First of all the management consultants & lobbyists are all American, so their high profit model is whats being sold to us. Secondly "thats how it works elsewhere" is always more expensive in relation to GDP
So why not fund the NHS to those levels now.
Oh I forgot " Labour when they gave GPs substantially more money". It should be of note that GPs are actually private contractors, so its a bit of straw-man to offer this ( failed contract negotiation ) to be extrapolated to the whole NHS.
The Europe and TTIP thing only applies once competition is introduced into a market
UK needs a proper grown up discussion about health provision in this country, what we've got doesn't work and more money isn't going to fix it.
It's my view the health service needs much more, not just the £8bn the Tories promised which the NHS said they need just to stand still. My view is giving the current NHS more money will improve nothing, we saw under Labour when they gave GPs substantially more money and new contracts the service got worse. We need a proper adult conversation how best to provide world class health services (we are far from those now) and how those should be funded.
+1.
under Labour when they gave GPs substantially more money and new contracts the service got worse. We need a proper adult conversation
Jambafact
General practice share of the total NHS budget has dropped to 7.2% on latest figures. An all time low.
But still when more money is invested in primary care services the Tory press see this as bribes.
By all means let's have a conversation about funding. But let's drop the GP bashing. You'll miss us when we've gone.
giving the current NHS more money will improve nothing
So its your argument that money does not increase capacity...are you feeling ok as that is self evidently false and a big nuts
We need a proper adult conversation how best to provide world class health services (we are far from those now)
We outperform the US and at less cost
and how those should be funded.
Everyone but RW zealots has the answer via general taxation and free at the point of use
A better more integrated mix between private and state is the answer imho, thats how it works elsewhere
Yes that is what they do but it costs way way more than we spend and yet you are still arguing we don't need more money
Facts for you to ignore
Politically motivate folly that ignores the facts - you should have that as your signature 😉
teamhurtmore - MemberConveniently missing the obvious contradiction in that position.
Lots of stepping back to the future going on at the moment - welcoming back "the struggle" comrades here and a return to isolationism/narrow minded xenophobia on the Europe referendum thread. Do we never learn?
To the tune of the red flag: "We'll keep the union flag flying high..." a very odd mix.
Still in the winners v losers core part of the show, the Guardian seems to be going a little off-piste
You know THM sometimes it's OK not to say anything.
So there's no need to post meaningless waffle just because you can't think of anything else to say 💡
Bless. How is the glass house?
Junky not sure how on earth you think the NHS out performs the US, I don't know a single American who thinks the NHS is anything but terrible in terms of general health care provision (critical care recognised as excellent). "General taxation" is a very wide ranging phrase, vat on food ? We are being sold a bag of s**t by politicians of all colours that we can have a world class health service with the tax system and rates +/- a few percent. We cannot it needs much mire funding and a total reorganisation imho. I much prefer the French system (mix of private and state).
I challenge you to find a French, German, Swiss, Dutch, Belgian or even US article which says the NHS is better than their domestic servies.
We need to face up to the fact that our service is broken, Labour promised £2 of the £8bn the NHS said it needed to stand still and lost the election. We spend much less than the other countries and it shows in the quality and availability (waiting times) of our service, eg mym mum is unable to walk but its 12 weeks for an mri or 2 days if she pays £350. Totally broken imho
You should try asking one of the 15% of us citizens who doesn't have access to its excellent healthcare system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States
All for around double the cost of most European healthcare systems.
Junky not sure how on earth you think the NHS out performs the US
there was me thinking giving you the prrof would help you
ah well at least i go this bit correct
[b]Facts for you to ignore[/b]
that actual research can in no way compete with your anecdote about your circle of friends.I don't know a single American who thinks the NHS is anything but terrible in terms of general health care provision (
I challenge you to find a French, German, Swiss, Dutch, Belgian or even [b]US article which says the NHS is better than their domestic servies.[/b]
WHat for you would just ignore them
I googled the bold bit fourth hit- you really should google your musings as it always show them to be deeply deeply flawed.
Is anything you say ever true?
