FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is there one aspect of the NHS that would improve if it was private?
Is there one aspect of the NHS that would improve if it was private?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? " Shareholder return. . Because that is the only point of a private business. To make money. The rest is irrelevant. . So we need to have a compassionate discussion about healthcare in this country at least, and that discussion revolves around what is the most important thing...to make people well or deliver shareholder returns. . You cannot have both, because both are mutually exclusive to each other and counter each other (in a private enterprise at least). . Sure, you could argue that paying private delivers a better outcome, but even that comes with "strings" attached. When the shareholders have more value than the patients, the care is not in the patients best interests. . Personally, I'd like to see a threshold where if your yearly earnings are above a certain amount, your first port of call is private by default. You still pay NI, because a rising tide lifts all boats, and if I have done well, then I'm in a position to help others who have not and would gladly do so. Without judgement or bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This issue of elective surgery sounds like a moral minefield. Who gets to decide? So what do you say to somebody in pain needing a knee replacement? Why should he/she be refused when people with self-inflicted illnesses get free priority treatment? Such as sports injuries, result of smoking, drinking, drugs etc. Tricky." With Elective Surgery, 'you' get to decide to do it privately or not, if you can afford it. For example, you could choose Elective Surgery (ES) for a hip replacement or a Hernia - both are non-life threatening (in the main) but can be very disabling or painful. I read recently that the Endometriosis (an incredibly painful illness for women) waiting list for surgery in 9 years on average at the NHS - privately if you can afford it, between consultation and surgery is less than two months. Cataract surgery has such a long a waiting list at the NHS that people are at risk of becoming blind before they can secure treatment - privately the waiting list is just over 8 weeks. There are many more examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? " Yes, there is certainly one aspect of the NHS which would improve through privatisation..... Profitability. Take, for example, British Gas. Energy was once a private industry back in the days of coal, but then it was "failing the ordinary man" and was nationalised. Then it began to "fail the ordinary man" and was privatised. Today, the energy businesses are making grossly bloated profits. As are the water companies. And the telecommunication companies. Are public service industries better in public or private ownership? - That is a good argument. However, what I do know is that each time a public service industry has transferred from public to private ownership, or from private to public ownership, it is ALWAYS the ordinary man who has picked up the pieces and paid the inevitable huge bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Private hospitals only take on routine NHS work that they can make a profit from, When it goes wrong they will simply call 999 and send the person to a NHS hospital. All the pioneering and risky stuff is done in traditional NHS hospitals. We have all seen the mess made by privatisation of the trains (worse than when it was British rail) We have seen what privatisation has done for water companies literally pumping shit into into the rivers & seas Do we really want private to happen to the NHS !" Equally do we want a Labour government running the NHS? Not a scrap of business experience across their front bench. Mostly from Uni to research assistants or union officials. Private vs public is the least worst option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Private hospitals only take on routine NHS work that they can make a profit from, When it goes wrong they will simply call 999 and send the person to a NHS hospital. All the pioneering and risky stuff is done in traditional NHS hospitals. We have all seen the mess made by privatisation of the trains (worse than when it was British rail) We have seen what privatisation has done for water companies literally pumping shit into into the rivers & seas Do we really want private to happen to the NHS ! Equally do we want a Labour government running the NHS? Not a scrap of business experience across their front bench. Mostly from Uni to research assistants or union officials. Private vs public is the least worst option. " If you want an example of exactly why you do NOT want a Labour government running the NHS, look at what they did inWales. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing, it would get worse and then the private operator would hand it back in an even worse state, just like the trains." Just like what happened re Hinchingbrooke (at least regarding debt). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of it!! Personally, I think private business is more suited to running a hi-tech, complex operation like the NHS (what did government ever run well?). That said, the principle of 'free at the point of need' must be enshrined in the arrangement and regulation of healthcare providers put in place. So what if private business makes a profit? They pay corporation tax and dividend tax into the treasury, so it's a win-win. For what it's worth, I'd say privatisation is inevitable at some point, so we might as well embrace it and make it work for all our sakes. " Oh right, Thames Water being s shining example | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of it!! Personally, I think private business is more suited to running a hi-tech, complex operation like the NHS (what did government ever run well?). That said, the principle of 'free at the point of need' must be enshrined in the arrangement and regulation of healthcare providers put in place. So what if private business makes a profit? They pay corporation tax and dividend tax into the treasury, so it's a win-win. For what it's worth, I'd say privatisation is inevitable at some point, so we might as well embrace it and make it work for all our sakes. Oh right, Thames Water being s shining example " Well I could respond with Post Office, but setting aside ideological differences, we have to find a model between central government and private enterprise that works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The way things are going for Thames water they'll be taken over by the government soon." Exactly.. after the shareholders have had their cut of the money. The greedy little goblins are stopping 500 million to infrastructure funds | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of it!! Personally, I think private business is more suited to running a hi-tech, complex operation like the NHS (what did government ever run well?). That said, the principle of 'free at the point of need' must be enshrined in the arrangement and regulation of healthcare providers put in place. So what if private business makes a profit? They pay corporation tax and dividend tax into the treasury, so it's a win-win. For what it's worth, I'd say privatisation is inevitable at some point, so we might as well embrace it and make it work for all our sakes. Oh right, Thames Water being s shining example Well I could respond with Post Office, but setting aside ideological differences, we have to find a model between central government and private enterprise that works." I think what this highlights is that not all services can/should be considered as viable businesses. Not everything is suitable to be run as a business for profit. The benefits of commercial businesses is that competition provides consumer choice. Some things IMO should just be delivered by Govt as a service not a business. Some things are just necessary for running the country and looking after the people. Should the police be privatised? The army/navy/RAF? Why should healthcare? Why should utilities (using natural resources from the land we all live on)? It is clear that not everything can be run profitably unless you reduce the quality of the service provided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of it!! Personally, I think private business is more suited to running a hi-tech, complex operation like the NHS (what did government ever run well?). That said, the principle of 'free at the point of need' must be enshrined in the arrangement and regulation of healthcare providers put in place. So what if private business makes a profit? They pay corporation tax and dividend tax into the treasury, so it's a win-win. For what it's worth, I'd say privatisation is inevitable at some point, so we might as well embrace it and make it work for all our sakes. Oh right, Thames Water being s shining example Well I could respond with Post Office, but setting aside ideological differences, we have to find a model between central government and private enterprise that works. I think what this highlights is that not all services can/should be considered as viable businesses. Not everything is suitable to be run as a business for profit. The benefits of commercial businesses is that competition provides consumer choice. Some things IMO should just be delivered by Govt as a service not a business. Some things are just necessary for running the country and looking after the people. Should the police be privatised? The army/navy/RAF? Why should healthcare? Why should utilities (using natural resources from the land we all live on)? It is clear that not everything can be run profitably unless you reduce the quality of the service provided." I think healthcare isn't the same as utilities depending on natural resources of the country. I personally would like healthcare and most government run services replaced by private sector and give people UBI instead. A thriving private sector in healthcare works really well. If you leave aside the problems of a highly populous developing country, my own state in India does it pretty well. We have doctors who charge much lower(close to £1 for consultation) but see a lot of patients. We also have doctors who charge a lot of money with luxurious hospitals who see less number of patients. We do have government hospitals. But most middle class and upper class people don't use them because you could anyway see a doctor for cheap. All doctors who graduate usually join the government hospitals to gain experience and build a reputation. Once they establish a good reputation, they move private. A big chunk of them continue consulting part time in government hospitals as government jobs come with perks. There are some doctors who try to fleece people by forcing them to take expensive tests which aren't necessary. But usually their reputations get damaged as word of mouth spreads fast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This issue of elective surgery sounds like a moral minefield. Who gets to decide? So what do you say to somebody in pain needing a knee replacement? Why should he/she be refused when people with self-inflicted illnesses get free priority treatment? Such as sports injuries, result of smoking, drinking, drugs etc. Tricky. With Elective Surgery, 'you' get to decide to do it privately or not, if you can afford it. For example, you could choose Elective Surgery (ES) for a hip replacement or a Hernia - both are non-life threatening (in the main) but can be very disabling or painful. I read recently that the Endometriosis (an incredibly painful illness for women) waiting list for surgery in 9 years on average at the NHS - privately if you can afford it, between consultation and surgery is less than two months. Cataract surgery has such a long a waiting list at the NHS that people are at risk of becoming blind before they can secure treatment - privately the waiting list is just over 8 weeks. There are many more examples. " Yer I'm with you if you need elective surgery there should be more advice to go private. I had an altrosound and was told the results could not be sent to me and a consultant would be in touch in 9 months WTF looking in to private so another 1 off there list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah of course, those super efficient businesses that run the railways, the water companies, and the energy sectors. Are they efficient or do they just make a profit? " If there is enough competition, the only way to get profit is to be more efficient. If they are not getting more efficient, it almost always means there isn't enough competition. Granted it's hard to build a competitive environment when it comes to certain utilities. But if there is competition, private businesses hands down beat public enterprises when it comes to efficiency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a very urgent conversation about adult older people's social care because it is those patients who are often taking up beds and blocking A&E ... which in turn blocks others accessing care ina timely manner Then we need to talk about access to quality primary care and GP's so that we can get early intervention and preventative care. Then we need a solution for mental health provision thatbis accessible early enough to prevent crisis. And how to tackle loneliness. Finally people need to educate themselves and take responsibility for making sure they don't turn up to A&E for things that could be treated by a pharmacist " Your first point is in fact because of care homes sending residents to hospital when they should be treated in the care/residential home. Your last point the system tells you to call 111 who are so quick to tell you to go to A&E not because they genuinely think you need it but more to cover themselves incase something is wrong they prefer to send you incase they get sued. