i could save the NHS zillions and make it millions evry year at no cost to existing patient care with no restrictions etc etc..
in every drs / hospital /clinic recepetion add 1 little middle aged lady.. her job would be simple.. you turn up she says.. proof of eligibility for treatment or cradit card number please..
job done piece of cake simples.. cant believe no one has thought of it..
Would like to see some stats around unused perscription meds. Reckon most people who are meant to be on regular medication have unused cupboards full. Don't think anyone should get free prescriptions, though a sliding scale may work best.
in every drs / hospital /clinic recepetion add 1 little middle aged lady.. her job would be simple.. you turn up she says.. proof of eligibility for treatment or cradit card number please..
Bring thatcher out of hibernation then, or perhps she already has that planned and to implemented by camerooooon plc.
Don't think Cosmetic surgery should be funded nor reversal
loss of virginity should be funded fully by the NHS
Also any private surgery gone wrong the NHS should be able to claim monies back.
This may already been said But not going through 4 pages.
Rather than working out who deserves treatment and whose ailments are self inflicted, we could accept that everyone has health risks of one kind or another and all chip into a central fund to pay for treatment. We could call it National Insurance.
sweepy - MemberRather than working out who deserves treatment and whose ailments are self inflicted, we could accept that everyone has health risks of one kind or another and all chip into a central fund to pay for treatment. We could call it National Insurance.
Great idea sweepy.Why not take it a stage further?
To help alleviate poverty for old people why not set up a scheme where each employee and their employer sign up to a contract of agreed benefits and payments then they both put away money all through their working lives.The government could lead the way in this innovative scheme. We could call it a public sector pension!
grantway - Memberloss of virginity should be funded fully by the NHS
I think I know what you mean. But still, LOLZ.
nor reversal
loss of virginity should be funded fully by the NHS
Good 
A large number of the things mentioned in this thread so far e.g IVF, many form of transplantation (given long term anti rejection therapy), gender surgery are not cost effective but have been establised in the NHS repetoire prior to NICE so are difficult to subsequently reverse.
Interesting to see the comments about IVF on here. Infertility is a medical issue, and needing a child is probably one of our most basic human needs. Infertility can lead to mental anguish, stress, depression, break up of relationships. I'm sure anyone who's suffered from it will most likely say it's the hardest thing they've ever had to deal with. Yet it is a very costly treatment with a relatively low rate of success.
take out a loan to pay for the treatment then, or get a previously owned one for free.
A mate once suggested all mountaineering related injuries should be automatically be referrerd for psyciatriatric treatment. ... (Id include myself in the group mountaineer).... 
Do you know how difficult it actually is to adopt? Clearly not.
Or the grilling you get off Social services when you try to adopt and you haven't been through IVF...
I feel rather embarassed to have belittled comments by mastiles et al. IVF is in certain circumstances more in keeping with funded treatment than many i am involved in.
docrobster - MemberThe herceptin question is a tricky one.
If you tell people there is a drug that works better and keeps people alive for longer most people will say yes please.
However if it costs several times more than the alternative that is almost as good you have a conundrum.
Do you keep 100% of your patients alive for 6 months or 25% of your patients alive for 12 months?
You decide. Which is better?.
This is the key point. Herceptin is (depending on sources) £20 000 - £100 000 pa per patient and gives a couple of months extra time to die in on average compared to the much cheaper treatments
On the heart transplants - I deliberately picked an emotive one. 131 people transplanted last year - survival rates are better than they were which to some extent demolished my argument but for the cost of those 131 heart transplants we could have had a couple of thousand of hip replacements. I am a registered donor tho for everything
IVF - another emotive one and people can live perfectly healthy lives without it.
the issue is cash is limited - and always will be as demand is more or less infinite. It needs hard decision taken in a non emotive manner to decide on what is done and what is not.
Personally I would strip the NHS of these expensive treatments of little utility and instead make sure the basics are done to the very highest standards. I think that would do "more good" So the little old lady gets home care with time for a chat, those in hospital get decent food. Gps run 15 min appointments not 7 and so on.
I'd like the NHS to ban anything I currently think that I or a member of my family won't need in the future.
And reduce waiting times for anything I've needed or think I might need in the future.
Friend of mine is going into hospital in 9 months for an operation to alter her jaw-line using titanium inserts. On the NHS, surprisingly.
Or the grilling you get off Social services when you try to adopt and you haven't been through IVF...
Or the grilling you get off Social services when you try to adopt and you have been through IVF!
tazzymtb - you're posting comedy but this place is part of the NHS: http://www.rlhh.eu/
Nuke it from space and sell the site to Bovis LendLease (or someone), and that's a few million quid right there.