ENjoy
http://uk.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1?r=US&IR=T
Yes that is definitely not a funding issue and its a "totally broken" issue.but its 12 weeks for an mri or 2 days if she pays £350. Totally broken imho
If this is not you taking the piss or trolling then I dont know what it as its irrational, no fact based and not even funny.
See also:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/09/admire-nhs-empower-primary-care-physicians.html
Some Americans are quite jealous of our system.
I challenge you to find a French, German, Swiss, Dutch, Belgian or even US article which says the NHS is better than their domestic servies.
If your wife gets pregnant in Holland, ask her how she feels about giving birth without anaesthetic as she can't get an epidural out of office hours.
Crikey have they not accepted the new offer? 😯
Jambalaya - the US spends over 40% of their total spending on healthcare on administration of the billing system. Healthcare that spends over a third of its budget on nothing to do with healthcare is not in any way a good system.
eg mym mum is unable to walk but its 12 weeks for an mri or 2 days if she pays £350.
When I mentioned that my MRI had cost more like £1000 you pointed out that this was an insurance job. And you advocate insurance as the way forward?
People dont you be bringing facts into jambyland
there is no way he is not just trolling no one can actually have made that claim as a serious point.
Junkyard - lazarusPeople dont you be bringing facts into jambyland
there is no way he is not just trolling no one can actually have made that claim as a serious point.
Basically he is Trolly McTrollface
No point just saying shouldn't you just make counter argument?
Or are you running out of points?
jambalaya - MemberWe spend much less than the other countries and it shows in the quality and availability
Well done for making the link between spending and the quality of service.
Although the United States proves that when profit is a major motivating factor it doesn't provide value for money.
[img] 
[/img]
Btw jambalaya infant mortality rates whilst not perfect are nevertheless universally recognised as the single best measure of the quality of healthcare provisions in a country.
[url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/ ]Our infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment[/url]
Quote :
[i][b]The United States has a higher infant mortality rate than any of the other 27 wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control. A baby born in the U.S. is nearly three times as likely to die during her first year of life as one born in Finland or Japan. That same American baby is about twice as likely to die in her first year as a Spanish or Korean one.
Despite healthcare spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world, a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Hungary, Poland or Slovakia. Or in Belarus. Or in Cuba, for that matter.[/i][/b]
ernie_lynch - Member
Are they comparing apple with apple or apple with honeydew or durian?
Merican population 318 million plus?
Finnish population 5.4 million?
How do you compare that and also by taking into account the environment they live in?
You need to provide more information regarding the reason of death.
Instead of pulling numbers out of thin air why didn't you just google it?
It is measured in deaths per 1000 live births chewkw, so population size doesn't matter.
GrahamS - Member
It is measured in deaths per 1000 live births chewkw, so population size doesn't matter.
I know it's per 1000 births.
Okay, I shall just leave it at that ...
Lifer - Member
Instead of pulling numbers out of thin air why didn't you just google it?
You are not helping aren't you? 😀
Teach a man to fish...
Can I ask you all to view this. Lord Carter has spent the last 18months doing a root and branch analysis of the whole of NHS efficiency
Report here for real pedants
Lifer - Member
Teach a man to fish...
You are not teaching?
Lesson 1, before posting made up versions of easily verifiable facts
Lifer - Member
google it
samunkim thanks for the link. I tried to watch that video (i'm interesting in quality improvement: yes i'm not only a geek but a goody-two-shoes), but do they ever get to the point? I skimmed the report and it seems he spent 2 years telling us there is great variation in hospitals (but why?), and we should be more efficient (clearly). If, like in this video he spent half his time sharing anecdotes with people like Roy Lilley then that explains why the report just tells us what we already knew.
Yep Sorry
Skip the The first 30mins - its just Parkinson-esque waffle.
But after that is gets better - promise 🙂
OK. Will watch tonight.
@doc I can't comment on my GP as I haven't seen her for 10 years, every time I try and make an appointment the wait is so long I take an emergency, when I need tomsee a Doctor its soon not in 3 days. I can see why A&E is swamped, I've been tempted to go myself. My comments on the new contract for GPs under Labour came from speaking to my two GP friends - one of whom said other GPs in her practice where just money grabbing "so and so's" - there is always a spread of behaviour.
