NHS

The media is full of the financial crises in the NHS because of the downward pressure being placed on it by the Treasury. By the end of this parliament it is intended that only 7% of GDP will be spent on the NHS. Most European countries spend up to 10 or 11% including those whose economy is more precarious than ours.

Of course we could all abandon the NHS and choose private care. I have recently obtained quotes and an example would be Saga which quoted £198 per month for a basic cover to £272 for reasonable cover. This is for husband and wife and does not cover any existing conditions. So if we abandon the concept of the NHS and want full cover, we for one simply wouldn't be able to afford it, as I have no idea what it would cost to cover us for heart, and breast cancer, hypertension, high blood sugar on top of the offered charge.

We must as a matter of urgency decide once and for all what we want, what the country is prepared to afford and how we are to make up any gap in care/treatment if we are not prepared to pay for it.

Despite "cuts" our local hospital is providing a better service that it has ever done.
Waiting times are very short (I doubt private care would be any quicker unless you were in the Harley St. bracket). Appointments are very punctual, and on the one occasion when I had to wait, we were informed of the reason (consultant called to surgery)

Having worked in the private sector all my working life, financial cuts are commonplace. Such cuts do not effect the product or service, they mean that the waste and inefficiency has to be addressed, there is plenty of that still to be worked on in the NHS. One may think that once efficiency and waste have been addressed that there is no more to be cut. However changes in practices and technology means that one can continue to make improvements.

In my job, there was an unwritten rule that myself and my colleges should provide savings of 4x our salaries year on year - we never failed to meet or exceed that target (probably be looking for a job if we didn't). We often hear about money being wasted on consultancy, but a new pair of eyes from a different perspective can see the obvious that is missed.

But the point being gand that none of the private sector providers are going to cut to the extent that their patients will suffer. They would soon be out of business if they were.

Every time this is aired on GN, I ask how the NHS can be all things to all people all of the time with all the (expensive) advances there have been. I have no knowledge at all but it seems obvious that there needs to be a complete rethink about how healthcare can/should be funded in the PRESENT circumstances.

And, fewer managers, oversight and regulations would be a start (said in a heartfelt way!)

Expensive advances there may have been but provision differed so much in the past. My mum had a hysterectomy in 1948. She was in hospital for 6 weeks, was visited by a district nurse for about 6 months and also had a (paid for) cleaner because she wasn't allowed to do housework. Procedures may be more expensive but hospital stays are much shorter and there is nothing like as much care provision.

That's my point Whitewave, I experience am improvement in services to the patient not a delcine. That is all the areas I have experience of, from my GP surgery onwards.
I requested a Drs. appointment on Wednesday afternoon, they fitted me in the next day. At the hospital I had to wait 3 weeks for a CT scan. I cannot ask better than that.
When I had private Med Ins, I could not get appointments any quicker, nor was the care any better.

I think Whitewave's point is that it could be so much better for everyone if the government was committed to it and to spending 10% on it, instead of 7%.

Have you read what Simon Stevens is wanting to do, GandTea?

999callfornhs.org.uk/footprints/4592357931

durhamjen's post is very chilling and one section in particular demonstrates the underlying values of the boss of the NHS, which fits in nicely with the Conservative pledge to reduce the role of the state in all areas of public service provision:

"Simon Stevens' previous employment was as the President of Global Strategy for United Health of America [the world's largest private health care company] where he lobbied for healthcare around the world to be included in the infamous Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnershipn [TTIP]. He didn't oppose it. He lobbied in favour of it!"

Trisher, we have a bigger population who live longer, there are illnesses that can be cured when previously they couldn't, babies living after much shorter gestation periods etc.

DD's Fil has just had a major heart op. He had previously had a few stays in hospital when it was expected he would die. He spent 3 months in hospital after his op, first in ICU, then needing less and less intensive care until he had an infection and went back into ICU and the whole cycle started again. He is now at home but has regular checks at home from a variety of specialist teams, he has regular hospital appointments of one sort or another and will continue to be monitored for months, if not years, to come.

Five years ago a friend's father died of exactly the same problem - a similar scenario must happen countless times with other illnesses as procedures, knowledge and expertise advance.

That's why someone needs to get hold of the NHS and make it fit for today.

So what do you suggest, kitty?
Should he have died because it cost too much?
Who chooses who dies and who lives?

That already happens dj

Durhamjen. No I have not read it. I find that type of article so biased that I cannot be bothered to look.

So all you care about is what happens to you?
Fortunately there are others who care about keeping the NHS national and for all.
Of course the article is biased. It's written by people who work in the NHS.