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a very urgent conversation about adult older people's social care because it is those patients who are often taking up beds and blocking A&E ... which in turn blocks others accessing care ina timely manner Then we need to talk about access to quality primary care and GP's so that we can get early intervention and preventative care. Then we need a solution for mental health provision thatbis accessible early enough to prevent crisis. And how to tackle loneliness. Finally people need to educate themselves and take responsibility for making sure they don't turn up to A&E for things that could be treated by a pharmacist " Yes, our healthcare system needs all the above - and more. The problem is, it's all very expensive and we lack a viable funding model. Then we have a government-run NHS that is inefficient, bureaucratic and sclerotic. A perfect storm for a healthcare system that's not fit for purpose. The tricky part is a solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a very urgent conversation about adult older people's social care because it is those patients who are often taking up beds and blocking A&E ... which in turn blocks others accessing care ina timely manner Then we need to talk about access to quality primary care and GP's so that we can get early intervention and preventative care. Then we need a solution for mental health provision thatbis accessible early enough to prevent crisis. And how to tackle loneliness. Finally people need to educate themselves and take responsibility for making sure they don't turn up to A&E for things that could be treated by a pharmacist Your first point is in fact because of care homes sending residents to hospital when they should be treated in the care/residential home. Your last point the system tells you to call 111 who are so quick to tell you to go to A&E not because they genuinely think you need it but more to cover themselves incase something is wrong they prefer to send you incase they get sued." It’s really not care homes, there are tens of thousands of people who should be at home being supported by adult social care but because it’s not available are sitting in a hospital bed. Care homes are not entirely innocent, huge turn over in staff means the experience is simply not there in care homes, add to that they rely on GPs who are very thin on the ground, and you are getting a perfect storm. The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does." According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised." Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then?" Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. " And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite." You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? " Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those are all relevant questions and tbh i didnt think of it through insurance covers and policies. However i would say when you go to doctors to seek help for any mental health issues they diagnose you so in this instance either you would be going yourself or you would get referred through through companies like bupa. Also if it was privatised there would always be companies offering different setvices depending on your needs. Also the cost i would only assume would be high but that is already a fact if you go private now. " See my reply to other chap. Good luck getting or sustaining cover. Especially open ended long term funding for a condition that cannot be fixed by a single expensive intervention! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc" The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs?" You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs?" Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. " Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you?" I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? " As I said it was a loose example of cover, and mental health is more than likely to be long term cover, treatment and medication. To answer your questions / worries, yes long term illnesses are covered under insurance in the US. You seem to be applying insurance worst practice to a medical insurance situation? Expect health insurances to be of a different standard to car / home / holiday insurances, health care insurances will have tight regulatory guidance and laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? As I said it was a loose example of cover, and mental health is more than likely to be long term cover, treatment and medication. To answer your questions / worries, yes long term illnesses are covered under insurance in the US. You seem to be applying insurance worst practice to a medical insurance situation? Expect health insurances to be of a different standard to car / home / holiday insurances, health care insurances will have tight regulatory guidance and laws. " No my concerns are based on medical insurance horror stories that come out of the USA. Nobody in the UK has ever had to sell their home or go bankrupt to fund healthcare. They do in the USA. There may well be a better model. People often cite Germany but don’t follow it up with explanation (yes i could research but if someone raises it as a good model them I assume they can explain it). I think the NHS should remain a state (taxpayer) funded service but be focused on saving lives with some tough decisions made on what should no longer be provided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. " But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? As I said it was a loose example of cover, and mental health is more than likely to be long term cover, treatment and medication. To answer your questions / worries, yes long term illnesses are covered under insurance in the US. You seem to be applying insurance worst practice to a medical insurance situation? Expect health insurances to be of a different standard to car / home / holiday insurances, health care insurances will have tight regulatory guidance and laws. No my concerns are based on medical insurance horror stories that come out of the USA. Nobody in the UK has ever had to sell their home or go bankrupt to fund healthcare. They do in the USA. There may well be a better model. People often cite Germany but don’t follow it up with explanation (yes i could research but if someone raises it as a good model them I assume they can explain it). I think the NHS should remain a state (taxpayer) funded service but be focused on saving lives with some tough decisions made on what should no longer be provided." I understand your worries but this is not a case of copying something that doesn't work it is an opportunity to take as you say good examples and make them better. Unless we are flipped into a communist state the NHS is ticking down to an A&E only function for all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? As I said it was a loose example of cover, and mental health is more than likely to be long term cover, treatment and medication. To answer your questions / worries, yes long term illnesses are covered under insurance in the US. You seem to be applying insurance worst practice to a medical insurance situation? Expect health insurances to be of a different standard to car / home / holiday insurances, health care insurances will have tight regulatory guidance and laws. No my concerns are based on medical insurance horror stories that come out of the USA. Nobody in the UK has ever had to sell their home or go bankrupt to fund healthcare. They do in the USA. There may well be a better model. People often cite Germany but don’t follow it up with explanation (yes i could research but if someone raises it as a good model them I assume they can explain it). I think the NHS should remain a state (taxpayer) funded service but be focused on saving lives with some tough decisions made on what should no longer be provided. I understand your worries but this is not a case of copying something that doesn't work it is an opportunity to take as you say good examples and make them better. Unless we are flipped into a communist state the NHS is ticking down to an A&E only function for all. " Sorry NotMe but I think that is pro-privatisation hyperbole. The NHS needs to be refocused and prioritised but it is a long way off from what you say. I have also explained what my concerns are based on. It matters not what good intentions there might be in a redesigned private system. All checks and balances and legislation can be overturned or changed by small, sometime unobvious increments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. " NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? As I said it was a loose example of cover, and mental health is more than likely to be long term cover, treatment and medication. To answer your questions / worries, yes long term illnesses are covered under insurance in the US. You seem to be applying insurance worst practice to a medical insurance situation? Expect health insurances to be of a different standard to car / home / holiday insurances, health care insurances will have tight regulatory guidance and laws. No my concerns are based on medical insurance horror stories that come out of the USA. Nobody in the UK has ever had to sell their home or go bankrupt to fund healthcare. They do in the USA. There may well be a better model. People often cite Germany but don’t follow it up with explanation (yes i could research but if someone raises it as a good model them I assume they can explain it). I think the NHS should remain a state (taxpayer) funded service but be focused on saving lives with some tough decisions made on what should no longer be provided. I understand your worries but this is not a case of copying something that doesn't work it is an opportunity to take as you say good examples and make them better. Unless we are flipped into a communist state the NHS is ticking down to an A&E only function for all. Sorry NotMe but I think that is pro-privatisation hyperbole. The NHS needs to be refocused and prioritised but it is a long way off from what you say. I have also explained what my concerns are based on. It matters not what good intentions there might be in a redesigned private system. All checks and balances and legislation can be overturned or changed by small, sometime unobvious increments." I’m not following you at all, you have very mixed messages. In my opinion the NHS will provide services to those who need free services and privatisation will take over as the main healthcare of choice for those that can. On another thread I laid out the tax implications to other services and the tax burden on the country if we don’t adopt a hybrid model, I noticed very shortly after you said something similar, now I’m lost in your thinking / direction you see the NHS going. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case?" No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension." What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. " They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you?" You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. " Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up." 'Has been slashed but it is costing more to fund' Can you rewrite that because it doesn't make sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. " Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? You are absolutely correct and this happens in other countries such as the US. Laws have been passed to treat mental health as a medical condition, that is a very loose description but it shows clearly insurance covers these things. Mental health is one issue. Insurance cover is broader so can we not go down one rabbit hole. All pre-existing/hereditary conditions and all ongoing longterm treatment for any illness is the area of concern IMO. In the USA what is the situation with ongoing treatment costs? Is there a ceiling/threshold? As I said it was a loose example of cover, and mental health is more than likely to be long term cover, treatment and medication. To answer your questions / worries, yes long term illnesses are covered under insurance in the US. You seem to be applying insurance worst practice to a medical insurance situation? Expect health insurances to be of a different standard to car / home / holiday insurances, health care insurances will have tight regulatory guidance and laws. No my concerns are based on medical insurance horror stories that come out of the USA. Nobody in the UK has ever had to sell their home or go bankrupt to fund healthcare. They do in the USA. There may well be a better model. People often cite Germany but don’t follow it up with explanation (yes i could research but if someone raises it as a good model them I assume they can explain it). I think the NHS should remain a state (taxpayer) funded service but be focused on saving lives with some tough decisions made on what should no longer be provided. I understand your worries but this is not a case of copying something that doesn't work it is an opportunity to take as you say good examples and make them better. Unless we are flipped into a communist state the NHS is ticking down to an A&E only function for all. Sorry NotMe but I think that is pro-privatisation hyperbole. The NHS needs to be refocused and prioritised but it is a long way off from what you say. I have also explained what my concerns are based on. It matters not what good intentions there might be in a redesigned private system. All checks and balances and legislation can be overturned or changed by small, sometime unobvious increments. I’m not following you at all, you have very mixed messages. In my opinion the NHS will provide services to those who need free services and privatisation will take over as the main healthcare of choice for those that can. On another thread I laid out the tax implications to other services and the tax burden on the country if we don’t adopt a hybrid model, I noticed very shortly after you said something similar, now I’m lost in your thinking / direction you see the NHS going." I will have to go and look what I said but the general gist of my argument is: A) NHS is not sustainable as is and offering all the services it does. To continue to do so would have tax implications or reduced services in every other area of govt. B) I am not in favour of full privatisation nor the twin stream model you suggest. C) I think the NHS should focus primarily on saving lives (not just A&E but early intervention to prevent death and suffering down the line). D) I think other non-life saving activities could be provided by private sector. E) I have serious concerns over a purely personal health insurance approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couple of suggestions. As others say the NHS covers emergency care and to my mind in addition should cover care for pre existing problems and hereditary problems. Mandatory Private cover for everything else. NI reduced to reflect the smaller NHS burden and to help towards insurance cost. Or maybe the NHS roughly as it us now but for those under a certain income level, maybe basic rate tax payers and below. Over the threshold people will need private insurance for most things but with the NHS there as a back up for emergencies. NI heavily reduced to reflect this for these people. Just wanted to say that some insurance covers pre existing conditions. This year the place I work introduced private health scheme and it includes pre existing conditions from day 1. However if I were to add a family member to the scheme, they have to pay (subsidized) and have to wait 2 years before getting treatment for pre existing things" Your point on pre-existing is really interesting and encouraging. Would love to read the small print and know who the provider is? Right now BUPA are running a substantial advertising campaign on TV. Look at the small print at bottom of the screen = “no pre-existing conditions” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension." I'm not sure on the figures but don't think it would be enough. Perhaps if we seriously scaled back on the services offered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension. I'm not sure on the figures but don't think it would be enough. Perhaps if we seriously scaled back on the services offered. " No idea either but in that case I would be in favour of revising both IC and NI to reflect the reality of ringfencing NI for healthcare and state pension (ie decrease IC and increase NI). