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

Insurance is managed by loss adjusters too not by medical experts who will have studied and followed medical ethics and frameworks that fit that. It is actually a very cruel way of treating and viewing human life.

volver

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".

Sorry volver I have personal connections (don't post personal stuff so not going to explain) with someone who trained under what was known as "sandwich course" system as an electrical engineer at a large manufacturing company in Manchester. Went on as a consulting engineer to supervise and control many installations in many countries, working for an originally British, now American company. His constant complaint was about graduates coming out from universities thinking they understood the subject but with only theoretical knowledge. And actually (although he primarily dealt with much bigger things) he could fix electrical items like kettles because he understood that the maths and theories are fine but sometimes if you don't understand the basics you can't discover what is going wrong.
He worked a lot in France and considered both the training and respect given to engineers there vastly superior to England where it could mean just someone who fixed your kettle. He was recognised there as an Ingénieur diplômé. Now he would be a C. Eng. something which graduates only get when they have sufficient practical experience.
The churning out of engineers by British universities many of whom would never work in the field they studied worried him

I think you are confusing major engineering work with technology and design, both of which can be done theoretically unlike practical engineering work on major infrastructure.

MaizieD

growstuff

But Maizie, maybe you've hit the nail on the head! Creating extra money for the NHS doesn't end up as profit for private health companies and insurers - that's the point!

Yep, that was my point .

Another question is:

If the state isn't funding healthcare, but expecting people to pay for it themselves via insurance and going private, where are people going to get that money from? Won't it just make everyone a bit poorer and so affect all the other parts of the economy which depend on consumer spending?'

But only some people can afford private healthcare and top-up insurance schemes. Presumably they're happy to pay for themselves, but not (as they see it) other people who can't afford to pay. That's part of the Tory ideology - they worked hard for their money (ahem - nobody else works hard, of course, and don't mention inheritances) and they should be free to spend it as they wish (not on other people). And if they can make money out of providing health services - why not?

MaizieD

^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.^

Why does it matter how much a procedure is costing? The money spent on it isn't disappearing down a big black hole, it's going to businesses and individuals and circulating round the economy to help to keep it going.
What would be much more concerning would be if the resources to implement these procedures and packages were in short supply or non existent.

I find it extraordinary that people don't seem to care about money being sucked out of the economy by the rich, who don't use it in the domestic economy, who use it in the financial markets to suck out even more money, or who leave it doing absolutely nothing in tax havens, yet they get very upset at the thought that money is being spent in a useful and productive fashion... then it has to be rationed or withheld...

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD. Healthcare is a bottomless pit, quite literally. As one need is resolved, another becomes evident. We could end up with a consultant specialising in thickened toenails for example. There has to be some limit on what is available, it’s just where the line is that has to be defined.

growstuff

But Maizie, maybe you've hit the nail on the head! Creating extra money for the NHS doesn't end up as profit for private health companies and insurers - that's the point!

Yep, that was my point .

Another question is:

If the state isn't funding healthcare, but expecting people to pay for it themselves via insurance and going private, where are people going to get that money from? Won't it just make everyone a bit poorer and so affect all the other parts of the economy which depend on consumer spending?'

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.

Why does it matter how much a procedure is costing? The money spent on it isn't disappearing down a big black hole, it's going to businesses and individuals and circulating round the economy to help to keep it going.
What would be much more concerning would be if the resources to implement these procedures and packages were in short supply or non existent.

I find it extraordinary that people don't seem to care about money being sucked out of the economy by the rich, who don't use it in the domestic economy, who use it in the financial markets to suck out even more money, or who leave it doing absolutely nothing in tax havens, yet they get very upset at the thought that money is being spent in a useful and productive fashion... then it has to be rationed or withheld...

But Maizie, maybe you've hit the nail on the head! Creating extra money for the NHS doesn't end up as profit for private health companies and insurers - that's the point!

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.

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...

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".

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!.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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’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?

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.

“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

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.