The Politics Thread

[jimbo]

I'm getting more and more angry with each day at the government's approach to health policy. Years of underfunding are seriously starting to bite but there hasn't been any accepting of responsibility. Social care is in crisis. Care and support in the community simply isn't there, while demand for it is only going to increase and increase and we keep people alive for longer.

What is the government's response today? Blame the GPs! There already is 24hr, 7 day a week Emergency GP care available. There's barely enough doctors to cover 5 days of routine care. How is spreading that to seven days going to help without thousands more GPs to provide the extra days care?

[jimbo]

Its also been overshadowed by more headline grabbing policies and incidents, but I was astonished this week to read about trump's view on vaccinations and how he has employed a known anti-vaccine campaigner into a prominent health role and how he recently met Andrew Wakefield to discuss the issue!

[Worthy4England]

I'm getting more and more angry with each day at the government's approach to health policy. Years of underfunding are seriously starting to bite but there hasn't been any accepting of responsibility. Social care is in crisis. Care and support in the community simply isn't there, while demand for it is only going to increase and increase and we keep people alive for longer.

What is the government's response today? Blame the GPs! There already is 24hr, 7 day a week Emergency GP care available. There's barely enough doctors to cover 5 days of routine care. How is spreading that to seven days going to help without thousands more GPs to provide the extra days care?

I think the problem stems from a number of places. Social care is royally fooked. When MIL was in hospital last year the place was wall to wall with people care homes couldn't deal with. Not talking people who really needed a hospital bed, people with the appalling Alzheimers and the like. Needed looking after but didn't really need a hospital.

On the GP thing, they seem to struggle to do anything much recently without numerous tests that all require a hospital visit. Shouldn't need to clog up hospitals to get blood tests.

As for out of hours, Service feels like it's non-existent so the only option lots of folks think they have is to rock up at A&E. I know from our family, we've had a few down the years where you are pretty certain it probably only requires a GP, but the only option available is A&E...

[Lord Kangana]

Will the extra £350m a week they're going to get be enough to fix it though?

[Worthy4England]

I hope so, that was the main reason I voted leave...

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm getting more and more angry with each day at the government's approach to health policy. Years of underfunding are seriously starting to bite but there hasn't been any accepting of responsibility. Social care is in crisis. Care and support in the community simply isn't there, while demand for it is only going to increase and increase and we keep people alive for longer.

What is the government's response today? Blame the GPs! There already is 24hr, 7 day a week Emergency GP care available. There's barely enough doctors to cover 5 days of routine care. How is spreading that to seven days going to help without thousands more GPs to provide the extra days care?

LK has long since had the right theory on this imo. Deliberately underfund it, blame the service providers, privatise it by stealth.

Tories are absolute scum when it comes to running the NHS and other public services. Know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

[Lord Kangana]

Its exactly what they did with the railways. Meaning we all pay more money for a service that is 8 times less efficient than it was under public ownership, is a massive drain on resources, and brings 0% to the coffers.

I've kind of given up on the argument anyway, there really are that many stupid people who simply believe the mantra of public bad private good without investigating that in a great number of cases it has actually produced no notable benefit to the (taxpaying) public.

[Hoboh]

Its exactly what they did with the railways. Meaning we all pay more money for a service that is 8 times less efficient than it was under public ownership, is a massive drain on resources, and brings 0% to the coffers.

I've kind of given up on the argument anyway, there really are that many stupid people who simply believe the mantra of public bad private good without investigating that in a great number of cases it has actually produced no notable benefit to the (taxpaying) public.

Strange, but I agree with you here,

it has actually produced no notable benefit to the (taxpaying) public.

If anything all the sweeteners and subsidies given to some of these 'private' companies has cost the taxpayer and users of these services big time.
A private company should raise its own funding not rely on the public purse, if it cannot it should not be running any services, just one thing though, there was a need to remove the union barons from dictating how things were run.
My experience through the late 70's and 80's was nothing got done unless it met with approval from the shop stewards.

[BWFC_Insane]

Its exactly what they did with the railways. Meaning we all pay more money for a service that is 8 times less efficient than it was under public ownership, is a massive drain on resources, and brings 0% to the coffers.

I've kind of given up on the argument anyway, there really are that many stupid people who simply believe the mantra of public bad private good without investigating that in a great number of cases it has actually produced no notable benefit to the (taxpaying) public.

Those people haven't a juddering fecking clue what they are on about though. Usual types who read Daily Mail bullshit. Moan about putting in more than they take out, then complain when a rare million pound cancer treatment is denied.

[Hoboh]

Its exactly what they did with the railways. Meaning we all pay more money for a service that is 8 times less efficient than it was under public ownership, is a massive drain on resources, and brings 0% to the coffers.

I've kind of given up on the argument anyway, there really are that many stupid people who simply believe the mantra of public bad private good without investigating that in a great number of cases it has actually produced no notable benefit to the (taxpaying) public.

Those people haven't a juddering fecking clue what they are on about though. Usual types who read Daily Mail bullshit. Moan about putting in more than they take out, then complain when a rare million pound cancer treatment is denied.

Never understand the name calling over the Mail, there are some right pricks who read the guardian and that paper has it's own agenda it follows as well.
It too picks and choses what it publishes, no mention of one of its top six woman of the year picks falling foul of her own rules and showing just how compassionate she is when it comes to her money.
You read then make your own mind up, all this about fake news is an attempt to stifle any kind of debate unless it meets the liberal leftie criteria.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The Daily Mail is full of lies masquerading as headlines which are subsequently apologised for in a tiny 3 line correction at the arse end of page 34. That's the problem with the daily mail, it's more accurately described as the daily lies.

