advertisement


NHS Propaganda. Drip, drip drip....

Tony L said:
It has more to do with shit pay, shit working conditions and shit morale. I get the impression that the NHS is very good at training doctors and nurses, it's just that the ever-meddling 'price of everything/value of nothing' beancounters in our political bureaucracy ensure they leave to work in Australia etc and we end up with either unskilled droids who hate their jobs or immigrant labour with training from wherever and in some cases barely the neccessary language skills to communicate with the patients. It has been widely reported that the vast majority of highly skilled UK trained professionals in both the NHS and education are currently looking for alternate careers or to emigrate. That implies the political strategic management have well and truly f***ed-up. It is unquestionably not fit for purpose, and yes, I will blame the political party that has been in power for well over five years and presided over a top-down restructuring for that. The buck stops right there. It can not possibly be anywhere else.
Click to expand...

absolutely agree . morale is rock bottom at the moment it seems

"But the facts are on her side. A recent survey carried out by the BMA revealed that one in three GPs is planning to retire in the next five years, and that one in five trainee GPs intends to work abroad when they qualify. All this amid a gruelling period when £22bn worth of cuts have been ordered, a figure Hunt’s former coalition partner Norman Lamb now admits is fantasy."

and

"Speaking at the BMA’s annual representative meeting in Liverpool, Porter said: “How are they even going to recruit more GP trainees when hundreds of existing training posts are still unfilled? They don’t say. When will they provide substance over rhetoric and recycled ideas, to focus on the detail of how they will support GPs already burnt out from overwork, in a service where more than 10,000 GPs are predicted to leave in the next five years? They don’t say."

from
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/without-anyone-noticing-doctors-are-leaving-nhs-droves
 
simeon said:
Secondly, I struggle to give any credence to the opinions of someone who has 'doctor' as part of his user name. I'm sorry but it just looks like someone who defines themselves by the importance they place in the number of years they spent in remembering lists. Perhaps I should call myself FirstDegreeSecond DegreeFellowshipSimeon. But I don't. I did proper degrees.
Click to expand...

And therein lies a common misconception: that being a doctor is simply memorising facts. If it were that simple then computers and treatment algorithms would work. They don't though as evidenced by the failure of nhs direct and 111 which simply act as another layer between someone needing to see a doctor and actually seeing one.
Perhaps the fact that he uses doctor as part of his username reflects how seriously he takes (or has taken) his life's work and reflects that being a good doctor does permeate most aspects of your life. A comment such as you did 'proper degrees' suggests a fairly enormous chip on your shoulder.
 
Brian said:
Free market economics doesn't have a place in anything that is essential. For example, we apparently have huge energy costs in the UK compared to most of Europe. It's not difficult to work out why.
Click to expand...
It's a direct consequence of government policy. Everybody knows that. And it's a good thing because it helps us meet our international CO2 reduction obligations.

Paul
 
simeon said:
Secondly, I struggle to give any credence to the opinions of someone who has 'doctor' as part of his user name. I'm sorry but it just looks like someone who defines themselves by the importance they place in the number of years they spent in remembering lists. Perhaps I should call myself FirstDegreeSecond DegreeFellowshipSimeon. But I don't. I did proper degrees.
Click to expand...

FWIW I consider that ad hominem and also really don't see the argument. Simon is a GP, a doctor in the most widely accepted sense of the word, and I view it as a real positive when a username has a clear indication as to the person behind it. Far too many impersonal or ambiguous usernames IMO.
 
Tony L said:
FWIW I consider that ad hominem and also really don't see the argument. Simon is a GP, a doctor in the most widely accepted sense of the word, and I view it as a real positive when a username has a clear indication as to the person behind it. Far too many impersonal or ambiguous usernames IMO.
Click to expand...
You think? Ok. Well I'm afraid I think of it as somewhat similar to a personalised number plate. You may not consider that vulgar, but I'm afraid I do.

The main point, however, was about the breathtaking lack of acknowledgement of a private contractor to the NHS critiquing the introduction of private provision to the NHS. How the fvck does that work? Please explain to me how I should best express my admiration of anyone who has the nerve to take that position.
 
Brian said:
Free market economics doesn't have a place in anything that is essential. For example, we apparently have huge energy costs in the UK compared to most of Europe. It's not difficult to work out why.
.
Click to expand...

According to the evidence the UK has fairly cheap energy costs when compared to other European countries:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10727731/Why-whinge-UK-energy-costs-are-among-the-cheapest-in-Europe.html

Or:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/international-domestic-energy-prices

One article from 2015 talks about UK prices increasing when compared to the average in Europe since 2011:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/552806/UK-gas-bills-soar-plummet-Europe

But the final comment suggests that we do not have huge energy costs in the UK compared to Europe:

A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “Our analysis of UK energy prices has shown that gas prices are the second lowest in Europe and electricity prices were the sixth lowest.
Click to expand...
 
