Discussion
andymadmak said:
I am mystified by the point in bold. Leaving aside questions of what is the right level of funding for the NHS, whether too much is wasted, how things could be done better, etc, what is the relevance of expressing the amount as a percentage of GDP? Forgive me, but it seems like just another dubious and frankly dishonest way of trying to say funding is being cut, at a time when funding is actually rising. (OK, it might not be rising as fast as many would like it to be, but it is still rising)
No, it's dishonest to state the the funding levels are ok, because they appear to be rising, albeit extremely slightly. Dishonesty is the key attribute that the SoS posses. The level of demand is far outstripping the level of funding. If you don't like the way that is expressed then take it up with various think tanks such as the King's fund, who know a thing or two about health economics. Our spend in comparison to our GDP is falling and has been for sometime, and not keeping up with our european and international neighbours. Consequently reduced levels of spending are not able to meet rising demand and we see the result with the current crisis in beds (which are falling in number every year) and lack of a social care network.The dishonesty of the SoS has resulted in the crisis in nursing that we read above and the destruction of the morale of that sector of health care workers, amongst others.
JagLover said:
Well this seems an appropriate place to post this.
10% of Nurses leaving each year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42653542
There seems to be a clear problem with retention, particularly with younger nurses joining the profession. Is higher pay the answer?, particularly at the lower starting pay grades?
It seems a false economy to pay Nurses below a market rate and then have to replace 10% of them each year as a result.
For the whole of last year I was in and out of various hospitals with my Father In Law. Since before Christmas he has been in Bristol Southmead and is unfortunately dying. 10% of Nurses leaving each year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42653542
There seems to be a clear problem with retention, particularly with younger nurses joining the profession. Is higher pay the answer?, particularly at the lower starting pay grades?
It seems a false economy to pay Nurses below a market rate and then have to replace 10% of them each year as a result.
The nursing staff are flat out, there is simply not enough to cope. When he has needed extra "medical help" that nurse's can give they are already busy doing other things, so his needs and those of others are not met.
On top of that the Health Care assistants are also short, so when he needs a bedpan he again has to wait.
I have not seen any staff from Doctors down to the cleaners and catering staff wasting time, far from it. Being there for over 12 hours watching young doctors running around trying to do the work of two is eye opening.
Looking at it from their point of view they are told by Hunt that they are valued, but not as much a clerical staff in pay scales, they are fully supported, they clearly are not and they are recruiting more.
They have a united nations of staff, hard working but some are challenged with speaking English to well people let alone old people.
If Hunt spent half the time in hospitals watching staff who do the caring, instead of being whipped around by toady management keen to hide all the problems, he might understand and care why they are losing staff more than ever before.
They should reinstate the free training for nursing staff as that has had a negative affect on recruitment as well. It is going to get worse
andymadmak said:
I am mystified by the point in bold. Leaving aside questions of what is the right level of funding for the NHS, whether too much is wasted, how things could be done better, etc, what is the relevance of expressing the amount as a percentage of GDP? Forgive me, but it seems like just another dubious and frankly dishonest way of trying to say funding is being cut, at a time when funding is actually rising. (OK, it might not be rising as fast as many would like it to be, but it is still rising)
It also conveniently ignores the near doubling of health spending (as a percentage of GDP) that occurred between 1990 and 2010.spaximus said:
If Hunt spent half the time in hospitals watching staff who do the caring, instead of being whipped around by toady management keen to hide all the problems, he might understand and care why they are losing staff more than ever before.
They should reinstate the free training for nursing staff as that has had a negative affect on recruitment as well. It is going to get worse
I've long thought that the SoS should be made to follow a junior doctor around an ordinary shift to see what they do and see how harrowing the job can be, rather than what he actually does, ie appear at a hospital arranged with the trust, the ward given a new lick of paint and escorted by the CEO and medical director around a ward, saying hello for 10 minutes then buggering off. If he did realise the realities of what the juniors and indeed the nursing staff do, he'd be far more aware of the reasons why there is a recruitment and retention crisis looming.They should reinstate the free training for nursing staff as that has had a negative affect on recruitment as well. It is going to get worse
sidicks said:
It also conveniently ignores the near doubling of health spending (as a percentage of GDP) that occurred between 1990 and 2010.
Actually it doesn't. But since we live in 2018 and not 2010, it's rather irrelevant. Since you care to mention it, the best time I've worked in the NHS was the late 90s and early 2000s when funding was dramatically increased and waiting lists fell massively. 968 said:
Actually it doesn't. But since we live in 2018 and not 2010, it's rather irrelevant. Since you care to mention it, the best time I've worked in the NHS was the late 90s and early 2000s when funding was dramatically increased and waiting lists fell massively.