DrJ its a while ago since I had my kids, my ex-wife repeatedly told me how great the Dutch system was with much higher rates of home births and lower mortality than the uk. Gas and Air instead of epidural ? Our third was a home birth with Gas and Air not needed. (First in NHS hospital, second in the US)
Looking at the US overall is in my view a grave mistake, they don't have universal health care as we do and they don't want it, not even the Democrats. @ernie how is the NHS value for money when my mum has tomwait in agony for 6 months before taking a private MRI (at oir insistemce) and forcing the Doctor into a corner so they jad to give her the cortesone injection she needed ? The NHS is providing a second rate overall service which is all we pay for, as such imho its a poor use of money - thats not efficient
Money alone won't improve or fix things, we need both reform and more money. What does efficiency mean exactly, how do you measure having a 12 week wait for an MRI which costs £350 and is available immediately privately ?
So who saw comments from the NHS CEO today saying we should look into up front payments for services in some cases. At last something sensible, hopefully no knee jerk reactions.
An example of why effiiciency is the wrong measure. As soon as you give staff a payrise the service becomes less efficient. So for everyone that would like staff to be better paid, me included, you are arguing for less efficiiency. What we need is a substantial improvemnet is service quality and that will cost a lot of money. At the moment the private system is largely seperate, in my view it must be much better integrated.
@ernie how is the NHS value for money when my mum has tomwait in agony for 6 months before taking a private MRI (at oir insistemce) and forcing the Doctor into a corner so they jad to give her the cortesone injection she needed ?
Well that's me convinced. It's now obvious to me that we need to get rid of the NHS and replace it with private healthcare providers. If only I had known about your mother and her cortisone injection earlier.
I have just stumbled upon this piece of information on the other thread.
This NHS reforms has nothing to do with this highly acclaimed surgeon with the Lord title?
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara_Darzi,_Baron_Darzi_of_Denham ]Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham[/url]
Does that mean the Junior Doctors are arguing against the world's leading surgeon?
Darzi was tasked with leading a national review to plan the course of the NHS over a decade, reporting back to the Prime Minister, Chancellor, and Secretary of State for Health in June 2008. He cooperated with the Department of Health to undertake the “NHS Next Stage Review”.[6]Darzi was quoted in The Times as saying that “...This Review should be both clinically-led and evidence-based”. The final report of the Review, High Quality Care for All, was published in June 2008 to considerable public and academic acclaim. The Financial Times stated that it was “the world’s most ambitious attempt to raise the quality and effectiveness of an entire nation’s healthcare”.[30] The Lancet acknowledged that:
"Darzi has wisely thrown out regulation as the organising principle of the NHS. He has replaced it with quality...This cultural shift is a radical re-visioning of purpose for the NHS—away from the political command and control of processes and towards professional responsibility for clinical outcomes"[31]
Jamba - why did you separate? You seem perfectly suited!
Regarding the "it just needs more money" vs "the whole system is broken we must replace it with another one" conundrum raised a few pages back, I received a link to [url= https://chpi.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CHPI-STP-Analysis.pdf ]this document on "sustainablility and transformation" plans[/url] today. It's an interesting read, only 8 pages so worth finding 5 minutes to digest. However for those like me, with short attention spans, here is the last paragraph:
what is truly unsustainable in the long run is providing a first-?class health service on a third class budget. And the decision, on top of this, to be spending only £8bn a year more on the NHS in England five years from now, in the interest of shrinking the state, is another political choice, which has less and less support even among mainstream economists.
The choice to underfund the Nation's Health Service (Whether that is the NHS or some other Health Service run for the Nation- semantics?) is a political one made by this government and the last one. Austerity is the excuse but really it is ideological in the interest of shrinking the state. Those bankers just did the tories a huge favour by crashing the global economy, just in time to start the dismantling of the NHS. Anyone who believed in conspiracy theories might wonder if it was all planned.
What really annoys me is that the government does not have the guts to say publicly what it is doing and therefore be judged on it at the polling station next time around. But we know better to believe what governments tell us don't we?