The sooner the press have to apologise in the exact same spot of their publication, with a similar sized apology headline font and the same amount of space dedicated to it as the original lie, the better as far as I am concerned.

[Hoboh]

The Daily Mail is full of lies masquerading as headlines which are subsequently apologised for in a tiny 3 line correction at the arse end of page 34. That's the problem with the daily mail, it's more accurately described as the daily lies.

The sooner the press have to apologise in the exact same spot of their publication, with a similar sized apology headline font and the same amount of space dedicated to it as the original lie, the better as far as I am concerned.

I suppose this will upset you then
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

They can fcuk off if they think I'm clicking a link to their website. Same applies to the sun and daily express.

[Hoboh]

They can fcuk off if they think I'm clicking a link to their website. Same applies to the sun and daily express.

#melting

[Bruce Rioja]

Re the NHS - If you create a free resource, you'll create unlimited demand regardless as to who's in charge. We the public have to take care of ourselves rather than living like a bunch of c*nts and then moaning that the NHS, or the government, is/are responsible for our own shortcomings. The NHS is there for us when we actually need it, not for when we've been a feck*.

[BWFC_Insane]

Re the NHS - If you create a free resource, you'll create unlimited demand regardless as to who's in charge. We the public have to take care of ourselves rather than living like a bunch of c*nts and then moaning that the NHS, or the government, is/are responsible for our own shortcomings. The NHS is there for us when we actually need it, not for when we've been a feck.

Some of the main costs in the system are the increasing range of very expensive treatments for things like cancers or rare illnesses.

Beds that are kept occupied because you can't turf 90 year olds out on the street, or occupied because there is no intermediate care between a hospital and a non medical home for the elderly.

The problem is actually mainly down to an ageing population more and more reliant on the health service, folk simply just don't die anymore. Which is a good thing. But increases the drain on resources massively.

The range of treatments offered and cost of them was never envisioned when the NHS was established. Ultimately the plain political truth is we have to pay more. Or have less. The trouble with having less is that the actual places where you can really save money are unpalatable choices politically and for a populous that generally doesn't like seeing kids denied life saving treatments or elderly people refused admission.

People moan about contributing but think nothing of costing far, far more than they ever put in if they get cancer or heart failure or whatever.

The NHS is a fantastic resource that belongs to the nation and its communities. Why people want to run it down and break it apart is genuinely beyond me. Why we'd want to skimp on the health of our nation also baffles me.

Absolutely personal responsibility plays a big part but for the rise in diabetes etc we also see drop of in many nutritional or previously very hard to treat bacterial conditions. I'm not saying people shouldn't play a huge part, they should take responsibility for their own health. But I don't want to live in a society where blame and attribution come first before free at the point of delivery medical care.

[Bruce Rioja]

Excellent post, Chap. However, I don't see the need for your use of the word "political" in your line "Ultimately the plain political truth is we have to pay more. Or have less". Nobody wants to live in a society where blame and attribution come first before free at the point of delivery medical care, but the NHS has now become a "political" football.

[Hoboh]

Re the NHS - If you create a free resource, you'll create unlimited demand regardless as to who's in charge. We the public have to take care of ourselves rather than living like a bunch of c*nts and then moaning that the NHS, or the government, is/are responsible for our own shortcomings. The NHS is there for us when we actually need it, not for when we've been a feck.

Some of the main costs in the system are the increasing range of very expensive treatments for things like cancers or rare illnesses.

Beds that are kept occupied because you can't turf 90 year olds out on the street, or occupied because there is no intermediate care between a hospital and a non medical home for the elderly.

The problem is actually mainly down to an ageing population more and more reliant on the health service, folk simply just don't die anymore. Which is a good thing. But increases the drain on resources massively.

The range of treatments offered and cost of them was never envisioned when the NHS was established. Ultimately the plain political truth is we have to pay more. Or have less. The trouble with having less is that the actual places where you can really save money are unpalatable choices politically and for a populous that generally doesn't like seeing kids denied life saving treatments or elderly people refused admission.

People moan about contributing but think nothing of costing far, far more than they ever put in if they get cancer or heart failure or whatever.

The NHS is a fantastic resource that belongs to the nation and its communities. Why people want to run it down and break it apart is genuinely beyond me. Why we'd want to skimp on the health of our nation also baffles me.
Absolutely personal responsibility plays a big part but for the rise in diabetes etc we also see drop of in many nutritional or previously very hard to treat bacterial conditions. I'm not saying people shouldn't play a huge part, they should take responsibility for their own health. But I don't want to live in a society where blame and attribution come first before free at the point of delivery medical care.

There is nothing much to disagree with there mate except on the point Bruce made, people do have to look after theirselves more.
I don't mind paying a bit more for the health service, but realistically, it may also end up on other things I don't approve of with the fiddling governments do, so unless it is cast iron guaranteed to go to the NHS, I'm against this call for more tax.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Another problem we have is that governments tend to make short sighted savings. An example is to save money and get the deficit down is to cut social care. Short term they save money, long term it costs more than they saved due to bed blocking and additional admissions due to a lack of alternative.

Save a small amount of money on nurses bursaries, lose large numbers of student nurses, spend more money recruiting nurses later.

Cut NHS staff to meet a budget target, pay them off and then retire them a few months later.

Tackle this sort of lunacy and you will make the NHS more sustainable. The whole gp system needs reform and folk need to pay a bit more.

[Lord Kangana]

Kiss the NHS goodbye folks. We're about to revive TTIP with the yanks. Because the rest of Europe didn't want it. It wasn't a European idea. It was ours.