The Tories are in sight of their goal aren’t they?

ronib

Iam64 a young and very bright engineering graduate explained to me that even with a masters in engineering, graduates were at the start of the career path. Companies spent a lot of time and resources on training to get graduates work ready in complex engineering roles. So good salaries immediately on graduation plus ongoing training offer young graduates an excellent career path.

A retired hospital consultant explained that because of the sheer complexity of human ailments, young medical graduates needed full exposure to as many health conditions as possible as part of ongoing training.

Which is why medical degrees require a proportion of the time to be spent in hospitals doing clinical practice.
Unfortunately most engineering degrees don't do this (partly because we no longer have the manufacturing base to accommodate them). There used to be qualifications which involved engineering students doing periods of practical work as well as studying. There were even companies who paid for students. These have largely disappeared. There are some courses which offer a year in industry, but they are few in number and highly sought after.
Arguably we could do with more teaching hospitals as well to increase training facilities. But on ward training is part of a medical degree. Engineering degrees have no such requirement.

Agree with whoever said that the system is about to implode, and fear that the present govt feels powerless to do anything about it despite the cause being the years of austerity under the posterity of their predecessors.
The tsunami of need seems too great for even 10-yr-plans.

I must say that the (usually Tory) bashing that starts many such conversations irksome. Whilst on first glance it appears the current government had done little, they did get us through a pandemic (hold the brickbats please). The NHS problem started way back and Labour have made done so silly things as well.
As another poster states above, similar chaos is being experienced on the continent. There are a whole raft of issues that go back many years affecting the wider NHS picture - everything from no more Nurses homes to more varied and complex procedures, the demand for mental health support, an unwillingness for families to look after their elderly, a growing and aging population and so on.
I’d agree that political meddling shouldn’t govern the NHS - but has it really done so so far? Where’s the evidence for that?
We cannot go back to the old ways. We need to five a better way of dealing with health care and do that as a wider population, not expect to be served.
I don’t have the answers but perhaps we should let those that do get on with the job, whilst exercising a high level of personal responsibility at the same time.

Tory bashing? Who has undermined and attempted to privatise the NHS, mostly by the back door, for the past decade and a half?

Reform is one thing- destruction to privatise to gain hugely, and often even personally, is another.

-We cannot go back to the old ways. We need to five a better way of dealing with health care and do that as a wider population, not expect to be served. I don’t have the answers but perhaps we should let those that do get on with the job, whilst exercising a high level of personal responsibility at the same time.-

Quite so, Not old, my question is who and where are the people who do know the answers and why aren't they telling us what the answers are? At the moment the tablecloth seems to be being invisibly dragged off the table taking everything with it and the govt isn't putting out a hand to stop it..

ExperiencedNotOld Look no further than the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for evidence of political meddling. It opened up the NHS to so-called competition and services being contracted to the cheapest provider, which were often in the private sector and couldn't deliver what they promised for the price.

I don't understand what you mean by "not expect to be served". We pay our taxes and are entitled to healthcare.

Your last sentence seems to suggest that we, as citizens, should allow those in government to do what they want, even if it's not in the best interests of the majority. Do you not believe in democratic accountability?

NotOld, please can you also explain why you talk of demand for mental health support rather than need? If an intentional choice of words that is offensive.

Similarly, an unwillingness for families to look after their elderly is not a recognisable state of affairs, in fact I would say quite untrue.

Sorry, off topic.

Unfortunately most engineering degrees don't do this (partly because we no longer have the manufacturing base to accommodate them).

Engineering has very little to do with manufacturing.

“I don't understand what you mean by "not expect to be served". We pay our taxes and are entitled to healthcare.”

The problem is that the amount “ we” have paid is not enough for our complex care, even if you add contributions from todays working generation it still isn’t enough.

To balance the books it’s either more money or lower service levels

Katie59 So somebody has to make the decision which treatments are funded. Tinkering around with charging a few pounds for GP appointments (or whatever) isn't going to solve anything.

In a lifetime, the most expensive times as far as the NHS is concerned are a person's last couple of years, followed by the first few years. There's a blip in the graph for pregnant women. Men generally have more consistent needs throughout life until they get older. However, they tend to die earlier, so cost less.

I've suggested this before, but nobody wants to respond. If we're going to save the NHS big money, we could stop funding the expensive treatments, which would probably mean not treating people who aren't going to live that long anyway and not trying to save babies going through difficult births. It would mean not funding expensive drugs - and I don't mean the super-expensive drugs - but the ones which are keeping millions of people alive. Is that what people really want? It would certainly free up resources for more mundane treatments.

