Proof that the UK is SICK of the Tories

[Lord Bracknell]

When I got sent to A&E in the summer, they saw me within 20 minutes.

Then kept me in for a week.

20 minutes? I got seen immediately.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The trouble with the NHS is that it is keeping us all living longer, thereby building up the pressure on the service.

Shocking.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The root of this problem was Labour's massive balls up with the GP contracts. Harder to call your GP with some issue out of hours so they go to A&E instead.

Not that the the coalition can absolve themselves but this is not singularly a "tory" thing for anyone other than those cheaply taking political shots.

This. The next Government regardless of which political persuasion needs to alter the GP contracts so they have to cover evenings during the week and over the weekends on a rotational basis at the medical centres and polyclinics to take the strain off A&E.

 

[ALBION28]

I was going to ask why you're so obsessed with debt, but will put that down to the state of contemporary political discourse. Sometimes, recessions and depressions for instance, it is wise for governments to go into debt. Note that the ratio of UK government debt to GDP is about 80% at present. It was over 200% in 1945, yet we still managed to create Britain's finest institution then, not to mention a strong, stable growing economy that drastically reduced both poverty and economic inequality. UK government debt has been higher than at present for about 200 years out of the last 250.

Spot on. We all go into debt at various times in our lives for a variety of reasons. We then adjust this with income. A government generates this through taxes or income from non privatised assets. The issue is fairness to all. No to tax dodgers at all levels and no to unnecessary waste.

 

[ALBION28]

The roots of the current problems in the NHS were unfortunately initiated by the last Labour government:

1. PFI schemes
2. The GP contract
3. The Consultant contract
4. An obsession with targets, particularly financial targets, which led Trusts to ignore other things like patient safety and service quality
5. A highly centralised and bureaucratic command and control system
6. More Quangos than you could shake a stick at

Just a small point but PFI started under John Major. Sadly New Labour continued this and the rest of the previous Tory agenda. I believe the press called it 'stealing the conservatives clothes' .

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I believe the press called it 'stealing the conservatives clothes'.

I called it New Labour = Blue Labour.

 

[gazingdown]

As for the criticism of targets, they might not hae been ideal but perhaps people should consider the waiting time to see consultants back in the 80s and 90s.

The solution isn't to have "targets" though, people will just figure out how to manipulate them rather than addressing the underlying issues.

What should have been done is to properly (using incumbent managers, doctors, nurses etc.) to identify why it would take long to be seen. Results of that investigation would bring better solutions.

Secondly, there is a separate issue of expectation on the NHS. Of course everyone wants to be seen by a consultant for everything even if in many cases a registrar and/or house doctors would be fine. Not everyone NEEDS to see a consultant, if they do the juniors should address that, as will your GP when referring.

Thirdly - XMAS is always a great period of "families" needlessly dumping old/frail relatives on the hospital during the festive period so they can swan off and have an "easier" holiday period. Quite sad and pathetic. Actually this goes for any time of the year. The public have a part to play with how the use the NHS.

 

[Buzzer]

Sorry to piss on your parade, HT, but that Guardian article is as biased as anything I've read. How about some independent research by the Nuffield Trust: http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/publications/focus-preventable-admissions

"Research suggests better management of people’s illness in the community and in GP surgeries could prevent some of these admissions".

So it doesn't seem to be a funding issue. And from an article in the Nursing Times:

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing...oidable-admissions-swamps-nhs/5064169.article

"Nuffield Trust chief executive Andrew McKeon said: “Given constraints in resources for the NHS and social care in the next decade, a key concern must be the extent to which the gains made in improving quality of care over the past decade may be lost but despite recent high-profile failures and fears of deteriorating care standards, our research suggests that the constrained funding levels have so far not had a major impact on the overall quality of care received by patients and service users."

Proof, if ever it was needed that the Guardian is every bit as sensationalist, one-eyed and pandering to the political persuasions of its readers as the Daily Mail.

 

[gazingdown]

Just a small point but PFI started under John Major. Sadly New Labour continued this and the rest of the previous Tory agenda. I believe the press called it 'stealing the conservatives clothes' .

PFI, in principle, isn't a bad idea.

Poorly implementing it (poor tendering, poor regulation etc.) IS a bad idea. Labour could have handled it in the proper way but they didn't.

Actually, this applies to a lot of government ideas (from both parties) is the idea is generally OK/good but the implementation/application is poor or wasn't fully thought through.

 

[Buzzer]

PFI, in principle, isn't a bad idea.

I disagree. I'd go further and say it's immoral. It was always going to be a timebomb designed to fix short-term NHS problems (re-building infrastructure and investment in hospitals) and win votes at huge long-term cost (much bigger than if the government had built the hospitals themselves but managing to create a very nifty accounting trick whereby the huge liabilities that the government(s) built up have remained off the balance sheet of UK plc.

 

[gazingdown]

Sorry to piss on your parade, HT, but that Guardian article is as biased as anything I've read. How about some independent research by the Nuffield Trust: http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/publications/focus-preventable-admissions

"Research suggests better management of people’s illness in the community and in GP surgeries could prevent some of these admissions".

So it doesn't seem to be a funding issue. And from an article in the Nursing Times:

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing...oidable-admissions-swamps-nhs/5064169.article

"Nuffield Trust chief executive Andrew McKeon said: “Given constraints in resources for the NHS and social care in the next decade, a key concern must be the extent to which the gains made in improving quality of care over the past decade may be lost but despite recent high-profile failures and fears of deteriorating care standards, our research suggests that the constrained funding levels have so far not had a major impact on the overall quality of care received by patients and service users."

Proof, if ever it was needed that the Guardian is every bit as sensationalist, one-eyed and pandering to the political persuasions of its readers as the Daily Mail.

Quite.

If the system is right, throwing money at it can have real benefits.

If the system is wrong (and it was/is) then throwing money at it is often the worse thing to do.

From what I can see, the Tories generally come up with better systems (obv depends on one's viewpoint etc.) but don't backup after with proper funding (or the system takes too long to implement whilst things get worse on the front line). Labour are less concerned with proper/practical systems but (try to) throw lots of money at it.

Look at how much money is spent on the NHS (it's a huge amount) yet loads of problems - seems to be the system that needs fixing, not the overall funding - the overall funding is not the issue.

 

[goldstone]

If there was a nominal charge for A&E visits and for GP visits the number of such visits would be greatly reduced. And if the problem was self-inflicted (eg alcohol-related) then the charge should be much higher.

Currently it's a matter of "right, I'll go out and get completely legless and if I get really really ill, or fall down and hurt myself then that nice guy Goldstone and all the other UK taxpayers will happily pay for my treatment". There's something very wrong with that.

 

[goldstone]

Deterring people from seeking medical help by charging for it is no solution, it is an obscene suggestion, people would die.

How many countries provide free medical help to all and sundry? So are all those that don't "obscene"?

 

[Buzzer]

Deterring people from seeking medical help by charging for it is no solution, it is an obscene suggestion, people would die.

People die everyday because we don't have the money to provide all the medical care that everyone needs. As Lord B has said, the problem is that we live longer and advances in medicine means that a lot more illnesses are treatable.

Finite resources and almost infinite needs.

 

[HovaGirl]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-visits-rise-steeply-nhs-coalition-government

But do not worry. Dr Tubthumper predicts you will all be feeling much better in 2015.

The Guardian isn't exactly unbiased. Besides, what do you know? You live in the land of Currywurst. You can't actually FEEL what Labour did to this country, never mind how good or bad the Tories are.

 

[HovaGirl]

The NHS is the most important establishment in the country, as well as the largest employer. If I ran the country I would invest significantly more money into it.

In regards to the article, the quality of life of all common people has gone down in recent years and as a result people have been more likely to neglect their health, whether it's increased rates of substance abuse, poorer diets and life styles, or other types of risky behaviour. The statistic would be similar if Labour were running the country, as they're two cheeks of the same backside after all.

What if we haven't GOT any more money to invest in the NHS? We are trillions in debt, with no hope of ever paying it off. We are going the way of Greece, but no one understands that yet.

 

[HovaGirl]

The roots of the current problems in the NHS were unfortunately initiated by the last Labour government:

1. PFI schemes
2. The GP contract
3. The Consultant contract
4. An obsession with targets, particularly financial targets, which led Trusts to ignore other things like patient safety and service quality
5. A highly centralised and bureaucratic command and control system
6. More Quangos than you could shake a stick at

Exactly. And instead of cutting the costs of this lot, the NHS is saving money by having fewer nurses, fewer wards, and less equipment.

 

[HovaGirl]

When under a Labour government I unfortunately has to visit hospital a number of times. Each time, almost as soon as I arrived, I was put on some scales and weighed. Result being I'd been seen - easy manipulation of the figures !

Yes, and once you have been weighed and "seen", you are left waiting around another hour or more to be "processed".

 

[goldstone]

Generally speaking, they are not places you would want to live, including the USA if you are part of its underclass. Imagine having to live in pain because you can't afford a simple operation or, even worse, die. 3 Americans die every every day because they don't have health insurance.

Free healthcare models such as ours, Canada, France even Cuba are exemplary - every person on the planet should have the right to free healthcare, regardless of circumstances.

I was not suggesting that there should be NO free health care, but rather that there should be a small charge for A&E and GP visits to deter time-wasters, and a greater charge for self-inflicted health problems.

 

[HovaGirl]

The thread is about A & E and I'm not aware that visitors to that dept are weighed as soon as they get through the door, if at all! I know what you mean about regular appointments as my mother did the same but she had cancer and monitoring weight was quite important.


As for the criticism of targets, they might not hae been ideal but perhaps people should consider the waiting time to see consultants back in the 80s and 90s.

A year ago, my mother had to go to A&E but not of our choice. She has dementia and had threatened suicide because of it. We took her to A&E, and she was weighed and "seen" within 10 minutes. We waited a further 4 hours to see a doctor and another 5 hours to see a psychiatrist. 9 hours in all, with a dementia patient in the A&E of a hospital. She had to spend the rest of the night in an A&E bed, before they found her somewhere secure.

As to consultants, I've been having violent headaches. Brain haemorrhages and tumours have been known in the family, so I was worried. I had to wait 8 months to see a consultant last year.