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension. I'm not sure on the figures but don't think it would be enough. Perhaps if we seriously scaled back on the services offered. No idea either but in that case I would be in favour of revising both IC and NI to reflect the reality of ringfencing NI for healthcare and state pension (ie decrease IC and increase NI)." IC = Income and Capital? I don't know the average on NI for a year but I do know that 3k/per person is spent per year on the NHS. We'd seriously have to increase the NI to account for those who don't pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension. I'm not sure on the figures but don't think it would be enough. Perhaps if we seriously scaled back on the services offered. No idea either but in that case I would be in favour of revising both IC and NI to reflect the reality of ringfencing NI for healthcare and state pension (ie decrease IC and increase NI). IC = Income and Capital? I don't know the average on NI for a year but I do know that 3k/per person is spent per year on the NHS. We'd seriously have to increase the NI to account for those who don't pay. " IC = Income Tax As in NI = National Insurance so just an acronym as too lazy to type. Good point but then all taxpayers are subsidising those who are not working/on benefits already right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension. I'm not sure on the figures but don't think it would be enough. Perhaps if we seriously scaled back on the services offered. No idea either but in that case I would be in favour of revising both IC and NI to reflect the reality of ringfencing NI for healthcare and state pension (ie decrease IC and increase NI). IC = Income and Capital? I don't know the average on NI for a year but I do know that 3k/per person is spent per year on the NHS. We'd seriously have to increase the NI to account for those who don't pay. IC = Income Tax As in NI = National Insurance so just an acronym as too lazy to type. Good point but then all taxpayers are subsidising those who are not working/on benefits already right?" IC confused me slightly but understood. Yes, taxpayers currently subsidise those people. It's the 3k figure that has me, along with Pension (not sure what that is), if the only money going to those comes from NI then that's a huge huge uplift. Tbh, I'm not dead against _ostindreams idea of UBI. Take all health and amenities back into Govt hands (that way they set the price), give UBI and then make everything chargeable. This would obviously need more thought than back of fag packet scribbles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up. 'Has been slashed but it is costing more to fund' Can you rewrite that because it doesn't make sense." Okay, I’ll take it nice and slowly for you. Funding from central government to local councils, including that for social care, has been slashed. The cost of funding social care has risen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up. 'Has been slashed but it is costing more to fund' Can you rewrite that because it doesn't make sense. Okay, I’ll take it nice and slowly for you. Funding from central government to local councils, including that for social care, has been slashed. The cost of funding social care has risen." Overall funding has been 'slashed'. The cost of social care has gone up and those costs have been met, ergo, not slashed. You seem to have some sort of superiority complex. Sometimes you just need to think a little and we'd avoid all this fucking nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couple of suggestions. As others say the NHS covers emergency care and to my mind in addition should cover care for pre existing problems and hereditary problems. Mandatory Private cover for everything else. NI reduced to reflect the smaller NHS burden and to help towards insurance cost. Or maybe the NHS roughly as it us now but for those under a certain income level, maybe basic rate tax payers and below. Over the threshold people will need private insurance for most things but with the NHS there as a back up for emergencies. NI heavily reduced to reflect this for these people. Just wanted to say that some insurance covers pre existing conditions. This year the place I work introduced private health scheme and it includes pre existing conditions from day 1. However if I were to add a family member to the scheme, they have to pay (subsidized) and have to wait 2 years before getting treatment for pre existing things Your point on pre-existing is really interesting and encouraging. Would love to read the small print and know who the provider is? Right now BUPA are running a substantial advertising campaign on TV. Look at the small print at bottom of the screen = “no pre-existing conditions”" AXA I believe. In the main print it says for employees, they are except from the pre existing conditions rule. However I am allowed to sign up any partner and or children but they are not exempt from the pre existing rule until after 2 years of membership. As you can imagine this came up in lots of discussions as, like you we imagine there will be clever small print but we have had it in writing that we are indeed exempt from any pre existing conditions. I don't know if this same deal is available to all or has been tailored to my employers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up. 'Has been slashed but it is costing more to fund' Can you rewrite that because it doesn't make sense. Okay, I’ll take it nice and slowly for you. Funding from central government to local councils, including that for social care, has been slashed. The cost of funding social care has risen. Overall funding has been 'slashed'. The cost of social care has gone up and those costs have been met, ergo, not slashed. You seem to have some sort of superiority complex. Sometimes you just need to think a little and we'd avoid all this fucking nonsense. " No, overall funding has been slashed but the cost of funding social care has risen. Why is this so difficult to understand? In month 1 you receive £100 to provide a number of services both mandatory and optional, the cost to you of providing a mandatory service is £50. In month 2 you receive £80 to provide the same services but the cost of providing the mandatory service has risen to £70. In order to provide the mandatory service you have to spend less on the optional services. The funding you receive has been cut by 20%, the cost of providing the mandatory service has increased by 40% but you still cover the cost of funding the mandatory service, despite its cost increasing, by spending less on optional services. The funding you receive has been slashed, the cost of providing the mandatory service has increased. If you can’t understand that then might I suggest you ask someone to help you with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up. 'Has been slashed but it is costing more to fund' Can you rewrite that because it doesn't make sense. Okay, I’ll take it nice and slowly for you. Funding from central government to local councils, including that for social care, has been slashed. The cost of funding social care has risen. Overall funding has been 'slashed'. The cost of social care has gone up and those costs have been met, ergo, not slashed. You seem to have some sort of superiority complex. Sometimes you just need to think a little and we'd avoid all this fucking nonsense. No, overall funding has been slashed but the cost of funding social care has risen. Why is this so difficult to understand? In month 1 you receive £100 to provide a number of services both mandatory and optional, the cost to you of providing a mandatory service is £50. In month 2 you receive £80 to provide the same services but the cost of providing the mandatory service has risen to £70. In order to provide the mandatory service you have to spend less on the optional services. The funding you receive has been cut by 20%, the cost of providing the mandatory service has increased by 40% but you still cover the cost of funding the mandatory service, despite its cost increasing, by spending less on optional services. The funding you receive has been slashed, the cost of providing the mandatory service has increased. If you can’t understand that then might I suggest you ask someone to help you with it? " I understand it perfectly well. What you're attempting to do is lump all funding together because you can't back up your claim of 'adult social care funding has been slashed'. It's not possible for that particular service funding to have been slashed when all cost, even when increasing have been met. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's fucking tedious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couple of suggestions. As others say the NHS covers emergency care and to my mind in addition should cover care for pre existing problems and hereditary problems. Mandatory Private cover for everything else. NI reduced to reflect the smaller NHS burden and to help towards insurance cost. Or maybe the NHS roughly as it us now but for those under a certain income level, maybe basic rate tax payers and below. Over the threshold people will need private insurance for most things but with the NHS there as a back up for emergencies. NI heavily reduced to reflect this for these people. Just wanted to say that some insurance covers pre existing conditions. This year the place I work introduced private health scheme and it includes pre existing conditions from day 1. However if I were to add a family member to the scheme, they have to pay (subsidized) and have to wait 2 years before getting treatment for pre existing things Your point on pre-existing is really interesting and encouraging. Would love to read the small print and know who the provider is? Right now BUPA are running a substantial advertising campaign on TV. Look at the small print at bottom of the screen = “no pre-existing conditions” AXA I believe. In the main print it says for employees, they are except from the pre existing conditions rule. However I am allowed to sign up any partner and or children but they are not exempt from the pre existing rule until after 2 years of membership. As you can imagine this came up in lots of discussions as, like you we imagine there will be clever small print but we have had it in writing that we are indeed exempt from any pre existing conditions. I don't know if this same deal is available to all or has been tailored to my employers" Bite their hand off, sounds like a good deal (although locks you into that employer for work if the AXA deal is bespoke for them). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personally i agree with the people who are saying primary care before people are even admitted to the hospital is something that needs to be looked at urgently. As issues that shpuld be dealt with quicker are left lingering whixh makes peoples health worse especially with mental health. This then leads to the increase in the waitling lists at the hospitals where this is added pressure to treat people and let make them leave as quickly as possible. I was working on intensive care for last 6 years and feel this gotten worse and worse. Also i believe that the nhs is not equipped to take on the number of growing cases of mental health issues whixh is why i believe that should be privatised. Will medical insurance provide me cover for potential mental health issues in future? For an affordable price? What if there was any history of mental health issues in my family? Would that affect my premium (or could they refuse cover)? Will the insurance cover be open ended or have a threshold per year? If the cost of my treatment hits that threshold what then? Valid questions, and as we know insurance companies can be 'tricky' when it comes to paying out. But honestly could mental health provision be any worse than it is now under the NHS? Could it be worse? Yes it could! It could be better too. But that doesn’t change the challenge of who pays and how much. Someone jokingly, but accurately, pointed out up above that for 40yrs using NHS they have never received an invoice. And that is the point. We ARE paying for the NHS through tax and NI and we might not use it ever (hopefully) but for the vast majority of people I bet if they do need to use the NHS for anything serious, the cost is far greater than the tax they have contributed as an individual (and covered because all of us are paying in). If we go down an insurance based approach (how else do you fund private treatment?) then good luck covering all the costs. Good luck if you need to fund any longterm or ongoing treatment. Good luck if the cost of your medicine increases. Good luck when the insurance company increases your premium. Good luck when you want to move to a better insurance company and they refuse any pre-existing conditions. Etc The NHS get circa 3k per year for every single one of us. I understand concerns around pre-existing but you are assuming these wouldn't be covered. If we truly went down the insurance route, it would be fairly easy to set laws making pre-existing conditions guaranteed. We put a 'cap' on energy costs, we couldn't we also do that for health costs? Trust! It all comes down to trust. And I do not trust the people lobbying to privatise the NHS to have OUR best interests at heart, only THEIRS. This will be about profit and shareholder value. They see this as a business opportunity not some altruistic and honest attempt to give the UK better healthcare. You COULD write it into law to start with. But like all legislation, you get death by a thousand cuts. For the next decade(s) the insurance companies will lobby and black…mail (word blocked) the Govt of the day by saying providing cover to pre-existing conditions is unsustainable and they are losing money (so will have to cease operating). I think pre-existing or hereditary illness are two major areas of concern. The third is ongoing longterm treatment (along with increases in cost of treatment/medicine). We would need laws stating insurance companies must cover all associated costs for the lifetime of the policy holder (regardless of whether these increase year-on-year) AND cannot increase premiums once the policy holder starts claiming. Can’t see that being an attractive business model for any insurance company, can you? I understand you don't trust them, just as I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the Govt but are still happy to leave it in their hands. If an insurance company cannot make money then let them go bust. How about a 'Govt insurance'. I'm just throwing things out here. For clarity, I don't want to lose the NHS completely but I am happy to lose everything but emergency cover. But don’t we already have “Govt Insurance”? It’s called National Insurance. Perhaps that should go back to being a ring fenced separate fund not part of the tax pot. Govt can then point and say “NI is this much and it is only used for NHS and State Pension. If you want more