Plasma

2

Comments

  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Firstly, glad everything was ok with your sons scan.

    Are you saying the scanner was in effect hired by the NHS from a private company and that each scan had to be paid for by the NHS? If this is so, what finer point to make about private enterprise within/instead of the NHS, only those with the ability to pay get treatment.

    The NHS will never have enough funding whoever is running the show and a lot treatment of treatment/care is rationed in effect.

    I believe some things should not be available on the NHS and that is where private medicine should be allowed to practice/flourish. If everyone was dependent on the NHS I'm sure the politicians and the moneymen would make sure it was a service that was truely second to none. If everyone and I mean everyone was dependent upon public transport to get around the system would be second to none.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • pliptrot
    pliptrot Posts: 582
    Frank the tank wrote:
    If everyone was dependent on the NHS I'm sure the politicians and the moneymen would make sure it was a service that was truely second to none. If everyone and I mean everyone was dependent upon public transport to get around the system would be second to none.

    And therein lies the British problem - a great nation subjugated by the idiots and charlatans we have always managed not to avoid in power, enthralled by appalling morons with inherited wealth and power, and keen to exercise nauseating deference to anachronistic institutions and the half-wits who make them up.

    Just listen to the news today, if you can stand it. There's another big benefit scrounger in the fold.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Are you saying the scanner was in effect hired by the NHS from a private company and that each scan had to be paid for by the NHS? If this is so, what finer point to make about private enterprise within/instead of the NHS, only those with the ability to pay get treatment.

    The same company has just upgraded the scanner so now scans in a higher resolution. My experience in the last 2 years is that the waiting list is now 2 weeks or so. so if you are going to use this company as a yardstick, I would have to say that the system now works. Would the NHS have been able to afford to upgrade the scanner? Make your own minds up on that.

    However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to show that it is not just the 'nasty' Tories that have had to look at ways to finance services. The last government entered into arrangements with private companies.

    It would be great if people could get the treatment needed without waiting, but there just isn't the money to make it happen.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Sorry, I almost forgot.
    Are you saying the scanner was in effect hired by the NHS from a private company and that each scan had to be paid for by the NHS? If this is so, what finer point to make about private enterprise within/instead of the NHS, only those with the ability to pay get treatment.

    Are you of the opinion that if a treatment or service isn't available to everyone, it should be available to no-one?
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Sorry, I almost forgot.
    Are you saying the scanner was in effect hired by the NHS from a private company and that each scan had to be paid for by the NHS? If this is so, what finer point to make about private enterprise within/instead of the NHS, only those with the ability to pay get treatment.

    Are you of the opinion that if a treatment or service isn't available to everyone, it should be available to no-one?
    Not at all, I am saying the service should be available to all regardless of wealth, and you should not have been presented with such an unacceptable wait. Being able to afford to pay for a scan should not have needed to have been an option, the reply to your question should have been "No, keep your money sir, we have a scanner and your son will get a scan tomorrow/next week".

    That is the NHS I want and the only way to get it is for ALL to be dependent upon it.

    BTW, I have never said nasty tories, nice labour. Indeed new labour are old tory only the colour of the rosette is different.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    BTW, I have never said nasty tories, nice labour. Indeed new labour are old tory only the colour of the rosette is different.

    I know you didn't Frank. It was more of a nod towards the Polly Toynbee article posted earlier in the thread. Do you really believe the Labour Party, led by Ed milliband is right wing?
  • pliptrot
    pliptrot Posts: 582
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Do you really believe the Labour Party, led by Ed milliband is right wing?

    Well, I -and many others- do. They have little interest in dealing with the problems the nation faces, in justice for all and in pursuing policies which would favour everybody. No doubt they are following what they believe is necessary to gain power. Which is odd - are the British really so venal and selfish that they would never accept the costs of putting right the wrongs of the last 30 years? A truly progressive tax rate, starting wth 1p on the basic rate and rather more on the top rate would be a start in providing a solution to the NHS problems, providing roads which are at least adequate for the use of anything other than a 4x4, making education accessible to all - all the decent things which we seem too scared to insist on.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Ballysmate wrote:
    BTW, I have never said nasty tories, nice labour. Indeed new labour are old tory only the colour of the rosette is different.

    I know you didn't Frank. It was more of a nod towards the Polly Toynbee article posted earlier in the thread. Do you really believe the Labour Party, led by Ed milliband is right wing?

    Left of centre policies are not seen as a way forward and New labour moved Labour to the right in order to win votes. They cosy up to the wealthy and turn their backs on the working masses. Slowly but surely we're getting back to a low wage ecconomy and the working man will see his rights removed. Ultimately we'll end up back at square one where the vast majority will have very little indeed to show for a lifetime of toil.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • pliptrot
    pliptrot Posts: 582
    Frank the tank wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    BTW, I have never said nasty tories, nice labour. Indeed new labour are old tory only the colour of the rosette is different.