Even a nominal sum , say £5 per day would make a huge difference .
Usual scumbaggery from Z11 displaying usual ignorance is unsurprising.
c-section I can live with, but home births are just stupid and a huge waste of money, add to that water births and any other shite that the modern mother wants.
The NHS should just state if youre pregnant you will have the birth how we(NHS) deem safest and it will be done in a hospital.
If the mother wants an alternative, fine go pay for it.
Every time theres a home birth, you need a whole duplicate team also on stand by in the hospital waiting for the possible complication which means the mother has to be brought in to hospital, and saved.
And when a birth goes wrong and anything ruptures the mum will lose pints of blood in minutes and no amount of hot towels and birthing baths will save her.
Home births aren't stupid or a waste of money. They are cheaper than hospital births and if carefully selected a whole lot safer too.
(2nd child born at home in water. Easy peasy. First born in hospital ventouse delivery. Difficult and expensive.)
+1 Sancho - Was just going to write exactly the same thing !
People tend to look at it from their own personal perspective. However just ring your local PCT and ask them what services they have cut in the last year or so. The list may be bigger than you think
cheaper? how can that be when you need staff duplicated in the hospital for when the birth is happening, so in theory cheaper but in practice more expensive and if anything goes wrong then a lot riskier.
Wasn't there a piece on the news the other day about all couples having the right to have cesarean section if they want it.
That's gonna cost the NHS so much money - women who have this done need to stay in hospital longer, have more care, drugs, fees from the surgery etc etc.
If you want a cesarean, and there's no medical reason for you needing one, then it should be charged to the patient.
Are you aware of the fact that the hospital labour ward is staffed 24/7?
They don't call in extra staff specially cos someone's having a home birth!
So cheaper in theory and in practice.
Have you ever met a midwife?
another area where the NHS should charge is when some drunk idiot is found passed out in the street, brought in to A&E, resuscitated, scanned, monitored all night, checked over by a whole team of people costing about £100,000 for the night, just to go home again and not give a sh1t.
they should be charged for the treatment.
not to mention the police, Ambulance service etc.
Listening to the whole piece on the radio I think they believe that the amount of caesareans will actually drop and the cost will reduce because although they are making them available to everyone they will be actively promoting and educating about natural birth more than at the moment.
Are you aware of the fact that the hospital labour ward is staffed 24/7?
They don't call in extra staff specially cos someone's having a home birth!
So cheaper in theory and in practice.
Have you ever met a midwife?
Yes, two of my good friends wifes are midwifes and they agree. My missus is also a radiographer and she agrees.
yes they do need duplicate staff, the GF is an anaestetic reg on the maternity ward and they have to double up the shift. So yes home births do cost more and need duplicate staff. and when a midwife goes off to someones house for the day/night, who is covering their duties, that midwife is now only able to deal with one person, so it requires extra staff in all levels.
costing about £100,000
Really?
"They don't call in extra staff specially cos someone's having a home birth!
So cheaper in theory and in practice."
Depends on how busy the hospital is. Home births require 2 mid wife's to be present. Some hospitals take the risk and do not get cover in for the 2 mid wifes who are out at your home. Busy hospitals will have to get cover in for the 2 mid wifes they are down.
Whilst Mrs FD was in hospital giving birth I spoke to quite a few mid wife's and docs who said that they wished home births were not allowed. The fact perhaps that the midwife's didn't mention anything to you is because they give a very professional service.
Then what happens when it all goes wrong whilst having a home birth??
Who mentioned home birth? Not me. There' nothing wrong with natural birth at hospital if possible.
£100,000 yes really, Ive been privy to info from consultants who have been left fuming when parents have collected tarquin on a Sunday morning who was found lying in the street unconscious after drinking a litre of vodka etc etc.
the hospital has to carry out so many checks that consultants from virtually every discipline are involved, and then they just shrug their shoulders and leave.
A home birth would be covered by the Community midwifery team and yes they would have to make sure there are enough staff around to cover all the patients. However in my experience what this meant was a hugely dedicated and experienced midwife making herself available. Even if someone had to cover shifts as she was up all night this is a tiny cost compared to just the bed on the labour suite.
It's all about assessing risks. There are risks associated with home births and there are different risks associated with going into hospital.
The hospital staff only see the home births that have gone wrong, the vast majority stay at home and are fine.
The problem is too much costly medical intervention (c section on demand, too posh to push), not too little
I totally disagree with you DocRobster, but I wont labour the point. (you see what I did there)
Docro - I think we will all have to agree to disagree with you 
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