for those then pay more”. NI isn't for strictly for healthcare. I'd have no problem it being so, though. I think we're roughly on the same page as to what we think needs to happen for the NHS to be 'fixed' but as always its very difficult to have an adult conversation about it. Sorry may not have been clear. I know NI isn’t ringfenced and ends up in same “pot” as general taxation. I am suggesting it should be ringfenced exclusively for NHS and State Pension. I'm not sure on the figures but don't think it would be enough. Perhaps if we seriously scaled back on the services offered. No idea either but in that case I would be in favour of revising both IC and NI to reflect the reality of ringfencing NI for healthcare and state pension (ie decrease IC and increase NI). IC = Income and Capital? I don't know the average on NI for a year but I do know that 3k/per person is spent per year on the NHS. We'd seriously have to increase the NI to account for those who don't pay. IC = Income Tax As in NI = National Insurance so just an acronym as too lazy to type. Good point but then all taxpayers are subsidising those who are not working/on benefits already right? IC confused me slightly but understood. Yes, taxpayers currently subsidise those people. It's the 3k figure that has me, along with Pension (not sure what that is), if the only money going to those comes from NI then that's a huge huge uplift. Tbh, I'm not dead against _ostindreams idea of UBI. Take all health and amenities back into Govt hands (that way they set the price), give UBI and then make everything chargeable. This would obviously need more thought than back of fag packet scribbles." Sorry Feisty I think losing an hours sleep caused me to have a brain fart! IT = Income Tax IC = god knows what I was thinking   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a very urgent conversation about adult older people's social care because it is those patients who are often taking up beds and blocking A&E ... which in turn blocks others accessing care ina timely manner Then we need to talk about access to quality primary care and GP's so that we can get early intervention and preventative care. Then we need a solution for mental health provision thatbis accessible early enough to prevent crisis. And how to tackle loneliness. Finally people need to educate themselves and take responsibility for making sure they don't turn up to A&E for things that could be treated by a pharmacist Your first point is in fact because of care homes sending residents to hospital when they should be treated in the care/residential home. Your last point the system tells you to call 111 who are so quick to tell you to go to A&E not because they genuinely think you need it but more to cover themselves incase something is wrong they prefer to send you incase they get sued." Why should residents in a residential home not be treated in hospital? And no it's not these who are blocking beds but people who need to be in residential/nursing homes or need a package of care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couple of suggestions. As others say the NHS covers emergency care and to my mind in addition should cover care for pre existing problems and hereditary problems. Mandatory Private cover for everything else. NI reduced to reflect the smaller NHS burden and to help towards insurance cost. Or maybe the NHS roughly as it us now but for those under a certain income level, maybe basic rate tax payers and below. Over the threshold people will need private insurance for most things but with the NHS there as a back up for emergencies. NI heavily reduced to reflect this for these people. Just wanted to say that some insurance covers pre existing conditions. This year the place I work introduced private health scheme and it includes pre existing conditions from day 1. However if I were to add a family member to the scheme, they have to pay (subsidized) and have to wait 2 years before getting treatment for pre existing things Your point on pre-existing is really interesting and encouraging. Would love to read the small print and know who the provider is? Right now BUPA are running a substantial advertising campaign on TV. Look at the small print at bottom of the screen = “no pre-existing conditions” AXA I believe. In the main print it says for employees, they are except from the pre existing conditions rule. However I am allowed to sign up any partner and or children but they are not exempt from the pre existing rule until after 2 years of membership. As you can imagine this came up in lots of discussions as, like you we imagine there will be clever small print but we have had it in writing that we are indeed exempt from any pre existing conditions. I don't know if this same deal is available to all or has been tailored to my employers Bite their hand off, sounds like a good deal (although locks you into that employer for work if the AXA deal is bespoke for them)." Yes already signed up. It's basically free for me except some benefit in kind thing on my tax code. It is 100% linked to the job so yes it is a case of leave the job and loose the cover. Unless the new job also is offering a similar thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is particularly bad concerning covid. Covid can remain whole in faeces for up to 45 days. The woman who was the first person to isolate covid complete discovered this. The digestive tract is her specialism." Carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are our waste products. The relevant bodily systems are designed to remove everything the body doesn't need (spent or unspent). To warrant  I'd want to know that no other pathogen has ever been found unspent in waste products. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of it!! Personally, I think private business is more suited to running a hi-tech, complex operation like the NHS (what did government ever run well?). That said, the principle of 'free at the point of need' must be enshrined in the arrangement and regulation of healthcare providers put in place. So what if private business makes a profit? They pay corporation tax and dividend tax into the treasury, so it's a win-win. For what it's worth, I'd say privatisation is inevitable at some point, so we might as well embrace it and make it work for all our sakes. " So what if private business makes a profit People profiting financially off the back of others pain and suffering. Is that really a society you want yo live in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue is that the government has slashed adult social care funding, and this has had a huge knock on effect on the NHS. It impacts on pretty much everything the NHS does. According to the King's Fund "In 2022/23, total expenditure was £2.7 billion more in real terms than in 2010/11." Besides, I was under the impression that LA'S decide how to distribute those funds. And demand has grown considerably, as has minimum wage, which is what those who work in adult social care tend to be paid. Also, income and expenditure are not the same thing, they are in fact the total opposite. You said 'slashed funding'. Now you're saying that actually isn't the case? No, that’s not what I said at all, you seem to be struggling with comprehension. What are you saying exactly because instead of responding to my post, you spoke of demand and wages. Tell me how expenditure has increased so much if they have had their 'income' slashed. They have had to make cuts in other services in areas to meet demand in statutory services. Local authorities have had a 27% cut in core spending power since 2010. The cost of providing council services will increase by around £15 Billion, between 21/22 and 24/25. Funding is not keeping up with demand. It’s not that difficult to comprehend, surely? If your energy bills go up and you don’t have enough spare cash to cover it then you would spend less on one of your other outgoings to cover the shortfall, wouldn’t you? You specifically said funding for adult social care has been slashed. Whilst there has been an upturn in funding. Now your saying other services have been cut to keep up with statutory services. Which one is it? It wouldn't be difficult to comprehend if you didn't keep changing what you're saying. Again, you seem to be struggling, funding for adult social care has been slashed but it is costing more to fund, so the councils have had to make cuts in other areas in order to meet the shortfall. Do try and keep up. 'Has been slashed but it is costing more to fund' Can you rewrite that because it doesn't make sense. Okay, I’ll take it nice and slowly for you. Funding from central government to local councils, including that for social care, has been slashed. The cost of funding social care has risen. Overall funding has been 'slashed'. The cost of social care has gone up and those costs have been met, ergo, not slashed. You seem to have some sort of superiority complex. Sometimes you just need to think a little and we'd avoid all this fucking nonsense. No, overall funding has been slashed but the cost of funding social care has risen. Why is this so difficult to understand? In month 1 you receive £100 to provide a number of services both mandatory and optional, the cost to you of providing a mandatory service is £50. In month 2 you receive £80 to provide the same services but the cost of providing the mandatory service has risen to £70. In order to provide the mandatory service you have to spend less on the optional services. The funding you receive has been cut by 20%, the cost of providing the mandatory service has increased by 40% but you still cover the cost of funding the mandatory service, despite its cost increasing, by spending less on optional services. The funding you receive has been slashed, the cost of providing the mandatory service has increased. If you can’t understand that then might I suggest you ask someone to help you with it? " What makes you think that funding has been cut ? Your statement is simply ridiculous. . I am in contact with care workers every day of the week and they provide an excellent service to those unable to look after themselves. If your statement was true there would be a public outcry. Maybe you should aim your criticism at the relatives of those in care if you believe that funding is insufficient. Most care workers do an excellent job and it is rather offensive to use them in an attempt to score a political point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is particularly bad concerning covid. Covid can remain whole in faeces for up to 45 days. The woman who was the first person to isolate covid complete discovered this. The digestive tract is her specialism. Carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are our waste products. The relevant bodily systems are designed to remove everything the body doesn't need (spent or unspent). To warrant I'd want to know that no other pathogen has ever been found unspent in waste products. "I was referring to the problem of poo contaminated water Not sure what you mean about pathogens not being found in our waste? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is particularly bad concerning covid. Covid can remain whole in faeces for up to 45 days. The woman who was the first person to isolate covid complete discovered this. The digestive tract is her specialism. Carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are our waste products. The relevant bodily systems are designed to remove everything the body doesn't need (spent or unspent). To warrant I'd want to know that no other pathogen has ever been found unspent in waste products.
I was referring to the problem of poo contaminated water
Not sure what you mean about pathogens not being found in our waste?"Pathogen examples: bacterium, virus, fungus. Are these (other than covid 19) found in their pathogenic state (disease causing, IE unspent) in waste products such as urine/faeces/CO2? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is particularly bad concerning covid. Covid can remain whole in faeces for up to 45 days. The woman who was the first person to isolate covid complete discovered this. The digestive tract is her specialism. Carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are our waste products. The relevant bodily systems are designed to remove everything the body doesn't need (spent or unspent). To warrant I'd want to know that no other pathogen has ever been found unspent in waste products.
I was referring to the problem of poo contaminated water
Not sure what you mean about pathogens not being found in our waste?
Pathogen examples: bacterium, virus, fungus. Are these (other than covid 19) found in their pathogenic state (disease causing, IE unspent) in waste products such as urine/faeces/CO2?"Ah, covid lives and sheds from the small intestine for up to 45 days following the first all clear swab test. Bits of covid remain in stools for 7 months as the body clears the waste out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is particularly bad concerning covid. Covid can remain whole in faeces for up to 45 days. The woman who was the first person to isolate covid complete discovered this. The digestive tract is her specialism. Carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are our waste products. The relevant bodily systems are designed to remove everything the body doesn't need (spent or unspent). To warrant I'd want to know that no other pathogen has ever been found unspent in waste products.
I was referring to the problem of poo contaminated water
Not sure what you mean about pathogens not being found in our waste?
Pathogen examples: bacterium, virus, fungus. Are these (other than covid 19) found in their pathogenic state (disease causing, IE unspent) in waste products such as urine/faeces/CO2?
Ah, covid lives and sheds from the small intestine for up to 45 days following the first all clear swab test.
Bits of covid remain in stools for 7 months as the body clears the waste out.
"I'm not asking about COVID. My point is that I would be shocked if (if researched) no OTHER pathogen was found in human waste products. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is particularly bad concerning covid. Covid can remain whole in faeces for up to 45 days. The woman who was the first person to isolate covid complete discovered this. The digestive tract is her specialism. Carbon dioxide, urine and faeces are our waste products. The relevant bodily systems are designed to remove everything the body doesn't need (spent or unspent). To warrant I'd want to know that no other pathogen has ever been found unspent in waste products.
I was referring to the problem of poo contaminated water
Not sure what you mean about pathogens not being found in our waste?
Pathogen examples: bacterium, virus, fungus. Are these (other than covid 19) found in their pathogenic state (disease causing, IE unspent) in waste products such as urine/faeces/CO2?
Ah, covid lives and sheds from the small intestine for up to 45 days following the first all clear swab test.
Bits of covid remain in stools for 7 months as the body clears the waste out.
