Are we really going to sit by while they destroy the NHS?

[agricola]

Listening to 'Any Answers' today, a number of people suggested a rise in income tax, hypothecated to health care.

Any views on that? I would certainly pay an extra 1 or 2% to improve health care. Another suggestion was a flat fee (irrespective of how many items) be imposed on pensioners, of whom there are currently over 11m. As a soon to be pensioner, a fee of £2 or so would be perfectly acceptable. Most of us wrinklies are on at least one long term medication, so £22m a month in new income.

You can discuss until you are blue in the face. The bottom line is that the NHS needs more money, a lot more. This can come from a reduction in spending elsewhere, such as the Overseas Aid budget, or from increased taxation. NHS costs have risen 4% per annum for the last couple of decades, the NHS budget has not.

It is a good idea - though until the issues around PFI, the internal market and the rest are sorted out there really isn't any point in giving the NHS any extra money; it will just be swallowed up (and taken offshore) by those problems without delivering any kind of improvement.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Didn't we do that when NI went up?

Yes, there was a NI increase a while back. Don't know if that money was ring-fenced for the NHS though.

 

[Sasaferrato]

It is a good idea - though until the issues around PFI, the internal market and the rest are sorted out there really isn't any point in giving the NHS any extra money; it will just be swallowed up (and taken offshore) by those problems without delivering any kind of improvement.

Yep. An all round clusterfuck.

 

[DotCommunist]

Exactly.

"NHS can't provide 7 days a week care? Funnily enough we just so happen to know some companies that will step in and help us out of this terrible crisis."

this deliberate wrecking of a national service in order to make it seem palatable tto privatise is played out the same way every time. Those vultures. I'd like to start a 'human centipede' with Hunts mouth sewn to lansleys arse.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The idea of an organisation which spends £120billion plus being "close to collapse" is alarming until you realise ,with a rising and aging population and massive council cuts restricting social care ,it always will be.

So play chancellor -think the unthinkable,what needs to be done?

1.reduce demand-the only permanent way to do that are is by getting us to live more healthily-standing up to the food and drinks lobby would be a significant start(minimum price etc). Exercise in public places (compulsory for the obese) like the japs .Ban smoking anywhere.End cheap supermarket booze -make everyone walk to the pub.Meditate every day.Always run for the bus.Play sport.

2.Increase supply -more gps and doctors ,nurses -but without stealing them from their country of origin.If anything encourage foreign doctors to go back homewhere they may be needed more.

3.Deliver Leave promise on extra £350million a week for the nhs,prosecute more rich people found guilty of tax evasion .Tax wealth and international corporate capitalism.

4.Install sky sports ,al jazeera,pbs into all nursing homes-I am not going if I have to watch daytime tv.Respect the elderly and encourage families to look after their own by public subsidy.

5.Live for today in a non judgemental way -dont regret the past ,dont fear the future.

6.Try to give up prescription drugs(see exercise and meditation etc ).

7.Go veggie.

8..Er thats it.

Congratulations on crafting a post whose use of a racist epithet is not even its most unpleasant feature.

 

[yield]

Health cuts most likely cause of major rise in mortality, study claims
Government rebuts verdict that NHS and social care cuts may have caused 30,000 excess deaths in England and Wales 2015
Friday 17 February 2017

An unprecedented rise in mortality in England and Wales, where 30,000 excess deaths occurred in 2015, is likely to be linked to cuts to the NHS and social care, according to research which has drawn an angry response from the government.

The highly charged claim is made by researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Oxford University and Blackburn with Darwen council, who say the increase in mortality took place against a backdrop of “severe cuts” to the NHS and social care, compromising their performance.

After examination of NHS performance data for the period, which shows the service missing almost all its targets, they concluded: “The evidence points to a major failure of the health system, possibly exacerbated by failings in social care.”

The rise in deaths from 2014 to 529,655 in 2015 was the biggest in percentage terms in almost 50 years and the mortality rate was the highest since 2008. The excess deaths were largely among older people who are most dependent on health and social care, the authors said.

 

[crossthebreeze]

Horrendous, but not suprising, and its just going to get worse. I hope this gets people angry.
I think this bit is important:

Harrison said the point the authors were making was that in months such as January 2015, which saw a spike in deaths, there was an insufficient service response to a surge in demand. He termed this a “fail event” and warned there could be recurrences over the next five years without a rise in funding. He added that preliminary figures pointed to a possible significant increase in excess deaths last month.​

 

[Pickman's model]

is the gist of the thread thus far 'yes'?

my 14/7/2014 point seems now prescient.

