your hysteria over the EU and the NHS get a fucking grip woman. Look at the amount invested in health per head of the population here and compare it to France, or the Netherlamds, or Germany. You"ll soon work out the real reason. Or in your case probably not. But the equation is really very simple....less money = deteriorating service.
-
Vote labour.
And wreck the economy all over again.
-
Labour as opposed to Labour.
Must say, things improved dramatically in the NHS after 1997; I remember it well. It was a great relief after the NHS basically being run down for about ten years.
Now we are going back to square one.
That is interesting, Brownie. I know medics who worked in the NHS until 1996, went abroad with an organisation similar to Medicins Sans Frontieres, and returned in 2007. They found it hard to believe that the NHS could have gone from bad to worse to the extent it had in that time. That isn't to say that they are impressed by the current condition.
-
I worked in NHS hospitals for many years, Hope, and can only speak from my own experience.
Also provision of care and rehabilitation in the home for the sick, largely free regardless of financial circumstances, that improved dramatically after the return of Labour.
-
What do you expect the closure of so many hospitals and the A&E shutting has put millions of our people at risk. All part of entering the EU to stop them taking advantage of the services and make it private.
The problem isn't the EU, Sass; rather it is the ever-growing aging population, the aging stock of hospitals and ever-growing improvements in medical technology (and its growing cost), etc.
It is all about money making... THINK! What happens when just a few hospitals remain.
First come first served. We did not have enough before now we have less hospitals and further for people to travel to get medical help, HOW many lives will that cost?
Part of the problem has been the shortage of specialist staff for all the various hospitals that had sprung up, which is why it was felt thatthere ought to be fewer but potentially larger specialist centres.
The mess we will have will not be caused by any Brexit but the stupidity of a Government who treated our people like cattle and a number, who would allow a rule which demobbed our monarchy and our independance as the Greatest Nation the world has ever known.
I agree, both Labour and Tory parties have failed us in a whole host of areas.
-
I worked in NHS hospitals for many years, Hope, and can only speak from my own experience.
Also provision of care and rehabilitation in the home for the sick, largely free regardless of financial circumstances, that improved dramatically after the return of Labour.
I think the main problem is the lack of co-ordination between the Health and Social Service Departments of numerous Governments of the past 40 years.
-
The NHS is not a UK issuee anyway, but (thankfully) devolved. There has, in actuall fact, been NO unified NHS in the UK since its inception in 1947, the NHS in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and, to some extent, Wales being administered by Secretaries of state till devolution in 1999.
-
I think the main problem is the lack of co-ordination between the Health and Social Service Departments of numerous Governments of the past 40 years.
chuffin hell Hope ,what a loss to the country you have been . You should have been a government advisor.
-
chuffin hell Hope ,what a loss to the country you have been . You should have been a government advisor.
Rats, you've let the cat out of the bag. ;)
-
Labour as opposed to Labour.
Must say, things improved dramatically in the NHS after 1997; I remember it well. It was a great relief after the NHS basically being run down for about ten years.
Now we are going back to square one.
The Tories ruin the NHS and Labour trash the economy and the people rock between the two as if on a boat in a very rough sea, vomiting over the side constantly. Yeah, great, what a choice. Time for a change!
-
The Tories ruin the NHS and Labour trash the economy and the people rock between the two as if on a boat in a very rough sea, vomiting over the side constantly. Yeah, great, what a choice. Time for change!
well I've got a pocket full of shrapnel to start you off.
-
Whilst not exactly in line with the thread title, how much do folk feel that TM has to concentrate on issues beyond Brexit compared to the time she does spend on Brexit. Should it be 50/50; 60/40; 40/60; ...
-
Just saying cos I am interested to know what the intelligent posters here think.
Why is the NHS a sacred cow? I seem to remember that we have some of the worst cancer recovery rates in the western world and that countries which score better than us do not have an equivalent service.
Is it time to stop throwing good money at the NHS, which doesn't seem to be working too well, and rethink the whole idea?
-
Just saying cos I am interested to know what the intelligent posters here think.
Why is the NHS a sacred cow? I seem to remember that we have some of the worst cancer recovery rates in the western world and that countries which score better than us do not have an equivalent service.
Is it time to stop throwing good money at the NHS, which doesn't seem to be working too well, and rethink the whole idea?
WE do have lower cancer survival rates - but we have higher survival rates on Cardiac arrests so looking at single issues in isolation is not useful. If you look at every analysis done over the last decade in terms of performance and value for money (that is how much we invest against the outcomes achieved) the NHS system scores very highly, and in some analyses comes out top.