I'm not asking about COVID. My point is that I would be shocked if (if researched) no OTHER pathogen was found in human waste products."Ah, understood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. Your in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . " Because those in the queue, when they become emergencies, become queue jumpers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All of it!! Personally, I think private business is more suited to running a hi-tech, complex operation like the NHS (what did government ever run well?). That said, the principle of 'free at the point of need' must be enshrined in the arrangement and regulation of healthcare providers put in place. So what if private business makes a profit? They pay corporation tax and dividend tax into the treasury, so it's a win-win. For what it's worth, I'd say privatisation is inevitable at some point, so we might as well embrace it and make it work for all our sakes. So what if private business makes a profit People profiting financially off the back of others pain and suffering. Is that really a society you want yo live in?" People get sick regardless of what type of care is in place. In general, to me if a private company can treat me quickly and professionally and be quicker than the NHS then making a profit is ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. Your in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . Because those in the queue, when they become emergencies, become queue jumpers. " Accept that is the case so why the secrecy ? Why can't someone on the list not be able to look on line to see how near the front they are and plan holidays etc . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. Your in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . Because those in the queue, when they become emergencies, become queue jumpers. Accept that is the case so why the secrecy ? Why can't someone on the list not be able to look on line to see how near the front they are and plan holidays etc . " I can make an assumption of there being various lists (lists within lists). I referred a patient and that patient was put on the low priority list, third of three. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . " First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe." It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? " The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have." The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages." We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic. "Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? " . If we were to privatise the NHS and adapt a model similar to France or Germany it would be a substantial improvement. Nothing in life is free and that includes the NHS. Privatisation would break the service down into specific areas which would be much more manageable. There should be charges for some services and the public should be made to buy insurance. . The current model was designed fifty years ago , life has moved on.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much? "Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? . If we were to privatise the NHS and adapt a model similar to France or Germany it would be a substantial improvement. Nothing in life is free and that includes the NHS. Privatisation would break the service down into specific areas which would be much more manageable. There should be charges for some services and the public should be made to buy insurance. . The current model was designed fifty years ago , life has moved on.." How much will the insurance cost Will the 37% (26 million) overweight pay more How will less well off get cover they can afford Will the three million food bank users get free cover How will the actuaries calculate the risks ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much? "It was clear what I found abhorrent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation."Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation.
Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great."Or we fund the NHS properly and we all get better care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? . If we were to privatise the NHS and adapt a model similar to France or Germany it would be a substantial improvement. Nothing in life is free and that includes the NHS. Privatisation would break the service down into specific areas which would be much more manageable. There should be charges for some services and the public should be made to buy insurance. . The current model was designed fifty years ago , life has moved on.. How much will the insurance cost Will the 37% (26 million) overweight pay more How will less well off get cover they can afford Will the three million food bank users get free cover How will the actuaries calculate the risks ? " The point about overweight / obese people paying more for insurance, I would guess so, policies go up the greater the risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? . If we were to privatise the NHS and adapt a model similar to France or Germany it would be a substantial improvement. Nothing in life is free and that includes the NHS. Privatisation would break the service down into specific areas which would be much more manageable. There should be charges for some services and the public should be made to buy insurance. . The current model was designed fifty years ago , life has moved on.. How much will the insurance cost Will the 37% (26 million) overweight pay more How will less well off get cover they can afford Will the three million food bank users get free cover How will the actuaries calculate the risks ? The point about overweight / obese people paying more for insurance, I would guess so, policies go up the greater the risk." Taking emotion out of the equation and looking from a pure analytical point of view,if overweight people are higher risk then obviously they'll pay more same as young drivers on car insurance. It's nothing personal its no different from life insurance for example, smokers and drinkers people who existing conditions and so on. Looking at it from a different point of view would it be fair for someone who is health conscious eats well exercises regularly and optimal weight to pay the same as someone who's never done a day's exercise in their lives awful diet and very overweight?? Once again it's nothing personal its how the insurance companies will look at a policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation.
Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great.
Or we fund the NHS properly and we all get better care."But we are already spending 12% of GDP on healthcare, comparable with France, Germany, Denmark. Yet we have a second rate service. It's hard to see what throwing more money into the black hole would achieve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation.
Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great.
Or we fund the NHS properly and we all get better care.
But we are already spending 12% of GDP on healthcare, comparable with France, Germany, Denmark. Yet we have a second rate service. It's hard to see what throwing more money into the black hole would achieve."What percentage of GDP were we spending on health in say 2015-2019? What percentage were Germany and France spending at the same point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? . If we were to privatise the NHS and adapt a model similar to France or Germany it would be a substantial improvement. Nothing in life is free and that includes the NHS. Privatisation would break the service down into specific areas which would be much more manageable. There should be charges for some services and the public should be made to buy insurance. . The current model was designed fifty years ago , life has moved on.. How much will the insurance cost Will the 37% (26 million) overweight pay more How will less well off get cover they can afford Will the three million food bank users get free cover How will the actuaries calculate the risks ? The point about overweight / obese people paying more for insurance, I would guess so, policies go up the greater the risk. Taking emotion out of the equation and looking from a pure analytical point of view,if overweight people are higher risk then obviously they'll pay more same as young drivers on car insurance. It's nothing personal its no different from life insurance for example, smokers and drinkers people who existing conditions and so on. Looking at it from a different point of view would it be fair for someone who is health conscious eats well exercises regularly and optimal weight to pay the same as someone who's never done a day's exercise in their lives awful diet and very overweight?? Once again it's nothing personal its how the insurance companies will look at a policy." What will happen is that overweight people will not pay for insurance and will present later and with more acute issues to the NHS, at which point it will be far more expensive to treat them. We only need to look at the US to see what happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation.
Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great.
Or we fund the NHS properly and we all get better care.
But we are already spending 12% of GDP on healthcare, comparable with France, Germany, Denmark. Yet we have a second rate service. It's hard to see what throwing more money into the black hole would achieve."If I'm remembering correctly it's 10%. 12% was during pandemic. And we were 6/7 G7 nations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation.
Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great.
Or we fund the NHS properly and we all get better care.
But we are already spending 12% of GDP on healthcare, comparable with France, Germany, Denmark. Yet we have a second rate service. It's hard to see what throwing more money into the black hole would achieve.
If I'm remembering correctly it's 10%. 12% was during pandemic. And we were 6/7 G7 nations."It was 12.4% in 2021 (the highest ever level - maybe distorted by Covid). In 2022 it fell back to 11.3% - still the third highest level ever. But the point is, that the numbers are not dissimilar to comparable countries. It's a fallacy that we underfund the NHS - it's just an excuse for poor performance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. It seems ideal for for the private sector to deal with it then . .. or can't the public be trusted with information about their treatment ? The public are trusted with information about their treatment, joust look at the NHS app. However what you are asking for would take a huge amount of resource that the NHS doesn’t have. The NHS like to refer to us as 'the public' or 'patients'. In reality we are 'customers', a fact the NHS should be mindful of. We pay their wages. We pay tax...ergo we pay our own wages! Attitudes like yours are pathetic.
Why so? Why does the NHS hate the notion of 'customers' so much?
Because in the NHS your ability to pay doesn’t change the service you get, that’s a capitalist notion and the NHS is an egalitarian organisation.
Indeed. So healthcare sinks to the lowest common denominator and the entire population must suffer inferior service despite most funding it over a lifetime. Great.
Or we fund the NHS properly and we all get better care.
But we are already spending 12% of GDP on healthcare, comparable with France, Germany, Denmark. Yet we have a second rate service. It's hard to see what throwing more money into the black hole would achieve.
If I'm remembering correctly it's 10%. 12% was during pandemic. And we were 6/7 G7 nations.
It was 12.4% in 2021 (the highest ever level - maybe distorted by Covid). In 2022 it fell back to 11.3% - still the third highest level ever. But the point is, that the numbers are not dissimilar to comparable countries. It's a fallacy that we underfund the NHS - it's just an excuse for poor performance."What was the % of GDP in comparison to France and Germany from 2015-2019? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe." For me reading that it makes almost the opposite point you were trying to get across. 30 lists for 10 consultants being duplicate monitored and managed by maybe 3 different areas screams of inefficiency. Outsource it , have one master list with a drop down column for each consultant and a drop down column for stage of waiting list and a drop down column for urgency level and plan based on one dataset. Feels like something i could bang out a manual version of on excel in less than a day, imagine what a company specifically designed to be efficient at that type of thing could achieve | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. For me reading that it makes almost the opposite point you were trying to get across. 30 lists for 10 consultants being duplicate monitored and managed by maybe 3 different areas screams of inefficiency. Outsource it , have one master list with a drop down column for each consultant and a drop down column for stage of waiting list and a drop down column for urgency level and plan based on one dataset. Feels like something i could bang out a manual version of on excel in less than a day, imagine what a company specifically designed to be efficient at that type of thing could achieve " It could be done quite easily, in that respect, the technical aspect is not difficult, it’s the ensuring that all the lists are kept up to date that is the difficult part. Then educating the public to understand why they were in position number 70 on a list but 3 weeks later they are in position number 82. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. For me reading that it makes almost the opposite point you were trying to get across. 30 lists for 10 consultants being duplicate monitored and managed by maybe 3 different areas screams of inefficiency. Outsource it , have one master list with a drop down column for each consultant and a drop down column for stage of waiting list and a drop down column for urgency level and plan based on one dataset. Feels like something i could bang out a manual version of on excel in less than a day, imagine what a company specifically designed to be efficient at that type of thing could achieve It could be done quite easily, in that respect, the technical aspect is not difficult, it’s the ensuring that all the lists are kept up to date that is the difficult part. Then educating the public to understand why they were in position number 70 on a list but 3 weeks later they are in position number 82." The point is there would only be 1 list to keep up to date. And it could be pretty much automated. I don’t necessarily agree with then sharing that specific information if its just going to confuse patients more but they could probably be given access to something as simple as estimated wait time X weeks with a disclaimer underneath to say your wait time may be increased if urgent care patients join the list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about transparency on waiting lists? A privately run system might provide proper information. " You are 2,398th on the list for this procedure and your estimated waiting time is x days". At the moment it's treated as a big secret and no one supposedly who should know won't say or shrugs shoulders . It's like a Disney queue. You’re in a queue to join a queue and there is no confirmation that you are actually in the queue at all . Just someone's say so who might have made a mistake in the process .It's seems deliberately vague and disorganised . First of all, your place in the queue is defined by when your referral was received by the hospital, rather than when you are placed on a waiting list. This means that as a matter of course every consultant is running at least two waiting lists, for those people who are waiting for a procedure, and those who may require a procedure depending on the outcome of diagnostics. Then on top of that clinical urgency trumps the date your referral was received. So that means there are usually 3 waiting lists per consultant. These lists are usually managed across a minimum of three teams. The appointments team, who make the initial outpatient appointment, the consultant’s secretary who looks after the people who are waiting for a procedure, and the x-Ray and imaging team who arrange diagnostics. There may also be an 18 week referral to treatment team who look at the pathway as a whole to ensure that people are seen in the correct order. Imagine if you have an orthopaedic team with 10 consultants, that means there are at least 30 separate lists that would need to be kept up to date, and then you would need an IT team to make the lists available to the public. Not forgetting the potential information governance issues that will arise from all of this. Most NHS Trusts simply do not have the capacity to provide a service such as you describe. For me reading that it makes almost the opposite point you were trying to get across. 30 lists for 10 consultants being duplicate monitored and managed by maybe 3 different areas screams of inefficiency. Outsource it , have one master list with a drop down column for each consultant and a drop down column for stage of waiting list and a drop down column for urgency level and plan based on one dataset. Feels like something i could bang out a manual version of on excel in less than a day, imagine what a company specifically designed to be efficient at that type of thing could achieve It could be done quite easily, in that respect, the technical aspect is not difficult, it’s the ensuring that all the lists are kept up to date that is the difficult part. Then educating the public to understand why they were in position number 70 on a list but 3 weeks later they are in position number 82. The point is there would only be 1 list to keep up to date. And it could be pretty much automated. I don’t necessarily agree with then sharing that specific information if its just going to confuse patients more but they could probably be given access to something as simple as estimated wait time X weeks with a disclaimer underneath to say your wait time may be increased if urgent care patients join the list. " I think you underestimate how much patients, often in a lot of pain, will latch onto a particular date. Also, there is never just one list. Each consultant has their own list, this list is usually kept up to date by their medical secretary, who is generally rushed off their feet just trying to get the day job done. Adding the extra complication of dealing with patients, understandably, wanting to know why their knee replacement that they thought was due in June is now not going to happen until August at the earliest, is not going to make things any easier. Also, it’s not hard to contact the secretary to check on your status on the list, I’ve done it myself a few times. All of these are ‘back office’ functions, that the government has already cut to the bone. They could be outsourced, yes, but that money could equally pay for it to be done by someone in house, without the added complication of sensitive patient data going outside the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . "
But this is the way its always been done so this is the way we must continue on despite being able to list of the problems with it
Inefficient and reluctant to change | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . " Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution .
But this is the way its always been done so this is the way we must continue on despite being able to list of the problems with it
Inefficient and reluctant to change "I fear you’ve got this quite wrong, sadly the NHS is akin to an aeroplane that has had all its ground staff and maintenance men removed, and it’s up to the pilot and air stewards to make the changes while it is in the air. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time." I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution .
But this is the way its always been done so this is the way we must continue on despite being able to list of the problems with it
Inefficient and reluctant to change
I fear you’ve got this quite wrong, sadly the NHS is akin to an aeroplane that has had all its ground staff and maintenance men removed, and it’s up to the pilot and air stewards to make the changes while it is in the air."Okay so maybe its not we do it like this because we always did it that way. But we do it like this because the surgeon is a micro manager is not the right answer either. You are completely correct that surgeons are employed for different specialisms and they are experts in that area and should be allowed to get on with that. One of those specialisms shouldn’t be how the admin over a waiting list is run. They want it done a certain way … absolutely tough luck. Their job is the complex surgery. Their waiting list data should be consolidated and maintained by someone on a much much lower pay bracket than a clinician. And regards the sensitive data comment earlier , that doesnt stop outsourcing, whatever agreement joe bloggs at nhs signs to not disclose data just becomes part of the outsource contract for jane bloggs at the outsource company. To be clear i am not suggesting nhs staff are not working hard enough. I am saying they are bogged down in absolute nonsense inefficient processes taking up their time that could be much better spent where their training and skillset is better put to use. But its going to take someone outside to come and look at the bigger picture to fix that. Continuous improvement or transformation experts that come in map out a process , tear it apart and put it back together with 50% of the steps gone. That is one of the few benefits of privatisation. Its something there is no driver to do when there is no competitor and with the same funding they can just have slower service instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution .
But this is the way its always been done so this is the way we must continue on despite being able to list of the problems with it
Inefficient and reluctant to change
I fear you’ve got this quite wrong, sadly the NHS is akin to an aeroplane that has had all its ground staff and maintenance men removed, and it’s up to the pilot and air stewards to make the changes while it is in the air.
Okay so maybe its not we do it like this because we always did it that way. But we do it like this because the surgeon is a micro manager is not the right answer either.
You are completely correct that surgeons are employed for different specialisms and they are experts in that area and should be allowed to get on with that. One of those specialisms shouldn’t be how the admin over a waiting list is run.
They want it done a certain way … absolutely tough luck. Their job is the complex surgery. Their waiting list data should be consolidated and maintained by someone on a much much lower pay bracket than a clinician.
And regards the sensitive data comment earlier , that doesnt stop outsourcing, whatever agreement joe bloggs at nhs signs to not disclose data just becomes part of the outsource contract for jane bloggs at the outsource company.
To be clear i am not suggesting nhs staff are not working hard enough. I am saying they are bogged down in absolute nonsense inefficient processes taking up their time that could be much better spent where their training and skillset is better put to use. But its going to take someone outside to come and look at the bigger picture to fix that. Continuous improvement or transformation experts that come in map out a process , tear it apart and put it back together with 50% of the steps gone. That is one of the few benefits of privatisation. Its something there is no driver to do when there is no competitor and with the same funding they can just have slower service instead. "The consultant doesn’t micromanage his or her waiting list, the waiting list is generally managed by their secretary (who they usually share with at least one other consultant) of in rare cases by a centralised waiting list team. I’m talking about consultants within the same speciality doing things differently, or not doing the same procedures. An orthopaedic consultant, for instance, may do hip and knee replacements but not soft tissue procedures such as arthroscopies. Or they may only do hips and not knees. They may do wrists and hands but not elbows, or they do shoulder replacements but not shoulder arthroscopies. One thing you can be pretty sure of is that it’s unlikely a consultant will operate on a patient that another has wait listed, without having a consultation with them first, similarly it’s unlikely a patient will undergo major surgery without having met the consultant who is going to operate on them first. Often the processes are inefficient because staff have had to take on the work of other people whose roles have been deemed superfluous, the work however is still essential. With regard to continuous improvement, it’s really well embedded in a lot of the NHS, the trouble is not getting people to help staff understand what is inefficient and should be stopped, it’s that staff do not have the time to engage, due to a relentless target driven culture and underinvestment. And as we know, doing CI without the staff who will be doing the work is a recipe for failure. I really don’t think people understand how much the support functions have been gutted. Staff in the NHS would love to make it more efficient but when you’ve cut departments to the bone there is nowhere left to cut. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. " It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists." They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . " Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing." I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread " It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency ." "Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic." Are you suggesting that some parts of the NHS manage their patient waiting lists with bits of paper? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution .
But this is the way its always been done so this is the way we must continue on despite being able to list of the problems with it
Inefficient and reluctant to change
I fear you’ve got this quite wrong, sadly the NHS is akin to an aeroplane that has had all its ground staff and maintenance men removed, and it’s up to the pilot and air stewards to make the changes while it is in the air.
Okay so maybe its not we do it like this because we always did it that way. But we do it like this because the surgeon is a micro manager is not the right answer either.
You are completely correct that surgeons are employed for different specialisms and they are experts in that area and should be allowed to get on with that. One of those specialisms shouldn’t be how the admin over a waiting list is run.
They want it done a certain way … absolutely tough luck. Their job is the complex surgery. Their waiting list data should be consolidated and maintained by someone on a much much lower pay bracket than a clinician.
And regards the sensitive data comment earlier , that doesnt stop outsourcing, whatever agreement joe bloggs at nhs signs to not disclose data just becomes part of the outsource contract for jane bloggs at the outsource company.
To be clear i am not suggesting nhs staff are not working hard enough. I am saying they are bogged down in absolute nonsense inefficient processes taking up their time that could be much better spent where their training and skillset is better put to use. But its going to take someone outside to come and look at the bigger picture to fix that. Continuous improvement or transformation experts that come in map out a process , tear it apart and put it back together with 50% of the steps gone. That is one of the few benefits of privatisation. Its something there is no driver to do when there is no competitor and with the same funding they can just have slower service instead. "That's been done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages." Still a pathetic attitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude." Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude. Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday "My brain injury is more severe than was necessary thanks to the NHS 2019. I have worked for the NHS since 1998. Telling NHS staff you pay their wages is pathetic! We pay tax too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude. Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday
My brain injury is more severe than was necessary thanks to the NHS 2019.
I have worked for the NHS since 1998.
Telling NHS staff you pay their wages is pathetic! We pay tax too!"Quite so, which makes you a NHS customer too and all the more surprising that you can defend such a flawed healthcare system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude. Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday
My brain injury is more severe than was necessary thanks to the NHS 2019.
I have worked for the NHS since 1998.
Telling NHS staff you pay their wages is pathetic! We pay tax too!
Quite so, which makes you a NHS customer too and all the more surprising that you can defend such a flawed healthcare system."I'm defending the staff who, like myself, put patients first; and do their very best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread " Outsourcing would cost money, which Trusts don’t have, and as each Trust manages its waiting lists differently it’s not as simple as having one contract for the NHS. I realise that the right wing media would have you think that the NHS is awash with cash but that simply isn’t the case. There are a few very large Trusts that could probably afford what you want but for most Trusts it really is unaffordable. It’s not simply a case of doing things differently, it’s a case of having to invest money in capabilities moats Trusts don’t presently have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Outsourcing would cost money, which Trusts don’t have, and as each Trust manages its waiting lists differently it’s not as simple as having one contract for the NHS. I realise that the right wing media would have you think that the NHS is awash with cash but that simply isn’t the case. There are a few very large Trusts that could probably afford what you want but for most Trusts it really is unaffordable. It’s not simply a case of doing things differently, it’s a case of having to invest money in capabilities moats Trusts don’t presently have. " You are highlighting a problem with the NHS, a problem that created a lot of issues during covid and is costing millions a year more than it should, trusts doing things individually and simply not learning from hard lessons. This is so disjointed and is simply an awful strategy in NHS management. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Outsourcing would cost money, which Trusts don’t have, and as each Trust manages its waiting lists differently it’s not as simple as having one contract for the NHS. I realise that the right wing media would have you think that the NHS is awash with cash but that simply isn’t the case. There are a few very large Trusts that could probably afford what you want but for most Trusts it really is unaffordable. It’s not simply a case of doing things differently, it’s a case of having to invest money in capabilities moats Trusts don’t presently have. You are highlighting a problem with the NHS, a problem that created a lot of issues during covid and is costing millions a year more than it should, trusts doing things individually and simply not learning from hard lessons. This is so disjointed and is simply an awful strategy in NHS management." I agree, and it is not a strategy of the NHS’s creation. Blame Andrew Lansley. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude. Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday
My brain injury is more severe than was necessary thanks to the NHS 2019.
