NHS Problems

Well actually that was the inference you were supposed to draw from the post!

Sorry – it was actually sarcasm, but directed more toward politicians and not at you.

There are some of us who believe that this country cannot go on absorbing immigrants ad infinitum.

Really? You’ve never mentioned this before… (That is also sarcasm)

There are also some, who believe that it is not possible to go on funding a National Health Service without some financial limit to the way that it is currently funded. It pleases few, except the trade unions.

Ah, a unions rant.

It pleases those who could not afford to see a doctor, those who are involved in an accident and would have to prove that they had cover either before the ambulance crew would take them or when the crew are deciding which hospital to take them to, those who have – through no fault of their own – a lifelong debilitating medical problem which no insurance company would cover and which requires constant expensive medication. Would you rather that these people suffer and/or die due to a financial limit? (It is alright for you to say yes – we’ve already formed our opinions about you anyway)

Before the jackals assemble for the attack, let me make it clear that as a significant beneficiary of the NHS, I am a devoted supporter but, also a critic.

We have noticed.

Much is made of the claim that the NHS is ‘free’ at the point of delivery. It is not. It is funded by the taxpayer thru’ insurance contributions administered by the Govt.

But when you go to see you GP do you pay before your appointment? If you answer yes then either someone is being sneaky or you are not seeing an NHS GP.
In Ireland it used to cost (about four years ago) 70 Euros before you could even walk through the door, and at least the same again for a prescription. THAT is not free at the point of delivery.

Nigel’s comments were intended to encourage people to think that there might be alternative ways to fund the NHS in ways not entirely dissimiliar to the present.

Didn’t he suggest sell immigrants into slavery to fund the NHS? If he didn’t then he missed a trick…

Any suggestion like this serves only to enrage the all too powerful and dominant trade unions who now exert their brand of tyranny instead of the capitalist bosses.

The powerful and dominant capitalists would rather that the thing was privatised so that they can get their grubby fingers into the pie, complain loudly that they can’t do the job on the money the government gives them so put prices in place that they raise each year at above inflation percentages and hive off any profit for their shareholders whilst complaining that the minimum wage is still too high.

The inefficiency of State run enterprises (Jobs for life, jobs for the boys, don’t have to work too hard, just ‘clock’ in or, get someone to do it for you) versus capitalist greed with all its own excesses.

Hmm. So why not privatise the RAF? Put each section out to tender. Make it run at a profit. No? Why not?
Look at the railways; British Rail was not fantastic but it was not the joke that the current rail companies are now. Every company has a different average cost per mile which varies outrageously, usually depending on how (un)popular the service is, which would have been smoothed out with the previous nationalised rail company. The demand for a good shareholders return each year means that the carriage of freight on rails has priced itself right into the articulated’s of its main competitors on the roads.

Apart from the benefits of scale economics – buying in bulk etc. I think that the NHS should be broken down and administered in smaller self contained units. Perhaps a modern version of the cottage hospitals which were a feature of my youth. The unions wouldn’t like it because it would destroy their ’empire’. Administration would be more controllable, it would be possible to see how much actual work was done by the staff in an eight hour day. It would be easier to track wasteful duplication of labour and materials.

???
Cottage hospitals – massive duplication of staff and services would be required. Duplication like that costs money and is usually uneconomic, staff sitting around waiting for customers – sorry, clients – to walk in. Drawing in hospitals to one site meant that these services could be offered much more economically: the problem comes when the bean counters want costs cut back and ignore the fact that demand hasn’t decreased (their eye being on a nice, profitable and influential job in the city, with their CV saying that they successfully cut costs and balanced the books in the NHS and with a lovely reference as well).
As for the NHS being broken down to smaller units, surely they are already? http://www.nhs.uk/servicedirectories/pages/caretrustlisting.aspx
As for the unions having their empires ‘destroyed’…how? Like political parties unions can be localised, but the main ones are national so a nurse in a union would still be in that union wherever he/she worked in Britain.
And you would allow the staff to have eight hour days, would you? I am sure the doctors and nurses will be most appreciative, especially those currently expected to be available to work 24-36hour shifts despite what the unions have requested.

Good to see jonny g advocating a federalised NHS, i do rather agree jonny. Remove the national element other than a light co-ordination, give power to the regions, let them determine the local priorities and spend.

This echoes almost to the letter my own feelings about the NHS and which I summarised in a couple of sentences earlier. I think I am right in saying that no other health service in the developed world is funded solely by the taxpayer, and unlike ours, to an extent subsidised by a private health service which bears about 10-15% of costs which wold otherwise accrue to the NHS.

The problem is that the NHS has become more than sacrosanct. Any politician who even suggests change at the point of delivery will be pilloried. Were any governing party leader to have a sufficient majority to enact change at the point of delivery that Prime Minister would suffer such approbrium as to make the poll tax (Community Charge) protests look like a vicarage tea party. Deep reform of the NHS is vital but it is the reform that dare not speak its name!!

Re 10

There are some of us who believe that this country cannot go on absorbing immigrants ad infinitum. For obvious reasons there has to be a limit.

There are also some, who believe that it is not possible to go on funding a National Health Service without some financial limit to the way that it is currently funded. It pleases few, except the trade unions.

Before the jackals assemble for the attack, let me make it clear that as a significant beneficiary of the NHS, I am a devoted supporter but, also a critic.

Nigel Farage’s comments were suggestions that there might be other ways of administering and funding the NHS. Class warfare socialists, specialising in distortions, try to turn his comments into something else.

