Fide Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-34317265 When will David Cameron address the NHS crisis!?!?!?111?!?!?11 NHS is on IT'S KNEES under Westminster rule!11!!!1!!!1! Cameron must go!!!11!!1!! Tories OUT!!!1111!!!!11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Nothing to do with a £1.2 Million WEEKLY overspend that the CEO knew he wasn't managing a major acute trust properly and so stepped down eh Fidey? So what's the answer, just keep throwing more money at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Nothing to do with a £1.2 Million WEEKLY overspend that the CEO knew he wasn't managing a major acute trust properly and so stepped down eh Fidey? So what's the answer, just keep throwing more money at it? The answer is probably going to end up with everyone paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 if the trust is now under central government special measures should it not be renamed the Cambridge University National Trust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Oh the NHS is just too hard to run in these modern times. Wouldn't it be better managed in the private sector where only the right sort of sick people get treated and all the hangers on, refugees, poorly paid folk and other 'chancers' get pushed to the back of the line. The NHS is too old now anyway and with the fucking helmets down south voting Tory in some kind of enormous social lemming impersonation, this 60 year old beast can be ignored, abused, be allowed to fall apart and disgrace itself before finally being laid to rest and its assets snaffled up or sold at auction. Just like the NHS is doing to everyone's nan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Crisis is a relative term, and people have been saying it for decades in relation to the NHS, but I don't really notice or feel it based on my experiences with it. Oh the NHS is just too hard to run in these modern times. Wouldn't it be better managed in the private sector where only the right sort of sick people get treated and all the hangers on, refugees, poorly paid folk and other 'chancers' get pushed to the back of the line. The NHS is too old now anyway and with the fucking helmets down south voting Tory in some kind of enormous social lemming impersonation, this 60 year old beast can be ignored, abused, be allowed to fall apart and disgrace itself before finally being laid to rest and its assets snaffled up or sold at auction. Just like the NHS is doing to everyone's nan. There already is rationing of healthcare due to shortage of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Oh the NHS is just too hard to run in these modern times. Wouldn't it be better managed in the private sector where only the right sort of sick people get treated and all the hangers on, refugees, poorly paid folk and other 'chancers' get pushed to the back of the line. The NHS is too old now anyway and with the fucking helmets down south voting Tory in some kind of enormous social lemming impersonation, this 60 year old beast can be ignored, abused, be allowed to fall apart and disgrace itself before finally being laid to rest and its assets snaffled up or sold at auction. Just like the NHS is doing to everyone's nan. The point being, Dr Keith McNeil may well be a superb Clinician, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is capable of running an organisation the size of Addenbrookes. In certain areas the NHS can benefit from careful private investment and management. Otherwise it's voracious appetite for additional public funding to meet increasing demands on capacity will continue to grow unabated. Cambridge is the tip of the iceberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 The point being, Dr Keith McNeil may well be a superb Clinician, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is capable of running an organisation the size of Addenbrookes. In certain areas the NHS can benefit from careful private investment and management. Otherwise it's voracious appetite for additional public funding to meet increasing demands on capacity will continue to grow unabated. Cambridge is the tip of the iceberg. Standard tory practice, blame clinicians. Put in a biscuit factory manager who won't rock the boat, ask for appropriate levels of funding. Social medicine (i.e looking after everyone, not just those with means) is a perfect example of where the private sector has absolutely no business in a management role. Along with utilities, policing, the fire service, post, armed forces etc. It's just an opportunity to bleed money out of the population. Ideological argument, unsurprising if you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 The point being, Dr Keith McNeil may well be a superb Clinician, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is capable of running an organisation the size of Addenbrookes. In certain areas the NHS can benefit from careful private investment and management. Otherwise it's voracious appetite for additional public funding to meet increasing demands on capacity will continue to grow unabated. Cambridge is the tip of the iceberg. How would the private sector reduce demand? Will there be mandatory age limits after which any need to be admitted to hospital is met by lethal injection? We can then continue to lower this age inversely to the increased pension age and save the country a fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Standard tory practice, blame clinicians. Put in a biscuit factory manager who won't rock the boat, ask for appropriate levels of funding. Social medicine (i.e looking after everyone, not just those with means) is a perfect example of where the private sector has absolutely no business in a management role. Along with utilities, policing, the fire service, post, armed forces etc. It's just an opportunity to bleed money out of the population. Ideological argument, unsurprising if you disagree. I'm neither a Tory or someone who blames the Clinicians Willie, but for years the bureaucracy that has strangled the NHS is now fully coming to fruition. I've contracted work with the Service for many years (not so much these days admittedly) the obscene waste and mismanagement of resources (that have direct impact on standards of patient care) I have experienced has been criminal. Successive governments have seen only one answer fully backed by the demanding electorate who see the NHS as sacrosanct, let's throw more money at it !! I agree with your point with regards to Social Medical Care, which is why I said 'careful' private investment and management. It is possible, how do other comparable countries seem to manage the balance between state and private funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 The point being, Dr Keith McNeil may well be a superb Clinician, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is capable of running an organisation the size of