 

[teqniq]

 

[Sprocket.]

Liked for the content not the intended outcome teqniq, do you have a link so I can send on to interested parties?

ETA: Thanks I've found it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Horrendous, but not suprising, and its just going to get worse. I hope this gets people angry.
I think this bit is important:

Harrison said the point the authors were making was that in months such as January 2015, which saw a spike in deaths, there was an insufficient service response to a surge in demand. He termed this a “fail event” and warned there could be recurrences over the next five years without a rise in funding. He added that preliminary figures pointed to a possible significant increase in excess deaths last month.​

How much extra are you prepared to pay for the NHS? 1%? 2% 10%? The NHS is capable of absorbing the entire GDP, if allowed to.

We need to have a grown up conversation, not a series of ideological rants, as to what we want from the NHS, and what we are prepared to pay.

 

[SpookyFrank]

How much extra are you prepared to pay for the NHS? 1%? 2% 10%? The NHS is capable of absorbing the entire GDP, if allowed to.

We need to have a grown up conversation, not a series of ideological rants, as to what we want from the NHS, and what we are prepared to pay.

Soft-selling the tory 'we can't afford universal healthcare' lie again I see.

We can't afford not to have universal healthcare is the truth of it. The US model that we're being shunted towards actually costs the public purse more than the NHS, despite patients being obliged to pay cash money for their treatments on top of their taxes.

Yes there need to be grown up conversations. No we can't have everything. But the parameters of the debate on these issues must be set by doctors and other professionals, not by politicians or healthcare industry lobbyists or anybody else with an ulterior motive. I'm not willing to accept being told that we can't have a particular service on the NHS by someone who stands to personally gain if that service is not available on the NHS.

 

[gentlegreen]

How much extra are you prepared to pay for the NHS? 1%? 2% 10%? The NHS is capable of absorbing the entire GDP, if allowed to.

We need to have a grown up conversation, not a series of ideological rants, as to what we want from the NHS, and what we are prepared to pay.

I'm hoping to move to France where every employer over a certain size has to cough up £1000 a year for Assurance maladie complémentaire to cover charges that are not covered by the state.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

How much extra are you prepared to pay for the NHS? 1%? 2% 10%? The NHS is capable of absorbing the entire GDP, if allowed to.

We need to have a grown up conversation, not a series of ideological rants, as to what we want from the NHS, and what we are prepared to pay.

The Americans spend 17% of GDP on healthcare and yet tens of millions remain uninsured. We currently spend 9% of GDP on healthcare, are at breaking point, and yet still everyone gets treated when they need it. Even if we went up to 20% we'd still be in a better place than the US.

Surely, the solution lies in keeping the public ownership model of the NHS, with spending increased to relieve the pressure (probably to a number in between 9% and 17%). Seems bloody obvious to me.

 

[alex_]

But the parameters of the debate on these issues must be set by doctors and other professionals, not by politicians or healthcare industry lobbyists or anybody else with an ulterior motive. I'm not willing to accept being told that we can't have a particular service on the NHS by someone who stands to personally gain if that service is not available on the NHS.

Someone has to tell these people how much money they can spend.

Drugs are only going to get better at adding more life, and they are going to carry on getting more expensive

We have an aging population as a ratio of the total, life expectancy is lengthening and people aren't dropping dead any more, Which means they are getting diseases which are expensive to treat.

Alex

 

[Sasaferrato]

Soft-selling the tory 'we can't afford universal healthcare' lie again I see.

We can't afford not to have universal healthcare is the truth of it. The US model that we're being shunted towards actually costs the public purse more than the NHS, despite patients being obliged to pay cash money for their treatments on top of their taxes.

Yes there need to be grown up conversations. No we can't have everything. But the parameters of the debate on these issues must be set by doctors and other professionals, not by politicians or healthcare industry lobbyists or anybody else with an ulterior motive. I'm not willing to accept being told that we can't have a particular service on the NHS by someone who stands to personally gain if that service is not available on the NHS.

How dare you? That is not what I said, and you are well aware of that.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Someone has to tell these people how much money they can spend.

Drugs are only going to get better at adding more life, and they are going to carry on getting more expensive

We have an aging population as a ratio of the total, life expectancy is lengthening and people aren't dropping dead any more, Which means they are getting diseases which are expensive to treat.