That will be the period where much of the borrowing required to fund this spending was hidden off balance sheet and who’s is now leading to ‘a service in crisis’?If you are expecting funding to increase at our above GDP growth each and every year, which public services would you like to see have their budgets cut to compensate?
sidicks said:
That will be the period where much of the borrowing required to fund this spending was hidden off balance sheet and who’s is now leading to ‘a service in crisis’?
If you are expecting funding to increase at our above GDP growth each and every year, which public services would you like to see have their budgets cut to compensate?
Happily that's not my decision. However, I'm sure someone clever in government can lie about another sector, maybe education, defence, who knows, to justify the increases that are required in order to avert a potential disaster in recruitment which is looming and to alleviate the ongoing squeeze in resources at the front line. Since you are such a self appointed an expert in everything, I'm sure you have an answer ready.If you are expecting funding to increase at our above GDP growth each and every year, which public services would you like to see have their budgets cut to compensate?
968 said:
Happily that's not my decision. However, I'm sure someone clever in government can lie about another sector, maybe education, defence, who knows, to justify the increases that are required in order to avert a potential disaster in recruitment which is looming and to alleviate the ongoing squeeze in resources at the front line. Since you are such a self appointed an expert in everything, I'm sure you have an answer ready.
Regardless of whether you think it is the case, the magic money tree isn’t the answer. The fact that you resort to snide comments rather than discuss the issues is pretty telling though.Given that more money clearly isn’t available and that many ‘experts’ seem to believe that there is little scope for efficiency savings, then the only logical solution is for the services offered to be reduced - that’s an area where the ‘experts’ should be able to prioritise what the NHS can and cannot provide.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 17th January 09:05
sidicks said:
Regardless of whether you think it is the case, the magic money tree isn’t the answer. The fact that you resort to snide comments rather than discuss the issues is pretty telling though.
Given that more money clearly isn’t available and that many ‘experts’ seem to believe that there is little scope for efficiency savings, then the only logical solution is for the services offered to be reduced - that’s an area where the ‘experts’ should be able to prioritise what the NHS can and cannot provide.
Magic money tree? Snide comments? You, sidicks, type that? The same sidicks who can't even bring himself to say if he is in favour of Hunt's 'full on 7 day NHS'?Given that more money clearly isn’t available and that many ‘experts’ seem to believe that there is little scope for efficiency savings, then the only logical solution is for the services offered to be reduced - that’s an area where the ‘experts’ should be able to prioritise what the NHS can and cannot provide.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 17th January 09:05
Where would you make savings given that the vast majority of the cost is due to ageing population? How much should we spend py/pc? Someone suggested Swiss model, I gave them the price comparison they didn't come back. So, what would you cut? Discuss the issues, if possible without cretinous 'magic money tree'.
jjlynn27 said:
Magic money tree? Snide comments? You, sidicks, type that?
Unlike you, I’ve not professed to be an expert on all things. HTH.jjlynn27 said:
Where would you make savings given that the vast majority of the cost is due to ageing population? How much should we spend py/pc? Someone suggested Swiss model, I gave them the price comparison they didn't come back. So, what would you cut?
I thought the ‘experts’ were the only people / best placed to suggest these things?jjlynn27 said:
Discuss the issues, if possible without cretinous 'magic money tree'.
That’s exactly what 968 is calling for - more money is apparently the only possible solution, but with absolutely no idea where it is going to come from.sidicks said:
Regardless of whether you think it is the case, the magic money tree isn’t the answer. The fact that you resort to snide comments rather than discuss the issues is pretty telling though.
Given that more money clearly isn’t available and that many ‘experts’ seem to believe that there is little scope for efficiency savings, then the only logical solution is for the services offered to be reduced - that’s an area where the ‘experts’ should be able to prioritise what the NHS can and cannot provide.
The magical money tree is always confusingly selective. For instance, somehow it funded a £20billion reorganisation of the NHS which achieved precisely nothing but cannot magically produce money for more staff, or to improve the working conditions and pay of the staff currently. The magical money tree seems quite able to fund all the vanity projects of the Brexiteers without a problem, but on this, it's an impossibility.Given that more money clearly isn’t available and that many ‘experts’ seem to believe that there is little scope for efficiency savings, then the only logical solution is for the services offered to be reduced - that’s an area where the ‘experts’ should be able to prioritise what the NHS can and cannot provide.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 17th January 09:05
The 'experts' as you snidely refer to, are trying to prioritise provision. You might have heard of the terms 'post code lottery' and 'rationing'? This is where CCGs usually introduce criteria to reduce access to interventions for patients, such as hip/knee/cataract surgery based on usually fairly arbitrary and non-evidence based criteria. It isn't usually a very popular policy and is usually f
king stupid but hey ho it seems politically expedient to do so currently.sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Magic money tree? Snide comments? You, sidicks, type that?