Introducing some kind of insurance schemes would raise more money, but so would raising taxes.

There’s an overlap with engineering, bio medical and microfluidics which is producing some innovative and exciting treatments which eventually, if they work, will feed into the health sector. Incidentally making the start ups and their investors a tidy return . Depends what you mean by manufacturing I suppose?

growstuff

Katie59 So somebody has to make the decision which treatments are funded. Tinkering around with charging a few pounds for GP appointments (or whatever) isn't going to solve anything.

In a lifetime, the most expensive times as far as the NHS is concerned are a person's last couple of years, followed by the first few years. There's a blip in the graph for pregnant women. Men generally have more consistent needs throughout life until they get older. However, they tend to die earlier, so cost less.

I've suggested this before, but nobody wants to respond. If we're going to save the NHS big money, we could stop funding the expensive treatments, which would probably mean not treating people who aren't going to live that long anyway and not trying to save babies going through difficult births. It would mean not funding expensive drugs - and I don't mean the super-expensive drugs - but the ones which are keeping millions of people alive. Is that what people really want? It would certainly free up resources for more mundane treatments.

Introducing some kind of insurance schemes would raise more money, but so would raising taxes.

You’ve missed one of the barn door options for saving the NHS billions growstuff. Continuing healthcare. I’m not at all saying it should be dispensed with, but some individual care packages in the community cost well over a million pounds per year, to keep one person at home. Is it as drastic and far reaching to stop that and place them in care, as opposed to stopping drug treatments which keep people alive? If there has to be a ceiling, maybe that’s where it should start.

There are quite a few elective treatments that I would not want to fund ( I’m not getting into an argument which). The current level of service is not acceptable, one way or another those that have the money, including the retired are going to have to pay more

Forcing family members to provide complex health care is not the best way to deliver care.

As for the third world country comments. I work with someone from a developing country who has only lived here for just over a year and they are absolutely appalled at our healthcare system!

Re Engineering, it is more lucrative for young bright engineers to move either into management as it's better paid or to move abroad as it is better respected

I’m not sure I explained myself very well JaneJudge, I wasn’t suggesting that family members should be expected to provide complex healthcare in the community. The cared for people I was referring to have 24 hour, often two handed, qualified nurses to keep them at home, and are often on ventilation. It’s not something family could do. The question I was asking is, should there be a line?

Growstuff mentions exactly what we do need to urgently consider. The NHS has become all thing to all people and it’s just not sustainable. For example, unless a scar is affecting your ability to live life, no repair unless you fund it. At 64, working full time and fully healthy otherwise, I’ve just had ankle surgery to continue a life without pain. But should someone with other complex health issues and with poor mobility receive the same? Not for me to decide luckily.
Presently procedures are being done just because they can. My father, at 89, suffered with a rare blood cancer without cure, but we had to fight hard for palliative care so he met his end in peace, not distressed by the sheer effort of receiving procedure after procedure.
This may be unpleasant to consider as we age but very necessary.

Casdon I thought about that after I'd posted. I was considering another post from the angle of specific forms of treatment, but I'm supposed to be going out, so am pushed for time. I'm sure if the NHS budget were to be left to accountants, they could think of plenty more. Diabetes would be another one. I belong to a couple of international diabetic fora and have seen how much drugs cost in the US. People don't take the best drugs for them because they're so expensive. And that leads on to public health education ...

I came across this a couple of days ago ...

www.statista.com/statistics/1173024/importance-of-a-healthy-diet-uk-by-age-group/

GNers are very fond of criticising younger people for having bad diets, but it seems younger people care most about what they eat and over 65 year old care least. 18% of 18-24 year olds agreed that a healthy diet is important, compared with only 9% of people over 65.

volver

Sorry, off topic.

Unfortunately most engineering degrees don't do this (partly because we no longer have the manufacturing base to accommodate them).

Engineering has very little to do with manufacturing.

But it was the manufacturers who funded the engineering expertise. Manchester and Newcastle used to have huge companies which manufactured things- some consumer goods, some basically engineering components for say the national grid- transformers etc. (I'm no engineering expert). Those companies used to train engineers and give them shop floor experience. They have stopped doing that. They do offer a few apprenticeships but nothing like the numbers they once trained The result is a lot of engineering graduates who know all the theory but have no industrial experience. Mind the same companies are now largely in the hands of huge American and International conglomerates which is another problem.

unless a scar is affecting your ability to live life, no repair unless you fund it.