The issue is not merely the system used be it private or Nationalised or a mixture. It is how much any given country is willing to invest in health. We, in the UK, have in the Western world one of the lower per capita spends on health and yet achieve better outcomes than most. Just imagine what we could do if we invested what the French or Australians invest per capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
PS I meant to add that although the USA spends a huge amount on healthcare (largely private) it has some of the least good outcomes in the Western world and indeed has a lower life expectancy than the UK - although there will be other factors at work here than just the healthcare system. So I do not think that private medicine is necessarily the magic bullet that some think it is, that will solve all our problems.
-
Just saying cos I am interested to know what the intelligent posters here think.
Why is the NHS a sacred cow? I seem to remember that we have some of the worst cancer recovery rates in the western world and that countries which score better than us do not have an equivalent service.
Is it time to stop throwing good money at the NHS, which doesn't seem to be working too well, and rethink the whole idea?
We don't spend enough on it:-
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-care-spending-compared
I think it should be a subsidised service unless you have a chronic condition. Doctors appointment c. £10, A&E £50, etc.I know the left will go hysterical over "privatisation" but last I checked 40% of the care is delivered by the private sector now.
-
We don't spend enough on it:-
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-care-spending-compared
I think it should be a subsidised service unless you have a chronic condition. Doctors appointment c. £10, A&E £50, etc.I know the left will go hysterical over "privatisation" but last I checked 40% of the care is delivered by the private sector now.
Off the amount spent on private health care according to your link? Are you sure?
And you want a doctor in A&E to refuse to treat someone in pain till they cough up more money then they have? Oh and charging at the point if delivery in this way isn't privatisation.
-
Off the amount spent on private health care according to your link? Are you sure?
From the link "This data includes private spending on health care, which in the United Kingdom is only 1.5 per cent."
And you want a doctor in A&E to refuse to treat someone in pain till they cough up more money then they have?
No, can be done later.
Oh and charging at the point if delivery in this way isn't privatisation.
Yes I know but it will be spun that way.
-
From the link "This data includes private spending on health care, which in the United Kingdom is only 1.5 per cent."
No, can be done later.
Yes I know but it will be spun that way.
So 40% of care is covered from 1.5% of the spend?
-
So 40% of care is covered from 1.5% of the spend?
Private spending, most GPs are self employed, Chemists, Opticians, Dentists many work for the private sector paid for by NHS.
-
Private spending, most GPs are self employed, Chemists, Opticians, Dentists many work for the private sector paid for by NHS.
so where is the 40% of the care covered? It isn't in your link How does being self employed mean that from the point of the provision and being part of the NHD mean it is 'private'?
-
so where is the 40% of the care covered? It isn't in your link How does being self employed mean that from the point of the provision and being part of the NHD mean it is 'private'?
Yes many GP's, opticians, chemists, dentists are not in the public sector.
-
Yes many GP's, opticians, chemists, dentists are not in the public sector.
if they are being paid via the public NHS to work in the NHS then they are not providing care to the patient in the private sector. Where is the citation of the 40% of care claim?
-
We don't spend enough on it:-
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-care-spending-compared
I think it should be a subsidised service unless you have a chronic condition. Doctors appointment c. £10, A&E £50, etc.I know the left will go hysterical over "privatisation" but last I checked 40% of the care is delivered by the private sector now.
We already pay for it. Why not just raise taxes a bit?
-
if they are being paid via the public NHS to work in the NHS then they are not providing care to the patient in the private sector. Where is the citation of the 40% of care claim?
It could be 5%, the point I was making is that the left forward a anti-privatisation (services paid for NHS but done by private sector) argument yet don't make argue against services that have long been provided by private sector, e.g. chemists, GP's, etc.
-
We already pay for it. Why not just raise taxes a bit?
Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.
-
Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.
What?
As already established it isn't free - we pay taxes.
And the idea that people check themselves if to A & E for 'free' is, quite frankly bizarre and strange.
I'd like to know what's happened to the real Jakswan - because the poster masquerading as he, seems to be some Hunt or other.
-
Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.
but then suppressing demand by charging for appts may be a false economy if it puts off people from prompt treatment. Have you got a set of figures which backs up your proposal?
-
What?
As already established it isn't free - we pay taxes.
And the idea that people check themselves if to A & E for 'free' is, quite frankly bizarre and strange.
I'd like to know what's happened to the real Jakswan - because the poster masquerading as he, seems to be some Hunt or other.
Far from it the Tories are completely committed to free at point of use as far as I know. No political party would advocate this system because it prompts hysteria from the electorate, your post is a case in point.