Miles said:
And therein lies a common misconception: that being a doctor is simply memorising facts. If it were that simple then computers and treatment algorithms would work. They don't though as evidenced by the failure of nhs direct and 111 which simply act as another layer between someone needing to see a doctor and actually seeing one.
Perhaps the fact that he uses doctor as part of his username reflects how seriously he takes (or has taken) his life's work and reflects that being a good doctor does permeate most aspects of your life. A comment such as you did 'proper degrees' suggests a fairly enormous chip on your shoulder.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

And furthermore, there are whole rafts of occupations (including my own) which use a basis of factual knowledge, overlain with skills, experience, judgement, communication and empathy, to assist clients.

All too 'easy' for the ignorant to see them as 'easy'.

Mull
 
Tony L said:
FWIW I consider that ad hominem and also really don't see the argument. Simon is a GP, a doctor in the most widely accepted sense of the word, and I view it as a real positive when a username has a clear indication as to the person behind it. Far too many impersonal or ambiguous usernames IMO.
Click to expand...


Can of worms TonyL.... :)
 
Right.. Back on topic.

For anyone who is still interested:

1. I have no special knowledge of the actual contracting process for private involvement in NHS provision. That said, Mick's claim that there is 'no transfer of funds', is a red herring. I never said there was a transfer of funds in that sense, but the net result of ANY contract between Govt/taxpayer and the private sector for service/goods provision inevitably involves transfer of public money into private hands.

2. The above is not especially relevant. What I'm concerned about is the increased quantity of, and political pressure for, such involvement. Along with others, I see no role for profit taking in the provision of healthcare.

I've taken some time today to look at figures and views, from The Kings Fund (which gets support from Govt.) to assorted more left leaning groups. What none dispute is that private sector involvement has, and continues to, increase.

We could argue from now till hell freezes over about figures, and there are (deliberately?) a confusing raft of them out there. But it is difficult for anyone to deny that private sector involvement in NHS delivery is steadily increasing. And this at the same time that Govt. itself is constantly highlighting NHS failings.

Draw your own conclusions folks.

Mull
 
Paul R said:
It's a direct consequence of government policy. Everybody knows that. And it's a good thing because it helps us meet our international CO2 reduction obligations.

Paul
Click to expand...

IanW said:
According to the evidence the UK has fairly cheap energy costs when compared to other European countries:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10727731/Why-whinge-UK-energy-costs-are-among-the-cheapest-in-Europe.html

Or:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/international-domestic-energy-prices

One article from 2015 talks about UK prices increasing when compared to the average in Europe since 2011:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/552806/UK-gas-bills-soar-plummet-Europe

But the final comment suggests that we do not have huge energy costs in the UK compared to Europe:
Click to expand...

Thanks both for the info.
 
Mullardman said:
Right.. Back on topic.

For anyone who is still interested:

1. I have no special knowledge of the actual contracting process for private involvement in NHS provision. That said, Mick's claim that there is 'no transfer of funds', is a red herring. I never said there was a transfer of funds in that sense, but the net result of ANY contract between Govt/taxpayer and the private sector for service/goods provision inevitably involves transfer of public money into private hands.

2. The above is not especially relevant. What I'm concerned about is the increased quantity of, and political pressure for, such involvement. Along with others, I see no role for profit taking in the provision of healthcare.

I've taken some time today to look at figures and views, from The Kings Fund (which gets support from Govt.) to assorted more left leaning groups. What none dispute is that private sector involvement has, and continues to, increase.

We could argue from now till hell freezes over about figures, and there are (deliberately?) a confusing raft of them out there. But it is difficult for anyone to deny that private sector involvement in NHS delivery is steadily increasing. And this at the same time that Govt. itself is constantly highlighting NHS failings.

Draw your own conclusions folks.

Mull
Click to expand...

Like most conspiracy theories, this seems un-falsifiable in principle. The amount of (and I want to be specific about this) clinically commissioned services being provided by the private sector currently stands at about 6.1%. Five years ago it was about 4%. It's being rising a bit every year since about 2005 (I don't think we collected the data before that). But according to you, there's even the possibility of Government deliberately trying to confuse you with pesky figures. And even if we're not, you don't really want to argue about the figures anyway... Slippery fish this one.

Whatever one thinks of the rhetoric about 'privatisation' (NB privately-provided NHS care is still funded by the taxpayer, free to the patient, on the basis of clinical need), the rhetoric about there being an enormous rise in privately-provided NHS care under this or the preceding Government is not very well supported.