Addenbrookes. In certain areas the NHS can benefit from careful private investment and management. Otherwise it's voracious appetite for additional public funding to meet increasing demands on capacity will continue to grow unabated. Cambridge is the tip of the iceberg. "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less." http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less." http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health So all's well then, we're doing fine, what's the fuss about? Around 2/3rds of Trusts anticipating an £operating deficit this year, which in turn will impact on, waiting times, waiting lists, re-referrals, early Cancer diagnosis, Mortality rates etc.. We do have a great service, but it has needed additional external investment for some time now. Extended private provision for elective appointments (for those that can afford it) would be a good start. It's not about creating a two tier system, it's about alleviating some of the ever increasing pressure that exists in the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So all's well then, we're doing fine, what's the fuss about? Around 2/3rds of Trusts anticipating an £operating deficit this year, which in turn will impact on, waiting times, waiting lists, re-referrals, early Cancer diagnosis, Mortality rates etc.. We do have a great service, but it has needed additional external investment for some time now. Extended private provision for elective appointments (for those that can afford it) would be a good start. It's not about creating a two tier system, it's about alleviating some of the ever increasing pressure that exists in the NHS. No it needs proper management and leadership, shite like choice and second opinions and home births etc, that needs stamped oot! And apologies wasn't accusing you of being a tory or just assuming so, you being a bear is abuse enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So all's well then, we're doing fine, what's the fuss about? Around 2/3rds of Trusts anticipating an £operating deficit this year, which in turn will impact on, waiting times, waiting lists, re-referrals, early Cancer diagnosis, Mortality rates etc.. We do have a great service, but it has needed additional external investment for some time now. Extended private provision for elective appointments (for those that can afford it) would be a good start. It's not about creating a two tier system, it's about alleviating some of the ever increasing pressure that exists in the NHS. It's not about creating a two-tier system. However, elective appointments for those that can afford it would, by definition, create a two-tier system. ETA: I would be in favour of private healthcare being expanded as long as: 1. It was based on reduced NI contributions 2. Private providers were prevented from using NHS resources (including Docs). 3. NHS trained staff were contracted to the NHS for a fixed period of time after qualifying. During which transferring to the private sector involved a claw back of the money expended in training them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 It's not about creating a two-tier system. However, elective appointments for those that can afford it would, by definition, create a two-tier system. ETA: I would be in favour of private healthcare being expanded as long as: 1. It was based on reduced NI contributions 2. Private providers were prevented from using NHS resources (including Docs). 3. NHS trained staff were contracted to the NHS for a fixed period of time after qualifying. During which transferring to the private sector involved a claw back of the money expended in training them. All fair points, perhaps including getting maximum value for Money for those NHS Consultants who hold a couple of days private practice, to ensure that some of that income comes back into the NHS, or a certain amount of NHS patients with urgent care needs are treated under the same agreement. I think most Private Providers would agree to the increased throughput, the Government could incentivise them to do so, if they thought profit margins were going to take a hit. The short term Capacity is there, and that's the issue. At least more patients would be getting treated and not waiting 12-15 weeks for an appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/100-year-old-lay-ae-6494152 Speaking of the nhs this is a disgracefull story from the snps pride and joy hospital in glasgow,the snp health secretary shona robison reply to the family ?? She ignored them very caring from snp bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 23, 2015 Author Share Posted September 23, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/100-year-old-lay-ae-6494152 Speaking of the nhs this is a disgracefull story from the snps pride and joy hospital in glasgow,the snp health secretary shona robison reply to the family ?? She ignored them very caring from snp bad. I agree, that is a horrendous situation. One you'll see sadly in hospitals up and down the UK and certainly not the result of any individual NHS. As for Shona Robison, do you expect the Health Minister to personally answer everyone who has a grievance with treatment pertaining to the NHS? Do you think Jeremy Hunt responds to every complainant in England & Wales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 I agree, that is a horrendous situation. One you'll see sadly in hospitals up and down the UK and certainly not the result of any individual NHS. As for Shona Robison, do you expect the Health Minister to personally answer everyone who has a grievance with treatment pertaining to the NHS? Do you think Jeremy Hunt responds to every complainant in England & Wales? I don't think using a UK minister's behaviour to excuse a Scottish Minister is the way to make your point. Whilst I agree that the story does not paint the Scottish NHS in a good light, there are many more fundemental issues at the heart of our health service than how long someone admitted to hospital lies on a trolley. I can imagine the indignation of many if the NHS just shut it's doors like a club when the were full. Also the 8 hours pales into insignificance when you take the four months that it has taken for the story to make the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Also the 8 hours pales into insignificance when you take the four months that it has taken for the story to make the paper. Absolutely. I think public sector management and finance is the answer to fix this private sector mess. Nationalise the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 My wife was sent for a scan last week at a private hospital. She has also had two operations at a private hospital. This has been paid for by the NHS. I'm not quite sure how this works - is it cheaper for the NHS to outsource procedures/operations than to provide them itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.