Vote 2005, Week 1

ITV just ran a feature on immigrantion. Apparently only 8% of immigrants claim benfit (exluding EU countrys) while out of 100,000 immgrants from EU countrys only 12 claim benfit. After that they said there was no proof of health tourism and 100,000 people in the NHS are from outside the country

ITV said they got these statistics from inderpendent agencys and not goverment or party sources.

Well I think 8% is still way too much...

its means 92% are not. This means that even taking account some other possiblitys that immgrants add to the system than take. I think 8% is also the number of british born people on benfit (although the immgrantion one includes ALL benfits while the british one is umemployment, i dont know the full figure)

Waiting lists drop again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4423867.stm

About the wait to actually see a doctor, I (and my family) have always seen one really quick. But i dont know, have these figures gone up? Is there any proof?.

Originally Posted by Damien

Waiting lists drop again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4423867.stm

About the wait to actually see a doctor, I (and my family) have always seen one really quick. But i dont know, have these figures gone up? Is there any proof?.

I thought I read consultant, and as we all know consultants are usually very busy serving the needs of their private patients and keep NHS patients waiting, may not necessarily true of all consultants.

As far as GPs go ours is no problem, five-ten minutes your dealt with.

[punky]

It would fall by even more, if you made it easier for people to go private, which reduces the queue for people who can't afford to go private. No point in having private hospitals with loads of empty beds, and state hospitals leaving people on trolleys in the corridors.

The best way to do that is allow people to have the value of their NHS treatment credited towards a a private operation. So, if you imagine a NHS operation would cost £4000. It might cost £6000 private. People can't afford NI contributions, and £6000, but they can afford NI contribtions, and £2000, which would allow some people to go private, reduce the waiting list, and won't cost the NHS a penny difference.

Any party who takes that stand would get my support. Last I knew only the Tories were.

[iadom]

Originally Posted by Damien

Waiting lists drop again:

And taxes rise again and again, taxes

Cause and effect. Taxes go up NHS gets better

[iadom]

Originally Posted by Damien

Cause and effect. Taxes go up NHS gets better

Or waiting lists get "doctored"

Originally Posted by iadom

Or waiting lists get "doctored"

Who says? Is there any real proof? People always say this about the goverment but a while ago they changed the crime recording to allow alledged incidents to be in the list along with actual convictions. Crime stats appeared to go up and the media and torys jump on this!

But where is the proof that these figures were doctored

[iadom]

There are lies, damn, lies and statistics,

NHS Performance.

The Chief Executive of the NHS, Sir Nigel Crisp, published a report on the performance of the NHS on Friday 7 May 2004. He gave a very upbeat commentary on the report, saying that the NHS had achieved a †œsustained turnaroundââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� which was †œacceleratingÃà ‚¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ ÂÂÂ�. His conclusion was that the NHS had used the large spending increases begun in 1999-2000 to †œgood effectââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�. He pointed to:

• †œDramatic falls in waiting times."
• †œPremature death rates from the major diseases are falling quickly.ââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�
• †œMore staff have been recruited.ââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�
• †œVery big changes in how services are delivered.ââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�
• †œImprovements in quality and productivity.â↚¬ÂÂÂÂ�

In fact this presentation is the most positive version of the results. Given that spending on the NHS has increased by 40 per cent in real terms in just five years, some improvements are to be expected. But improvements have solely come about because the taxpayer is putting in more resources, not because of the effectiveness of NHS managers in managing resources efficiently.



The concern is that the speed of the rises is resulting in inefficiencies, the scale does not represent value for money, and the NHS at these higher levels of funding is not performing at international standards. Repeated annual spending increases of £5 - £6 billion have not improved average waiting times, nor mortality rates of cancer and heart disease. Most importantly, other countries deliver superior healthcare for similar levels of resource.



Spending without reform may enable sensitive political targets to be hit but will not deliver an efficient, world class health service in the long term.
__________________

Actually, the doctors themselves say the waiting list times are being.

doctored

THe link shows some incidents from some people but cannot be indictive of the whole NHS.

Also the NHS has hardly a ball before, years of under funding had left it in a awful state

[iadom]

Some facts and figures from the government itself.

Since 1997 doctors numbers have increased by 24,466 or 29%
managers & senior managers and service staff employed in "central functions" have increased by 24,855 or 41%.
Since 2003, again according to Whitehalls own figures the number of nurses has gone up by 3% whilst the managers etc have risen by 6.5%.
An independant report has stated that 59% of the money poured into the NHS has gone on staff pay.

One Health Authority chief executive has said that she spent 80% of her time ensuring Labour's re election.

More evidence of government interference and waste.

The articles in the 'Related Links' top right, also make disturbing reading.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Damien

Cause and effect. Taxes go up NHS gets better

You're right...but I think many people are still waiting for the second half of that equation to come true.

Originally Posted by Damien

But where is the proof that these figures were doctored

There was an investigation into this recently...I think it was Panorama...that suggested that many patients were being admitted into the system just within the government's targets, but then the actual treatment is taking longer to administer now, so I think it's fair to say the figures are being massaged somewhat.

For example what was happening before was that you'd wait 12 months for referral to see a consultant, but once you had then your treatment would start right away.

Now, sometimes, what is happening is that you'll wait 6 months for an appointment with the consultant, and then once you're in the system your treatment may take another 6 months to start.

So, IMHO, the net result is worse. There's an awful lot of money and clever people working on improving the system, but you won't actually be treated any quicker in a lot of cases, which is a huge abuse of my tax money.

Kennedys wife has been taken into hospital but is not in labour. Lets hoope she and the baby are ok