nhs con

01-10-2003, 18:57

nhs ? why do i contribute £38 a week to a to a NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM THAT STILL DOESN'T WORK.had to wait in casualty for nearly 3 hours with daughter in agony then was told if i had drove down to brentwood casualty in are glorious capital  put £29 on the counter she would have been seen right away what's going on is it a national healh service or is it private !

HarryX · 01-10-2003, 19:04

Never heard of being able to pay and be seen straight away.  Seems callous to me.. I mean what parent woudlnt pay if there kids are sat there in agony.. even if you cant really afford... I mean if they take CC then ya would probably put yerself in debt rather than see yer kids/loved ones suffer... Seems like a very callous thing to me..

Anyone shed any light on it?

lettie · 01-10-2003, 21:37

Yes, in Brentford they have opened a new private casualty. Basically you can go and pay a £29 consultation fee, then the costs go up if you need treatment. This unit deals with minor injuries and in not intended to deal with major trauma. The reasoning is that we have choices in any other healthcare sector apart from casualty, so they are trying to provide more of a choice for people who want it. Critics say that the unit is staffed by poaching NHS staff, from an already stretched service. This unit say that if minor things can be treated in their unit, then it will free up casualty centres to deal with major trauma and reduce NHS casualty waiting times. :-/
Personally I am at the moment undecided as to wether this will work, and it will be evaluated in the future. When you examine casualty figures, many people present there with problems that can be dealt with by their GP and this means increased waiting times for people who genuinely need the service.

On Accident and Emergency as a student in 1989, I had the pleasure of treating a fella for a cut to his finger. I put a plaster on it.  Believe it or not, that's a true story :

Mik Dickinson · 02-10-2003, 09:13

Agree totally with TAZ and Harry X.My father who lives in Accy now needed to have a back operation and was put on a 3 year waiting list.I told him to enquire what it would cost privately 3000 pound.Sent him the money and he presto 6 weeks later he has been operated on and not walking around like a spring chicken but at least he can walk around now and not in any pain.When it all boils down to it money talks in any country and any trade

Tealeaf · 02-10-2003, 09:25

The NHS will never have sufficient resources while it is free at the point of demand and paid for from general taxation. No other western country does it like we do and that is why our standards of treatment, incidence of disease, post treatment survival rates are the worse in the west.

You may as well open a pub and announce that the beer is free. What will happen - queues round the corner, thats what. What do you do? double the number of barstaff....has the queue got any shorter..no.....so then what...the whiskey is free and the barmaids are topless to.....has the queue got any shorter....I very much doubt it......................

Anyone who believes that chuckinf money at the NHS will solve its problems is in cuckhoo land.....get real - shut it down and start again...

ANNE · 02-10-2003, 09:36

It's Sad when councils can errect stupid statues in our towns, when our hospitals are crying out for beds. &gt;

&gt;

Tealeaf · 02-10-2003, 13:05

Maybe the council should erect beds in the town instead..

lettie · 02-10-2003, 20:11

 The NHS will always be a bottomless pit as far as money is concerned. It was originally intended to provide a free, accessible service to all, regardless of social and financial status. Over the years, as research has improved, treatments become more complex and expensive, new diseases identified it has become increasingly expensive to run. Treatment is now available on the NHS which is no longer life saving, ie. fertility treatment, reversal of sterilisations, plastic surgery (skin grafts, scar reducing treatments, etc)  and although treatments such as these undobtedly improve quality of life, the NHS was not originally intended to supply this kind of treatment.
Public demand dictates the services that are provided and healthcare is becoming increasingly complex. We have high levels of disease in this country due to lifestyle. Smoking, alcohol, obesity and poor diet. The NHS is now trying through public health consultants and nurses to put the emphasis of healthy living back onto the public, as they cannot expect treatment for diseases caused by their own bad habits, if they are not willing to take some responsibility for their own wellbeing.
Paperwork and red tape inhibit the jobs of many medical and nursing staff. Sometimes it is felt that there are too many organ grinders and not enough of us monkeys. As pressures increase, many nurses and midwives leave the professions to either retrain for something unrelated to nursing or are lured abroad for better working conditions, leading to staff shortages and increased pressures.
Recruitment of staff is difficult, as kids who are bright enough to do a degree are not tempted by nursing or midwifery, they want shorter working hours, better pay, company car etc.
There is no forseeable answer to these problems, despite what the governments tell us :

Tealeaf · 03-10-2003, 13:11

Well said, Lettie. The NHS is'nt a health sevice anymore - it's a lifestyle service and the sooner we recognize that the better.

What moral reason is there for the taxpayer to fork out for IVF treatment at £3 - 5,000pds a time. What the hell has this got to do with health?

We pay for tattoo removal, because someone may suffer from clinical depression for putting it there in the first place. What crap.

Worse of all, we pay for "Gender Reassignation - sex change"...can someone please explain to me what this has to do with health.....

At the same time that we're forking out on all this garbage we see kids being driven to school & doing sod all exercise doing the day, returning home and messing around for two/three hours on these things every night.