I have worked for the NHS since 1998.
Telling NHS staff you pay their wages is pathetic! We pay tax too!"The bit about tax payers paying the wages of NHS staff dose seem accurate to me. The fact you also pay taxes and in effect pay back some of your wages does not change this basic fact. Same as you pay towards the wages of the police and army and civil servants etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho." Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room?" Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude. Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday
My brain injury is more severe than was necessary thanks to the NHS 2019.
I have worked for the NHS since 1998.
Telling NHS staff you pay their wages is pathetic! We pay tax too!
The bit about tax payers paying the wages of NHS staff dose seem accurate to me. The fact you also pay taxes and in effect pay back some of your wages does not change this basic fact. Same as you pay towards the wages of the police and army and civil servants etc etc"The tax payer indirectly pays many wages. To have the attitude that we are beholden to them individually due to this indirect manner, is puerile. I do my best because it's who I am not because of some vague notion I am beholden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis?" Triage isn’t about making a diagnosis, it’s about deciding the order in which patients need to be seen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room?" It's not because there are no other waiting areas to take the patients as they transit the hospital. Therefore, (I've no idea tbh.) the only reasonable solution and it is cynical at best is, to make the process of treating patients as slow as possible. For what purpose I have no clue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? It's not because there are no other waiting areas to take the patients as they transit the hospital. Therefore, (I've no idea tbh.) the only reasonable solution and it is cynical at best is, to make the process of treating patients as slow as possible. For what purpose I have no clue." You think that the A&E staff are deliberately trying to make the process slower? Please try to think of a reason why that might be the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not because there are no other waiting areas to take the patients as they transit the hospital. Therefore, (I've no idea tbh.) the only reasonable solution and it is cynical at best is, to make the process of treating patients as slow as possible. For what purpose I have no clue. You think that the A&E staff are deliberately trying to make the process slower? Please try to think of a reason why that might be the case." There is no logical explanation: They had the full complement of staff. There were no doctors moonlighting as x-ray technicians etc. They've used the same process for years and it didn't work then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not because there are no other waiting areas to take the patients as they transit the hospital. Therefore, (I've no idea tbh.) the only reasonable solution and it is cynical at best is, to make the process of treating patients as slow as possible. For what purpose I have no clue. You think that the A&E staff are deliberately trying to make the process slower? Please try to think of a reason why that might be the case. There is no logical explanation: They had the full complement of staff. There were no doctors moonlighting as x-ray technicians etc. They've used the same process for years and it didn't work then." You don’t think that maybe there is a logical reason that patients who have been triaged as not needing urgent attention would be asked to wait in the waiting room? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis? Triage isn’t about making a diagnosis, it’s about deciding the order in which patients need to be seen." In it's purest form yes, that's how triage works in a disaster or war situation. But in the NHS, underqualified triage assessors do make diagnoses, often prescribing themselves. That's dangerous imho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis? Triage isn’t about making a diagnosis, it’s about deciding the order in which patients need to be seen. In it's purest form yes, that's how triage works in a disaster or war situation. But in the NHS, underqualified triage assessors do make diagnoses, often prescribing themselves. That's dangerous imho." You’re saying that people who aren’t qualified to do so are making diagnoses and prescribing drugs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis? Triage isn’t about making a diagnosis, it’s about deciding the order in which patients need to be seen. In it's purest form yes, that's how triage works in a disaster or war situation. But in the NHS, underqualified triage assessors do make diagnoses, often prescribing themselves. That's dangerous imho." How would you know their qualifications and their training and experience? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis? Triage isn’t about making a diagnosis, it’s about deciding the order in which patients need to be seen. In it's purest form yes, that's how triage works in a disaster or war situation. But in the NHS, underqualified triage assessors do make diagnoses, often prescribing themselves. That's dangerous imho." There are nursing diagnosed and doctor diagnosis. Triage assess pain and prescribe analgesia. They might then start investigations such as observations (blood pressure, temperature, blood glucose levels, respiration rate, pulse, oxygen saturations). These may be done by the triage or delegated. Take ECG. Prior to this take current crisis details and perhaps relevant past medical history. They then decide whether they go minors/majors/ nurse practitioners/ advanced nurse practitioners/GP/doctors. Who may then start further investigations.... These processes keep people moving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another example of inefficiencies. There is no online way for my gp surgery to talk to the clinic rooms that they have outsourced blood and b12 injections to. Ive been told i need an injection once every 12 weeks because i have pernicious anaemia. That wont change. This is the process for it to happen… To get my quarterly b12 i must call my gp reception for a doctor appointment (happens over the phone). The do tor calls me a few days later just to hear the sane thing i told the receptionist (its been 12 weeks) and will then refer me to get bloods done but i have to call the clinic after to make the appointment. Then once the bloods are in i get a call to tell me there will be a prescription and remind them an instruction to administer needs to be prepared for the clinic room - this is literally a bit of paper and i have asked many times can it be sent electronically and told no. Then i have to call the clinic room again to make another appointment for my injection. I have to go to my gp to collect the prescription and without fail the instruction to administer be missing and told i dont need it they have referred me. So I call the clinic again to be told they will turn me away from my appointment without it. I then wait for the doctor to prepare and sign it while I wait in reception. Then I take my prescription to a pharmacy and then take the medication and the paperwork to the clinic to have the injection. So every quarter i have 3 or 4 interactions with GP receptionist, 3 with the GP, 3 or 4 with the clinic room receptionist and 2 with the clinic room nurse. Including literally going door to door to collect signed bits of paper. For an injection i will never not need because pernicious anaemia doesn’t magically solve itself. They could give me paperwork and a prescription that lasts more than 1 quarter (have in the past) but they dont. They could get the paperwork ask right first time especially after being reminded but they dont. They could put it on repeat prescription, but they dont. They could make it so the paperwork could be emailed, but they dont. Its frustrating for me and a waste of time all round , including for 4 nhs staff who we are told are always run ragged. Again i am not saying these staff dont work hard with what is available. But i am saying its no wonder the nhs is in the state it is when thats how something so simple hangs together. Its about working and spending time and money smarter rather than harder." If you ever become housebound the process is much simpler  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The process of treating patients: A recent 8 hour visit to a Birmingham hospital. To witness patients being triaged. Then put back into the same waiting room to see a doctor. Then after seeing a doctor, put back into the same waiting room again. Before being called to the X-Ray dept....etc. etc. Just crazy the system they're using to process patients imho. Why do you think they were put back in the waiting room? Because the triage assessor was unqualified to make a diagnosis? Triage isn’t about making a diagnosis, it’s about deciding the order in which patients need to be seen. In it's purest form yes, that's how triage works in a disaster or war situation. But in the NHS, underqualified triage assessors do make diagnoses, often prescribing themselves. That's dangerous imho. There are nursing diagnosed and doctor diagnosis. Triage assess pain and prescribe analgesia. They might then start investigations such as observations (blood pressure, temperature, blood glucose levels, respiration rate, pulse, oxygen saturations). These may be done by the triage or delegated. Take ECG. Prior to this take current crisis details and perhaps relevant past medical history. They then decide whether they go minors/majors/ nurse practitioners/ advanced nurse practitioners/GP/doctors. Who may then start further investigations.... These processes keep people moving. " Sorry diagnoses and diagnoses  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What this says to me is that the NHS want to prolong this inefficiency (keeping multiple waiting lists by multiple different people ), that the public cannot be trusted with the information about their place on the list and the likely waiting time in case they misinterpret it. Hospitals have significant expensive equipment that does a superb job but when it comes to waiting lists it's seemingly done by lots of people who may or not get it right , for all we know it might be on the back of an envelope in a drawer . My personal experience is that you cannot get any information as they " don't know " the answer. The whole situation is crying out for a properly written and tested software solution . Surgeons are not like machines in a factory, they do things in different ways, they perform different procedures and they have different skill levels. What one consultant feels is the best procedure may not be what another does. Also patients place their trust in a consultant to perform major surgery on them. You may think that a hip replacement is routine, and to the extent that there are a lot of them done, it is. However it is still major surgery and there are risks involved that your consultant is obliged to tell you about. Hence there isn’t one waiting list, there are a number of waiting lists depending on the procedure you need and the surgeon who will perform the procedure. Certain things like cataracts are relatively straightforward, and these are regularly performed on the taxi rank principle, but major surgery is an entirely different matter. It’s not cloaked in secrecy, phone your consultant’s secretary and they will tell you, to the best of their knowledge, when your procedure is likely to be done. However they are unlikely to give a definitive timescale as this can and likely will change due to other circumstances. What threads like this show me is just how little people realise has been gutted from the NHS over the last decade. Yes these things should be easy but only if you have the staff to do the work, or the money to invest in the software. All these ‘back office’ staff the government keeps telling you they are getting rid of to make financial savings were people with plenty of work to do. The staff have been cut but the work hasn’t, so now instead of relatively cheap admin staff who were experts in their role doing it, you now have very expensive clinicians who haven’t the first idea how to do it efficiently, and frankly have more important demands on their time. I am not dismissive of the work done by surgeons or any other professional healthcare workers .I am however appalled by the secrecy and attitude I have heard at first hand from friends and my own experience . What you say about the information being available in a phone call has just not been true . In many instances the person being called is not at his or her desk but only works part time and call messages are not returned. When you get through to some one they can't say what is a likely time frame. It's one big secret.To have multiple solutions to a common task (i.e maintaining a queue list ) seems to be inefficient.I wonder how statistical evidence is ever available if lists are so dispirit. It’s really not a big secret, my former colleagues in the NHS would love to be able to tell you when your operation will be, the trouble is they can’t. What you are describing is the result of a decade or more of gutting the very teams and departments who did this sort of thing. Although I’m still not certain you understand the complexity of waiting lists. They are complex it seems because there is no standardisation of what should be a homogenous process ( join someone's list,move up the list as someone's taken off or move down the list because someone's been moved up ahead plus simple calculation of projected wait time ( I did operational research calculations in queuing theory many years ago) . You have multiple lists under consultants as you describe. The current secretaries access and maintain the list for their consultant . Patients access the same database securely and you have transparency . Yes but firstly these lists need to be electronic, secondly they need to be kept up to date with changes around list cancellations due to trauma or more urgent cases requiring the operating time, or consultant sickness, holidays etc. I agree that in an ideal world that would be great but we are not in an ideal world, and most NHS Trusts do not possess the resources to make what you would like happen, even though they would almost certainly like to. There is no conspiracy to keep people’s waiting times from them, it is simply underfunding, under resourcing, and understaffing. I am going to suggest you add Mismanagement to that list as you proclaim a " nothing can be done " reasoning due to resources. I don't mean to be unfair as you are obviously closer to the NHS inner circle and more knowledgeable than I am as just an interested observer . I hope you can understand the frustration . Outsourcing the database construction would seem to be a practical proposition which was the purpose of the OP's thread It's ALL about mismanagement, the rest is just excuses, apart from which, we are entitled to look closely at the NHS - we are the customers who pay their wages. Still a pathetic attitude. Let's hope you maintain that stance when you need the services of the good 'ol NHS someday
My brain injury is more severe than was necessary thanks to the NHS 2019.
