NHS

thatbags,

The NHS has just had comprehensive restructuring, which has CAUSED some of the current problems.

Unfortunately, I think your conclusion is correct, because no political party will risk losing the 'grey vote'.

Leaving aside the US which spends a ludicrous amount of money on health care with no significant improvements in outcome, the UK spends significantly less (approximately 25%) than countries such as France, whose health care system is so often praised. OK, so just throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, but...

'The UK has fewer hospital beds when compared to the size of the population. Germany has about 2 and a half times more hospital beds available adjusted for population size than the UK. In 2014, the Guardian reported that the only European country to have fewer hospital beds per head was Sweden. An OECD report from 2014 showed the UK has fewer doctors per person than any other western European country except Ireland, and relatively few MRI or CPR scanners per person.'

Source www.sochealth.co.uk/2015/01/18/international-comparisons-say-nhs/

I would be interested to know what Jane10's father thought was so much better about French health care and how any of those differences could be applied to the NHS WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN FUNDING.

I think anybody over 60 who moans about the NHS should be very careful what he/she wishes for. Health care spending increases exponentially when people reach their 60s. People of working age have been squeezed about as much as it's possible to squeeze and, however unpopular it is, I suspect we're going to see further cuts to social care for the elderly and, possibly, some cuts in treatment options, although the slimey government won't want to take responsibility. It would rather blame local authorities when people die of lack of care, heating and food, etc.

But look on the bright side! Those who can afford care will be just fine!

I'd be prepared to pay up to £10 for a GP appointment and a prescription charge. I'd also be OK about paying towards an insurance scheme. They don't have to be profit making. People on benefits or with long term conditions should be exempt of course. This would certainly make me think about whether or not my problem is a health one.

Here we go again is it really beyond the wit of man or gran to have a discussion without getting snippy daphnedill
I wasn't aware you'd been appointed Gransnet's censor


Could we just stick to the discussion?

Given that the NHS seems to need more funding, and given that the government isn't prepared to give it any more, looking at possible alternative solutions to the problems it has doesn't seem unreasonable. (Yes, I'm aware that's pretty much what jane10 said). It does seem a bit unreasonable to keep harping on about how awful the government/the politics is when there's bugger all we can do about that until 2020 at least. But really, it's looking more and more as if a quite comprehensive restructuring is what is needed. My guess is that this will happen piecemeal whichever flavour of government we have over the next few parliaments.

Jane 10,

The French pay considerably more for their health care system than the British.

The question is whether to pay more as individuals or to spread the cost through the tax system. A brutal accountant's view would be to stop treating the patients who cost the most, which includes the over 85s and premature babies. Is that what you want?

Personally, I think a rich country such as the UK should be treating those who cost more, but if, as a society, a collective decision is made not to treat them, we have to live with that.

GandTea,

Frankly I don't care which posts you're prepared to read. That's entirely your choice and I wasn't aware that you'd been appointed as Gransnet's censor.

It could be said of a number of posters that everything they write has a political bias and they don't use their own words, as they often repeat (almost verbatim) what they've read in the media. Many of them don't listen either, but whinge, moan and play the victim card about lefties and/or other people, with whose views they don't agree.

dj we agreed with vq's summary but not necessarily that it should be fully funded by govt. Are there some NHS services that could be paid for in some way similar to the French system which seems to provide better care than ours does? Via insurance schemes. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't necessarily mean its the best way. My late Dad was an NHS Dr and in retirement visited France and discovered that their way of providing health care was much better. A bitter pill for him to swallow!

I am prepared to read VQ's post because she produce an straight forward summary in her own words, and without political bias. It was interesting.

DJ, you bombard us with links that just repeat the same old tale over and over, gets very boring, plus you are never prepared to listen to any one else's opinion if it doesn't agree with your own.

That's exactly what I just wrote! I really don't remember GPs doing any of those things, but there was a small hospital a couple of miles from where I lived as a child in the 1950s. I remember quite distinctly going there for X rays and the 'plaster room' and having a couple of very nasty cuts stitched up. I was born with a slightly deformed foot and had regular check ups with a consultant in the same hospital. Thinking back, I guess he did clinics there. These days, that hospital has gone. My parents and I would have to travel to an all-purpose hospital with A & E equipped with all sorts of hi tech equipment.

I don't know how people with no transport in my area manage to go to A & E or to planned hospital appointments.

Some of the biggest problems arise when people need care in the community since responsibility was transferred from the NHS to local authorities without ring-fencing the money. Some of these services have now been outsourced to the cheapest provider. I do know quite a bit about this, because this was why my sister was made redundant. It's quite obvious that vulnerable people in the community, formerly NHS clients, are often left with absolutely minimal support. Eventually it gets to the stage when there is no option but to admit them to hospital and keep them there until they can be safely returned to the community.

Rather than spreading staffing resources over 7 days, the government should try listening to what people really want. When CCGs were first introduced, my local one did a survey (last time it consulted ~lol~). Overwhelmingly, people wanted a stable team of local GPs, access to a local minor injuries/walk-in centre and reintroduction of district nurses, so that people could return home sooner. Since then, one GP surgery has gone completely, although the town's population has increased, an empty hospital building is being left to decay (probably earmarked for housing) and there are fewer district/community nurses than ever. There are NO mental health services for miles and the team is being dismantled.

Vey Vamps a very good summary. BUT, and this is where the division starts, how do we fix it.

