OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[mistaram]

Really?
When I noticed the lump on my neck. I was biopsed within 9 days and having the major operation 12 days later.
I wouldn't call that disappointing.
Yes the NHS needs much investment.
It also needs a major overall, with the way it is run.
Waiting times are down to many reasons, not just lack of cash.
As a Forest fan, I can vouch that throwing cash at something doesn't always give you what you want.

Tricky I'm pleased you got the treatment you deserved and inside the scheduled time
Unfortunately some patients are not so lucky .I would assume you come under Nottingham University NHS trust I've just seen their figures for June to Sept 2019 . " Starting treatment within 62days of GP referral for suspected cancer" Target 85% NottinghamNHS 73.2% Average for England 79.7%
Although they have above average waiting times for other ops like you and knee replacement But you are right it needs an independent review urgently ,it's being milked dry by an awful lot of individuals and company's

[Geoff Parkstone]

It may indeed be a postcode lottery as she also has a new (small localised) hospital built two or three years ago under May although authorised under Cameron I guess. The cataracts weren't done here though as it was referred to a different hospital in a different postcode maybe 15 miles away.

Guess this makes up for only being to get a bus one way once a week, and ones the other way every few hours!

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky I'm pleased you got the treatment you deserved and inside the scheduled time
Unfortunately some patients are not so lucky .I would assume you come under Nottingham University NHS trust I've just seen their figures for June to Sept 2019 . " Starting treatment within 62days of GP referral for suspected cancer" Target 85% NottinghamNHS 73.2% Average for England 79.7%
Although they have above average waiting times for other ops like you and knee replacement But you are right it needs an independent review urgently ,it's being milked dry by an awful lot of individuals and company's

Glad we agree on something.

As an example to it's ails, take my father.

Told he needed an hearing aid, put forward by a GP.

Waited 6 weeks for the letter, to attend an audiologist.
When we went, she looked in and said she couldn't do anything, as they needed cleaning?
She then asked, wasn't we told to go to a GP for this? Errrrm no.

So an appointment is made at the same place for a cleaning and revisit with the audiologist same day.
Another 3 weeks wait.

We go back and the nurse says, wasn't you told to soak this in olive oil for 1 week?
Errrrrrrm no.

So another appointment made for 4 weeks time, after the soaking.

So in essence,

6 weeks to organise, then 7 weeks wasted doing feck all, because GP's, specialists, nursing cannot communicate with each other.

Our time/their time/public money wasted.

So if we was just on about lack of cash. we would be screaming about the 6 week delay only.
But that's not the case is it?

It's very poorly run.
In 2009, the NHS employed the full-time equivalent of 1,177,056 staff (1,431,996 headcount), of whom 42,509 were managers or senior managers. While the total number of NHS staff increased by around 35 per cent between 1999 and 2009, the number of managers increased by more than 82 per cent over the same period, from 23,378 to 42,509.

In essense that's 19% of the staff are managers. Now who did that again?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Maybe things vary from place to place GP.
I’m with sixtiesram. If we’re going to be anecdotal, both Derby and my nearest health care centre - Ashbourne - had new hospitals built under Blair.
In contrast last week I tried to make an appointment at my ‘new’ Health Centre for as close to the 8th Dec. as possible...the outcome was an appointment for the 30th December.
The NHS has gone backwards over the last ten years and we all know why.

No question that its gone backwards under the austerity of the tory 10 years (tenure?) but sadly, much of that was necessary following the economic crash of 2008. Please don't go into a bad bankers crusade here, but hear my theory out! In the decade before that under Brown / Blair spending was significantly higher ((as sixtiesram notes), but bear in mind that this was in a comparatively booming economy (thanks in part to those bankers that you villify).

You might argue that therefore labour is good for the economy, which may have an element of truth in it, but this was the moderate centrist new labour, that was basically soft tory anyway. A Corbyn hard "old labour" is unlikely to replicate the successes under "new labour".

Spending is needed on NHS, services are in need of upgrades but this has to be tempered by the still fragile state of the economy, particularly when accompanied by the volatile post Brexit trading conditions (yes, a self inflicted wound). As has oft been said, labour are great at spending other people's money - be it the taxpayers money or that of the lenders piling up sovereign level debt. This is the concern: a post brexit sagging economy and a spendthrift government do not make comfortable bedfellows, bringing back the spectre of both price driven and wage driven inflation.

Who loses out in high level inflation - those on low wages, pensioners on fixed incomes nd other net savers and individuals who do not own their own homes: arguably the very people who are least well positioned to accommodate inflationary pressures.


Also don't forget the pressures on the NHS (its not all funding cuts) is the greater demand: longevity and an ageing population and the increased calls on the NHS (and the entire infrastructure including schools etc) brought about by net immigration from EU - although this may be about to drop a bit!

People have to be realistic in expectations from the government in funding. With demand going up and an imposed underspend to catch up as well as get back ahead of, in a volatile/declining economy is a pipedream - but hey, JC is great at pipedreams so maybe we have a chance

[mistaram]

It may indeed be a postcode lottery as she also has a new (small localised) hospital built two or three years ago under May although authorised under Cameron I guess. The cataracts weren't done here though as it was referred to a different hospital in a different postcode maybe 15 miles away.

Guess this makes up for only being to get a bus one way once a week, and ones the other way every few hours!

Yes Geoff it does seem to matter when you live I kept offering to pay for my mother to get them done private ,but she wouldn't have it . Insisting how much she had contribute over the years She dug her heels in and wouldn't hear of it

[mistaram]

Glad we agree on something.

As an example to it's ails, take my father.

Told he needed an hearing aid, put forward by a GP.