The NHS is providing a second rate overall service which is all we pay for, as such imho its a poor use of money - thats not efficient
Saywhatnow?
Let's break that down...
The NHS is providing a second rate overall service...
A) Compared to what and whom?
...which is all we pay for...
B) If you've given any examples to point (A) that feature higher per capita spending they can be considered null and void for comparison by your own remarks.
...as such imho it's a poor use of money...
C) But if the NHS provides a better quality of service than those with higher per capita spending it is a more efficient service which, if economics are the main measure being used (you mention money a lot), means a 'better' service surely?
...that's not efficient.
D) See point (C).
I think that it i pretty obvious what someone is going to say if they have written a book entitled
Market Driven Politics: Neoliberal Democracy and the Public Interest
Of course mefty feel free to discount the report based on the political leanings of its author. That's your perogative. It doesn't make it an less true though.
The thing is that at the moment there are publications coming out daily saying the same thing. £8bn is not enough, and £22bn from efficiency savings is not possible. A lot of the report I linked to was merely quoting what has been said previously by the Kings fund, those rabid left wingers.
If you want another source for the same message here is one:
What really annoys me is that the government does not have the guts to say publicly what it is doing and therefore be judged on it at the polling station next time around. But we know better to believe what governments tell us don't we?
The Labour Party and its political minions and fellow travellers have been telling us for 36 years that the Tories either were 'destroying the NHS' 'privatising the NHS' or would do so if they won the next election.
Remarkably, despite this extended period of subterfuge, government lies and imminent destruction (remember "24 hours to save the NHS"?), the NHS is not only still here, but treating more patients than ever, and the Tories continue to win elections.
Makes you think, eh?
Ninfan it does make me think yes.
I think the population is in for a big surprise in the next few years.
But what would I know, the economists will no doubt save the day once again.
After all wealth is so much more important than health on Election Day.
@docrobster this was my original point, we need a grown up debate which sadly imo we cannot have, the politics on both sides mean it's not possible. Labour campaigned at GE 2015 on a £2bn budget increase and "we'll save the nhs" Tories campaigned on £8bn and the left say they are killing the nhs. Its my view we need much much more money to be spent on health, the problem this means much more in taxes on everyone which doesn't fit either Labour (tax the rich, ie someone else) or Conservatives (tax same or less)
It's a mess and only getting worse.
and the Tories continue to win elections.
Well, they've won one in the last 20 years...
Makes you think, eh?
Yeah, makes me think "in spite of, not because of what the Tories have done".
"...no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS..." (Andrew Lansley, Conservative Party press release, 11 July 2007).
Not long (relatively) before bringing about the biggest top-down restructure of the NHS it has ever seen. Costing billions, causing a duplication of many services rather than rationalisation and leaving the NHS in a far worst state. With the funding largely controlled by private contractors through CCGs, who often have the least knowledge on how to use it effectively or have ulterior motives that decide budget allocation.
Never trust a Tory.
Conservatives (tax same or less)
For the rich. The poor get taxed more.
There is an increasing voice from a wide variety of sectors that NHS funding is way too little and it needs a sensible conversation about how to improve this - tax more or spend less on other stuff.
Pay for healthcare staff - tricky one - you need engaged staff who feel valued and cared about if you want to deliver first class healthcare - robots can't deliver healthcare. The pay issue would be much less of an issue if good will hadn't been almost eroded and there weren't so many gaps in service - my other half is one of 2 people on a 9 person rota - i.e. there are 7 vacant slots. Try delivering efficiency and high quality when you are missing over 75% of your staff....
There is an increasing drive to reduce variation and introduce more standardised patterns of working, but much of medicine is still opinion and lacks solid evidence so this will always be difficult, although there are some big gains to make - e.g. use of implants like hip replacements.
needs a sensible conversation about how to improve this - tax more or spend less on other stuff.
The problem with tax is that there isn't much headroom for tax increases, the UK as a % of GDP typically sits about where it is now ~36% and we normally spend ~40% of GDP.
