advertisement


"NHS at breaking point, and broken"

hifinutt said:
another sticking plaster ....

Thousands of NHS patients in England will be moved into care homes as part of the government's plan to ease unprecedented pressure on hospitals.

The NHS is being given £250m to buy thousands of beds in care homes and upgrade hospitals amid a winter crisis.

The move aims to free up hospital beds so patients can be admitted more quickly from A&E to hospital wards.

Labour's shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, said the announcement was "another sticking plaster".

The government says there are currently about 13,000 medically fit patients occupying beds in England.

In the coming weeks, some of those patients will be discharged from hospitals into the community, where they will receive care as they recover.

"Getting people out of hospital on time is more important than ever," said Helen Whately, minister for care. "It's good for patients and it helps hospitals make space for those who need urgent care."

The package announced on Monday will include trials of other ideas to free up hospital beds in six areas of England.

The government says these ideas, which include dedicated dementia hubs and new options for rehabilitative care, could be rolled out across the NHS if successful.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64204367
Click to expand...
I have said elsewhere that the priority has to be getting people out of hospital beds who don't need to be in them. So in that sense this is something that I can support as a short term measure to alleviate the problem, and I don't really see why Streeting is being so dismissive.

It also reinforces the vital role that an effective care system has in making healthcare run efficiently.

It might even help pave the way for lasting and positive reform of the care sector.

If I were Wes Streeting I'd be looking for ways to use this measure as a way to build momentum for lasting care sector reform, rather than an opportunity for snark.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
If I were Wes Streeting I'd be looking for ways to use this measure as a way to build momentum for lasting care sector reform, rather than an opportunity for snark.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that would involve competent government involving months if not years of hard work and not just coming up with a soundbite.
 
Ponty said:
Yes, we all pay for those things through our taxes. Everything has to be paid for. Some may then choose to procure services privately so pay twice, that’s up to them. There’s a reasonable case to say in the example of dentistry, where an NHS service is pretty much unavailable, private costs should be subject to tax relief.
Click to expand...
No, Taxes have no functional role in paying for anything. If you or your own parents paid for private education, they have not paid twice.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I have said elsewhere that the priority has to be getting people out of hospital beds who don't need to be in them. So in that sense this is something that I can support as a short term measure to alleviate the problem, and I don't really see why Streeting is being so dismissive.

It also reinforces the vital role that an effective care system has in making healthcare run efficiently.

It might even help pave the way for lasting and positive reform of the care sector.

If I were Wes Streeting I'd be looking for ways to use this measure as a way to build momentum for lasting care sector reform, rather than an opportunity for snark.
Click to expand...
when you hear the word 'reform' coming from Streeting, it means privatisation, and care is already privatised. As ever with Neoliberals, when neoliberalism has been shown to be failing, their only answer is do more neoliberalism and do it harder
 
ks.234 said:
No, Taxes have no functional role in paying for anything. If you or your own parents paid for private education, they have not paid twice.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have. They’ve paid income tax which is used to fund (more specifically cancel out money already created and spent) state services, including education. If they decline the state offering and procure a service privately, they’re effectively paying twice, whilst reducing cost to the state. If there was no private education, the state system would have to be circa 7% larger (and more expensive).
 
Ponty said:
If there was no private education, the state system would have to be circa 7% larger (and more expensive).
Click to expand...
You forgot, 'and better'. If there was no private education, the state education would have to be better because those who currently pay for private education wouldn't tolerate the standards the masses have to put up with.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
You forgot, 'and better'. If there was no private education, the state education would have to be better because those who currently pay for private education wouldn't tolerate the standards the masses have to put up with.
Click to expand...

Actually it would probably be less than 7% because under such a govt regime, the truly wealthy would move to Switzerland etc.
 
Ponty said:
Yes, they have. They’ve paid income tax which is used to fund (more specifically cancel out money already created and spent) state services, including education. If they decline the state offering and procure a service privately, they’re effectively paying twice, whilst reducing cost to the state. If there was no private education, the state system would have to be circa 7% larger (and more expensive).
Click to expand...
How can something that has been cancelled out and therefore no longer in existence, also come back to life and fund something? It makes no sense. Your parents did not pay twice for your private education because tax has no functional role in funding public services.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Perhaps we can encourage them. The fewer of them skewing the system for their own advantage and screwing the rest, the better.
Click to expand...

Well, I can’t see that happening. Labour (in its current form) are about as left wing a govt as this country is likely to vote for.
 
When we are repeatedly told that the UK can't afford to pay nurses enough to keep them out of food banks, I am reminded that we could afford to let Dido Harding spaff £37Bn on a useless Test & Trace service.

£37Bn is a lot of money. To put the amount in perspective, Denmark & Germany are spending $7.5Bn on a 20km inter-country, undersea tunnel with two motorways and two railways inside it. We paid five times that amount for an app and some badly trained call centre staff. And guess what? The tunnel won't cost Danish tax payers a penny. Their state-owned construction co. will do a lot of the work ( along with private co.s) and the project is funded by a government loan that will be paid back from project revenue.

Denmark has a population 2/3rds the size of London's, is mostly fields and is the world's 60th largest economy versus the UK's 5th largest. It's amazing what you can do when you decide not to support a parasitic overclass of useless drones. Our NHS is on it's knees because our government wants it that way. It's a choice.
 
wulbert said:
When we are repeatedly told that the UK can't afford to pay nurses enough to keep them out of food banks, I am reminded that we could afford to let Dido Harding spaff £37Bn on a useless Test & Trace service.

£37Bn is a lot of money. To put the amount in perspective, Denmark & Germany are spending $7.5Bn on a 20km inter-country, undersea tunnel with two motorways and two railways inside it. We paid five times that amount for an app and some badly trained call centre staff. And guess what? The tunnel won't cost Danish tax payers a penny. Their state-owned construction co. will do a lot of the work ( along with private co.s) and the project is funded by a government loan that will be paid back from project revenue.

Denmark has a population 2/3rds the size of London's, is mostly fields and is the world's 60th largest economy versus the UK's 5th largest. It's amazing what you can do when you decide not to support a parasitic overclass of useless drones. Our NHS is on it's knees because our government wants it that way. It's a choice.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to read that again
 
What would be interesting is Tracking and Tracing where every penny of that £37bn ended up. There are plenty of other examples since the tories were elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2015, 2017 and 2019. The answer is to ensure they don’t get a majority in 2024.

An interesting manifesto pledge from Labour would be an investigation into what happened to that £37bn and other bn£££s during covid with the intention of bringing charges against individuals if any laws were broken. I would definitely vote for that.
 
The bottom line is that, whatever your economic beliefs, pay rises for the public sector are affordable and would actually be economically as well as socially beneficial
 
ks.234 said:
The bottom line is that, whatever your economic beliefs, pay rises for the public sector are affordable and would actually be economically as well as socially beneficial
Click to expand...

That would be good, ignoring the 91000 projected job losses in Civil Service, many at the DWP and only a 2% pay rise.

Of course, no one supports CS when Nurses are the talking point.
 
RoA said:
That would be good, ignoring the 91000 projected job losses in Civil Service, many at the DWP and only a 2% pay rise.

Of course, no one supports CS when Nurses are the talking point.
Click to expand...
Don't they? What do you mean?
 
Seeker_UK said:
PCS have received very little coverage of their particular dispute(s).
Click to expand...
That's not the same as lack of support: lack of coverage is between the PCS and the media, really, there's no need for anyone to resent nurses or the public for it. UCU's in a similar position. Not sure how significant public support is anyway: the main thing is how much leverage the union has. More unions in more sectors taking more action increases everyone's leverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top