Is Our NHS in Safe Hands?

[Delayed 464]

41 minutes ago, Anna B said:

What this duplicitous government say they'll do and what they actually do are two separate things.

 

Saying they are going to do a and b is a perfect cover for doing x, y, and z.

Like any other government? It's not just Conservatives that lie. Politicians lie 

[lottiecass 17]

28 minutes ago, Resident said:

Whilst I'm not in favour of an insurance based system, the NHS as it is needs to go. 

 

It is rife with corruption from the top levels who are always crying that it's underfunded, whilst paying themselves hundreds of  thousands in salary & countless thousands in bonuses, despite not achieving anything. 

These bosses also refuse to look at alternative suppliers for anything. 

 

Recently the NHS have been begging patients to supply their own paracetamol/ibuprofen meds because they're cheaper at retailer outlets than the NHS is paying. The NHS pays around 1600% for the same paracetamol you or I do at Tescos. 

 

One trust not too far from Sheffield spent 2.7 million kitting out a research facility only to dump everything 18mths later and starting another 2.7 million build a few hundred yards away 18 months later because the building owners wanted to increase lease costs (discounted below inflation & reasonable) 

 

NONE of the equipment, which was perfectly serviceable was taken to the new facility. It was binned. 

 

I stalwartly state that the NHS bosses are feeding us lies when they state it's underfunded, at least to the level they claim. Most of the shortfall is due to it's archaic spending methods, refusing to change suplliers. 

I will even go as far as to make the allegation that the reason why bosses won't switch suplliers and pay these extortionate prices is that they have interests in the supplying companies and get paid massive dividends from them. 

I agree with you on this, the nhs needs an overhaul and the management needs it now. 

[RiffRaff 10]

My recent experience of the NHS - in particular, the Northern General - was that my mother-in-law was admitted to one of the Firth wards about two months ago, for (what turned out to be) a three week visit.

We were asked to bring her supply of Betnovate from home as the hospital didn't have any...

[alchresearch 214]

58 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

If you want to know about bureaucracy in the NHS, go into the bathroom in a hospital and note the signs on the wall. Look for the one that says 'Please Wash Your Hands' and you'll spot a trust logo and possibly a document reference and version number on it. It will likely even have a review date on it.

Its the same with computers.  They buy new from HP, get a three year warranty on them and them dispose of them at scrap value in year two.

 

These computers are picked up for literally pennies from dozens of refurbishing companies who then sell them for hundreds.

 

Surely there could be some government enterprise who could take these computers instead?

[bendix 10]

19 minutes ago, RiffRaff said:

My recent experience of the NHS - in particular, the Northern General - was that my mother-in-law was admitted to one of the Firth wards about two months ago, for (what turned out to be) a three week visit.

We were asked to bring her supply of Betnovate from home as the hospital didn't have any...

 

 

I've only ever used the NHS once in my life, last year when I snapped a tendon connecting my bicep to my forearm.    It's an operation that needs to happen within two weeks, or it is irrepairable.

 

I went to my private provider first, who arsed around for a week or so.  In the end i went to Northern General.  They had me in two days later (with the same surgeon who would have done it privately as it turns out), and I was in and out in hours.

 

Brilliant service.

[melthebell 863]

2 hours ago, bendix said:

I genuinely have no idea what this tired cliche 'privatising the NHS' means.  It's trotted out by the usual suspects, but noone ever goes into any detail.

 

Every single drug or pill that you receive comes from the private sector, or do you think the government has moved into the pharma sector in recent years.  Successive governments have successfully negotiated prices with (predominantly) US manufacturers to keep prices down, so much so that US drug prices are much higher as a result.

 

 

 

exactly and do you know what? one word...brexit

 

Looking at Trumps US of A and how its treated trade and in particular Canada and China shows it cant be trusted, we after brexit will be looking for a trade deal with the biggest trader in the world, The US, Trump says a great new deal...great for who? us? doubt it, the US? of course, hes already stated trade partners are taking the US for granted and the US should be getting a better deal with countries through trade.  so watch the prices of those meds by the big US pharmaceutical companies rise.

Edited December 19, 2019 by melthebell

[DerbyTup 10]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

You didn't bother to watch it then. . . . 

Oh no I saw it.  Corbyn stated it was a plan to sell off our NHS to the Americans, which is a gross misrepresentation of what those documents state.  There have been a series of talks between the US and America in which the NHS was discussed.  It was stated that the UK delegation expects the key areas that the US will push in trade talks relate to drug patents and NHS access to generic (i.e. "less expensive") drugs.  Neither of those things equate to "selling off the NHS to the Americans".   

 

It's an old political trick of course (and all parties do it).  Say something enough times and folks start to believe it - it takes on a life of it's own.  A bit like those "urban myths" that start with some far-fetched tale and become ingrained as fact in some people's minds.  

 

I'm with The Bloke and L00b on this, in so much as I believe some degree of privatisation would be helpful.   

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by DerbyTup

[DerbyTup 10]

6 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Or is it just being misused?

 

Almost a quarter of ambulance calls are not emergencies - with one man calling 999 with a hangover

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/18046637.almost-quarter-ambulance-calls-not-emergencies---one-man-calling-999-hangover/

 

In the North west its a third.

 

A&E attendances are just as bad, and will no doubt be even worse tomorrow with "Mad Friday" drunken antics.