Alex

Costs of treatments is one issue, privatisation quite another. Whatever drug or surgery you look at, it's going to be more cost effective if there isn't some private sector provider siphoning off a percentage for itself and if you don't need armies of lawyers, consultants and accountants to oversee the siphoning process.

It's also going to be easier to fund and manage a health service that hasn't been split up into little bits for reasons of commercial viability rather than effective patient care.

 

[SpookyFrank]

How dare you? That is not what I said, and you are well aware of that.

You're laying the blame for failing health provision at the feet of the public for wanting everything and refusing to pay for it. Last time I checked it was politicians, specifically your pig-fucking chums in the conservative party, who decide how much funding the NHS is given, not the general public.

You're also implying with your talk of 'grown up conversations' that those opposing the deliberate sabotage of the entire model of state-funded universal healthcare by the aforesaid pig-fuckers are merely being childish.

Nobody is advocating a blank cheque for the health service. Nobody thinks that there's a possible level of NHS funding sufficient to make all British citizens immortal. People just don't want to see unecessary suffering, which is what current health policy is causing on a grand scale.

 

[SpookyFrank]

'We have to privatise, because things cost money' is a demonstrably false argument. Privatised services always end up costing more in the long run.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

'We have to privatise, because things cost money' is a demonstrably false argument. Privatised services always end up costing more in the long run.

And in the short-run too.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Someone has to tell these people how much money they can spend.

Drugs are only going to get better at adding more life, and they are going to carry on getting more expensive

We have an aging population as a ratio of the total, life expectancy is lengthening and people aren't dropping dead any more, Which means they are getting diseases which are expensive to treat.

Alex

The points you make are valid, especially with regard to pharmaceutical intervention.

I have lung cancer, and see the surgeon on Monday to see where we go from here. (I also have a chest infection, and am feeling like shit, especially after a 19 hour drive back from Cologne yesterday).

Cancer is one of the most expensive of medical conditions to treat, new and more expensive drugs appearing regularly. It is likely that surgery will solve my problem, in the immediate term at least. One thing I am sure of though, I will not be having treatment to extend a miserable existence for a few months at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds. If surgery (perhaps plus some radio or chemotherapy) doesn't do the job, then I will be having no further treatment. I've seen how poor the quality of life that those extended short periods have. No way will thousands be spent for a few weeks or months of life for me, the money can pay for some hips or knees instead.

This is what I mean by adult conversation. Much more information being made available to non-medical people, and them deciding where we spend the money. I have been accused of banging on about cost, but it is the bottom line.

We do need to spend more on healthcare, and a huge amount more on social care, but, there need to be decisions about value for money. None of the life extending cytotoxics are good value, and should all be removed from NHS prescription.

The poor bloody NHS has been fucked about for decades by both flavours of government, failure and waste being the outcome. Government needs to sit down with healthcare professionals, with no prior hidden agenda, and between them select a model. THEN STICK TO IT. Nothing that is in constant flux ever achieves the best outcome.

As one of the ageing population (64) we must be allowed to die. There must be a realisation that whereas you can save the life of a very elderly stroke victim, you then have to maintain the carcass for a year or two, until they finally shuffle off, at large and pointless expense. Those of you with experience of dealing with victims of severe stroke will know how labour intensive it is, merely keeping the skin intact is a major task in itself.

It would be wonderful if each new drug was affordable, but they are not. There is also the question as to whether they are desirable, never mind affordable.

I've lost count of the weeks since I stopped smoking, 8 or 9 I think, but have now moved from 'Smoker who is not smoking' to 'Non-smoker'.

 

[Sasaferrato]

'We have to privatise, because things cost money' is a demonstrably false argument. Privatised services always end up costing more in the long run.

They do indeed. Just been reading in the 'Eye', about the money Birmingham have wasted on an IT contract with Crapita, they are taking things back 'in-house'.

 

[Sasaferrato]

You're laying the blame for failing health provision at the feet of the public for wanting everything and refusing to pay for it. Last time I checked it was politicians, specifically your pig-fucking chums in the conservative party, who decide how much funding the NHS is given, not the general public.

You're also implying with your talk of 'grown up conversations' that those opposing the deliberate sabotage of the entire model of state-funded universal healthcare by the aforesaid pig-fuckers are merely being childish.

Nobody is advocating a blank cheque for the health service. Nobody thinks that there's a possible level of NHS funding sufficient to make all British citizens immortal. People just don't want to see unecessary suffering, which is what current health policy is causing on a grand scale.

