[Misc] How can the NHS survive in its current form ?

[Kinky Gerbil]

Well I have one member of one family has died in the past 12 months because the NHS was overloaded and another on my brothers side of the family just before Christmas, without going into detail they were negligent simply due to lack of resources.

From my experience not dealing with social care crisis is also part of the problem. I seem to recall the PM before last promised to deal with it, nothing happened.

I’m sorry for the loss, Christmas is an awful time for it to happen.

Social care was a mess before, but how many people got sacked for not being vaccinated? I thought this was a good idea at the time, but in hindsight it’s an awful decision.

 

[sydney]

I’m sorry for the loss, Christmas is an awful time for it to happen.

Social care was a mess before, but how many people got sacked for not being vaccinated? I thought this was a good idea at the time, but in hindsight it’s an awful decision.

yes and with the passage of time those health workers who refused the jabs are vindicated to an ever greater degree ......but that is another story , sorry for your loss nicko.

 

[beorhthelm]

Regarding your first point, how do you then deal with situations when people have suffered or died due to actual negligence. It's easy for your sons to say they could deal with twice as many but they still need to record what treatments etc have been given. You could apply that to all walks of life. How would you feel if it was decided that road accidents would have no liability attached to them because 'accidents happen'. If you lost a family member, possibly the wage earner due to an accident that wasn't their fault, how would you feel about not being able to get compensations.

we dont need to leap to no recording at all. if doctors are spending 50% of their time in admin, that must be a area for review. and we certainly shouldnt be feeding compo culture.

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

Prefer to see the NHS within the context of a national lifestyle system. The system is complex but enabling people to obtain a balanced lifestyle such as diet, fitness are key elements of the system.

 

[Goldstone1976]

A Labour/Liberal coalition is the most likely way to get PR, which is the beat way of insuring that there's never another Tory landslide (or Labour for that matter) and keeping those bastards away from anything of value is the most important thing.

I'd say that every member of the House of Commons and House of Lords and their families should be prohibited from using private healthcare (and private schools for that matter).

Having said that, I'm a pragmatic old trot and not many share my views.

You don't have to be a Trot to believe there's real merit in your second idea. I'm nowhere close to being a Trot (somewhat right of centre fiscally, somewhat left of centre socially) and I think it's a good idea.

 

[dsr-burnley]

3. Our perception of NHS as our servant that is always there however small our need. All I need to say on this is A&E doctors quote that he liked the sessions when England were playing as less than half the usual number of people came in. Funny how emergencies reduce when there is something good on telly. We must take some responsibility too: responsibility to look ourselves better; responsibility to seek help elsewhere sometimes (we had a case near us when a woman complained that it took 7 hours for ambulance to arrive. All she needed was help getting up, and admitted later she could have asked her son instead); responsibility to others whose needs maybe greater.

The problem with people visiting A&E when they don't really need to is that few people can diagnose themselves effectively. (And until everyone is a qualified doctor, that will always be a problem with no solution.)

If you have an emergency, then you go to A&E straight away. If you have a problem than can wait a fortnight or so with no expected ill effects, then you see your GP. But if it's something in between, not an emergency but you think it ought to be looked at, then A&E is your only way of seeing a medical professional - so you wait for a convenient time and off you go.

One of the things they tell you not to visit A&E for, is tummy ache. I had tummy ache, I went to A&E, and within an hour of arrival I was in a hospital bed with a drip in my arm. Did I do wrong to disregard the advice? Of course not. (IMO, anyway.) It was always inevitable, and predictable if the powers that be had had any idea, that making out-of-hours and emergency GPs unavailable would increase the pressure on A&E.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The problem with people visiting A&E when they don't really need to is that few people can diagnose themselves effectively. (And until everyone is a qualified doctor, that will always be a problem with no solution.)

If you have an emergency, then you go to A&E straight away. If you have a problem than can wait a fortnight or so with no expected ill effects, then you see your GP. But if it's something in between, not an emergency but you think it ought to be looked at, then A&E is your only way of seeing a medical professional - so you wait for a convenient time and off you go.

One of the things they tell you not to visit A&E for, is tummy ache. I had tummy ache, I went to A&E, and within an hour of arrival I was in a hospital bed with a drip in my arm. Did I do wrong to disregard the advice? Of course not. (IMO, anyway.) It was always inevitable, and predictable if the powers that be had had any idea, that making out-of-hours and emergency GPs unavailable would increase the pressure on A&E.

Quite possibly a stupid question, but doesn’t the triage at A&E deal with people who don’t need A&E?

 

[Rdodge30]

You don't have to be a Trot to believe there's real merit in your second idea. I'm nowhere close to being a Trot (somewhat right of centre fiscally, somewhat left of centre socially) and I think it's a good idea.

I feel the exact opposite. There should in this day and age be some form of means testing and those that can afford it should have health insurance. That would almost certainly include the above. Personally I would be more annoyed if our millionaire PM was using the NHS, with his money he absolutely should be paying for his own healthcare and not burdening the already crumbling free healthcare system.

 

[nicko31]

I’m sorry for the loss, Christmas is an awful time for it to happen.

Social care was a mess before, but how many people got sacked for not being vaccinated? I thought this was a good idea at the time, but in hindsight it’s an awful decision.

I do think dealing with social care would really help ease the pressure. It needs a cross party plan to find a solution

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I feel the exact opposite. There should in this day and age be some form of means testing and those that can afford it should have health insurance. That would almost certainly include the above. Personally I would be more annoyed if our millionaire PM was using the NHS, with his money he absolutely should be paying for his own healthcare and not burdening the already crumbling free healthcare system.

Health care in Germany is a ring-fenced fixed percentage of your income i.e. it’s means tested. Further, for higher earners there’s a point where it’s cheaper to opt out and get private insurance….if you so choose. I would support this in the U.K.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I do think dealing with social care would really help ease the pressure. It needs a cross party plan to find a solution

The last part is spot on, it won’t happen.

It should be taken out of the hands of politicians.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I feel the exact opposite. There should in this day and age be some form of means testing and those that can afford it should have health insurance. That would almost certainly include the above. Personally I would be more annoyed if our millionaire PM was using the NHS, with his money he absolutely should be paying for his own healthcare and not burdening the already crumbling free healthcare system.

In your scenario none of them would have any personal motivation to fix it; in mine they would - though I accept that the likely consequence of implementing my scenario would be that few millionaires would stand for election. Which I’m prepared to sacrifice for what I perceive would be a greater good.

Also, we’re talking about a couple of thousand affected individuals only. Nothing to stop your scenario playing out for the rest of the wealthy folk.

 

[drew]

yes and with the passage of time those health workers who refused the jabs are vindicated to an ever greater degree ......but that is another story , sorry for your loss nicko.

Rubbish. No vindication whatsoever.

 

[Notters]

The example of obese people is often used but the issue is where to draw the line. What about people injured playing sport? Take part in high risk activity then tough. And the debate rages.

Agree with the poster about private rinsing the cheap stuff for profit leaving expensive to nhs. Due to how operations are funded the nhs can’t cope. My mate is a director at a hospital and can talk for hours about this. His view is that It is mostly linked to government funding policy.

I don't have figures to hand, but I would imagine participating in sport has a very significant net benefit to the NHS, unlike being obese.

 

[Rdodge30]

In your scenario none of them would have any personal motivation to fix it; in mine they would - though I accept that the likely consequence of implementing my scenario would be that few millionaires would stand for election. Which I’m prepared to sacrifice for what I perceive would be a greater good.

Also, we’re talking about a couple of thousand affected individuals only. Nothing to stop your scenario playing out for the rest of the wealthy folk.

I don’t agree that nobody would be motivated to fix it in that scenario, however I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree.

 

[drew]

Unfortunately out of hours GP care from your own GP went when they were given a new improved contracts by the Blair government.

In reality, it shouldn't matter which GP you actually see as with adequate access to notes any GP should be able to diagnose and prescribe where necessary.

 

[PeterOut]

For me, a decent summary of the problems, with some valid pointers towards fixes - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-and-e-tories-nhs-hospital-government-funding (I accept that some will dismiss this, simply because it is from the Guardian)

 

[Pondicherry]

What has her size got to with anything? Sum ppl increase size e.g. due to water retention. How many ppl need all that stuff to go into Hospital anyway. Its isolated and if you went through with your plan its peanuts the NHS saves.

I'm no doctor but I am pretty sure it wasn't 35 stone of water retention. I think the general point in any case is that people need to take some personal responsibility for their lives (and not just health). The difficult part is operating this principle in practice fairly.

 

[Berty23]

I don't have figures to hand, but I would imagine participating in sport has a very significant net benefit to the NHS, unlike being obese.

I don’t disagree. It was a simple example. How much tax do smokers and drinkers pay? Loads. I expect they use more than they pay but I have no idea. Some will and some won’t. It is why it is so tricky.

 

[Pondicherry]

Regarding your first point, how do you then deal with situations when people have suffered or died due to actual negligence. It's easy for your sons to say they could deal with twice as many but they still need to record what treatments etc have been given. You could apply that to all walks of life. How would you feel if it was decided that road accidents would have no liability attached to them because 'accidents happen'. If you lost a family member, possibly the wage earner due to an accident that wasn't their fault, how would you feel about not being able to get compensations.

Make it a condition of being treated by the NHS that you waive the right to sue except under certain circumstances like Shipman. Just in compensation that saves £2.5 billion a year I believe.