 

I think it's that as well alchresearch.  But the major issues are that the model it was designed to fit is not the model we have today. 

 

When the NHS was introduced in 1948,  it was considered to be "cradle to grave" free healthcare.  The population was 50 million and life expectancy was 66 years for men and 71 for women.  Today's population is 66 million and life expectancy is 79 for men and 83 for women.  In other words, there are more people drawing on it now and for longer.    Medical interventions have advanced considerably and people  are living healthier lifestyles than back then.  So they aren't dying as young as they once did - and that's expensive!  

 

Another factor though is the mismanagement of funds within the NHS.  It's a bit like a bucket with a hole in it, no matter how much you fill it up it still leaks out of the bottom, because it's not managed effectively.  

 

There have been attempts to run it more like a business.  Which, I agree with to an extent, but the problem is, it isn't a business as such and can never be fully operated like one (heaven forbid!).  But it could be managed more effectively from within.  

 

Regarding A&E attendances,  they are increasing year on year.  Part of the reason for that is incapacity in the system overall, including community and social care.  Some of it is also down to more cumbersome processes, which take more time to administrate and therefore further impact on capacity.  

 

It's a pretty complex thing is the NHS!  There's no one thing, including increased funding, that is going to solve all the issues.  It's also very emotional for Brits as well, there's a feeling of "entitlement" to free health care - and that's perfectly understandable but in reality some degree of privatisation, funded through insurance schemes, is part of the solution.  

[Anna B 1,414]

5 hours ago, DerbyTup said:

Oh no I saw it.  Corbyn stated it was a plan to sell off our NHS to the Americans, which is a gross misrepresentation of what those documents state.  There have been a series of talks between the US and America in which the NHS was discussed.  It was stated that the UK delegation expects the key areas that the US will push in trade talks relate to drug patents and NHS access to generic (i.e. "less expensive") drugs.  Neither of those things equate to "selling off the NHS to the Americans".   

 

It's an old political trick of course (and all parties do it).  Say something enough times and folks start to believe it - it takes on a life of it's own.  A bit like those "urban myths" that start with some far-fetched tale and become ingrained as fact in some people's minds.  

 

I'm with The Bloke and L00b on this, in so much as I believe some degree of privatisation would be helpful.   

 

Corbyn wasn't in it.

 

It used to be that the private and NHS worked side by side often in the same hospital.  All the profit that was made from private patients was ploughed back into the NHS to subsidise it. It worked quite well. 

 

Now the private side supports shareholders not the NHS, and takes money and expertise out of the NHS rather than put it in.

 

Take the proposed 'GP on Hand' (a phone app for GP consultations.) Matt Hancock (Health minister) is a big fan. It attracts young people, (ie under 35s) in the London area and south east. You have to join and it's quite expensive, you are then taken off the NHS GPs register, so they lose funding for every one that joins . The older patient, perhaps less trusting of apps, don't like it and stay with their NHS GP. But it's the  older patients who tend to need more treatment and are therefore more time consuming and expensive, but the GPs practice has less money. Some consultations are done by robots not doctors. Independent trials also found out that phone consultations are not as safe and reliable, but the Babylon company claims they are 100%. They got this result by using a very small cohort of patients, all young and with obvious ailments to pass the test and be able to make the claim. When faced with genuine, more complex cases they fell well short. You can guess which set of statistics they use in their advertising. 

 

Just one example of privatisation. Hancock wants to roll this out nationwide at great expense, but it will starve the NHS of funds. Is that a good idea?

[*_ash_* 88]

This is like groundhog day.

 

Why not just resurrect the same thread from the last election, or the one before, or the one before that? It's all the same posts Anna.

 

 

[onewheeldave 22]

Management consultants are another big drain on the NHS

 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/nhs-wasting-millions-management-consultants-1243088

[lottiecass 17]

21 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Corbyn wasn't in it.

 

It used to be that the private and NHS worked side by side often in the same hospital.  All the profit that was made from private patients was ploughed back into the NHS to subsidise it. It worked quite well. 

 

Now the private side supports shareholders not the NHS, and takes money and expertise out of the NHS rather than put it in.

 

Take the proposed 'GP on Hand' (a phone app for GP consultations.) Matt Hancock (Health minister) is a big fan. It attracts young people, (ie under 35s) in the London area and south east. You have to join and it's quite expensive, you are then taken off the NHS GPs register, so they lose funding for every one that joins . The older patient, perhaps less trusting of apps, don't like it and stay with their NHS GP. But it's the  older patients who tend to need more treatment and are therefore more time consuming and expensive, but the GPs practice has less money. Some consultations are done by robots not doctors. Independent trials also found out that phone consultations are not as safe and reliable, but the Babylon company claims they are 100%. They got this result by using a very small cohort of patients, all young and with obvious ailments to pass the test and be able to make the claim. When faced with genuine, more complex cases they fell well short. You can guess which set of statistics they use in their advertising. 

 

Just one example of privatisation. Hancock wants to roll this out nationwide at great expense, but it will starve the NHS of funds. Is that a good idea?

But that's down to personal choice, it's not being forced on anybody. There's plenty of private patients already who pay into health insurance, again by choice.

8 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Management consultants are another big drain on the NHS

 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/nhs-wasting-millions-management-consultants-1243088

Yes dave, that's one of the factors that needs looking into, the sooner the better.