    I know you didn't Frank. It was more of a nod towards the Polly Toynbee article posted earlier in the thread. Do you really believe the Labour Party, led by Ed milliband is right wing?

    Left of centre policies are not seen as a way forward and New labour moved Labour to the right in order to win votes. They cosy up to the wealthy and turn their backs on the working masses. Slowly but surely we're getting back to a low wage ecconomy and the working man will see his rights removed. Ultimately we'll end up back at square one where the vast majority will have very little indeed to show for a lifetime of toil.

    I think we are already there. For example, a railway maintenance worker must take a 12 week course to be allowed to work, which is unpaid. Then he gets a salary of about 12,000 quid a year. It's not a salary, of course -they are agency workers with no employment protection - and this story is repeated across the land. More fool those who actually want to do something.
  • DrKJM
    DrKJM Posts: 271
    Ballsymate, isn't one of the points made in the article that waiting times have come down as a result of policies pursued by the last government and that the current administration is rubbishing the service and by implication those who work in it?

    Btw, I too was faced with a very long potential wait (14 months) for a headscan but was covered by work health insurance. The 14 month wait was back when Major was in power. Not everything done in the late 90s onwards was bad and at least now people in your son's position will benefit from pressure put on waiting lists by Blair and others.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    DrKJM wrote:
    Ballsymate, isn't one of the points made in the article that waiting times have come down as a result of policies pursued by the last government and that the current administration is rubbishing the service and by implication those who work in it?

    Btw, I too was faced with a very long potential wait (14 months) for a headscan but was covered by work health insurance. The 14 month wait was back when Major was in power. Not everything done in the late 90s onwards was bad and at least now people in your son's position will benefit from pressure put on waiting lists by Blair and others.

    I have made a point of not stating that one party's record is better than the other's when it comes to the NHS. I have said the NHS should idealy be apolital.
    It is time to leave behind the dogma from both sides and come up with something that is more workable and suited to this modern age. The system was a marvel in 1947 but is no longer fit for purpose.
    No party from wherever on the political spectrum has the monopoly on good ideas. What is certain though, is the present system is broken.
    This obviously happened during the last administration's tenure of the NHS and although I have said the NHS should be apolitical, I want to show that privatisation of varying degrees has been happening for a while. It is not just Tories bad, Labour good or vice versa.

    As stated in an earlier post, I gave the timeframe for the two incidents to show that partnerships with the private sector are not new and also to mock the notion of 'Free at the point of delivery'
    Even when prompted by Frank, I stated that the waiting time has come down, but deliberately avoided attributing credit to any political party because it is irrelevant.
    If you are going to crow about any achievement of Tony Blair, I would suggest you don't crow about him bringing pressure to bear on waiting lists AFTER he had been in Government for 10 YEARS.
    Why does everyone think you have to be a socialist to care about the NHS? After all, we all have to use it.

    As regards rubbishing the NHS, the people in it are doing that for themselves. Today's story about Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsifying records at Stafford A&E and not giving a 'Flying F*ck' about patients does the service no favours. You may rue the timing of yet another story, but at the end of the day, it happened.
    I am not in the business of rubbishing the NHS, in fact if you look through my posts on other threads, you will see me praising Stafford hospital for my experience there.
  • DrKJM
    DrKJM Posts: 271
    Wasn't crowing and am certainly no fan of TB. But it's too easy to criticise *because* it originated from his time in office. I perceived you were implying that but am happy to accept i misinterpreted. BUT, there is an idealogical war going on against the NHS and I for one am appalled.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    This article may be food for thought for all those passionate about keeping the NHS free at the point of use.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... harge.html
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Ballysmate wrote:
    This article may be food for thought for all those passionate about keeping the NHS free at the point of use.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... harge.html
    440 doctors surveyed, hardly comprehensive is it.

    However, a small fee would soon become a large fee and to me £25 isn't small. When you consider eye tests and dental checks used to be free for all :!: It would be the tip of a very ugly iceberg.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Frank the tank wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    This article may be food for thought for all those passionate about keeping the NHS free at the point of use.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... harge.html
    440 doctors surveyed, hardly comprehensive is it.

    However, a small fee would soon become a large fee and to me £25 isn't small. When you consider eye tests and dental checks used to be free for all :!: It would be the tip of a very ugly iceberg.