I have worked for the NHS since 1998.
Telling NHS staff you pay their wages is pathetic! We pay tax too!
The bit about tax payers paying the wages of NHS staff dose seem accurate to me. The fact you also pay taxes and in effect pay back some of your wages does not change this basic fact. Same as you pay towards the wages of the police and army and civil servants etc etc
The tax payer indirectly pays many wages. To have the attitude that we are beholden to them individually due to this indirect manner, is puerile.
I do my best because it's who I am not because of some vague notion I am beholden."Indeed the tax payer does pay many wages and the NHS staff is amongst them. I never mentioned anything about being beholden and I'm in no doubt you do your best. My statement was that the tax payer paying your wages is factually correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another example of inefficiencies. There is no online way for my gp surgery to talk to the clinic rooms that they have outsourced blood and b12 injections to. Ive been told i need an injection once every 12 weeks because i have pernicious anaemia. That wont change. This is the process for it to happen… To get my quarterly b12 i must call my gp reception for a doctor appointment (happens over the phone). The do tor calls me a few days later just to hear the sane thing i told the receptionist (its been 12 weeks) and will then refer me to get bloods done but i have to call the clinic after to make the appointment. Then once the bloods are in i get a call to tell me there will be a prescription and remind them an instruction to administer needs to be prepared for the clinic room - this is literally a bit of paper and i have asked many times can it be sent electronically and told no. Then i have to call the clinic room again to make another appointment for my injection. I have to go to my gp to collect the prescription and without fail the instruction to administer be missing and told i dont need it they have referred me. So I call the clinic again to be told they will turn me away from my appointment without it. I then wait for the doctor to prepare and sign it while I wait in reception. Then I take my prescription to a pharmacy and then take the medication and the paperwork to the clinic to have the injection. So every quarter i have 3 or 4 interactions with GP receptionist, 3 with the GP, 3 or 4 with the clinic room receptionist and 2 with the clinic room nurse. Including literally going door to door to collect signed bits of paper. For an injection i will never not need because pernicious anaemia doesn’t magically solve itself. They could give me paperwork and a prescription that lasts more than 1 quarter (have in the past) but they dont. They could get the paperwork ask right first time especially after being reminded but they dont. They could put it on repeat prescription, but they dont. They could make it so the paperwork could be emailed, but they dont. Its frustrating for me and a waste of time all round , including for 4 nhs staff who we are told are always run ragged. Again i am not saying these staff dont work hard with what is available. But i am saying its no wonder the nhs is in the state it is when thats how something so simple hangs together. Its about working and spending time and money smarter rather than harder." GP surgeries are private businesses, they aren’t part of the NHS. They are contractors who provide a service on behalf of the NHS, they choose his to run their surgeries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another example of inefficiencies. There is no online way for my gp surgery to talk to the clinic rooms that they have outsourced blood and b12 injections to. Ive been told i need an injection once every 12 weeks because i have pernicious anaemia. That wont change. This is the process for it to happen… To get my quarterly b12 i must call my gp reception for a doctor appointment (happens over the phone). The do tor calls me a few days later just to hear the sane thing i told the receptionist (its been 12 weeks) and will then refer me to get bloods done but i have to call the clinic after to make the appointment. Then once the bloods are in i get a call to tell me there will be a prescription and remind them an instruction to administer needs to be prepared for the clinic room - this is literally a bit of paper and i have asked many times can it be sent electronically and told no. Then i have to call the clinic room again to make another appointment for my injection. I have to go to my gp to collect the prescription and without fail the instruction to administer be missing and told i dont need it they have referred me. So I call the clinic again to be told they will turn me away from my appointment without it. I then wait for the doctor to prepare and sign it while I wait in reception. Then I take my prescription to a pharmacy and then take the medication and the paperwork to the clinic to have the injection. So every quarter i have 3 or 4 interactions with GP receptionist, 3 with the GP, 3 or 4 with the clinic room receptionist and 2 with the clinic room nurse. Including literally going door to door to collect signed bits of paper. For an injection i will never not need because pernicious anaemia doesn’t magically solve itself. They could give me paperwork and a prescription that lasts more than 1 quarter (have in the past) but they dont. They could get the paperwork ask right first time especially after being reminded but they dont. They could put it on repeat prescription, but they dont. They could make it so the paperwork could be emailed, but they dont. Its frustrating for me and a waste of time all round , including for 4 nhs staff who we are told are always run ragged. Again i am not saying these staff dont work hard with what is available. But i am saying its no wonder the nhs is in the state it is when thats how something so simple hangs together. Its about working and spending time and money smarter rather than harder. GP surgeries are private businesses, they aren’t part of the NHS. They are contractors who provide a service on behalf of the NHS, they choose his to run their surgeries." It's obvious to me that there has been a significant change in the way GP doctor contractors run their surgeries post covid. Whereas they saw all patients before now they like to telephone many instead based on the phone call taken by the receptionist . I concede that might be more efficient but at the same time it seems even harder to get any type of appointment . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? " I don't think it should be privatised, however if it were then it would certainly become more efficient. It is currently hopeless. Also, the hundreds of millions spent on unnecessary stuff such as translators and any job with "diversity", "inclusion", "lived experience" etc. should be cut out immediately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? I don't think it should be privatised, however if it were then it would certainly become more efficient. It is currently hopeless. Also, the hundreds of millions spent on unnecessary stuff such as translators and any job with "diversity", "inclusion", "lived experience" etc. should be cut out immediately." Why do you think translators, diversity, inclusion and lived experience are unnecessary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? I don't think it should be privatised, however if it were then it would certainly become more efficient. It is currently hopeless. Also, the hundreds of millions spent on unnecessary stuff such as translators and any job with "diversity", "inclusion", "lived experience" etc. should be cut out immediately. Why do you think translators, diversity, inclusion and lived experience are unnecessary?" Maybe because the poster has been on a waiting list for a hip replacement for 2 years and thinks the NHS should use taxpayers money on clinical priorities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? I don't think it should be privatised, however if it were then it would certainly become more efficient. It is currently hopeless. Also, the hundreds of millions spent on unnecessary stuff such as translators and any job with "diversity", "inclusion", "lived experience" etc. should be cut out immediately. Why do you think translators, diversity, inclusion and lived experience are unnecessary? Maybe because the poster has been on a waiting list for a hip replacement for 2 years and thinks the NHS should use taxpayers money on clinical priorities? " I am not on any waiting list but clinical priorities should take precedence. In most other European countries if you go for medical treatment you need to pay for your own translator if you can't understand the language. That's fair, particularly if you live in the country - live somewhere, learn to speak the language. As for the other jobs, they are toss 'non jobs" which don't add value at all. Another item which should be cut is any payment to staff while they are doing Union work. If they are doing Union work the Union should pay for the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? I don't think it should be privatised, however if it were then it would certainly become more efficient. It is currently hopeless. Also, the hundreds of millions spent on unnecessary stuff such as translators and any job with "diversity", "inclusion", "lived experience" etc. should be cut out immediately. Why do you think translators, diversity, inclusion and lived experience are unnecessary? Maybe because the poster has been on a waiting list for a hip replacement for 2 years and thinks the NHS should use taxpayers money on clinical priorities? I am not on any waiting list but clinical priorities should take precedence. In most other European countries if you go for medical treatment you need to pay for your own translator if you can't understand the language. That's fair, particularly if you live in the country - live somewhere, learn to speak the language. As for the other jobs, they are toss 'non jobs" which don't add value at all. Another item which should be cut is any payment to staff while they are doing Union work. If they are doing Union work the Union should pay for the time." But not everyone who lives in the UK does speak English, should we risk misdiagnosis and potential death, or more expensive treatment in the future because we want to save less than half of one percent of the NHS budget? Are we so uncaring? Given that we rely very heavily on staff from other countries and cultures to keep the NHS afloat don’t you think having people to ensure that they are able to integrate, be happy and productive is important? Especially as it is so expensive to recruit replacement staff if they leave? As for lived experience, do you not think it is important for the voice of the patients to be heard when it comes to planning and improving services? Or do you just think it’s up to the doctors to tell you what you want? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok so right off I'm against privatisation of the NHS but as the Tories seem determined to make it fail through red tape and unnecessary processes that clogs up the system. So lets put our Boris head's on for the day . What aspect of the NHS do you think would improve if it was private? I don't think it should be privatised, however if it were then it would certainly become more efficient. It is currently hopeless. Also, the hundreds of millions spent on unnecessary stuff such as translators and any job with "diversity", "inclusion", "lived experience" etc. should be cut out immediately. Why do you think translators, diversity, inclusion and lived experience are unnecessary? Maybe because the poster has been on a waiting list for a hip replacement for 2 years and thinks the NHS should use taxpayers money on clinical priorities? I am not on any waiting list but clinical priorities should take precedence. In most other European countries if you go for medical treatment you need to pay for your own translator if you can't understand the language. That's fair, particularly if you live in the country - live somewhere, learn to speak the language. As for the other jobs, they are toss 'non jobs" which don't add value at all. Another item which should be cut is any payment to staff while they are doing Union work. If they are doing Union work the Union should pay for the time. But not everyone who lives in the UK does speak English, should we risk misdiagnosis and potential death, or more expensive treatment in the future because we want to save less than half of one percent of the NHS budget? Are we so uncaring?" Live in the UK, learn to speak English. Don't speak English, pay for a translator. "Given that we rely very heavily on staff from other countries and cultures to keep the NHS afloat don’t you think having people to ensure that they are able to integrate, be happy and productive is important? Especially as it is so expensive to recruit replacement staff if they leave?" Integrating means learning the language and culture of the country. Again, live here, speak the language. "As for lived experience, do you not think it is important for the voice of the patients to be heard when it comes to planning and improving services? Or do you just think it’s up to the doctors to tell you what you want?" Possibly volunteer patient groups have a role. It is not a job. Each of these things are justified by "it is only a small amount compared to the whole budget" but all the amounts add up. The old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves" has been completely forgotten. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
