Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 16:18:50 GMT
As usual, you don't think things through do you. You want some watered up bloke to pay. I assume you are thinking it's because whatever the problem our watered up bloke has, it's his own fault. Does that also apply to the bloke who hurts himself doing DIY? Should he have employed a professional? What about the bloke who breaks his leg playing football on a Saturday afternoon? Is it his fault as he didn't really need to be playing football, especially with the risk of injury playing sports bring? The same for Rugby, Cricket etc? What if you make a mistake resulting in a car crash where you get injured? Is that your fault, do you have to pay? You step out into the road and get hit by a car, is that your fault and do you have to pay? The list is endless isn't it? "The real debate is "Right, what's the max we can afford and need to spend, what cant we cover" - With the NHS, the taxpayer in the UK has no idea as to how much they pay towards it, so working out how much 'we can afford' will never work. Once again I'll ask, why does nobody question the NHS Trusts as to how they spend the money? THEY are the ones who should be in the public eye answering questions. In defence of politicians (and I never thought I'd write that!) they basically just stump up the cash. How it is allocated and spent is down to the Trusts in reality. Thought it through. A watered up bloke who gets hurt or I'll because he is a prat for doing that, yes make the prat pay. DIY, it's an accident. As for the trusts, most of them are in deficit, and not because of nefarious intent. No the issue is the NHS is underfunded. OK, so you're happy just to throw more money at it then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:24:53 GMT
Thought it through. A watered up bloke who gets hurt or I'll because he is a prat for doing that, yes make the prat pay. DIY, it's an accident. As for the trusts, most of them are in deficit, and not because of nefarious intent. No the issue is the NHS is underfunded. OK, so you're happy just to throw more money at it then. Nope I am happy, indeed demand, we commit the same level of financing as our peers. Then we set the priorities and the targets. What we shouldn't do is pretend we can do everything and lie to the public, saying we can. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:35:06 GMT
OK, so you're happy just to throw more money at it then. Nope I am happy, indeed demand, we commit the same level of financing as our peers. Then we set the priorities and the targets. What we shouldn't do is pretend we can do everything and lie to the public, saying we can. Um...err...shouldn't that be the other way round. Set your priorities and targets first, which will then let you know how much you need to spend? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:37:43 GMT
Nope I am happy, indeed demand, we commit the same level of financing as our peers. Then we set the priorities and the targets. What we shouldn't do is pretend we can do everything and lie to the public, saying we can. Um...err...shouldn't that be the other way round. Set your priorities and targets first, which will then let you know how much you need to spend? Jesus Christ Nobby That would be true if current funding was meeting set standards and demand. It's not. Get that right and then we can plan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:49:21 GMT
Um...err...shouldn't that be the other way round. Set your priorities and targets first, which will then let you know how much you need to spend? Jesus Christ Nobby That would be true if current funding was meeting set standards and demand. It's not. Get that right and then we can plan. So, throw money at the problem first, and then plan. Righty ho. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 20:56:56 GMT
Jesus Christ Nobby That would be true if current funding was meeting set standards and demand. It's not. Get that right and then we can plan. So, throw money at the problem first, and then plan. Righty ho. Your word and assumption. Helping people like the person quoted on R4 this morning who went blind waiting on a list for treatment that would have prevented that outcome. Money now. Re read the good officer's quotes where he tells us we are down to 30th on the rankings of some outcomes. Money now. If you are happy with those outcomes, which you appear to be, then sure, you are instantly recognisable as a Tory. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 22:58:42 GMT
So, throw money at the problem first, and then plan. Righty ho. Your word and assumption. Helping people like the person quoted on R4 this morning who went blind waiting on a list for treatment that would have prevented that outcome. Money now. Re read the good officer's quotes where he tells us we are down to 30th on the rankings of some outcomes. Money now. If you are happy with those outcomes, which you appear to be, then sure, you are instantly recognisable as a Tory. No, I'm not happy with the way the NHS performs. Is the NHS the 30th funded on this list? Probably not, so once again, why isn't the NHS performing as it should? If countries with far lower levels of spending are out-performing them? The obvious answer is that it's not the money is it! |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 13, 2019 23:33:36 GMT