-
Far from it the Tories are completely committed to free at point of use as far as I know. No political party would advocate this system because it prompts hysteria from the electorate, your post is a case in point.
No - I've re-read my post several times and I see no trace of hysteria. I see incredulity at your post but that is not hysteria. In fact I feel quite calm and serene today.
-
It could be 5%, the point I was making is that the left forward a anti-privatisation (services paid for NHS but done by private sector) argument yet don't make argue against services that have long been provided by private sector, e.g. chemists, GP's, etc.
sorry what could be 5%? The 1.5% in the link for spend, or the 40% figure for care you suggested and have provided no citation for? Either of them are so far away from a 5% figure that this appears to make no sense.
-
No - I've re-read my post several times and I see no trace of hysteria. I see incredulity at your post but that is not hysteria. In fact I feel quite calm and serene today.
I see no trace of hysteria in it either!
-
No - I've re-read my post several times and I see no trace of hysteria. I see incredulity at your post but that is not hysteria. In fact I feel quite calm and serene today.
Incredulity works just as well.
-
http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/19/a-freakonomics-proposal-to-help-the-british-national-health-service/
Something like that?
-
http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/19/a-freakonomics-proposal-to-help-the-british-national-health-service/
Something like that?
err no, that is a proposal that specifically does not have figures if the cost of delaying treatment and it's coverage in caused 'catastrophic care'. It is like much of Levitt's work based on idealised assumptions and little real figures.
-
Incredulity works just as well.
Ah - so you are practicing being an inscrutable Hunt.
-
Must be worth thinking about alternative insurance and funding systems, especially if including care as well as medical costs.
However, remember that if people do not get minor issues sorted, eg because of cost, they can easily turn into major issues with major costs.
I think there have been some suggestions for funding systems separate from general taxation - so people can see where their money is going and when they are getting the benefit of it.
-
But it's also about shrinking funding, isn't it? Before Blair, NHS was costing about 6% of GDP, then he raised it to 8%, now it will shrink again, so people end up lying on trollies for 12 hours. But remember, if you die, you have saved the government some money. Or have you?
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally
-
Ah - so you are practicing being an inscrutable Hunt.
Drop all pretence of debate and just go for insults, nice.
-
sorry what could be 5%? The 1.5% in the link for spend, or the 40% figure for care you suggested and have provided no citation for? Either of them are so far away from a 5% figure that this appears to make no sense.
Forgot all the figures its irrelevant to the point I made.
-
Drop all pretence of debate and just go for insults, nice.
I'll think you'll find as with all threads we are all guilty of that at one time or another.
Let he (or she) who is without sin etc, etc.
-
But it's also about shrinking funding, isn't it? Before Blair, NHS was costing about 6% of GDP, then he raised it to 8%, now it will shrink again, so people end up lying on trollies for 12 hours. But remember, if you die, you have saved the government some money. Or have you?
Wiggi, how much of the 8% was effectively being spent on hospital-based social care, as opposed to hospital-based medical care?
-
There was certainly more care at home, funded by the local health authority; it was excellent, too.
-
I'll think you'll find as with all threads we are all guilty of that at one time or another.
Phew that makes it alright then?
Let he (or she) who is without sin etc, etc.
Sin is not a word I subscribe to however I always endeavour to play the ball not the man, I'm weak sometimes and fail however I don't make excuses with catchphrases.
-
Phew that makes it alright then?
Sin is not a word I subscribe to however I always endeavour to play the ball not the man, I'm weak sometimes and fail however I don't make excuses with catchphrases.
Well there you are then. You are obviously a better man than I am. :)
-
Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.
When people are ill, you want them to seek treatment. Keeping people away from hospital who need to be in hospital is a false economy.
-
When people are ill, you want them to seek treatment. Keeping people away from hospital who need to be in hospital is a false economy.
Its more complex than that. My solution isn't going to happen what is your solution?
-
Sassy -
Does Matron know that you are at the keyboard again?
Why not wait until your medication has taken effect before starting to type? Your very first sentence is incomprehensible.
What do you expect the closure of so many hospitals and the A&E shutting has put millions of our people at risk. Is it question? Are there words missing? It is incoherent. You then follow it with: All part of entering the EU to stop them taking advantage of the services and make it private. Who is "them"? And how does "entering the EU" stop "them" from doing ... anything?
If I knew what you are trying to say, I might devote some time to reading this, but it is incoherent. Could you please rewrite it in English?
I thought you understood the events happening at present. No one in the educated loop requires missing words. Don't worry everyone is aware you know nothing of present day events now.
