Fund the NHS adequately

[Mister M]

But it doesn't "just "need managing better does it.

There is no doubt room for better management,and probably less managers.

In the best companies that I have worked for there has been a little slack in the system so that there is capacity to fulfil the work required when there is an extreme load.

This is not the case in hospitals.

Wards are closed,hospitals are merged leaving some areas with inadequate cover.Ambulance workers cannot be recruited in sufficient numbers.

The demand on the NHS and social services increases year on year as people live longer,more treatments are available,growing population etc.

Those on the front line at the hospitals are constantly under stress due to lack of staff and beds.

 

They are the ones who daily have to face irate patients and relatives .

We don't train enough doctors or nurses,and what happens in the future when Brexit bites.

Jeremy Hunts latest headline grabber regarding charging health tourists,whilst right and proper,is a minor issue compared to the sum required.

Regarding taxation,if the major parties are sincere in their support of the NHS then us voters would have no choice but to either pay the extra taxation required or have a greater interest in how the existing revenue is apportioned.

 

I agree with you about the necessity for extra funding and the service being under strain.

However all those points that Lord Carter identified as how the NHS can save money (as outlined in alchresearch's post) have not been addressed by health chiefs and managers. In fact considering that the Kafkaesque layers of management is one of the issues identified as a waste of resources, it should come as no surprise that it hasn't been addressed.

I would want those issues to be dealt with promptly rather than calls for extra money, as that extra money seems to find its way to fund inefficiencies, rather than clinical services and front line care.

[RJRB]

Speak for yourself RJRB, there were also many people who did not have Final salary schemes, and are you seriously telling me that each generation will work harder and longer, when did that all change then ?

At what age do people now start their working life and at what age will they be expected to retire ?

15-65 years or 20-70 years of age = 50 years working !

Each generation will have paid in towards the NHS during their working life, unfortunately the NHS costs far more to run at current demand than however much it is funded, it's a victim of it's own success, keep people living longer and it will cost more. The alternative is euthanasia, I would consider voting for that having seen how some are kept ticking with little or no quality of life.

 

I was speaking for myself and I did say many of us.Perhaps I should have said some of us.

We can argue about the age of starting work but you cannot argue with the fact that the State Pension for men and women has increased from 65 and 60 respectively.I am sure that when I retired I was fully paid up with my NI contributions as far as pensions were concerned after 40 years.Im not sure what the current or future rules may be.

I don't disagree with any of your comments,including euthanasia.Thats probably happened to some extent for years.Perhaps less so in recent decades.

The legislation for this would be a minefield.

 

---------- Post added 08-02-2017 at 19:15 ----------

 

I agree with you about the necessity for extra funding and the service being under strain.

However all those points that Lord Carter identified as how the NHS can save money (as outlined in alchresearch's post) have not been addressed by health chiefs and managers. In fact considering that the Kafkaesque layers of management is one of the issues identified as a waste of resources, it should come as no surprise that it hasn't been addressed.

I would want those issues to be dealt with promptly rather than calls for extra money, as that extra money seems to find its way to fund inefficiencies, rather than clinical services and front line care.

 

I think that I totally agree.

1)Increase efficiency

2)Change the ratio of front line workers to managers

3) Increase funding to provide the services

[Mister M]

I was speaking for myself and I did say many of us.Perhaps I should have said some of us.

We can argue about the age of starting work but you cannot argue with the fact that the State Pension for men and women has increased from 65 and 60 respectively.I am sure that when I retired I was fully paid up with my NI contributions as far as pensions were concerned after 40 years.Im not sure what the current or future rules may be.

I don't disagree with any of your comments,including euthanasia.Thats probably happened to some extent for years.Perhaps less so in recent decades.

The legislation for this would be a minefield.

 

---------- Post added 08-02-2017 at 19:15 ----------

 

 

I think that I totally agree.

1)Increase efficiency

2)Change the ratio of front line workers to managers

3) Increase funding to provide the services

 

[the_bloke]

I agree with you about the necessity for extra funding and the service being under strain.

However all those points that Lord Carter identified as how the NHS can save money (as outlined in alchresearch's post) have not been addressed by health chiefs and managers. In fact considering that the Kafkaesque layers of management is one of the issues identified as a waste of resources, it should come as no surprise that it hasn't been addressed.

I would want those issues to be dealt with promptly rather than calls for extra money, as that extra money seems to find its way to fund inefficiencies, rather than clinical services and front line care.

 

Exactly this; how many new foyers and gender equality managers will new funds pay for?

[Anna B]

While ever we can fund a bloated House of Lords with over 800 members and an enormous House of commons with over 600 members, (one of the largest legislatures in the world,) with all the benefits, expenses and perks thereof, we should be able to fund Social services and the NHS.

 

What cuts have these spoilt, out of touch, self important, well heeled individuals had to contend with while the rest of us are suffering?

 

'We're all in this together,' remember?

 

---------- Post added 08-02-2017 at 23:16 ----------

 

While ever we can fund a bloated House of Lords with over 800 members and an enormous House of commons with over 600 members, (one of the largest legislatures in the world,) with all the benefits, expenses and perks thereof, we should be able to fund Social services and the NHS.

