|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 11, 2024 7:28:30 GMT
How are you measuring that? But as the link showed - countries that spent less had better outcomes. Performance is not based simply on the amount spent.Indeed. But neither can it honestly be said that the amount spent if spent properly wouldn't make a difference. Of course it would. It did in the Blair years for example. Yes - but there is the rub. We were discussing the other day an NHS trust sending staff on a jolly to Las Vegas - last year another NHS trust decided to pay reparations for slavery - every NHS trust in the country employs a DEI department - plus the painting of rainbows on everything etc etc. Perhaps if the NHS could show that they spend any funds properly first rather than simply be showered with more in the hope that something might change.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jan 11, 2024 7:34:54 GMT
The NHS has been an ideological football on both left and right, and in consequence has been repeatedly reorganised to death by successive governments, with reforms informed more by ideological assumptions rather than pragmatism. The right automatically assumes that any increase in marketisation and private sector involvement will automatically make things better and cost less. The left automatically assumes it will make things worse and cost more and that the way to make things work better is to bring as much in house as possible to remove the private sector as much as possible. Both standpoints are at heart driven by ideology rather than pragmatism, one side taking for granted that private is good and public bad, whilst the other takes the exact opposite for granted. Most of us, including me, have tended to do this. I think we all need to move away from ideological assumptions of this kind and figure out exactly what we want from our NHS which for most of us is surely a health service that is free at the point of use, where public health and saving lives and making injured or sick people better is the primary aim, and we want this to be done effectively and within a reasonable time frame, as cost effectively as possible. We need to determine what exactly is wrong with the NHS and it is likely to be many things, and how to fix them and what resources are likely to be necessary and how this is to be paid for. And the fixing that needs to be done to have any hope of working needs to be free of ideological assumptions that private is always better or private is always worse. We also need to carry public support for any necessary reforms, which means we need to take account of what the public will accept and what it won't. Public opinion for example is largely opposed to any compulsory insurance based funding model, familiar as we all are with the tendency of insurers to seek to avoid paying out by resorting to dodgy clauses in the small print. And we would all be just one progressive condition diagnosis away from insurance costs going through the roof. What works and what the public wants from it is more important than using it as a testing ground for public versus private ideological experiments. The ideological part is exactly what happens with every thread I have ever seen about the NHS, it only ever ends up the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 11, 2024 7:48:27 GMT
and if anyone expects the NHS to improve under Labour - Labour have run the NHS in Wales for the past 25 years..
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 11, 2024 9:03:45 GMT
and if anyone expects the NHS to improve under Labour - Labour have run the NHS in Wales for the past 25 years.. Insinuation is a very powerful dishonest weapon as used by the Tories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2024 10:57:52 GMT
Indeed. But neither can it honestly be said that the amount spent if spent properly wouldn't make a difference. Of course it would. It did in the Blair years for example. Yes - but there is the rub. We were discussing the other day an NHS trust sending staff on a jolly to Las Vegas - last year another NHS trust decided to pay reparations for slavery - every NHS trust in the country employs a DEI department - plus the painting of rainbows on everything etc etc. Perhaps if the NHS could show that they spend any funds properly first rather than simply be showered with more in the hope that something might change. I agrre that sometimes some parts of it seem willing to spend money on some stupid things, which we do need to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 11, 2024 18:25:49 GMT
Apparently by the year 2040 and without significant reform, the NHS will cost the entire government budget. Quite clearly that wont be allowed to happen, some form of privatisation is inevitable. There are other models that work, not necessarily full privatisation but the government should be exploring other options now.
And here's a prediction, in a future NHS and that includes GP services, lifestyle will become a factor. If you smoke, drink alcohol, eat unhealthy food or are overweight, you will be penalised in some way. Trust me it's comming.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jan 11, 2024 18:56:26 GMT
Could they not do sponsorship tattoos?
Like
"New hip provided in Association with Bristol Street Motors"?
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Jan 11, 2024 19:14:14 GMT
Yes - but there is the rub. We were discussing the other day an NHS trust sending staff on a jolly to Las Vegas - last year another NHS trust decided to pay reparations for slavery - every NHS trust in the country employs a DEI department - plus the painting of rainbows on everything etc etc. Perhaps if the NHS could show that they spend any funds properly first rather than simply be showered with more in the hope that something might change. I agrre that sometimes some parts of it seem willing to spend money on some stupid things, which we do need to stop. I bloody hate these nested quotes! But, if you can follow the exchange above, I agree with both parties. The issue is quality of care. In Defence Medical Services, we were charged with delivering NHS-equivalent care, anywhere in the world, usually in tents. In Bosnia, for example, as OC Surgical Troop I was coordinating and delivering care in excess of what the NHS could manage in temporary structures erected inside an abandoned factory complex, whilst also providing the staff (including myself) for our air ambulance (what some may remember as 'MERT'). And we had no EDI officers to 'help' us. Referring back to my comments about the Thatcher legacy of New Public Management, the problem is that when you bring in commercially-minded 'suits', with their shiny MBAs, to replace traditional hospital management, they want to run the place not only like a business in terms of conduct, but also in terms of it's physicality. If you go to many a hospital these days (I'm personally thinking of places I know, like James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough, the QE in Birmingham, the John Radcliffe in Oxford or Kings College Hospital in Saarrfff London), you could be forgiven for thinking you'd walked into the corporate headquarters of a multinational company, rather than a hospital. It's all very nice...but wouldn't that money have been better spent on actual care delivery? As a clinician and, I suppose, as a prospective patient, I don't give a shit how swish the place is, I just want to be confident that the care is top quality.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 11, 2024 19:23:22 GMT
How are you measuring that? But as the link showed - countries that spent less had better outcomes. Performance is not based simply on the amount spent.Indeed. But neither can it honestly be said that the amount spent if spent properly wouldn't make a difference. Of course it would. It did in the Blair years for example. It did in the Blair years for example.