-
Sass. You really need to study our history to undetstand why we became a powerful nation. Clue: it has very little to do with Christianity and a lot more to do with exploiting other nations.
As to your hysteria over the EU and the NHS get a fucking grip woman. Look at the amount invested in health per head of the population here and compare it to France, or the Netherlamds, or Germany. You"ll soon work out the real reason. Or in your case probably not. But the equation is really very simple....less money = deteriorating service.
I know my history, like i KNOW saving people from starvation whilst they allow you to mine their goods sharing the prosperity is not exploiting.
But the Countries which were part of our empire are doing alright for themselves aren't they?
As the NHS they are trying to make it collapse so you have to pay for your healthcare.
Can't believe everyone so blind. They have shut down hospitals and the News today proves that the lack of beds from those hospitals and closed A&E DEPARTMENTS means life giving operations are being delayed.
When you want to discuss facts let me know. But come out of la la land first.
-
The problem isn't the EU, Sass; rather it is the ever-growing aging population, the aging stock of hospitals and ever-growing improvements in medical technology (and its growing cost), etc.
It is all about money making... THINK! What happens when just a few hospitals remain.
Part of the problem has been the shortage of specialist staff for all the various hospitals that had sprung up, which is why it was felt thatthere ought to be fewer but potentially larger specialist centres.
I agree, both Labour and Tory parties have failed us in a whole host of areas.
Why didn't those elderly people pay into the NHS when working?
It is too many people from other countries who have brought the NHS to where it is.
Had not so many come here for free medical treatment then we would not be where we are now. And hence now you cannot get free medical treatment here any longer.
-
I know my history, like i KNOW saving people from starvation whilst they allow you to mine their goods sharing the prosperity is not exploiting.
But the Countries which were part of our empire are doing alright for themselves aren't they?
As the NHS they are trying to make it collapse so you have to pay for your healthcare.
Can't believe everyone so blind. They have shut down hospitals and the News today proves that the lack of beds from those hospitals and closed A&E DEPARTMENTS means life giving operations are being delayed.
When you want to discuss facts let me know. But come out of la la land first.
I think you need to re-read my post instead of going for the jugular every single time. Read the bit less money = deteriorating service. We aren't actually disagreeing here.
As Noam Chomsky says:
That's the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.
-
Why didn't those elderly people pay into the NHS when working?
It is too many people from other countries who have brought the NHS to where it is.
Had not so many come here for free medical treatment then we would not be where we are now. And hence now you cannot get free medical treatment here any longer.
Well, I get free medical treatment, or free at the point of need; obviously I contribute in tax towards the NHS but no-one notices the little bit taken from their pay cheque once a month which goes towards it (deletions for other things may cause some stress). I know, had I been unable to work and did not now have a pension, I would get the same treatment. Those who can contribute do and thus care for those who are unable to, that is what the welfare state is all about.
Elderly people have paid into the NHS and many continue to do so until they die, according to their income.
People from overseas pay tax the same as anyone else when they are working so it is quite fair for them to receive the same benefits as anyone else in this country.
There are many who come here for treatment from countries where there is no reciprocal arrangement, and they are charged quite heftily by the NHS for treatment which causes no complaint. Or else they go private but you would be surprised how highly the NHS is rated.
I suppose you mean refugees and asylum seekers. There are plenty of English/British people whose parents or grandparents were foreigners who came to the UK seeking refuge. Given a little time and help, they work and their descendants definitely work.
It would be inhumane to turn away people in need.
Any one of us could find ourselves in a bad situation and be glad of a helping hand, let's face it, we are all going to be ill at some time or other. How would we feel if we were rejected?
-
Why didn't those elderly people pay into the NHS when working?
It is too many people from other countries who have brought the NHS to where it is.
Had not so many come here for free medical treatment then we would not be where we are now. And hence now you cannot get free medical treatment here any longer.
Sassy,
Everyone pays into the NHS. It is funded from general taxation. There is no hypothecated tax for health services, they are paid for by income tax, by VAT, by corporation tax, by excise duties. Everyone - at some time - pays these taxes. I suspect you are thinking of National Insurance contributions - these pay for the retirement pension not the NHS. Your implication, therefore that these "elderly people" made no financial contribution to the NHS is fallacious.
The largest single demand on NHS services now comes from obesity, not foreigners. The NHS could not function without the substantial number of foreign-born people now working in its ranks.
I am becoming rather concerned about these responses from Sassy. There is a trend towards irrationality in many of them. Some of her responses are so bizarre that it can be difficult to believe they are serious. I don't think that I am really doing anything constructive by replying to them so I shall now refrain from doing so.