    I agree with you totally Frank. :lol: There, I've said it.
    I would see it as a very slippery slope. Like you, I would think that people would have to be very ill to go to the doc if it cost 25 notes.
    I agree it is not a huge sample, but it is doctors who are supporting it not any government. At a time that you say there is a concerted effort to discredit the NHS,. GPs do not seem to be helping the cause much. I can't envisage the proposal being welcomed by Joe Public
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    The GP's are complaining about the added workload of commissioning local healthcare. I still don't understand this policy. Not saying centralised management gets things right all the time (it doesn't) but why is it believed that someone who elects to follow family medicine which is, by it's very nature, small scale and quite intimate, is ideally suited to planning multi million pound budgets?
    I have nothing to do with healthcare but I am heavily involved in forecasting and procuring goods and services centrally for a European business. I spend a great amount of time building models that balance conflicting requirements of different departments to deliver a business appropriate inventory position. Giving control of that procurement to the front line (salesman in our case) would be suicidal for our business. This to me is what has happened with GP's. Their input into demands of healthcare is absolutely critical but it is one of many inputs.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    morstar wrote:
    I still don't understand this policy.

    Watch this http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/altguidenhs then come back in six and a half minutes and tell me if your'e any wiser.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    mrfpb wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    I still don't understand this policy.

    Watch this http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/altguidenhs then come back in six and a half minutes and tell me if your'e any wiser.
    Genuinely lost for words! Very clever presentation though.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    morstar wrote:
    The GP's are complaining about the added workload of commissioning local healthcare. I still don't understand this policy. Not saying centralised management gets things right all the time (it doesn't) but why is it believed that someone who elects to follow family medicine which is, by it's very nature, small scale and quite intimate, is ideally suited to planning multi million pound budgets?
    I have nothing to do with healthcare but I am heavily involved in forecasting and procuring goods and services centrally for a European business. I spend a great amount of time building models that balance conflicting requirements of different departments to deliver a business appropriate inventory position. Giving control of that procurement to the front line (salesman in our case) would be suicidal for our business. This to me is what has happened with GP's. Their input into demands of healthcare is absolutely critical but it is one of many inputs.

    Do you remember the call from a few years back? ' Sack the administrators! Give the doctors the budget. They know where the money is needed.'
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Ballysmate wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    The GP's are complaining about the added workload of commissioning local healthcare. I still don't understand this policy. Not saying centralised management gets things right all the time (it doesn't) but why is it believed that someone who elects to follow family medicine which is, by it's very nature, small scale and quite intimate, is ideally suited to planning multi million pound budgets?
    I have nothing to do with healthcare but I am heavily involved in forecasting and procuring goods and services centrally for a European business. I spend a great amount of time building models that balance conflicting requirements of different departments to deliver a business appropriate inventory position. Giving control of that procurement to the front line (salesman in our case) would be suicidal for our business. This to me is what has happened with GP's. Their input into demands of healthcare is absolutely critical but it is one of many inputs.

    Do you remember the call from a few years back? ' Sack the administrators! Give the doctors the budget. They know where the money is needed.'
    Yes, I recall it well and was never convinced by it. I don't have a problem with administrators. I know that's an unpopular view in many minds but for me there is good and bad administration.
    A doctor is likely to have a narrow focus of priorities. A good administrator will balance lots of different (often conflicting) priorities.
    The key is bringing administrators and front line providers together. I suppose the graphic provided a couple of posts ago by mrfpb does do that. Just in an alarmingly complex way.
    From my own personal experience in a different field, mine is the type of job that everybody has an opinion on because decisions I make impact throughout the business. The vast majority of people take very simplistic positions and believe they could do better. The reality is that they probably could achieve better results for their specific scope of interest but this would lead to negative outcomes elsewhere. There has to be some form of central oversight.
    I don't think an owner of a corner shop could run Tescos budget and likewise don't think a GP can run an NHS budget. I do think in both cases, they have very useful input.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    mrfpb wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    I still don't understand this policy.

    Watch this http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/altguidenhs then come back in six and a half minutes and tell me if your'e any wiser.
    I think my head is now going to explode, best get to the doctors...............................unless it's gonna cost £25 :lol:
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    morstar wrote:
    I don't have a problem with administrators. I know that's an unpopular view in many minds but for me there is good and bad administration.
    +1 to this. Good bureaucracy is a servant not a master. A lack of good administrators is one reason for public sector inefficiency. Bureaucracy that focuses on KPIs and targets rather than patient care is another problem.
    morstar wrote:
    I suppose the graphic provided a couple of posts ago by mrfpb does do that. Just in an alarmingly complex way.