The pay issue would be much less of an issue if good will hadn't been almost eroded and there weren't so many gaps in service - my other half is one of 2 people on a 9 person rota - i.e. there are 7 vacant slots. Try delivering efficiency and high quality when you are missing over 75% of your staff....
Very much this.
I work on a 52 bed Acute Medical Unit (Emergency Admissions for those who don't speak NHS!) which has a mix of Level 1 and 2 beds (42/10 split) split across two wards, within a large trust who have an Emergency Department that is one of the busiest in Europe for its size/design capacity.
In order to cope with an ED struggling to deal with a lack of capacity much of the pressure is put upon us AMU staff to "increase throughput" but, such is the pressure put upon staff within the department, we are hugely understaffed (most shifts see an agency/trust Band 5 split of 4/5). Even the decent agency nurses are now turning their noses up at working in the department due to caps on their pay. To counter this the trust have had (and extended since before Christmas) overtime bonus payments of £50 per shift to trust-employed nurses, even this is not enough, it's a taxed payment and few can see the point of doing extra shifts for such little compensation.
So where does this leave us? Well we rarely have full staffing, with the nurses who are supposed to be coordinating the individual wards (whose purpose is to help with throughput and thus increase bed availability for ED admissions) often pulled to work a bay instead. This then leaves the bed managers/duty managers the ones trying to sort out which patients are suitable to move to base wards/discharge home, but as there is no need for such managers to have a nursing/medical background it often leads to conflict/frustration with the Band 5 nurses looking after said patients who are ultimately responsible for their care.
We are an area which, if we were better looked after (correct staffing levels for starters), would hugely assist the ability of the trust and ED Department to meet their targets and thus reduce the fines the trust often gets for failing, yet we are treated poorly, are regularly used as the blame hound with regards to backlogs caused by high demand and consequently staff morale is often incredibly low.
To end, it's not about money (largely), it's about treating staff better. When the message from the top is "the NHS needs to start working seven days a week" (hey Mr Hunt, we already do) and the Right Wing press is banging on about how bad we all are at our jobs it's hard not to think "why bother" and go elsewhere.
Those who think privatisation is the answer, where do you think you'll get the personnel to staff such an organisation? If people are going to be forced to work in a privatised organisation then why stay in the UK, where (if current per capita spending were worked to) they'd have to take a pay cut in order to fit in the private sector's profit margin?
Must apologise though, given this has turned into a bit of a rant. Overall I love working for the NHS and love my job, you never know what you're going to see next and the staff are very close knit and, despite the demands placed upon us, we try to keep our heads held high. It can be very difficult to stay positive though.
mefty - MemberI think that it i pretty obvious what someone is going to say if they have written a book entitled
Market Driven Politics: Neoliberal Democracy and the Public Interest
And I mefty, think it's pretty obvious what someone like our present Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who is responsible for a policy book in which it states, quote :
[i][b]"Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain."[/i][/b]
wants to do with healthcare in our country.
.
docrobster - MemberWhat really annoys me is that the government does not have the guts to say publicly what it is doing and therefore be judged on it at the polling station next time around.
But it's clearly printed in black and white!
And the Health and Social Care Act 2012 couldn't have made it any clearer that the Tory goal is the dismantling of the NHS in England.
Unfortunately the electorate seems remarkably uninterested in what the Tories are saying and doing. But don't blame Tory politicians for that.
If people are going to be forced to work in a privatised organisation then why stay in the UK, where (if current per capita spending were worked to) they'd have to take a pay cut in order to fit in the private sector's profit margin?
I bet you in the private sector you'd get a pay increase due to market forces and there no longer being a monopoly that can hold wages down (i.e. the NHS).
At a fundamental level for an employee working in the private sector it is no better or worse than in the public, most of what makes work good or bad, is your manager, team etc. and there are great people in both and tossers in both.
Well if the profit doesn't come from cutting wages then it will have to come from increased pricing. The profit has to come from somewhere.
Which I guess is why healthcare provisions based on the private sector offer far less value for money than healthcare provisions based on the public sector - an excellent example of poor value for money is of course the United States.
