NHS Cuts

[Mr K]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37186455

Mmm, this wasn't mentioned at the General Election. In fact the Tories promised £8biilion extra for the NHS, where is it? Surely not gone on tax cuts for the struggling rich?

Never mind the NHS can always rely on the £100 million a week promised by the Brexit devotees....

[denphone]

You have to remember Mr K that politicians talk with forked tongue not just once but again and again and again.

Originally Posted by Mr K

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37186455

Mmm, this wasn't mentioned at the General Election. In fact the Tories promised £8biilion extra for the NHS, where is it? Surely not gone on tax cuts for the struggling rich?

Never mind the NHS can always rely on the £100 million a week promised by the Brexit devotees....

I think you may have misread that article. It doesn't address top level funding at all, which was the subject of the election pledge you referred to.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you may have misread that article. It doesn't address top level funding at all, which was the subject of the election pledge you referred to.

I'm afraid money for the NHS, is money for the NHS. Trying to cosmetically obscure cuts by different funding/budgets is half the problem. It all has the same result in the end. Best not to get ill in the coming years if you can help it.

The chronic shortage of nurses, which will be further exacerbated by Brexit, is the major oncoming crisis. Making them take out loans/get a degree to look after the rest of us is a genius Govt plan. What graduate would want a nurses pay on top of a loan?

Hospitals are having to cancel Theatre lists worth tens of thousands, as they aren't able to hire covering nursing staff (source, Mrs K who is in the thick of it). The system is being deliberately set up to fail - Jeremy Hunt's objective, thats why amazingly he's kept his job

Nope, you're still not reading the article. Or at least you're not understanding it. There is nothing in that article that says any proposed cuts or reorganisations at a local level, will result in the top-line NHS budget being cut. That top-line budget is the one that was subject to a Tory election promise.

[Mr K]

Afraid you're trying to defend the indefensible Chris. The public were led to believe there would be major investment, not cuts at the General Election, that was a lie.

Nope. I'm simply insisting that you compare apples with apples.

Each one of these local reorganisations, cuts or whatever deserves scrutiny in its own right.

That is more difficult to achieve if you keep trying to make the story something it isn't.

The top-line budget figure has not been cut. So far, the election pledge has held.

Now, how about you stop carrying on like happy hour at the branch Labour club and discuss the issue on its own terms?

Heaven forbid that large organisations should plan various scenarios on how to meet their plans and budgets....

[Osem]

Well if they did that people might whine about 'cuts' and broken election pledges...

I'm just worried about the fact that more centralisation for A&Es is on the cards..we already have had ours move 10 miles further away with a journey of around 20 to 30 minutes drive depending on traffic.For a peninsular town with only two routes in or out it's a nightmare for ambulances during rush hour..Centralisation would probably mean moving from Portsmouth to Southampton or vice versa..not pleasant for anyone in the area..

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Now, how about you stop carrying on like happy hour at the branch Labour club and discuss the issue on its own terms?

Cue Jeremy Corbyn staring forlornly into a camera from the floor of a hospital corridor saying that "people are dying here because of the cuts".

All his statements have more than one meaning .

I can only speak of leicester as i am at all three hospitals far more then I'd prefer the idea of cutting one hospital may make financial sense but given all three hospitals are overly busy losing one would be a disaster for patients. Whichever one they cut there isn't the slack in the remaining two to maintain the level of service and even with three the overall standard is decreasing cut down to two and a bad situation for patients will be a lot worse.

[nomadking]

No point increasing the money to just pay off deficits. You have to address the reasons for the deficits. Otherwise the increased money will not improve anything, and just disappear into a black hole.

Medicine is highly specialised, Unless you have larger centres, a loss through sickness or other reason, leads to a massive loss to a department, Eg 2 hospitals each with 2 specialists. A loss of one of them is a 50% loss. One hospital with all 4 means a loss of one is a 25% impact.

[rhyds]

The problem is that taking any over-arching view of services means that somewhere will lose out.

Imagine you've got a few large towns in a cluster with 3 reasonably local hospitals A, B and C.

Now, the NHS wants to make Hospital B their specialist centre for heart operations, so that they can concentrate staff, equipment and skills in one team. They announce this, so then everyone piles on about "downgrading" hospitals A and C and screaming about "cuts", even if Hospital A becomes a centre for something else (Spinal work for example)

[Taf]

Instead of throwing large amounts of money at an admin top-heavy organisation, they are proposing throwing less money at it and just cut what they should be spending money on?