Much is made of the claim that the NHS is ‘free’ at the point of delivery. It is not. It is funded by the taxpayer thru’ insurance contributions administered by the Govt.

Nigel’s comments were intended to encourage people to think that there might be alternative ways to fund the NHS in ways not entirely dissimiliar to the present. Any suggestion like this serves only to enrage the all too powerful and dominant trade unions who now exert their brand of tyranny instead of the capitalist bosses.

With the NHS we have a clear demonstration of an age old problem. The inefficiency of State run enterprises (Jobs for life, jobs for the boys, don’t have to work too hard, just ‘clock’ in or, get someone to do it for you) versus capitalist greed with all its own excesses. Why are we seemingly doomed to always have one system in competition with the other, to the detriment of both ?

I admit that I’m not clear in my own mind as to the alternatives. How do other countries adminster their Health Service? France, Spain, Germany ?

I am sure about one thing. Knowing something about the limits of people to see ‘the bigger picture’, I believe our NHS is too big, too monolithic, too unwieldy. Apart from the benefits of scale economics – buying in bulk etc. I think that the NHS should be broken down and administered in smaller self contained units. Perhaps a modern version of the cottage hospitals which were a feature of my youth. The unions wouldn’t like it because it would destroy their ’empire’. Administration would be more controllable, it would be possible to see how much actual work was done by the staff in an eight hour day. It would be easier to track wasteful duplication of labour and materials.

Well actually that was the inference you were supposed to draw from the post!

But he can change his mind, can’t he Charlie? After all, that is exactly what proper politicians quietly do whenever convenient (and hope that no one remembers what they had previously promised…).

“The Ukip chief insists that he and his party are against privatising the health service and are fighting next week’s Rochester & Strood by-election promising to protect it.

But Mr Farage was left red-faced when footage of him saying he would feel more “comfortable” if Britain’s healthcare system was opened up to the “marketplace” emerged today.

Health unions and Labour MPs accused him of secretly plotting the end of the NHS.

Speaking to UKIP supporters just two years ago Mr Farage said: “I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare.

“Frankly, I would feel more comfortable that my money would return value if I was able to do that through the marketplace of an insurance company, than just us trustingly giving £100billion a year to central government and expecting them to organise the healthcare service from cradle to grave for us.”

The UKIP leader made the remarks, which surfaced in a video published by the Guardian, on his 2012 “Common Sense” tour of the country.”

At variance with his public statements about the NHS but of course he’s hardly likely to go into an election announcing the end of free at the point of use, is he?

Re 5

Interesting ! Source please?

6 & 7

The jackals are gathering….

Hmm, Food for thought…. BUT “THEY” say that Westminister is in need of urgent repairs….Cost,??? Just a mere three BILLION GB Pounds, Must be nice to throw that sort of money, just to keep the chosen few in comfort, and as Kev stated, to keep some in the House of Lords, warm and cozy, so they cam fall asleep, Nice work if you can get it.:apologetic:
Jim.
Lincoln .7

He has indeed, Moggy, and some of his other policies are instructive.

Sage words from the mogster………..

Well don’t forget that Mr Farage has plans to put the whole NHS onto a private insurance basis, so if he has any say everything will be hunky dory.

Moggy

Kev

I think it fair to say that at the time Beveridge envisaged the NHS as it then was there was no conception of what it has become over the last 70 years, in terms of the demands on its resources.

Free at the point of use is simply no longer a viable basis for its existance. After all we have been paying for drugs and dentistry for many years and they are as much a part of health care as a visit to the doctor. Free only for those of pensionable age and those on benefits must be considered along with wholesale reform of its management and organisation.

John is, as always, particularly brutal and forthright in his views, but he is correct. I recently removed my own Father from a short term care situation as it was clear that he was not receiving the level of care required (or promised) and that he would be better returning home with a care package. I brought him home against the advice of the unit he was staying it and it’s a good job I did. Medical professionals, are, largely speaking, exactly that – professional. But bed blocking is nothing new.

One thing I will disagree with John about is his last sentence. If you are being treated by the NHS then there should be no need for any cost, be it for another opinion or for any equipment recurred. Treatment was stated when the NHS was founded to be free at the point of delivery. That is no longer the case. The NHS IS by definition a bottomless pit and until this and successive Governments realise that and cater for it accordingly things will slide further toward privatisation and a three or four tier health care system.

I feel for the plight of the poor and oppressed in other Countries but, and it is a big but, I feel more for the plight of the people in the UK who are suffering deprivation. Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that those who decide the level of the minimum wage are being paid at least five times that? Or that the members of the House of Lords are paid £300 a day for their attendance (in many cases to doze off)?

A huge rethink is required into how this Country is run. Society is accountable for its actions and has responsibilities. The same should be true of those who are in control of society.

But what does it matter? Our elected representatives really do fiddle while the house is burning down around them. Because of the attitudes displayed by our political masters there is wholesale apathy amongst the population.

Not that any of it matters.

Regards,

kev35

I can’t quite understand exactly why it is that relatives appear to be in thrall to medical professionals. For Heaven’s sake, use your common sense. If you’re told the patient is fit to go home then take them home, don’t wait for PERMISSIOM !

You don’t need permission. You will be attending to your relatives needs from a sense of love as well as compassion. Medical professionals however competant will be acting PERHAPS with compassion but more certainly because they are paid to do so.

If doubt about the situation continues and the relatives of the patient cannot decide, then pay for an independent opinion.