If public sector healthcare provisions are unaffordable then private sector healthcare provisions are even less affordable - so obviously not the solution.
Well if the profit doesn't come from cutting wages then it will have to come from increased pricing
Or increased efficiency
Or less provisions.
Or through exporting expertise
Or poorer working conditions
BTW mefty this doesn't exactly inspire confidence that private health care providers are shinning examples of efficiency
[img] [/img]
There is a difference between private health providers and people who provide medical services, there is no proposal to change the system where healthcare is free at the point of use. But other the US, which is mad, I am not sure that graph proves a great deal.
It shows that the us has got it badly wrong.
Well I guess you think the graph doesn't prove a great deal because it doesn't quite fit into the Tory agenda.
However most people accept that the US relies heavily on private healthcare providers, much more so than other comparable countries. Most people also accept than the US devotes far more of its GDP on healthcare than any other country.
As I suggested, the example of the US doesn't exactly inspire confidence that private health care providers are shinning examples of efficiency.
Even the Washington Post reports that [i]"despite healthcare spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world"[/i] a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Cuba.
There is an increasing voice from a wide variety of sectors that NHS funding is way too little and it needs a sensible conversation about how to improve this - tax more or spend less on other stuff.
The problem there is that the model of NHS healthcare funding is predicated on the fallacy of demand as a constant rather than human nature resulting in it inevitably growing to outstrip demand.
It doesn't matter how much more you pour into the NHS - every time you add more money, the system will grow to do new things - keeping people alive longer, using up more resources, the continuing medicalisation of the human condition.
What *exactly* is the role of the NHS - if fifty years ago you had suggested that fertility or gender identity were responsibilities of the state (and thus the the taxpayer should fund treatment for) you would have been laughed at, where should it stop? Impotence, male pattern baldness? paedophilia? are they all medical issues that the NHS should treat as well?
Yes we need to address demand.
But why do we have treatments available for make pattern baldness etc, this constant medicalisation of normal life?
Profit motive.
Whether it is the state paying, or individuals either directly or through insurance, the constant need for profit drives the supply which feeds into demand.
[url= http://www.bmj.com/too-much-medicine ]Toomuchmedicine[/url]
Are they still on strike? Crikey.
correct staffing levels for starters
Well said, sootyandjim. Excellent post.
Good question Chewwy. Have you tried googling?
ernie_lynch - Member
Good question Chewwy. Have you tried googling?
I have given up on googling the outcome ... too long winded.
where should it stop? Impotence, male pattern baldness? paedophilia? are they all medical issues that the NHS should treat as well?
Nhs already treats impotence and has done since long long before sildenafil. Public funding (rarely delivered under nhs budgets) also attempts to manage the risk of paedophiles through psychological interventions. If you want to call that 'treatment' you can but both are very much already resposibilities of the state and very much taxpayer funded.
Perhaps you would care to say whether you think these conditions are worthy of state/taxpayer funding or not and why? Male pattern baldness the only one i would question at all, dependent on age and impact on functioning and ability to contribute to socisety and as a taxpayer.
Well I guess you think the graph doesn't prove a great deal because it doesn't quite fit into the Tory agenda.
No because that graph shows how the health spending is funded - if the Tories privatized every hospital, out patient clinic etc etc that graph would not change as the state would still be paying for the healthcare not an insurance company. It therefore has absolutely no relevance when you are talking about provision of medical services to the NHS.
But why do we have treatments available for make pattern baldness etc, this constant medicalisation of normal life?
Profit motive.
Whether it is the state paying, or individuals either directly or through insurance, the constant need for profit drives the supply which feeds into demand.
The first known written treatment for baldness is from 1553 BC - a thousand years later, Hippocrates was obsessed with treating it.
It think its difficult to blame it on Big Pharma
^^that's a funny but ultimately ill-informed comment.
Where do you stand on adhd and methylphenidate?
if the Tories privatized every hospital, out patient clinic etc etc that graph would not change
That's your opinion, apparently.
However if "the Tories privatized every hospital, out patient clinic etc" then you would indeed expect the graph to change.
Or are really suggested that healthcare spending in the UK would not increase in GNP percentage terms if it was all in the hands of profiteers?
chewkw - MemberI have given up on googling the outcome ... too long winded.
So you're not actually interested.
Just fancied trashing another thread?
ernie_lynch - Member
chewkw - Member
I have given up on googling the outcome ... too long winded.So you're not actually interested.
Just fancied trashing another thread?
I am interested but can't be arsed to find out more because the argument is always the same, hence I just want to know the final outcome?
No, not trying to trash thread and you are giving me too much credit there. Imagine if I can trash a thread then what does that make you lot?
you are giving me too much credit there.
Believe me I'm not.
You came along and made one of your usual pointless and inane comments. I know it's about as much as you can manage.
ernie_lynch - Member
you are giving me too much credit there.
Believe me I'm not.You came along and made one of your usual pointless and inane comments. I know it's about as much as you can manage.
Okay, since you think that I made pointless comments I shall elaborate. My opinion so if I am wrong I am wrong but that's how I read the current situation.
1. The NHS is unsustainable because it has grown so big now everyone thinks it's "free" hence consider them natural entitlement.
2. The question of entitlement means we now have the full rights be treated "free" and the funding should come from the "have" rather than "have not". (the blame on the "rich" in trying to take away the free services provided to the poor etc)
3. As the coffer is getting lower the govt decides that an intervention is called for but objection starts which is normal.
4. The stake holders - The public, the employees and the govt - none of which wants to give up their ways.
5. The public demand free services because health etc is the fundamental human rights but someone got to pay for it who?
6. The employees demand better work condition i.e. not long working hr and certainly no pay cut (might even demand more). The only way through this is to use their bargaining chip to escalate their demand. i.e. The public health.
7. The govt knows their coffers are running dry slowly and that to sustain a system that growing is going to be very difficult, so try to intervene before they are blamed. This means "rationalisation" or "re-engineering" but that is wishful thinking because other stakeholders will not co-operate.
The bottom line is that the NHS system will slowly degenerate into a mega bureaucratic system where it will so huge it will suck the life out of those who want to improve it.
The public health is now used as political football.
The question is who is going to score their own goal first?
Have you found out if the junior doctors are still on strike yet?
ernie_lynch - Member
Have you found out if the junior doctors are still on strike yet?
Nope. If they stop that is just a temporary settlement to buy time coz the entire system needs to be overhauled.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-junior-doctors-strike-is-over-but-the-fight-to-save-the-nhs-is-just-beginning-a7040991.html ]News here from the Independent[/url]
Now it says battle to save NHS ... I see another strike sometime in future don't you?
So you know the answer despite asking "Are they still on strike? Crikey."
Jolly good. Any more questions that you know the answer to?
ernie_lynch - Member
So you know the answer despite asking "Are they still on strike? Crikey."Jolly good. Any more questions that you know the answer to?
I don't know the long term answer or the future hence I want to know if they are still on strike or intend to strike again in future.
I want to know if they are still on strike or intend to strike again in future.
Are still they on strike (i.e. actively taking part in industrial action)? No.
Has the threat of strike passed? Well an agreement has been reached and the BMA will put it to its members. They won't strike again until the members are consulted. I think it is unlikely that the members will want to strike again over this particular issue.
That answer it?
Oh and..
The employees demand better work condition i.e. not long working hr and certainly no pay cut (might even demand more).
At no point did the junior doctors strike to demand better work condition or more pay.
I'd be amazed if you could read this read and believe that.
They did strike to [i]prevent[/i] what they believed would be [i]worse[/i] working conditions and worse pay.
Their "demand" was essentially "don't make things worse!"
This doesn't increase demand for health services at all.
Thanks GrahamS.
So it is in consultative period ... interesting.
At no point did the junior doctors strike to demand better work condition or more pay.I'd be amazed if you could read this read and believe that.
They did strike to prevent what they believed would be worse working conditions and worse pay.
Their "demand" was essentially "don't make things worse!"
Okay, fair enough.
docrobster - MemberThis doesn't increase demand for health services at all.
Okay, okay no toenail please ...