Waited 6 weeks for the letter, to attend an audiologist.
When we went, she looked in and said she couldn't do anything, as they needed cleaning?
She then asked, wasn't we told to go to a GP for this? Errrrm no.

So an appointment is made at the same place for a cleaning and revisit with the audiologist same day.
Another 3 weeks wait.

We go back and the nurse says, wasn't you told to soak this in olive oil for 1 week?
Errrrrrrm no.

So another appointment made for 4 weeks time, after the soaking.

So in essence,

6 weeks to organise, then 7 weeks wasted doing feck all, because GP's, specialists, nursing cannot communicate with each other.

Our time/their time/public money wasted.

So if we was just on about lack of cash. we would be screaming about the 6 week delay only.
But that's not the case is it?

It's very poorly run.
In 2009, the NHS employed the full-time equivalent of 1,177,056 staff (1,431,996 headcount), of whom 42,509 were managers or senior managers. While the total number of NHS staff increased by around 35 per cent between 1999 and 2009, the number of managers increased by more than 82 per cent over the same period, from 23,378 to 42,509.

In essense that's 19% of the staff are managers. Now who did that again?

Yes you cases like your father's all the time ,there is defiantly a breakdown between all the different departments that we would see as just common sense Definately to many chiefs ,maybe get back to pre Thatcher and go back to matrons

[ramAnag]

No question that its gone backwards under the austerity of the tory 10 years (tenure?) but sadly, much of that was necessary following the economic crash of 2008. Please don't go into a bad bankers crusade here, but hear my theory out! In the decade before that under Brown / Blair spending was significantly higher ((as sixtiesram notes), but bear in mind that this was in a comparatively booming economy (thanks in part to those bankers that you villify).

You might argue that therefore labour is good for the economy, which may have an element of truth in it, but this was the moderate centrist new labour, that was basically soft tory anyway. A Corbyn hard "old labour" is unlikely to replicate the successes under "new labour".

Spending is needed on NHS, services are in need of upgrades but this has to be tempered by the still fragile state of the economy, particularly when accompanied by the volatile post Brexit trading conditions (yes, a self inflicted wound). As has oft been said, labour are great at spending other people's money - be it the taxpayers money or that of the lenders piling up sovereign level debt. This is the concern: a post brexit sagging economy and a spendthrift government do not make comfortable bedfellows, bringing back the spectre of both price driven and wage driven inflation.

Who loses out in high level inflation - those on low wages, pensioners on fixed incomes nd other net savers and individuals who do not own their own homes: arguably the very people who are least well positioned to accommodate inflationary pressures.


Also don't forget the pressures on the NHS (its not all funding cuts) is the greater demand: longevity and an ageing population and the increased calls on the NHS (and the entire infrastructure including schools etc) brought about by net immigration from EU - although this may be about to drop a bit!

People have to be realistic in expectations from the government in funding. With demand going up and an imposed underspend to catch up as well as get back ahead of, in a volatile/declining economy is a pipedream - but hey, JC is great at pipedreams so maybe we have a chance

I don’t think we’re really disagreeing, Geoff.

The global banking crisis aside - did more harm to the economy than any other single thing imo - I accept most of your points and you know me better than to think I’m a great fan of Corbyn.

Fact remains though...the NHS, in common with all public services imo, receive more support and funding from Labour than is usually the case under the Tories and now that the decent ‘one nation Tories’ have all but disappeared I can only see things getting worse if Johnson wins a majority. Add what you describe as a ‘post Brexit sagging economy’ into the mix and things won’t be looking good will they?

[Trickytreesreds]

Yes you cases like your father's all the time ,there is defiantly a breakdown between all the different departments that we would see as just common sense Definately to many chiefs ,maybe get back to pre Thatcher and go back to matrons

Now that I do agree with. The same as the idiotic decision to have a degree to be a nurse.

How many people went through university for a career degree they didn't like at the end of it?

When I was in for 5 weeks, we had 2 girls on the ward of 16 and 17.
The were nursing assistants, who worked 9 till 5 mon- Fri .
The idea was they do this for a year(paid) and if they liked it, they would go on the nursing degree.
They were brilliant and said they loved doing it. Whoever thought of that, I applaud.
The right people get the job, the people get to see if they like it. Money is channelled into the right candidates.
I got my son to buy flowers for them and a box of choccies for the rest.
Much appreciated.

[ramAnag]

Yes you cases like your father's all the time ,there is defiantly a breakdown between all the different departments that we would see as just common sense Definately to many chiefs ,maybe get back to pre Thatcher and go back to matrons

Totally agree with that, mista. I had to have a very minor - day patient job - operation about this time last year and was talking to one of the senior nurses. She was very capable and had plenty of experience but recalled how when she’d started she’d had the one boss...Matron...who knew what she was about and who the nursing staff took note of accordingly. Three and a bit decades on she now found she’d never had so many bosses but few seemed to have a clue.
Can’t speak for other public services but the equivalent seems to be very much the case nowadays in education today too.
Too many ‘executive heads’ who know all about form filling and target setting but little about pupils and too many advisors who often couldn’t hack it in the classroom but now earn more telling those that can what to do.

[ramAnag]

Tricky...far be it from me to recommend private over public and I know we loathe each other but, in relation to your father and for reasons I won’t go into, I know something about the problems you refer to.
You may of course already know this but...the old way of syringing ears is largely discredited nowadays. Suction is now considered more effective and less intrusive but not that many GP practices have the required equipment.
Once your dad has used the drops for a week or so there are private individuals who offer the service - I think there’s one in Derby with the delightful name of ‘Wax Management’ or something similar - and it should cost between £35-£60. There’s a fair few to choose from, possibly more in Nottingham, and it might speed the process up for comparatively little cost.
Might be worth looking into...just a thought.