I've had a scar on my forehead since I was 18 and I've never been offered a repair, despite the fact it's very visible and has meant I've always had to have a fringe because I'm very conscious of it. I've asked people to destroy photos where it's visible.

growstuff

Casdon I thought about that after I'd posted. I was considering another post from the angle of specific forms of treatment, but I'm supposed to be going out, so am pushed for time. I'm sure if the NHS budget were to be left to accountants, they could think of plenty more. Diabetes would be another one. I belong to a couple of international diabetic fora and have seen how much drugs cost in the US. People don't take the best drugs for them because they're so expensive. And that leads on to public health education ...

I came across this a couple of days ago ...

www.statista.com/statistics/1173024/importance-of-a-healthy-diet-uk-by-age-group/

GNers are very fond of criticising younger people for having bad diets, but it seems younger people care most about what they eat and over 65 year old care least. 18% of 18-24 year olds agreed that a healthy diet is important, compared with only 9% of people over 65.

It’s a very big and complex debate I know, but it does need to be had.
What scared me about the information you posted about healthy diets was less the age difference, more that a maximum of 18% in either age group agreed that a healthy diet was important. They need to read our current Soupmakers thread I think.

But did you seek a repair? My husband has a horrendous scar on his leg, has never sought anything but after 36 years of having it, was recently asked by his GP if he wanted to see someone.

Continuing healthcare is really difficult to get, even if you qualify for it.

Something that would save the NHS money is putting a stop to the incarceration of people with learning disabilities into these shocking, archaic private institutions and getting them settled back into their communities with appropriate care. There was a story on the news the other day where a man with severe learning disabilities had gone in for a treatment plan which was supposed to take weeks and was still in the hospital facility THIRTY FIVE YEARS later despite being fit to leave thirty years previous!.

Glorianny

volver

Sorry, off topic.

Unfortunately most engineering degrees don't do this (partly because we no longer have the manufacturing base to accommodate them).

Engineering has very little to do with manufacturing.

But it was the manufacturers who funded the engineering expertise. Manchester and Newcastle used to have huge companies which manufactured things- some consumer goods, some basically engineering components for say the national grid- transformers etc. (I'm no engineering expert). Those companies used to train engineers and give them shop floor experience. They have stopped doing that. They do offer a few apprenticeships but nothing like the numbers they once trained The result is a lot of engineering graduates who know all the theory but have no industrial experience. Mind the same companies are now largely in the hands of huge American and International conglomerates which is another problem.

Sorry, really off topic now.

DH was an engineer. He lectured engineers at University. I managed teams of engineers from all around the world.

Engineers don't work on the shop floor. The engineers I know build bridges, design space craft, write the software that makes Gransnet work, and keep the wind turbines going. For instance.

My MIL used to be quite put out that her engineer son couldn't make her broken kettle work. She didn't know what engineering was either. Engineers don't need "shop floor experience" in manufacturing companies and they don't need manufacturing companies to "fund their experience".

I've been holding off commenting on this thread because I am finding it so frustrating to read all the comments about financing of the NHS and the assumption that the country can't afford it any more.

WE DO NOT NEED TO INCREASE TAXATION TO FUND THE NHS.

OK, an analogy. You are running a profitable retail business but want to expand your operation.

Do you:

a) increase your prices in to your customers so as to make enough profit to invest in expansion?

or

b) present a business case to a bank in order to get a loan to cover the money needed?

I think you'd agree that a business would take the second option, the bank loan. They'd expand their business, make more profit and repay the loan plus the interest charged on it.

The interesting thing about the bank loan is that it is completely new money created by the bank. It eventually returns to the bank, but on its way back it generates a lot of economic activity. It has been very useful to the company, to individuals and to the economy.

Now think of the government as being similar to that business. Except that, importantly, the government doesn't have to borrow money from anywhere because it can create its own money. All it needs to do is spend the money into existence. The money then circulates in the economy and MOST OF IT COMES BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF TAXATION. The amount of tax the govt. will get back will depend on how much it spent in the first place.

While the money is circulating it is stimulating economic activity and helping to grow the economy. Our public money is keeping us healthy, supporting all sorts of private enterprise and much of it returning to the treasury to, if you like, 'pay off' the govt 'borrowing (from itself) and prevent inflation. What it isn't doing is ending up as profits for private health companies and insurers, which may not even be taxed in the UK...

ExperiencedNotOld

But did you seek a repair? My husband has a horrendous scar on his leg, has never sought anything but after 36 years of having it, was recently asked by his GP if he wanted to see someone.

Yes. I've asked two GPs over the years.