 

What cuts have these spoilt, out of touch, self important, well heeled individuals had to contend with while the rest of us are suffering?

 

'We're all in this together,' remember?

[Supertramp]

While ever we can fund a bloated House of Lords with over 800 members and an enormous House of commons with over 600 members, (one of the largest legislatures in the world,) with all the benefits, expenses and perks thereof, we should be able to fund Social services and the NHS.

 

What cuts have these spoilt, out of touch, self important, well heeled individuals had to contend with while the rest of us are suffering?

 

'We're all in this together,' remember?

 

---------- Post added 08-02-2017 at 23:16 ----------

 

While ever we can fund a bloated House of Lords with over 800 members and an enormous House of commons with over 600 members, (one of the largest legislatures in the world,) with all the benefits, expenses and perks thereof, we should be able to fund Social services and the NHS.

 

What cuts have these spoilt, out of touch, self important, well heeled individuals had to contend with while the rest of us are suffering?

 

'We're all in this together,' remember?

 

HOuse of Commons and House of Lords costs about £500million to run. The NHS budget is something like £120Billion, so even if you cut the cost of parliament by 50% it would mean absolutely nothing to the NHS, it's not even an extra day's budget.

[the_bloke]

I see Homerton NHS trust is advertising for a Roman Catholic Chaplain. Salary £31k to £41k pro rata.

 

Yet front line nursing staff are being cut. Why does the NHS fund things like this, when the RC church can easily do so itself?

 

What's more important, nurses to save lives or being politically correct?

[Anna B]

HOuse of Commons and House of Lords costs about £500million to run. The NHS budget is something like £120Billion, so even if you cut the cost of parliament by 50% it would mean absolutely nothing to the NHS, it's not even an extra day's budget.

 

It's the principal rather than the money that's the point here.

 

If every government department is being cut to the bone because of the financial mess we're in, then the legislature should be subject to cuts too. After that they can get stuck into the justice system, plenty of fat to trim there. And the fat cat salaries across every department, quango, advisory group, committee and working party etc. Strange how these top salary jobs always seem to survive, yet who would miss them?

 

It all adds up. Let's have a bonfire of the vanities, and see how much we can save.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Anna B

[ANGELFIRE1]

It might be uncomfortable but its in no way strange. My post was fairly hyperbolic I grant you but the basis and principle is pretty sound. The main problem with the NHS, is simply that as a nation we spend less than others. It's not in any way, as the government would have you believe, down to thousands of immigrants clogging up A&E. It's the increasing elderly that are the the main issue, particularly in terms of acute A&E admissions. The question, how do we pay for it?

 

Almost half of NHS spending is on over 65s, a proportion of spending that's increasing more than any other. I said before our ageing population is putting an extra £1.2bn/yr strain on NHS resources, larger than any other controllable factor (largest cost is actually inflation of prices and wages). Over 85s cost an average of £7k per year in NHS resources. I used the loan idea partly deliberately. That 7k is not too far shy of the cost of tuition fees for the younger generation (a cost which is imposed for only three years and is advantageous to society in general, but still they must pay) which are basically paid back as an income contingent tax of around £150/month, on average.

 

I don't personally believe that the younger generation can bear any more costs imposed on them to support the older one. We are already seeing real and significant alterations such as lower birth rates because austerity has impacted them disproportionately. Most of the under 35s will likely be working into their 70s to afford to retire, wealth in the UK has been systematically aggregated, by deliberate policy in many cases, in the generation born in the 50s and 60s. Intergenerational inequality is rising, and the most disposable income is in, you guessed it the over 65s.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/britains-millennials

 

Drug intake, alcohol consumption and unhealthy lifestyles are all decreasing in the young. The costs of alcohol abuse in particular are increasingly based again in the over 50s.

You could mention the cost of translation services if you wish, although you risk sounding a little silly. Because the cost is about £20million /yr. That's around 0.03% of the budget, a drop in the ocean.

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2017 at 23:19 ----------

 

 

Per capita spending in England is £2057. The other regions are slightly higher but nowhere near £3600. Yorkshire and Humber data seems hard to find but total public spending is only around 7k per capita.

 

 

I don't see many OAP's rolling about drunk or drugged up in Town on a Friday and Saturday night. They ALL look pretty young to my elderly eyes.

 

Angel1

[ECCOnoob]

I don't see many OAP's rolling about drunk or drugged up in Town on a Friday and Saturday night. They ALL look pretty young to my elderly eyes.

 

Angel1

 

No you dont.

 

But I do see plenty of them hitting the pubs and clubs as soon as the doors open at 11am. I do see plenty of them loitering around the public squares and parks with their cans of xxx stong cider and lager. I do see plenty of them having a little nip here, a little drop there and a couple of nightcaps before bed each and every day.

 

It all mounts up.

 

Whilst I dont disagree that the younger generation go OTT every weekend. That blowout is usually is just on the weekends.

 

Its those more mature and daily drinkers/users doing it quietly and out of sight who are just as much of concern and just as much part of the statistics.