    Having watched the presentation a few times now I'm concluding that
    I) No one trusts anyone to run the NHS and/or
    II) The government (our elected representatives)can't do anything in with the NHS without first placating many vested interest groups and/or
    III) There is no such thing as "The NHS" just hundreds of different agencies, trusts, partnerships and individuals wearing an NHS badge. Government just gets to do the admin and pick up the bill.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,301
    What it boild down to is the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalist government (Thatcherism/Blairism/Brownism/Cemeroonism. They have to prove they are doing the right thing by having all these yardsticks and checks and balances. School rating lists, exam and tests from all ages for example.
    Putting a whole load of markers in a any system can allow you to prove anything, it does not mean to say that services are delivered.
    The current culture is all about 'service' in the NHS which I think is fundamentally wrong. 'Did you enjoy your stay?', 'How was your experience?' etc is promoting and underlining this culture. If nurses have to double up as administrators and hotel staff, there is no time to do the job. The ethic of care is then subordinated to the need of administration, bureaucracy and 'service'.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Grim reading indeed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsity.html
  • ben@31
    ben@31 Posts: 2,327
    verylonglegs wrote:
    People will only care when tv and facebook is switched off, the yoof of today aren't interested in politcal protest in the same way previous generations were.

    True. The youth where I work are thick as pig poo, they are oblivious to politics and the fact they are getting f*cked over. I think the youth learn what they read in that horrible excuse for a paper "the Sun". Some youth just want to be told what to think and when you have some intellect and a different opinion, you must be a terrorist.
    "The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Grim reading indeed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsity.html
    To be fair.....
    There are now nurses and care assistants.
    The public dont seem to be aware of the distinction.
    They have different skill levels and different roles.

    That said, having compassion is a necessity for either role.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Grim reading indeed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsity.html

    I have experienced the NHS recently, brilliant. If you work for the NHS (positively help people) you don't want to be ridiculed by people who spend their life searching for negativity. It's lazy/easy journalism.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    FocusZing wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Grim reading indeed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsity.html

    That's one case picked out by the DM like many other to shift the blame of the UK's economic debt to 'lazy youth Britain'. In reality it was feckless governance of the economy/financial sector which has caused this debt disparity. Financial restrictions (austerity).

    I have experienced the NHS recently, brilliant. If you work for the NHS (positively help people) you don't want to be ridiculed by people who spend their life searching for negativity. It's lazy/easy journalism.


    Anne Clwyd is probably not an avid Mail reader. She is a Labour MP who was appointed by the PM to report on the complaints procedure in the NHS. Her report is based on 2,500 complaints by patients and their relatives.

    Below, is a link to the report and to articles by other 'lazy journalists'.
    As I have said in earlier posts, both here and other threads, i am not trying to rubbish the NHS, I have praised my treatment at Stafford and elsewhere. If we don't admit its failings, we can't eradicate them and make improvements.





    https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tem-review
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... glect.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24669382
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... -ann-clwyd
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    Ballysmate wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Grim reading indeed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsity.html

    That's one case picked out by the DM like many other to shift the blame of the UK's economic debt to 'lazy youth Britain'. In reality it was feckless governance of the economy/financial sector which has caused this debt disparity. Financial restrictions (austerity).

    I have experienced the NHS recently, brilliant. If you work for the NHS (positively help people) you don't want to be ridiculed by people who spend their life searching for negativity. It's lazy/easy journalism.


    Anne Clwyd is probably not an avid Mail reader. She is a Labour MP who was appointed by the PM to report on the complaints procedure in the NHS. Her report is based on 2,500 complaints by patients and their relatives.

    Below, is a link to the report and to articles by other 'lazy journalists'.
    As I have said in earlier posts, both here and other threads, i am not trying to rubbish the NHS, I have praised my treatment at Stafford and elsewhere. If we don't admit its failings, we can't eradicate them and make improvements.





    https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tem-review
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... glect.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24669382
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... -ann-clwyd

    Yes failings as a result of austerity. The article does not reflect this?
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    FocusZing wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Grim reading indeed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rsity.html

    That's one case picked out by the DM like many other to shift the blame of the UK's economic debt to 'lazy youth Britain'. In reality it was feckless governance of the economy/financial sector which has caused this debt disparity. Financial restrictions (austerity).

    I have experienced the NHS recently, brilliant. If you work for the NHS (positively help people) you don't want to be ridiculed by people who spend their life searching for negativity. It's lazy/easy journalism.


    Anne Clwyd is probably not an avid Mail reader. She is a Labour MP who was appointed by the PM to report on the complaints procedure in the NHS. Her report is based on 2,500 complaints by patients and their relatives.

    Below, is a link to the report and to articles by other 'lazy journalists'.
    As I have said in earlier posts, both here and other threads, i am not trying to rubbish the NHS, I have praised my treatment at Stafford and elsewhere. If we don't admit its failings, we can't eradicate them and make improvements.





    https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tem-review
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... glect.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24669382
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... -ann-clwyd

    Yes failings as a result of austerity. The article does not reflect this?


    From the Guardian, that well known bastion of the right wing press.
    The review looked at 2,500 accounts of poor care and lack of compassion, in which staff were described as offhand, rude, impatient and callous.

    Nothing to do with austerity.

Categories