Gransnet forums

Health

Funding the NHS?

(230 Posts)
JessM Mon 31-Mar-14 13:40:02

Lord Warner has written a report that points out the if we want to have an effective NHS we are going to need to get more money for it.
He suggests various things including a £10 a month for using it and levies on gambling, alcohol, tobacco or sugar.
With some drastic cuts in the pipeline under "austerity" - how do you think the NHS can be funded in the face of increasing demand and increasing costs of the latest treatments.

Penstemmon Sun 15-Jun-14 17:39:44

I understand that some people feel that some cases of diabetes are self inflicted but so are some heart attacks, accidents etc etc..should we stop treating the guy who lost concentration and slipped off a ladder because he should have been more careful? Once you agree to drawing a line it is hard to decide exactly where it should go! A friend's son fell off a climbing frame recently and broke his arm. Should she have been more careful and be charges for the tratment he required? Many cancers are linked to diet...the list goes on!

gangy5 Sun 15-Jun-14 17:35:37

It seems that alot of us agree on the detriment to health of hidden dangers in manufactured food. It would be nice if Gransnet would make a campaign out of it.
durhamjen Yes it is surprising how difficult it is to get signatures for some of these petitions and as you say it was amazing to only get 770 on the one you've highlighted.
I find in unfathomable how, with the warning given at the end of the 90's about the consequences of the nations diet, were now in this situation.
My next look is at the FSA. My stupid MP said to me just yesterday '' Well we've got the FSA to regulate the food industry" What a joke!!
There seems to be much momentum now on this subject - I wish we could mobilise into an effective force. How about a march on Westminster??

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 17:28:14

As I said, that was finished anyway. That was given as an example of what we could collectively try with regard to the previous posts. However, I took MD to mean managing director. I now realise it means Maryland.
A signature from Germany too.
When I did a search on www.change.org for petitions to do with the food industry, I put uk in the search. However, I then started to think about the TTIP. Perhaps the people in the US who care about what's happening to food also care about that too.
If the TTIP gets passed, companies like Macdonalds and Coca-Cola will be able to sue the NHS if they enact laws that will affect their profits.

janeainsworth Sun 15-Jun-14 16:49:09

Jen i noticed that the last petition you put a link to (uk-health-department-stop-seeking-advice-from-junk-food-producers) was started by an American woman, and most of the signatories have addresses in the States.
That makes me slightly suspicious hmm

janeainsworth Sun 15-Jun-14 16:46:11

Aka Are you sure that the operation was refused on the grounds of financial cost alone?
There could have been, and probably was, a clinical reason. Cost/benefit is not measured only in terms of money, and if the operation cost only £12K, I doubt if it was in the case you refer to.
If the non-financial cost is going to be a year spent in plaster, in pain, and the benefit in terms of increased mobility is very small, and uncertain, it is possible to see why surgeons might have advised against it.

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 16:39:15

www.change.org/petitions/uk-health-department-stop-seeking-advice-from-junk-food-producers

This one is closed now, but only had 770 signatures which I find hard to believe. I would hope a similar one would get at least that just from Gransnet if they knew about it. If not, then maybe they are just not interested.

Aka Sun 15-Jun-14 16:30:17

Yes, a good post G5.

And yes, Eloe many illnesses are 'self inflicted' - nice that we agree at last!

What I find sad, is that if people took more responsibility for their health, then the NHS would be better placed to help others. A young girl, who lives locally, with cerebral palsy has recently been refused an operation which could help her walk. It costs only £12,000. Put that against the £1,000,000 per hour that it costs the NHS to treat people with mainly type 2 diabetes. Shameful. T

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 16:27:57

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-government-a-call-reduce-the-amount-of-sugar-and-tax-foods-with-excessive-fructose-and-sugar

This is one which should be a start.

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 16:21:34

You start, papaoscar. There may already be a petition on www.change.org

papaoscar Sun 15-Jun-14 16:10:57

Well researched, G5, you are spot on. The cosy relationship between the government and the food industry must be stopped for the good of the nation. Now.

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 15:35:00

Gangy, have you ever looked at the board for the FSA? One was the managing director of Bernard Matthews until 2010. Another was finance director for Premier Foods. Not exactly names you would think of when considering the health of the nation.

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 15:10:56

By the way, I was on Atorvastatin for six months last year but had too many side effects so stopped. When I asked my GP if he was going to put in a yellow card about it the response was we do not bother as too many people have side effects!

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 15:08:10

See what you mean about the link, gangy. It was okay when I put it on, but I am denied now.
Here's another one which I hope will work.
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261021.php
If you look up statins articles on that website, you'll scare yourself silly.

gangy5 Sun 15-Jun-14 15:04:04

For my sins - I have been a long term Tory voter - carried on from the parents' influence I suppose. Never again and especially after having had an appointment with my local (tory) MP yesterday evening.
Before going I did alot of research into how the country's health has suffered in past years owing to our increased bad diet and found, to my surprise that the labour government have done much more towards attempting to improve things. Here are the notes I made:-

THE FOOD MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY AND THE HEALTH OF THE NATION

In the late 1990’s alarm bells were rung with regard to the nation’s diet and what would be the resultant consequences. If effective steps had been taken then, the state of the country’s health would have been greatly improved by now.