As opposed to deflection. The question was the cost and whether expats were included. The cost is very nominal in terms of overall NHS cost and accurate figures are difficult to obtain. I would be interested in the Good Officer's opinion and the BMA seem to think it isn't helping when discussing health tourism against the NHS problems. When I pointed out that the tax exiles take more money from the UK it was described as "a rabid witchhunt". Then further deflection by saying it takes bed spaces. The question first put by the officer was should the NHS be privatised. The health tourism part is just a small example of where savings can be made. Also, if you read that article from the Telegraph you'll see that health tourism is not some made-up problem. It costs the NHS money and the resources of medical staff and beds. If you want to ignore something that a very rough judgement says costs 350 million quid, then what else are you prepared to ignore? I'm not proposing we ignore anything. The figures previously posted about health spending were per person and people per 1000 beds and doctors, which makes the comparing valid. It didn't state how it was funded or whether it was private or State run so that doesn't factor in the point raised. As for the health tourism, it was Eric who brought up the issue. I was asking whether we were concentrating on the right problem as the cost is dwarfed by the funding shortfall as per the BMA. Health tourism is based on where the patient lives so expats returning also adds to it, so not always a case of foreigners using the system which is implicit in some of the media coverage. With regards to funding, I was listening to an NHS exec on TV earlier. The average annual growth in real terms is 3.7% pa. The current Conservative plan is 3.4% while Labour's plan will take it to 4% (his figures, not mine) and 4% is where structural changes can be implemented as it gives sufficient headroom, below that and it stays as a 'hand to mouth' problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 9:30:59 GMT
The question first put by the officer was should the NHS be privatised. The health tourism part is just a small example of where savings can be made. Also, if you read that article from the Telegraph you'll see that health tourism is not some made-up problem. It costs the NHS money and the resources of medical staff and beds. If you want to ignore something that a very rough judgement says costs 350 million quid, then what else are you prepared to ignore? I'm not proposing we ignore anything. The figures previously posted about health spending were per person and people per 1000 beds and doctors, which makes the comparing valid. It didn't state how it was funded or whether it was private or State run so that doesn't factor in the point raised. As for the health tourism, it was Eric who brought up the issue. I was asking whether we were concentrating on the right problem as the cost is dwarfed by the funding shortfall as per the BMA. Health tourism is based on where the patient lives so expats returning also adds to it, so not always a case of foreigners using the system which is implicit in some of the media coverage. With regards to funding, I was listening to an NHS exec on TV earlier. The average annual growth in real terms is 3.7% pa. The current Conservative plan is 3.4% while Labour's plan will take it to 4% (his figures, not mine) and 4% is where structural changes can be implemented as it gives sufficient headroom, below that and it stays as a 'hand to mouth' problem. Precisely, again stats which back up the point that we need to budget for a "reset" as well as plan for what we want from that service. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 14, 2019 18:54:03 GMT
This is apropo of nothing, but I'll bore you with it anyway.
A few months ago I got bitten by a dog. A little bite that bled a teeny bit for 10 seconds.
I ignored it until someone screamed INFECTION! at me. I checked the NHS website and they said I must get myself down to A&E pronto.
So I did. I saw waiting times were 3 hours. Oh well.
After 2 hours, someone announced "Number 52 for Triage". That was me! Result, I thought.
So I went to see a male nurse, who inspected my wound and said he didn't think it was serious, but might need cleaning.
OK, I thought. Please clean it, and thank you.
But no. He said "I'll pass you on to the A&E nurse, who will clean it. It's a 2 hour wait."
So I waited a total of 4 hours for a nurse to waft a wet wipe over my scratch.
The first nurse could have done that, saving 2 hours for me and a member of staff for the NHS.
And we moan that A&E waiting times are long. Now I know why. The first nurse was screening out time wasters, perhaps, to save the queues, but in fact the system has the effect of virtually doubling the queues and the cost of staff.
