When will they get the NHS sorted?

[Eve]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorksh ire/6231705.stm

There are some fantastic people working to keep us healthy and dedicated to our care, I've been treated brilliantly by some wonderful people over the last couple of days for my breast lump having secured me an urgent appointment (next week) at a specialist breast clinic less than 24 hours after I was seen.

When are they going to get some proper funding and such in tape and let these wonderful people do their job properly without being held back by lack of funding, staffing and stifling bureaucracy?

Also posted in b&s for their views.

x

[Theland]

All political parties agree that the NHS has had dramatic increases in funding ... but ... only a third of the money has been used to improve things, the rest wasted through inefficiency and bureaucracy.
A slip of the pen gave G.P.'s a salary increase that was totally disproportional to their work, a fact now lamented by all.
At the other end of the scale, pity the poor student nurses, existing on a bursary of only �100 / week! For this they not only have to study, but do all of the menial tasks in the wards, as well as taking responsibility for patients, (giving injections, medications etc), because there are not enough qualified nurses on the wards! And they are getting rid of more nurses?
The immigration floodgates are open, and every single new immigrant, legal and illegal, can use the NHS without ever having paid into it, free of charge!
I'm not an accountant or a manager so don't know the answers ... but it seems that neither do the politicians!
Good question, by the way.

[Loosehead]

Like with most things in the public sector, more money does not equal better services, it invariably means more layers of pen pushers. The NHS management is a pyramid of managers and consultants they've got got more clerks than they've got beds. As soon as a manager get's extra money they hire a load of management consultants and assorted bureacrats. What is needed is a public sector service managed under private sector principles.

The NHS eats approx �70,000,000,000 a year if it where a private sector business it would operate on half that. The public sector is full of empire building administratprs eating YOUR cash for disproportionate benefit.

[Theland]

I read somewhere recently, that last year, the NHS spent �18,000,000 on art!

Could somebody construct a decent question out of this for the B&S and give us all a laugh?

[Oneeyedvic]

"I read somewhere recently, that last year, the NHS spent �18,000,000 on art! "

Actually, they spent �18 Million in 4 years http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 506/cmhansrd/cm060904/text/60904w2328.htm
Well done to Beds & Herts Health Authoritys though.

[Theland]

Oh well, that's OK then, a mere �4,500,000 per year. I feel better already. Thanks for the correction.

[Eve]

Those figures are horrifying!

My health authority spent �369,608, �266,693.00, �843,983.00, �652,235.00 in each of the years covered, how many nurses, pieces of equipment and services could that have provided!

[jake-the-peg]

A lot of this depends on your perspective

Have you a budget at home or at work? How accurately do you manage to hit it?

The NHS defecit is something like �500 million on a �75 billion budget.

That's better than 1%

So we have 2 headlines either

NHS half a billion pounds in the red

or

NHS budgeting 99% accuracy.

It's all in how you want to look at it - and as the NHS is the crowning achievement of the 20th century Labour party it's not surprising which one right wingers want to pick!

As for the art, this sort of outrage was expressed when Glasgow council bought Dali's St. John of the Cross in the 50's for �8,200! - Surely the council shouldn't be wasting ratepayers money on this!

The purchase included the copyright and the picture has paid for itself many time over!

[Loosehead]

The point Jake is not the Budget deficit and how it's expressed but what the budget is actually spent on. I would venture that far too much is spent on non medical things, on top heavy management and lack of joined up thinking. Of course you need administration but as is usual with the public sector the NHS is seen as a provider of jobs with medical care almost of secondary importance. This is the classic socialist thinking that infests the public sector. I once had a job in a local authority and the attitude to public money is very disturbing. For example I was once halled over the coals by the Nalgo union rep (I wasn't even in the union) for not taking enough days off sick. I said I hadn't been ill, "Irrelevant you must take 13 days a year sick or we'll all lose out" - I kid yee not!

[youngmafbog]

The NHS, as briliant an innovation though it is is sick in its current form. The budget is collosal and needs breaking down and manging correctly. As Loosehead said its not the deficit its the budget.
It requires the private sector to come in and clear out the dead wood, wherevever it is.

My Mrs works for the NHS and says the wastage is unbelievable. She has never seen anything like it in the private sector.

[jake-the-peg]

I agree there are some things that need fixing but there are a lot of people out there who'd like to see the NHS scrapped so that they can cash in. So they take any opportunity to exagerate the problems

It's a huge beast and you can throw money at it forever but we'd all be immeasurably worse off without it

[Oneeyedvic]

Theland - "Oh well, that's OK then, a mere �4,500,000 per year. I feel better already. Thanks for the correction. " - I at no point said it was good or correct for this to happen - in fact you will see that I pointed out that congratulations were in order to the trust that didn't spend much on art.

I did point is that your figure was totally incorrect as I assumed that you would not want to bandy around figures were inaccurate. I see no need for the sarcasm.

Since you are secure with your Christianity, maybe you can tell us how much the Church spends on Art? How much property does the Church own? And that's okay is it?

[kwicky]

The problem with the health service is the patients. Why do we insist on being treated for major illnesses in a hospital very close to where we live. Local hospitals are usually understaffed, underqualified and inexperienced, leading to poor outcomes. That is why there is talk of centres of excellence. I do not agree with travelling large distances for A & E though.

[WendyS]

I feel sorry for the people working in the NHS. The majority of them work extremely hard and are highly dedicated. It's just sad that we have a bunch of totally incompetent politicians and civil servants who think they have more experience and a better knowledge of how to do things than the people on the ground. Perhaps we should allow the professionals (and not the administrators) in the NHS to make the major decisions on how it should be run. Maybe then we would see a service that is truly aimed at curing the sick rather than form filling and meeting spurious government-set targets.

[kwicky]

I read an article accusing the consultants of undermining the health service. The old union practices have nothing on this lot. They work a 4 day week, operating theatres are underused, no communication at all between staff, each blaming the other. Something drastic needs to happen!