h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Well ain't that just fantastic. As long as the poor little doctors and nurses are happy the rest of us poor underpaid, overworked schmucks can just carry on doing our 16 hour overnight shifts and busting out butts for peanuts because management have spent so much money making sure the doctors are happy that there's none left to make sure Biomedical Scientists' hours conform to the EWT directive. And before you say anything, any mistake I make in my job has the same capacity to kill somebody as surely as if I'd been a doctor (I coulda been, but I thought I'd set my standards higher than that )

Ben, I'm not sure, but I thought the govt was stopping additional funding above inflation, rather than starting to cut funding per se. I could be wrong though.

My dealings with the NHS have been pretty crappy in the last couple of years. My local A&E and some other departments have been moved from 5 minutes by car to about a half hour drive (probably an hour or so by public transport, if there is any). I found this out while going to A&E for severe pains in my neck, which I got physiotherapy for about 8 months later. I've no idea about waiting lists for more serious things though.

>> As long as the poor little doctors and nurses are happy the rest of us poor underpaid, overworked schmucks can just carry on doing our 16 hour overnight shifts and busting out butts for peanuts because management have spent so much money making sure the doctors are happy that there's none left to make sure Biomedical Scientists' hours conform to the EWT directive.

I didn't mean it like that SLG, and I hope you'd know that.

What bugs me about this discussion is the amnesia in it.

I am not saying that everything in the NHS is lovely. What I am trying to say is that there are a whole bunch of ways in which the NHS is measurably better than it was ten years ago, and I used the retention of nursing staff and the the improvement in working hours for junior doctors as two concrete examples visible to punters like me. This is what I mean by the amnesia in this discussion. It it better than it was. It's not perfect. It is run by human beings, of *course* it isn't perfect. But it is observably and measurably not as bad as it was in the 1990s.

What worries me is that is it likely to be observably and measurably better than it will be in five years' time.

Ben

What worries me is that is it likely to be observably and measurably better NOW than it will be in five years' time.

Soz.

B

PS - Pedro, you may be right. I am not clear what the 'additional funding' is that is being withdrawn, or even when its being withdrawn. But the point made earlier that the NHS costs substantially less as a proportion of GDP than in other countries is a good one.

Well, I would say you have the power to vote and change that, but we both know it'd be a lie as Cameron is pretty well lined up for cutting taxes and therefore having to slash more off the budgets.

As regards A&E's, Pedro, I have some sympathy but from a Trusts position it simply isn't budgetarily feasible to run to A&E departmants that are only 30 minutes apart.

I do have to say that one of the things which really pisses me off about Blair is that he's improved the NHS. I do so want to be able to dispise him unconditionally.

I dunno. No satisfying some voters, is there?

B

Frankly I'd still happily put my cross next to Blair if not for the war, particularly if I thought he stood a chance of keeping the Tories out.

Sod it. Let's be honest, I'd do it in spite of the war if he'll keep the Tories out.

And I do despise him unconditionally, and have done more or less from the first day his psuedo-Labour government was elected.

Which reminds me - I need to get my registration sorted out if I am going to vote in the local elections.

B

As an outside I find it very difficult to make any comments about the NHS in general. I have a lot of anecdotes about good care and bad care, for myself and my friends and family, but it's difficult to generalise from this as you can never be sure from such a small sample size whether it is representative or not. Some people (particulary in the media) don't seem to have this problem.

It's a bit like saying "I went to Blackpool in 1995 and it was glorious. I went back in 2005 and it was also sunny. Therefore the weather in Blackpool is always wonderful."

The problem with "outsourcing" (and capitalism generally) is that you end up with the worst service/product that people will still pay for.

Bugger! I'm no longer registered where I used to live, and not yet registered where I now live and can't vote. *kicks self*

B

Ah well, you know what Ken said - if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

And look what Thatcher did to the GLC....

Blues, to get from my bit to the A&E (both on the outskirts of Glasgow) I've got to drive through a town/suburb of about 70,000 people with its own hospital and cross a toll bridge. A bit of a nightmare for those without access to cars, or poorer folk generally. I guess this is a separate point though (or is it?)

Ben, this article (about how the NHS is going to pot, etc) has some figures. Here's the relevant bit.

"After five years of 7% growth per annum the NHS is in a bit of a mess.

"We only have another two years left and after that we will go back to growth levels of 2-3%."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4876374.stm

I'd guess this means TB/GB have decided that whatever upgrade was necessary will be more or less complete soon and then the funding will go up with inflation.

Thanks Pedro.

*refrains from posting a long and ill-informed ramble to the effect of "... and how do they calculate inflation anyway?"*

B

*refrains from giving answer*

Well, if you *can* give an answer surely the question is: "is medical inflation the same as domestic inflation"?

Lots of stuff in the domestic environment is actually going down in price - clothes and shoes for example are available for much the same number of quids as they were in the 1980s or even the 1970s. IT-technology is also going down in price.

But how about medical technology? Presumably old drugs become cheaper as they move off-patent but they are replaced by new expensive drugs. Treatments which keep people alive are more expensive than ones that don't, simply because you have to administer them for longer. And so on. So to what extent does the nominal inflation rate which is based on the infamous 'shopping basket of goods' apply to medical care anyway?

B

As many have pointed out, just look at the US system. At more than twice the cost (per capita) with arguably equal or worse results, it is a very good demonstration that privatization is a bad idea.

Paul Krugman, a Princeton economist and NY Times editorialist, points out repeatedly these points. Where does the money go? Well, if you're wealthy in the US, you are getting the best health care in the world. But if you're not wealthy, the service is less than "stunning".


When The Economist talks about inflation, they usually exclude farm and energy products, becuase those seem to fluctuate so wildly. So I would guess that everything else, within statistical error, has the same "order of magnitude" inflation.

It's obviously variable by Trust.

Privatisation could be an option for a lot of people. I think it's dicey.

Consistency and uniformity thoughout the UK would be a welcome change.

<> (Arnie)

Indeed, people will complain about government sponsored health care - and I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, especially if their complaints are followed up by voting and taking whatever other steps they can to help make changes happen.

But paying for private health insurance is not an option for many people and so, while complaints about publice health care are often justified, this should be balanced by a certain amount of appreciation that this option exists at all (as, for example, it doesn't exist in the US).

I must point out that my comments are not directed at anyone on this thread, just that simply complaining about unsatisfactory care received by a no doubt over-worked NHS doctor or nurse doesn't actually do anything to help remedy the situation.

Neither am I saying that people should just count their blessings and be grateful for whatever they get. But heck, even when I lived in Canada I heard people complaining about waiting lists, unsatisfactory care, etc and frankly, Canada has one of the best social security medical systems going.

So in the cases of justified complaints, I think people should try to find ways they can help make positive changes happen. Kind of like patients being equally responsible participants in their own treatments, they should also realise that quality government sponsored health care is not a 'given' for everybody in all countries and, if they appreciate that this option exists for them, then by all means they should also become involved in trying to get improvements made.

Sorry if that comes across as very simplistic. I do realise that funding for hospitals, etc is 'big business' and the individual often doesn't feel they can make a difference. But writing to your MP, becoming involved in community action groups, getting out there to vote, etc *can* make a difference, I think. Especially if more people did this.



az

Oops, sorry guys. Didn't mean to kill the thread. So please feel free to ignore my last post and carry on as you were.


az