From almost 2 decades ago, food industry practices have been challenged by the policy makers, the public and health professionals.

A Prime Minister’s official spokesman has recently said.” What we are doing is working with the industry. You have already seen commitments from retailers and manufacturers to reduce levels of salt, remove some artificial fats, reduce calorie content and improve labelling“. “Working with the industry” are the telling words. The government’s lax approach is due to ministers close links with the industry. The Food and Drink Federation, the industry lobby group, has had 16 meetings with ministers since the last election and 99 with government officials - looking after the interests of the food producers whom they represent. Groups calling for legislation on salt, sugar, unhealthy fats and misleading labels have had proportionately small meetings with any government officials!!

Another interesting quote from a Department of Health spokesman said “ Many manufacturers and retailers are already taking sugar, fat and salt out of products as a result of our Responsibility Deal, which is based on working collaboratively with the industry rather than imposing unrealistic targets“.

Government must cast aside it’s cosy relationship with the food industry for the sake of the nations health and the resultant costs involved. After allowing the industry to self regulate for so long it must now show some guts and legislate.

CURRENT STATISTICS

Obesity - which then goes on to cause type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers is the cause of 10% of deaths per year and costs the NHS between 5 and 16 billion pounds a year. Two figures which I have seen in print.

In the past 2 decades the number of obese adults has almost doubled.
Not to be proud of - we are the ‘fattest’ nation in Europe!

A national survey found little change in eating habits between 2008 and 2012 with most people failing to meet any of the national guidelines on a healthy diet.

TIME-LINE OF EVENTS CONTRIBUTING TO DIET - ESPECIALLY IN CHILDREN

1970
Margaret Thatcher became Sec. of State for Education. The economic outlook was grim - cuts had to be made. Free milk was stopped for older children and the price of school meals was raised.

1979
Mrs. Thatcher became PM and abolished school milk altogether

1980
The 1980 Education Act abolished minimum nutritional standards in school meals.
The Tory government initiated competitive tendering for school meal services. Private companies took over and persuaded schools that a cafeteria system was best. This resulted in the supply of popular fast food items. Another downside to this was obvious - these companies would need to make a profit.

END OF THE 80’S
Home Economics was removed from the National Curriculum and playing fields sold off -resulting in a decrease in physical activity.
Academic subjects were the new mantra - to the detriment of ‘skills for life’ along with ensuring a future healthy nation.
This move has resulted in a whole generation not being able to cook and who rely largely on unhealthy ready meals.

1997
Labour came to power. National Heart Forum campaigned for an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption. Despite various initiatives, uptake of fruit and vegetables hasn’t reached a decent level.
Also in this year the Food Standards agency was initiated and were tasked with the Department of Health to conduct a survey of young peoples’ diet and nutrition. The report was published in 2000 and stated that children were eating too much junk food, less fruit and vegetables than ever before and not taking enough exercise. Children were eating mostly processed or convenience foods. 9 out of 10 children drank fizzy drinks. This ’junk’ diet contained excessive amounts of sugar

1999
David Blunkett issued a draft of new regulations - these aimed at ensuring children had a balanced diet. Tories didn’t like the proposals and said they were ‘nanny stateism’. Others thought the proposals didn’t go far enough

2000
The NHS opened it’s first clinic to deal with childhood obesity.

In this year much was said by various organisations regarding diet and the resultant dire consequences if we were to continue as before.

Nutritional standards for school meals - the first for 20 years - were eventually published in July 2000 and became compulsory in
April 2001

It is evident that New Labour did a fair bit in an effort to improve child nutrition but these initiatives have had little effect on childrens’ eating habits. The reason for this being that the governments efforts are being undermined with it’s own unwillingness to confront 2 big problems posed by the vested interests of the food industry - the advertising of junk food and promotional schemes, set up by food manufacturers, in schools.

WHY THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE

1.Food habits learned in early life persist for years
2.Pressure on working parents, changes in lifestyle, food advertising and lack of food education have led to a culture in which few families sit down together for traditional meals. Parents assume that children get a healthy meal at school.
3.There has to be a rise in the cost of ingredients for school meals to up the quality.
4.Consider the re-introduction of subsidies.
5.Eligibility for free meals should be widened and take up encouraged
6.Nutrition and food preparation must be made important elements of the National Curriculum.
7.Any promotions or sale of junk food in schools should be banned
8.Televising advertising of junk food to children must be banned.
(info from www.educationengland.org.uk )

The future health of the nation depends on implementing all of these points.

Kraft in the USA are involved in litigation, in connection with it’s foods causing unhealthy outcomes!! - it will arrive here.
END.

My parting point is this:- There was great trumpeting when cookery was made compulsory in schools. I believe that it is for 11-14 year olds. I have discovered that this involves only 6 lessons per year - half a term.

gangy5 Sun 15-Jun-14 14:49:56

Have clicked on the link but haven't got anywhere - perhaps I'm doing something wrong durhamjen

durhamjen Sun 15-Jun-14 00:20:28

ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A7x9Ukh.1pxTJDAAQpJ3Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybWdtbzZ2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1402816254/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.webmd.com%2fcholesterol-management%2fnews%2f20130523%2fcould-statins-raise-diabetes-risk/RK=0/RS=KsokBBHTQRrOxAhPN5zNPXmwvX0-

I'll have to stop searching using Yahoo. The links are far too long.
For you, HappyMan.

It's also on Pulse Today, but only GPs can get to it now, it seems.

AAAHappyMan Sat 14-Jun-14 21:37:06

Well written, gangy5. I remember the Tories promising that they would stop dead in its tracks the plans the then Labour Govt's had to abolish Self Regulation. The Conservatives kept their promise in favour of the continuation and strengthening of the Food & Drink's profit driven strangle hold on the market.

gangy5 Sat 14-Jun-14 21:26:10

Eloethan I agree about the cutting down of sugar by food manufacturers - also fats and salt. It would cure alot of problems and is the only way to ensure results if this were to be done at source.
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62209

AAAHappyMan Sat 14-Jun-14 21:20:26

durhamjen Sat 14-Jun-14 01:13:01
''Have you read about the link between statins and type 2 diabetes, Eloethan? I think it's 20% more likely''

Please can you supply the source [URL] for this, as I've searched high and low for this report?
Diabetes co uk reported that a major study in USA which involved ''.... 32,752 people who had taken statin-based cholesterol drugs, half who had high doses and the other half being given lower doses each day for around a five-year period.
More patients who took the higher doses of ... statins that use the liver to block the creation of cholesterol in the body, went on to develop diabetes than those who were given the lower doses .
However, it was recommended that the potential benefits from treating cholesterol disease with the drugs outweighed the risk of diabetes .''

Hardly the most rigorous set of findings I've read QED

papaoscar Sat 14-Jun-14 12:15:43

Wise words, indeed, Aka. At the end of the day we are all responsible for what we eat, but the temptations to over-eat are enormous. This is not helped at all by the cosy relationship between governments and the food industry. They, jointly, bear a very heavy responsibility for many aspects of the nation's obesity and health problems. The food industry should be made to take a far more moral attitude to ingredients and promotion, and the government should be forcing appropriate legislation through Parliament and policing it vigorously.

Eloethan Sat 14-Jun-14 10:45:07

Aka I imagine some sort of argument could be made that many ailments are "self-inflicted".

People should, of course, take responsibility for their own health as far as they can. But the food and drink industry also bears responsibility for heavily marketing food and drink which they are well aware is extremely unhealthy. Of course, they don't care as long as they can keep making more and more profit - and they are quite clever at getting round any guidelines that are put in place.

Aka Sat 14-Jun-14 07:53:08

Lilygran I think there is a cure on the horizon for type 1 diabetes so there is hope that your little granddaughter will not have to live her life dependant on insulin injections flowers
Type 2 is largely self inflicted avoidable, but before those who know someone with type 2 who has a BMI of less than 25, eats healthily and exercises regularly jump on me, I said 'largely', not wholly.

Eloethan Sat 14-Jun-14 01:49:14

I wasn't aware of the diabetes connection but I have heard that statins can cause all sorts of muscular problems that, if the medication is not discontinued, are irreversible.

I expect that you've heard of NICE's recommendation that people who are currently healthy but who carry, I think, a 10% risk of stroke should be given statins as a "precautionary measure". Quite a few respected medical experts have said that it is unacceptable to subject people to possible serious side effects on the basis that they may be at risk. They point to the fact that several members of the NICE board have links with pharmaceutical companies.

My mum used to be on Atenolol, largely as a precautionary measure - I didn't know it carried health risks - although I suppose all medication carries some risk. She's now on Amlodopine (I think that's what it's called). I wonder if that carries risks too. I'll have to check.

durhamjen Sat 14-Jun-14 01:13:01

Have you read about the link between statins and type 2 diabetes, Eloethan? I think it's 20% more likely. It makes me glad I got pains in my legs and gave up statins, although Atenolol, a Beta blocker I am on, has the same risk. At least I am only on one, not both, and I am going to discuss that with the specialist next month.

Eloethan Sat 14-Jun-14 00:59:33

As others have said, the treatment of diabetes and complications relating to it, is a huge cost to the NHS.

Late onset diabetes and many other illnesses are related to diet and weight. If food and drink manufacturers were forced to cut the amount of sugar in their products, that should save quite a bit of money.

I read today that there are 13 teaspoonfuls of sugar in a can of Old Jamaica Ginger Beer - which I occasionally drink but I suppose I'd better not in future.