Really? Are you asserting that health outcomes in cardiac/cancers etc (what the NHS is supposed to do ie cure patients of their illnesses/diseases/conditions) improved dramatically in the league tables during the Blair administration and have declined in the league tables rapidly thereafter? If so verifiable examples please If you are not suggesting this then are you going to go off half cocked about spending/staff happiness and other such irrelevance when health outcomes are so poor
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 11, 2024 19:25:09 GMT
Apparently by the year 2040 and without significant reform, the NHS will cost the entire government budget. Quite clearly that wont be allowed to happen, some form of privatisation is inevitable. There are other models that work, not necessarily full privatisation but the government should be exploring other options now. And here's a prediction, in a future NHS and that includes GP services, lifestyle will become a factor. If you smoke, drink alcohol, eat unhealthy food or are overweight, you will be penalised in some way. Trust me it's comming. Starmer wants to introduce supervised tooth brushing in schools as a health lifestyle issue
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 11, 2024 19:27:24 GMT
Apparently by the year 2040 and without significant reform, the NHS will cost the entire government budget. Quite clearly that wont be allowed to happen, some form of privatisation is inevitable. There are other models that work, not necessarily full privatisation but the government should be exploring other options now. And here's a prediction, in a future NHS and that includes GP services, lifestyle will become a factor. If you smoke, drink alcohol, eat unhealthy food or are overweight, you will be penalised in some way. Trust me it's comming. Starmer wants to introduce supervised tooth brushing in schools as a health lifestyle issue I remember that back in the 1960's.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 11, 2024 19:36:30 GMT
Could they not do sponsorship tattoos? Like "New hip provided in Association with Bristol Street Motors"? LOL, although I shouldn't laugh. Madder things happen. I don't understand this modern fascination with tattoos. Young men covered in tattoos are bad enough, but who the hell told attractive young woman that covering themselves in tattoos is a good look? Kids don't seem to understand that tattoos may be trendy when they're 20, but they wont look nearly as trendy when they're 50. Tattoos are like pets, they're not just for Christmas...
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 11, 2024 22:46:02 GMT
Apparently by the year 2040 and without significant reform, the NHS will cost the entire government budget. Quite clearly that wont be allowed to happen, some form of privatisation is inevitable. There are other models that work, not necessarily full privatisation but the government should be exploring other options now. And here's a prediction, in a future NHS and that includes GP services, lifestyle will become a factor. If you smoke, drink alcohol, eat unhealthy food or are overweight, you will be penalised in some way. Trust me it's comming. Starmer wants to introduce supervised tooth brushing in schools as a health lifestyle issue Yes this puzzled me. In past years, if a parent was unable to look after the health and welfare of their child that child was taken into care - now Labour are proposing that it is an issue for the school to sort out... Personally I'd rather the Schools stick to Education and Social Services stick to child welfare
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 11, 2024 23:55:59 GMT
Starmer wants to introduce supervised tooth brushing in schools as a health lifestyle issue Yes this puzzled me. In past years, if a parent was unable to look after the health and welfare of their child that child was taken into care - now Labour are proposing that it is an issue for the school to sort out... Personally I'd rather the Schools stick to Education and Social Services stick to child welfare Well of course to the detriment of the family unit, times have changed. As an infant, 5 or 6 probably, I remember someone coming into the classroom and showing us how to brush our teeth, this would be... 1965 ish. [Labour government lol] I distinctly remember her going through the motions of brushing her teeth as we mimicked her, she gave everyone a toothbrush and left. She was dressed like a nurse so we assumed she was a nurse. This wasn't in some impoverished inner city slum btw, this was in a very rural area, OK not wealthy but certainly not impoverished. This sort of thing was normal for the time. Anyhoo, it wasn't a big deal. Mum used to sit on the edge of the bath and show us how to brush our teeth. She did this because it's what mothers do, or used to do. Another thing was the 'nit nurse'. I remember at school, again at infant school, the nit nurse inspecting our heads for nits. I listened to a political commentator today who said the nit nurse was banned because 'young people' [5 and 6 year olds] found it embarrassing. And this is the problem, we allow stupid left wing touchy feely people to dictate policy.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 12, 2024 15:56:53 GMT
Indeed. But neither can it honestly be said that the amount spent if spent properly wouldn't make a difference. Of course it would. It did in the Blair years for example. It did in the Blair years for example.
Really? Are you asserting that health outcomes in cardiac/cancers etc (what the NHS is supposed to do ie cure patients of their illnesses/diseases/conditions) improved dramatically in the league tables during the Blair administration and have declined in the league tables rapidly thereafter? If so verifiable examples please If you are not suggesting this then are you going to go off half cocked about spending/staff happiness and other such irrelevance when health outcomes are so poor Clearly you don't know the results that you are asking for, perhaps you have an equal responsibility to do the research? One thing people would have been aware of but for some silly woman complaining about the state of a cancer ward that NL inherited from the Tories which allowed the cameras to concentrate on her and her grumble instead of of showing the brand new Cardiac Centre "equal to anything in Europe" that Blair and the cameras were there for. I have never researched the rise and or fall of cardiac or cancer operations, but I do recall that cancer outcomes improved slightly in terms of survival after treatment. I also recall NL sending people into the private sector, including sending some to France where there were no waiting lists for knee or hip replacement. They did this to reduce the long waiting lists for such ops in this country, all paid for by the NHS.
|
|