It is quite possible that as the financial wellbeing of the NHS provider sector takes a dive, more and more work will be taken away from the private sector in order to buttress Trusts' bottom lines. Whether that's good for patients or taxpayers is harder to say.

Postscript: for those in doubt about the framework within which this happens, the procurement of clinical services by the NHS is governed by section 75 of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. Far from being a requirement to 'tender all NHS services', as many said at the time, this actually includes an enormous (though not unreasonable) opt-out called the Single Capable Provider stipulation. In other words, if the CCG or local federation of CCGs decides they don't have to go to the market, then they don't.

Post-postscript: Any views here are personal and do not reflect those of my employer.
 
Brian said:
Thanks both for the info.
Click to expand...
The big problem with energy prices is the contrast with the rest of the world and whether we mind what that means for UK (or European) heavy industry. See the lack of anything more than hand-wringing about Tata and Caparo.

Not much to do with the NHS, other than they could keep their hospitals a few degrees cooler to all our benefits.

Paul
 
Went to the dentist this afternoon for the first time in a few years and I need to get some work done.

A filling will cost me £52.50, a metal crown £250. The dentist couldn't give me a quote for an impacted wisdom tooth which needs to come out. She will refer me to hospital and it will be many months before they can take it out, unless I go private.

I said to the dentist, I thought NHS dental care was free.

It is but you have to pay some fees, she said.

Well what has happened to the NHS, I asked her?

She didn't answer that question.

If I want a gold crown, she will do it privately and it will cost £650. I told her that a gold crown cost me £120 eight years ago.

The price of gold keep going up, she said.

It also comes down, I replied.

What a con. So much for our supposedly free dental care funded by tax payers.

NHS dentists are well known for driving Porsche cars.

Jack
 
I posted about this stuff years ago, Jack. In 1979 dental charges were capped at £5 and check ups were free. The tories introduced legislation that allowed a dental practice to remove someone from their register who didn't see a dentist for 15 months and millions of people lost their registration. Guess what the intended consequence was when these people needed to see a dentist? The other consequence was those who don't have the money stop seeing a dentist at all, the chance to spot a significant number of health problems gets missed and overall health suffers.

Regarding tory support in general for the NHS. It shouldn't be forgotten that NHS prescription charges in 1979 were 20p. The tories immediately put that up by more than 125% to 45p. In 1980 prescriptions increased by ~55% to 70p. By 1997 prescriptions were £5.65, roughly an increase of 1150% from the day they took office, ~6x the rate of inflation.

Since 2010 prescriptions have gone from £7.20 to £8.20, roughly 14% in 5 years. This is better than I thought would happen back in 2010 when initially charges were frozen, but the LibDems kept them more or less in line with inflation the last 4 years. We'll see what happens in the next few years now they had a surprising small majority at the election.

In contrast, Labour increased prescription charges by 27% in 13 years, significantly less than inflation over that period.

These are classic examples of what you get from a tory govt versus a Labour govt.
 
Brian said:
I posted about this stuff years ago, Jack. In 1979 dental charges were capped at £5 and check ups were free. The tories introduced legislation that allowed a dental practice to remove someone from their register who didn't see a dentist for 15 months and millions of people lost their registration. Guess what the intended consequence was when these people needed to see a dentist? The other consequence was those who don't have the money stop seeing a dentist at all, the chance to spot a significant number of health problems gets missed and overall health suffers.
Click to expand...

I don't go to the dentist that often, Brian, so how much the charges have escalated came as quite a shock. You're right though, I can easily believe that people don't get their teeth done on the NHS anymore when faced with the charges.

Friends of mine have suggested that I take a holiday to Thailand, or India, and get my teeth sorted out there, for a lot less money.

An ex-girlfriend of mine sometimes goes out to work in Thailand as a complimentary therapist. She has had all of her mercury fillings replaced with white ones there. She did say you need to get a good recommendation though. The dentist she uses is now working in New York.

Jack
 
Many dentists in Bangkok are both better equipped, trained and less expensive than those in the UK. There are bad ones though so research is the name of the game there.

The simple truth with all these charges is we do have to fund these services. The choice is either we act in a socially responsible manner and provide access to services for all or we make them available to those who can afford them.

I'm not going to complain about the charges though. I'd just rather see it funded out of direct taxation as I abhor the selfish attitudes of the modern day middle class.
 
I'd also rather see it funded out of direct taxation as well. I thought that is what the NHS was all about.

Jack
 
Be careful about going to a dentist in India Jack. In my experience they want to pull 'em out rather than fix 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top