No, I am not. The public has no direct say in health spending. (Oh, BTW Urban appears to be the last place on the planet that believes the bullshit about the pig.)

I'm a trained nurse who then trained in pharmacy, what are your healthcare qualifications please.

This is a major and serious problem, yet other than make puerile jokes and 'ad hom' attacks, I have seen absolutely nothing from you that indicates that you have any understanding of the logistics of health care. Indeed, it is clear that like many, you are really quite clueless.

It isn't a question of being able to cure everything on zero resources, it is a question of using available funding as well as possible.

Out of interest, how old are you, because unless you are of pension age, you are going to be paying considerably more in National Insurance contributions than you are now. When I hit 65 on the 4th of October, NI contributions stop. I still will be paying Income Tax of course, but no NI. That is something that should change. There is no reason why pensioners shouldn't pay a few % in NI, it would make a difference, as there are currently circa 11 million pensioners.

Someone at work the other month said to me 'Your generation have had the best of it.' . He was right I think, I don't think I'd like to be 21 again.

 

[alex_]

Costs of treatments is one issue, privatisation quite another. Whatever drug or surgery you look at, it's going to be more cost effective if there isn't some private sector provider siphoning off a percentage for itself and if you don't need armies of lawyers, consultants and accountants to oversee the siphoning process.

It's also going to be easier to fund and manage a health service that hasn't been split up into little bits for reasons of commercial viability rather than effective patient care.

A few percent here and there is nothing when a single persons drugs for a year can cost 100k.

Alex

 

[yield]

A few percent here and there is nothing when a single persons drugs for a year can cost 100k.

Alex

There needs to be a look at drug pricing. These spivs are bleeding the NHS dry. Crazy when so much drug research is by public bodies, like Universities, and charities.

Pharmaceutical giant 'plotted to destroy cancer drugs to drive prices up 4,000%'
Price rises for generic cancer drugs are estimated to cost the NHS in England around £380m a year
Saturday 15 April 2017

Leaked internal emails appear to show employees at one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies calling for “celebration” over price hikes of cancer drugs, an investigation has revealed.

Staff at Aspen Pharmacare reportedly plotted to destroy stocks of life-saving medicines during a price dispute with the Spanish health service in 2014.

After purchasing five different cancer drugs from British firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the company tried to sell the medicines in Europe for up to 40 times their previous price, reported The Times.

 

[alex_]

There needs to be a look at drug pricing. These spivs are bleeding the NHS dry. Crazy when so much drug research is by public bodies, like Universities, and charities.

Pharmaceutical giant 'plotted to destroy cancer drugs to drive prices up 4,000%'
Price rises for generic cancer drugs are estimated to cost the NHS in England around £380m a year
Saturday 15 April 2017

You can't make them sell you the drugs.

Alex

 

[yield]

You can't make them sell you the drugs.

Alex

Surely the Pharmaceutical companies want to sell the drugs? It looks like price gouging to me.

The NHS should be able to buy cheap and safe generic prescription drugs.

Maybe the government ought to repeal a lot of that patent and copyright redtape?

 

[Blagsta]

No, I am not. The public has no direct say in health spending. (Oh, BTW Urban appears to be the last place on the planet that believes the bullshit about the pig.)

I'm a trained nurse who then trained in pharmacy, what are your healthcare qualifications please.

This is a major and serious problem, yet other than make puerile jokes and 'ad hom' attacks, I have seen absolutely nothing from you that indicates that you have any understanding of the logistics of health care. Indeed, it is clear that like many, you are really quite clueless.

It isn't a question of being able to cure everything on zero resources, it is a question of using available funding as well as possible.

Out of interest, how old are you, because unless you are of pension age, you are going to be paying considerably more in National Insurance contributions than you are now. When I hit 65 on the 4th of October, NI contributions stop. I still will be paying Income Tax of course, but no NI. That is something that should change. There is no reason why pensioners shouldn't pay a few % in NI, it would make a difference, as there are currently circa 11 million pensioners.

Someone at work the other month said to me 'Your generation have had the best of it.' . He was right I think, I don't think I'd like to be 21 again.

I'm a trained nurse and I think you're full of shit

 

[Sasaferrato]

You can't make them sell you the drugs.

Alex

No, but you can set up a NHS manufacturing facility.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I'm a trained nurse and I think you're full of shit

Ah, ad hom, the refuge of those with no argument to make.