Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by rockape34, Feb 7, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
I'd like to start with one question.
Why is there a funding crisis in the NHS?
One question deserves one answer...it's government run.
Bump..............because I trivialised this important thread. I wonder if the One that has got funding is in a marginal Liabor seat????
Let me ask it in a slightly different way.
There are plenty of Arrsers here, either working in the NHS or alongside it.
What would You do, to ensure the NHS was adequately funded?
Have you identified particular areas of waste, inefficiency or sheer greed by suppliers?
There's more than one answer, of course, but part of it is (IMO) that the NHS is being run by managers who often lack any practical understanding of how medicine works, what needs to be prioritised etc. Then there are the ridiculous "targets" which - because of this government's obsession with meausuring the unmeasurable, so that it can be spun - mean that clinicians have to focus on meeting often meaningless goals rather than concentrating time and resources on patient care.
The NHS is apparently the 3rd biggest employer in the WORLD [
after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railways]. Wether true or not, the fact is that the wages bill is astronomical and there is too many Admin staff and perversely not enough Practitioners [Docs/Nurses]
There needs to be a fundamental rethink about what the NHS is here to do: is it about giving everybody every kind of possible treatment (as the recent Herceptin challenges seem to indicate)? Is it about ensuring a minimum acceptable standard of living for everyone? Or something else?
If the former, there needs to be a massive increase in funding - otherwise drugs and treatment which receive a lot of media attention are going to be prioritised over those that are less newsworthy (but still important). We're already starting to see this with Herceptin.
If it's about ensuring an acceptable standard of living (with not all available treatments being provided) then we have to face up to the fact that, with a finite amount of resources, we can't give everyone everything.
The NHS still seems to have lost its way philosophically - it doesn't know what its purpose is in the 21st C and is careering back and forth between the two extremes mentioned above.
Apparantly it is true: clicky.
Lots of European countries are moving away from a centralised NHS type affair towards compulsory insurance based schemes.
This has happened in the Netherlands, and to put it in perspective, it was a bit of a scandal a while back when waiting lists crept up to nine weeks. Yes, weeks, not months. Typical wait to see a specialist for a first appointment: four to six weeks. Back in old Blighty it took longer than that even to be given the appointment! I can also normally see my GP the same day (last week I rang at 8 a.m. and was seen at 10:50 a.m.).
Radio 4 ran a week long series of short programs on that very question last week, and it was more or less a damming inditement of the NHS and it's inherent inefficiencies.
Also reminds me of an old episode of 'Yes Minister', where the govt have a new hospital built and after 15months, the minister discovers that the hospital has over 500 administrators, but not a single patient or member of the medical staff. When asked to explain why this had happened, Sir Humphrey came up with the old excuse that administrators are needed to 'administer', and that without them, the hospital could not serve the patients.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the minister was not impressed when the civil service failed to see the irony of keeping a hospital serviced with administrators, but could not afford to take in any patients because of the lack of medical staff.
Jobs for they boyos (who mostly happen to be in a union affiliated to... you've guessed it. LABOUR!!!!!!!)
Separate names with a comma.