God alone knows what these kids will be like in 30 years time.....I'll be an old pensioner forking out thousands for some coronary bypasses who just ain't fit & have never been fit.....

HarryX · 03-10-2003, 13:25

Quote:

What moral reason is there for the taxpayer to fork out for IVF treatment at £3 - 5,000pds a time

Sorry.. Whats IVF treatment?

Quote:

We pay for tattoo removal, because someone may suffer from clinical depression for putting it there in the first place

A bit far fetched in my opinion.. But I suppose someone somewhere could have a tattooo on say there forehead when there 16 and dont know any better than get so depressed about it when they become an adult that it makes them feel ill... I suppose... But on the whole I would agree with your comment on this one

Quote:

Worse of all, we pay for "Gender Reassignation - sex change"...can someone please explain to me what this has to do with health.....

Quite a lot.. people feel they are born into the wrong body and this makes them very ill.. mentally I presume. i don't think its a sexual prefernce.. Oh i wouldn't mind being a woman lets have a change.. its more deep routed han that and those people do need medical help.. if that help is deemed to change them then....

Quote:

At the same time that we're forking out on all this garbage we see kids being driven to school & doing sod all exercise doing the day,

Do you ahve kids? Do you let them walk to school on there own.. have you read a paper in the last ten years? people have varying levels of fear and will decide if they think its safe to let there kids walk.. some routes are safe.. some ya wouldnt want yer kids walking along no matter what time of day..

As for no excersize during the day.. What makes you say that? There running about half the day.. they have PE as well.

Tealeaf · 03-10-2003, 15:15

IVF = in vitro fertilisation, or artificial insemination if you like....
and the cost quoted above is for one cycle....the new NHS rules allow for 3.

My point is.....some people are not just as lucky as others. Some grow up as midgets, others lose their hair, others have difficulty in conceiving naturally. There is no threat to health wellbeing whatsoever; they are not in pain....if they want to have kids by IVF, then let them pay for it.....it's a lifestyle choice, like going on holiday or not...

Justr as it is a lifestyle choice to make a statement by having a tatoo bunged on your head.....It might hurt when it goes on, but other than that , nothing..no pain, no health problem (other than Hepitatis c in having it done in the first place..)

Sex change - this really is a complete nonsense....I'm not happy about alot of things - I'd like free beer & I'd like to travel abit more - but I don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it. You may as well say the taxpayer should pay for your gambling down at William Hills if you're short of dosh..If someone wants a sex change, let em pay for it. It's that simple.

Remember, our survival rates in Oncology are the worst in Europe. If you want to spend money on some some souped-up drag artist, do it. But I'd rather spend the money on cancer patients and others equally deserving.

And as for the kids, again its a fact that our kids have the most sedentry lifestyle in Europe......do you get child crocodiles in Accy? Answer No.....But it's not me who is raising this point...it's the medical profession...I suggest you check out a few websites..

ANNE · 03-10-2003, 15:25

We work, pay for an health service and what do we get but a joke.
You can come up with fancy explanations,reasons, complaints and moans. When it just boils down to this we just arn't getting back what we put into and the councels and goverments just have prioritys all wrong.
How can they possibly justify spending all this money on usless junk they call art. When the money could be spent sensibly on HOSPITALS, beds nurses etc.
Not tomention the schools.
It makes me so  &gt;

lettie · 03-10-2003, 15:28

 Many of the above treatments are fairly new in medical and research terms, but as technology increases, so does demand and cost. for example, Fertility treatment (IVF) is  relatively new (less than  25years) and is constantly improving, demand for this is growing. When the NHS became established by the Act of 1948, if someone couldn't have children it was hard luck, but you'll get over it/live with it kind of attitude. Same case scenario as gender reassignment, scar surgery etc. Health professionals now recognise the psychological and social aspects that these treatments can provide, and try to look at overall wellbeing, not just physical health. The NHS wasn't originally intended to provide these services, it was intended to cut mortality rates, by offering free treatment to those who could least afford it for illnesses and prevention (immunisations). As medical knowledge improves, so does demand, therefore leading to a service that no government can afford to pay for, because there's too much on offer. I can honestly forsee a 2 tier system, where the rich/insured get modern, prompt, efficient service, and those who can't afford it don't, and they're the ones most likely to need care and treatment.

HarryX · 03-10-2003, 15:33

Quote:

The NHS wasn't originally intended to provide these services, it was intended to cut mortality rates, by offering free treatment to those who could least afford it for illnesses and prevention (immunisations).

Perhaps the first step is to g back to the above... Tattooo removing, sex ops and IVF treatment as tealeaf puts it doesnt come under the above... I do think tealeaf is wrong to say some of those things arnt health problems because they are.. not everyhting boils down to physical pain.. But I agree with him/her?  that the health service shouldnt be paying for it if the above quote was a guidline.

Mick · 03-10-2003, 15:35

IF its not life theatening only cosmetic then i think a contribution is in order say 50%