I am a big big fan our NHS and how it is funded, but if A&E is commonly run this way, it needs to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 19:18:29 GMT
This is apropo of nothing, but I'll bore you with it anyway. A few months ago I got bitten by a dog. A little bite that bled a teeny bit for 10 seconds. I ignored it until someone screamed INFECTION! at me. I checked the NHS website and they said I must get myself down to A&E pronto. So I did. I saw waiting times were 3 hours. Oh well. After 2 hours, someone announced "Number 52 for Triage". That was me! Result, I thought. So I went to see a male nurse, who inspected my wound and said he didn't think it was serious, but might need cleaning. OK, I thought. Please clean it, and thank you. But no. He said "I'll pass you on to the A&E nurse, who will clean it. It's a 2 hour wait." So I waited a total of 4 hours for a nurse to waft a wet wipe over my scratch. The first nurse could have done that, saving 2 hours for me and a member of staff for the NHS. And we moan that A&E waiting times are long. Now I know why. The first nurse was screening out time wasters, perhaps, to save the queues, but in fact the system has the effect of virtually doubling the queues and the cost of staff. I am a big big fan our NHS and how it is funded, but if A&E is commonly run this way, it needs to change. I bet you regret going to Chasers now |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 14, 2019 19:49:44 GMT
This is apropo of nothing, but I'll bore you with it anyway. A few months ago I got bitten by a dog. A little bite that bled a teeny bit for 10 seconds. I ignored it until someone screamed INFECTION! at me. I checked the NHS website and they said I must get myself down to A&E pronto. So I did. I saw waiting times were 3 hours. Oh well. After 2 hours, someone announced "Number 52 for Triage". That was me! Result, I thought. So I went to see a male nurse, who inspected my wound and said he didn't think it was serious, but might need cleaning. OK, I thought. Please clean it, and thank you. But no. He said "I'll pass you on to the A&E nurse, who will clean it. It's a 2 hour wait." So I waited a total of 4 hours for a nurse to waft a wet wipe over my scratch. The first nurse could have done that, saving 2 hours for me and a member of staff for the NHS. And we moan that A&E waiting times are long. Now I know why. The first nurse was screening out time wasters, perhaps, to save the queues, but in fact the system has the effect of virtually doubling the queues and the cost of staff. I am a big big fan our NHS and how it is funded, but if A&E is commonly run this way, it needs to change. Almost every acute health service in existence has a triage system to prioritise patients that walk through the door based on clinical need. If that nurse had spent time dressing your wound, a heart attack that walks through the door does not get quickly triaged. Yes, they can screen timewasters but they actually are there to screen everyone and prioritise them accordingly. Its an essential aspect. Your minor wound would have been better dealt with at a walk in centre or minor injuries unit. The NHS website suggests as much as below: Minor bites can be treated at your GP surgery, or by staff at your local walk-in centre or minor injuries unit. For particularly severe bites, visit your local A&E department. |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 16, 2019 10:34:24 GMT
This is apropo of nothing, but I'll bore you with it anyway. A few months ago I got bitten by a dog. A little bite that bled a teeny bit for 10 seconds. I ignored it until someone screamed INFECTION! at me. I checked the NHS website and they said I must get myself down to A&E pronto. So I did. I saw waiting times were 3 hours. Oh well. After 2 hours, someone announced "Number 52 for Triage". That was me! Result, I thought. So I went to see a male nurse, who inspected my wound and said he didn't think it was serious, but might need cleaning. OK, I thought. Please clean it, and thank you. But no. He said "I'll pass you on to the A&E nurse, who will clean it. It's a 2 hour wait." So I waited a total of 4 hours for a nurse to waft a wet wipe over my scratch. The first nurse could have done that, saving 2 hours for me and a member of staff for the NHS. And we moan that A&E waiting times are long. Now I know why. The first nurse was screening out time wasters, perhaps, to save the queues, but in fact the system has the effect of virtually doubling the queues and the cost of staff. I am a big big fan our NHS and how it is funded, but if A&E is commonly run this way, it needs to change. I bet you regret going to Chasers now Wonder where he was bitten. Probably why there weren`t many volunteers to clean it. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 16, 2019 11:12:25 GMT
Was the dog okay?
|
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 16, 2019 11:38:52 GMT
No. He spent three hours waiting to see a vet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 19:28:34 GMT
No. He spent three hours waiting to see a vet. Vet waiting times will be reduced to 3 minutes under Corbyn. A £200billion investment funded by taxing rich dog owners. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 16, 2019 20:12:20 GMT
No. He spent three hours waiting to see a vet. Vet waiting times will be reduced to 3 minutes under Corbyn. A £200billion investment funded by taxing rich dog owners. What about taxing the fat cats? |
|