Perhaps it always varied, dd. A doctor definitely came to my parents' house in Leeds one day to stitch up a cut on my forehead, and I took a younger child up the road from my primary school in Lancashire (I was eleven) to a GP surgery for a stitch in her ear lobe.

The point really is that you don't need a hospital A&E for quite a lot of the things they cover nowadays so if a cheaper to run alternative could be designed, some of us think that might help relieve pressure on hospitals.

thatbags, Maybe some GPs did stitches and dealt with minor fractures, but I've never had one who did. As a child in the 1950s and 1960s, I had all sorts of stitches and fractures, but I was always sent to A & E. It was the same in the 1990s when my own children went through that phase.

gx99g.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/the-list-of-66-ae-and-maternity-units-being-hit-by-cuts-the-telegraph-26th-oct-2014/

More of them have closed since this was written.

You do realise what you've agreed to?
Vampire said it needs more money, more doctors, more nurses,and other health professionals, more GPs and better access to primary care, which is what some of us, including me, have been saying all along.
So how is it a proper discussion when vampire says it, but pointless oppositionism when I say it?
Says it all really.

This government, which is the one which is trying to dismantle it, break it up so it is no longer a National Health Service. is putting less money into it, whatever it says.
A soundbite seven day NHS cannot be run on even the same money as a five day, which is what Hunt appears to think it is at the moment.

Hear , hear, vamp. How nice to have a proper discussion of what people feel is needed rather than "pointless oppositionism".

Yes excellent post vq

Good summary vampirequeen!

And, I'm sure that many (note not all) of those complaining about having to wait for so long are the very ones blocking the system with minor problems.

I've looked back over the entire thread and there seem to be some things we all agree on.

I don't think any of us want to dismantle the NHS no matter what part of the political spectrum we come from.

No government regardless of the party in power has invested properly in the NHS for at least two decades.

There is, and will continue to be, greater demands made on the service as people live longer and new treatments are developed.

We are a rich country and can afford an excellent NHS.

There should be more doctors, nurses and other health professionals.

Doctors, nurses and other health professionals need to be listened to by those who make the decisions as they're the people working within the system.

A and E is misused. We need to increase the number of and promote the use of walk in and minor injury units. These also need to be open longer hours.

We need more GPs and better access to primary care.

Managers need to manage efficiently but also flexibly.

More money needs to be invested but it needs to be targeted. Perhaps it should be targeted even if this means some parts of the service have to wait for their share as long as every part gets what it needs eventually. This means that rather than spreading the cash thinly each part will get the lump sum it needs to sort itself out.

I think our differences are not really about dismantling the NHS but about how the service can be funded in the future. Some of us are adamant that it should totally be in public hands and funded directly by taxes. Others say that private companies can be part of the NHS and help it to be more efficient. Whilst others just don't know what but know something needs to be done.

I do not know how people can be persuaded to deal with minor incidents themselves and not pile into A&E. My OH was a rural GP and the nonsense that used to come to us when he was on call at night and weekends beggars belief. All that stuff is now going to A&E as GP out-of-hours services have died the death. It is all very well saying educate the public about this, but to be honest so many of those who abused the out-of-hours were not of the brainiest. Very un-PC, but true.

I think that 111 has a lot to answer for in this regard. The people on the end of the phone are following an algorithm which errs on the safe side and many people are directed to A&E who might otherwise have waited for the GP surgery the next day.

Ditto A&E departments. Once you are through the doors, you have to be seen, even if the staff know it is nonsense. Once you are there and they register you they have to examine you to make sure nothing is being missed. They are understandably minding their backs.

We do have a walk in centre near the hospital that deals with minor injuries etc, not used it for a while, but it used to be staffed 24/7. Trouble is I'm sure people still go to A&E with minor complaints I did use our local A&E a while ago when I had a serious hand injury (which was referred on to surgery). I was lucky that I did it very early morning and I was seen quickly (the blood helps ) When I came out a couple of hours later it was heaving. .I was not convinced from visual appearances about the emergency nature of many of those waiting
I know other towns have similar walk-in centres as our daughter has used her local one with her boys.
How we tackle the mis-use of emergency services and ambulances , I'm not sure.

Good post bags. I think there is also an argument for using pharmacies much more. And, surely, there must be a case for having a holistic 'geriatric' service rather than bitting and bobbing about between different disciplines.

As I keep on saying - a complete rethink is required.

I think jane10's post of 22:40:28 yesterday makes a valid point. We've all heard stories of people going to A&E over trivial matters that they really should have been able to deal with at home or at least which didn't need emergency treatment. I know it's Accident and Emergency but a good number of the accidents one hears about don't really need to be dealt with by medics.

I think there's a case for non-emergency treatment rooms/places if only to unclog A&E departments and to reserve them for serious accidents and actual emergencies. GP practices used to do minor stitchings up and bandaging of wounds, for instance. If GP practices can no longer do this sort of thing then we need some other way of covering such incidents that isn't as expensive to run as a hospital A&E.

As usual you have skewed what I said to make it say something you want it to say but which I didn't say, dj. I didn't say you did nothing except post stuff on Gransnet. I asked what your posts on Gransnet would change?

Sigh. Never mind.

Apart from wanting to dismantle the NHS as we know it, what do Jeremy Hunt, Douglas Carswell, Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan have in common?

Who on earth believes that they would spend the alleged savings from leaving the EU on the NHS? Ha ha ha! :-(