Despite what has happened this week, there are still 50% of junior doctors who want to leave the NHS, and 90% of GPs are unhappy.
Won't bother giving you the links.
But you're okay.

I am extremely worried about the NHS. The so called "Future Fit" programme want to close an A/E unit in Shropshire leaving only one for a large population that covers quite a chunk of mid Wales. Surely this can't be what those who voted for this government envisaged. Obviously since the inception of the NHS medicine has become more sophisticated and people live longer so it has to cost more, and I do not see how it is possible for private companies to run health services at a profit. Our NHS is the most cost effective in the world, but clearly needs more money spending on it. Why can't the government have an honest debate about this instead of constantly expecting health services to make savings?

dj, I was pointing out why things are in crisis. I did not suggest that one should live and one should die, merely that someone who would have died five years ago probably wouldn't now and that has cost implications. Please do not imply that I did!

Had you read my first post you would see that I do not profess to have any answers - I just say we need a radical rethink. That might involve privatisation but should definitely involve fewer 'managers' coming up with yet more protocols etc and pushing more and more bits of paper across yet more desks.

And, in my very recent experience, they are inefficient and incompetent and wield too much power over the practitioners at the coalface.

I don't see how privatisation could make the NHS better. As it stands now all the money in the system stays in the system. If it is privatised then there will be shareholders who will expect dividends thereby taking money out of the system.

Health insurance companies are not charities. They are in business to make money no matter how caring their adverts make them appear. They're only interested in insuring healthy people who may have the odd problem. Their ideal customer would pay far more to them than they pay out. People with long term and chronic conditions are definitely not ideal customers and would either be declined or offered premiums that price cover out of the means of most people.

Health care is not cheap but then we are not a poor country, We are perfectly capable of funding an effective, up to date health service if only the government were willing to spend the money. If you think otherwise just remember how easily successive governments have found the money to go to war in the last 20 years or so. They may not call them conflicts or one of several other euphenisms but at the end of the day we send in troops and/or drop bombs which cost millions of pounds. The money we spend killing and maiming people in other countries could be used to benefit the people of this country.

Actually, vampire, although I agree with your premise, it's not true that NHS money stays in the NHS. There are many private healthcare companies which charge the NHS and make profits from it already.
I am hoping that the Panama Papers will expose some of them.

Kitty, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just asking you to think about what will happen if the NHS gets worse. As Annsixty said, people already choose who will live and who will die.

Privatisation means people like me will not be able to get insurance. So I will probably die earlier than I would have done without an all-encompassing NHS, and like my grandfather did before the NHS came into being, because he could not afford the medication he needed.

The NHS does not just concern other people; it's about all those we care for as well.

I realised I hadn't made the already private bit clear after I posted.

But it was already an essay and I was worried people would be put off reading it lol.

Don't get me started on the already privatised bits or I'll truly be on my soapbox lol.

You and me both, vampire. It's a shame more people don't look at links.

Durhamjen.

"So all you care about is what happens to you? Etc Etc"

That is just bloody rude -- who the hell do you think you are.

No, I do not want to read your links, just a lazy way of trying to force your point across.

Do I care about the NHS, yes, and I was putting my point of view, tough it it isn't the same as yours.

But, dj, who is to say the NHS will get worse? And, who said that buying private medical insurance will be the way privatisation will work. Like GandTea, I can't be bothered to read links but base my opinion on first hand experience of working in the NHS.

And, I don't have the answers but can see an awful lot of the problems.

So why are you both bothering with this thread when it was started with that particular point and link in mind?

I told you who I am when I started the thread, GandTea, and told you why I started it.
It's about the demise of the NHS, which is what Simon Stevens and Jeremy Hunt want.
I am worried about it for everyone; you are not.

If all you go on is first hand experience of the NHS, you do not see what is happening over all.

I believe that what Dh and I see, and hear about from friends and colleagues is multiplied across the NHS.

Are people only allowed to post if they agree with you, dj? I didn't know that was what GN was about.

I am bothering because I have my own opinions and the feedback I get from people working in the NHS. I prefer to base my opinions on my own experiences, rather than a selection of jaundiced links that some one else selects.
The fact that you started the thread does not mean that you own it, or have the only opinion that matters. Anyone can quote a load of links, how about some original thought.

If you look at the map on the link, which obviously you are not going to do, but never mind, you will see that there is a Leicester and Rutland Keep our NHS Public.

Why is that if everything is okay in Leicester NHS?