Unlike you, I’ve not professed to be an expert on all things. HTH.sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Where would you make savings given that the vast majority of the cost is due to ageing population? How much should we spend py/pc? Someone suggested Swiss model, I gave them the price comparison they didn't come back. So, what would you cut?
I thought the ‘experts’ were the only people / best placed to suggest these things?sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Discuss the issues, if possible without cretinous 'magic money tree'.
That’s exactly what 968 is calling for - more money is apparently the only possible solution, but with absolutely no idea where it is going to come from.It was an answer to yet another 'oh look money increased for NHS' idiocy, not taking into account that demands have risen much faster, without even going into Hunt's disastrous 'lets' have full on 7 day NHS, that no-one in the world does' which added significant amount of money on locums without achieving anything. You know, the policy that you refuse to say if you are in favour of.
To use sidicks speak; How dull.
968 said:
The magical money tree is always confusingly selective. For instance, somehow it funded a £20billion reorganisation of the NHS which achieved precisely nothing but cannot magically produce money for more staff, or to improve the working conditions and pay of the staff currently.
You appear to confused between one-off costs and ongoing costs?968 said:
The magical money tree seems quite able to fund all the vanity projects of the Brexiteers without a problem, but on this, it's an impossibility.
Which projects would these be?968 said:
The 'experts' as you snidely refer to, are trying to prioritise provision.
Not snide at all. You really are oversensitive! I would have though that experts in the his context covers a massive range of skills and knowledge, not just doctors?968 said:
You might have heard of the terms 'post code lottery' and 'rationing'? This is where CCGs usually introduce criteria to reduce access to interventions for patients, such as hip/knee/cataract surgery based on usually fairly arbitrary and non-evidence based criteria. It isn't usually a very popular policy and is usually fking stupid but hey ho it seems politically expedient to do so currently.
And?king stupid but hey ho it seems politically expedient to do so currently.968, I respect the passion in your argument, I really do. But Sidicks has a valid point. You want more funding for the NHS, but you can't say where it'll come from - pointing out past inefficiencies won't help in the future. So, where exactly is the money coming from? There's really only three choices (if we ignore the magic money tree):
You can't just appeal for more money without identifying its source.
- borrow, but is it fair to pass the bill to our descendants - we have a huge national debt as it is, and an ongoing annual deficit
- higher taxes, but if the Tories propose that they'll lose votes
- cut spending elsewhere - where do you propose? Should we cut social spending, pensions, education - what?
You can't just appeal for more money without identifying its source.
Brave Fart said:
968, I respect the passion in your argument, I really do. But Sidicks has a valid point. You want more funding for the NHS, but you can't say where it'll come from - pointing out past inefficiencies won't help in the future. So, where exactly is the money coming from? There's really only three choices (if we ignore the magic money tree):
You can't just appeal for more money without identifying its source.
I think I also said, as you have, that money needs to come from somewhere else that govt needs to identify. As I said they managed to magically produce £20billion when it suited them to but can’t increase funding now. - borrow, but is it fair to pass the bill to our descendants - we have a huge national debt as it is, and an ongoing annual deficit
- higher taxes, but if the Tories propose that they'll lose votes
- cut spending elsewhere - where do you propose? Should we cut social spending, pensions, education - what?
You can't just appeal for more money without identifying its source.
Stating the obvious but I’m a surgeon, not a politician hence I am not paid to make political decisions to prioritise funding. However what I can comment on is the desperate situation for staff in the nhs, which is leading to a recruitment crisis. If the government want to address this they first need to stop treating them with contempt. Changing the juniors contract to make them work more contracted hours for less money was, on the basis of a blatant and now thoroughly disproved lie, is one such poor decision.
Juniors regularly work well above their contracted hours because they feel they have to, otherwise patients would not receive adequate care. If they all worked to rule, the whole system would fall apart. Treating them in they terms that Hunt did simply destroyed any goodwill they had. He’s done a similar thing to nurses hence we face a crisis.
Edited by 968 on Wednesday 17th January 10:17
The Dangerous Elk said:
Conservative central office sending you more propaganda to quote with no context?The Dangerous Elk said:
Not atall, from the Full Facts site.
Yes and of course you know that compared with inflation this increase is not significant particularly as pay was frozen for a number of years.You also know that an increase in full time equivalent doctors does not equate to fully staffed rotas or even barely adequate numbers of staff.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff