Today's election issue...
Discussion
Is health. Which policy appeals to you?
Party 1.
Patients able to choose hospital or take 50% of NHS operation price to go private; matrons to keep hospitals MRSA- free; Whitehall targets scrapped; foundation status for all hospitals.
Party 2.
£8bn more on health; reduce diagnostic waiting lists for tests; free long-term care for elderly; free prescriptions for long-term illnesses; ban smoking in enclosed public places.
Party 3.
Patients able to choose their NHS hospital; waiting times down to 18 weeks; 100 new hospital schemes; 2,700 GP premises to be improved; no "cut price" hospital cleaning contracts.
You get no points for working out which is which. The game is - which policy is better?
>>> Edited by Tuna on Wednesday 6th April 11:13
Party 1.
Patients able to choose hospital or take 50% of NHS operation price to go private; matrons to keep hospitals MRSA- free; Whitehall targets scrapped; foundation status for all hospitals.
Party 2.
£8bn more on health; reduce diagnostic waiting lists for tests; free long-term care for elderly; free prescriptions for long-term illnesses; ban smoking in enclosed public places.
Party 3.
Patients able to choose their NHS hospital; waiting times down to 18 weeks; 100 new hospital schemes; 2,700 GP premises to be improved; no "cut price" hospital cleaning contracts.
You get no points for working out which is which. The game is - which policy is better?
>>> Edited by Tuna on Wednesday 6th April 11:13
Tuna said:
I don't want to spoil your fun, but party 3 is NOT the Lib Dems
and I don't want to spoil yours but the options you present are flawed because they do not give all the parties MAIN policies on health.
Both Labour and the Tories are committed to large increases in spending on health.
JagLover said:
I don't want to spoil your fun, but party 3 is NOT the Lib Dems
and I don't want to spoil yours but the options you present are flawed because they do not give all the parties MAIN policies on health.
Both Labour and the Tories are committed to large increases in spending on health.
I just stole these summaries from the BBC site, so if they're wrong, it's not my fault.
If you know of better/more accurate summaries, I'll use those.I don't see any way to improve the NHS other than simply injecting more cash into it.
Yes, the "Party 1" option probably benefits most of the people on this board but it will create a marked divide between the haves and have-nots. The number of, for example, brain surgeons in this country is limited and what I suspect will happen is that the better qualified surgeons will end up doing most of the semi-private operations whilst less qualified surgeons will perform the NHS ones. That's just my gut-feeling. Labour would deny this will be the case with some meaningless, management-speak blurb, I'm sure.
Yes, the "Party 1" option probably benefits most of the people on this board but it will create a marked divide between the haves and have-nots. The number of, for example, brain surgeons in this country is limited and what I suspect will happen is that the better qualified surgeons will end up doing most of the semi-private operations whilst less qualified surgeons will perform the NHS ones. That's just my gut-feeling. Labour would deny this will be the case with some meaningless, management-speak blurb, I'm sure.
Tuna said:
I just stole these summaries from the BBC site, so if they're wrong, it's not my fault.
Point taken-I am not surprised that the BBC are distorting things.
For the record both Labour and the Tories are committed to large percentage increases in NHS spending-it could be that the Lib Dems are promising more.
SuckMyChrsitmas said:
I don't see any way to improve the NHS other than simply injecting more cash into it.
Yes, the "Party 1" option probably benefits most of the people on this board but it will create a marked divide between the haves and have-nots. The number of, for example, brain surgeons in this country is limited and what I suspect will happen is that the better qualified surgeons will end up doing most of the semi-private operations whilst less qualified surgeons will perform the NHS ones. That's just my gut-feeling. Labour would deny this will be the case with some meaningless, management-speak blurb, I'm sure.
Actually, I would disagree.....
Contrary to my tag as being a leftwinger, my solution to the NHS is very rightwing. I strongly believe that people should be charged. If only a nominal fee, for visits to the GP, perhaps £10 a visit, for a visit to A&E, where the patient is neither treated or admitted, a larger fee....
Of course, I believe that OAPs and people with chronic illness should be exempt, but pretty much everyone else would pay. The revenue generated would be good, but more importantly, the extra hurdle placed in front of people, before they just turn up to the hospital, or go and see their GP, would reduce the congestion in GP waiting rooms and hospital casualties.
I do belive that the NHS is underfunded, grossly, but I think that re-adjusting it's mandate, and perhaps increasing funding a bit, might make more of a lasting improvement than simply throwing money at it, only for the money to be wasted.
968 said:
Actually, I would disagree.....
Contrary to my tag as being a leftwinger, my solution to the NHS is very rightwing. I strongly believe that people should be charged. If only a nominal fee, for visits to the GP, perhaps £10 a visit, for a visit to A&E, where the patient is neither treated or admitted, a larger fee....
Of course, I believe that OAPs and people with chronic illness should be exempt, but pretty much everyone else would pay. The revenue generated would be good, but more importantly, the extra hurdle placed in front of people, before they just turn up to the hospital, or go and see their GP, would reduce the congestion in GP waiting rooms and hospital casualties.
I do belive that the NHS is underfunded, grossly, but I think that re-adjusting it's mandate, and perhaps increasing funding a bit, might make more of a lasting improvement than simply throwing money at it, only for the money to be wasted.
What happens to the people that can't afford your "nominal" fee? There's more than just OAP's and the chronicly ill that can't. You'll be creating the same problem as America where 40% of people below the poverty line cannot afford health care. The children in that situation suffer the most.
968 said:
Actually, I would disagree.....
Contrary to my tag as being a leftwinger, my solution to the NHS is very rightwing. I strongly believe that people should be charged. If only a nominal fee, for visits to the GP, perhaps £10 a visit, for a visit to A&E, where the patient is neither treated or admitted, a larger fee....
Of course, I believe that OAPs and people with chronic illness should be exempt,
Perhaps £10 is too high-a lower more universal fee would be better in my opinion.
crazydave said:
What happens to the people that can't afford your "nominal" fee? There's more than just OAP's and the chronicly ill that can't. You'll be creating the same problem as America where 40% of people below the poverty line cannot afford health care. The children in that situation suffer the most.
I don't accept that at all. How many times have you seen your doctor in the past year? If you need to see the doctor regularly, then you are likely to have a chronic illness, and will be exempt.
Besides, studies have shown that the most frequent attenders to the GP surgery are social class V, who coincidentally are the heaviest smokers and drinkers. How much do a packet of cigarettes cost? If they can afford that, they can afford to pay £10 once every few months.
968 said:
I do belive that the NHS is underfunded, grossly, but I think that re-adjusting it's mandate, and perhaps increasing funding a bit, might make more of a lasting improvement than simply throwing money at it, only for the money to be wasted.
My Dad was a GP - he retired early because, after nearly forty years of looking after patients, he found he was spending more time filling in forms and jumping through hoops to meet government targets than actually seeing his patients. You don't need money to change that, you need to let Doctors actually get on with their jobs.
It appears that Labour don't trust health professionals. In their view the only way these trained people can do their jobs right is if they fill in checklists and are overseen by a nice thick layer of management.
Anyway, c'mon 968, crazydave - pick the least worst policy from that list!
[quote=Tuna]
It appears that Labour don't trust health professionals. In their view the only way these trained people can do their jobs right is if they fill in checklists and are overseen by a nice thick layer of management.
[quote]
My dad was also a GP, and yes I agree with you that there is too much paperwork. However, there is a reason for this, and it is the recent mistrust in doctors instilled by the media over the last 10-15 years, by successive governments. Normally, the negative stories come out, around the time that doctors try to renegotiate their contracts.
Of course, stories like Shipman have just added to all of this, so now the key word is Clinical Governance and accountability, which is probably a good thing, but it gets in the way of running a busy clinic, and seeing patients.
With regard to the initial post, I would say that all 3 suggestions are reasonable.
It appears that Labour don't trust health professionals. In their view the only way these trained people can do their jobs right is if they fill in checklists and are overseen by a nice thick layer of management.
[quote]
My dad was also a GP, and yes I agree with you that there is too much paperwork. However, there is a reason for this, and it is the recent mistrust in doctors instilled by the media over the last 10-15 years, by successive governments. Normally, the negative stories come out, around the time that doctors try to renegotiate their contracts.
Of course, stories like Shipman have just added to all of this, so now the key word is Clinical Governance and accountability, which is probably a good thing, but it gets in the way of running a busy clinic, and seeing patients.
With regard to the initial post, I would say that all 3 suggestions are reasonable.
I like policy 3 best. I believe that good GP's are the key to an effective health service. It's just like car servicing really. Would you rather take your P&J to a faceless national franchise who measure there performance by how long they keep you waiting and how many cars they get through in a day, or would you prefer a local expert who has been looking after it since the day you got it & knows it's strengths/weaknesses/little foibles and will go the extra mile to make sure it's running as well as possible.
968 said:
I don't accept that at all. How many times have you seen your doctor in the past year? If you need to see the doctor regularly, then you are likely to have a chronic illness, and will be exempt.
Besides, studies have shown that the most frequent attenders to the GP surgery are social class V, who coincidentally are the heaviest smokers and drinkers. How much do a packet of cigarettes cost? If they can afford that, they can afford to pay £10 once every few months.
Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. That is the case in America. Fine, you've pointed out that system works in another country but I don't feel it's right for this one. How many visits constitutes a chronic illness?
As for heavy smokers and drinkers. I agree. But don't they pay huge amounts of tax on cigarettes that could be put back into the health service to the benfit of everybody? Up the tax on cigarettees again please.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff