Crisis in the NHS

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Also what are the stats for those like my parents who payed in and NEVER lived to receive the State Pension? Where did their contributions go?

As Governments tend to spend more money than they receive through taxation, contributors like your parents would have funded day-to-day spending.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

As Governments tend to spend more money than they receive through taxation, contributors like your parents would have funded day-to-day spending.

While that is the case people who lived to be 100 got far more out of it for their contributions. Which is part of the reason it's becoming unsustainable in the long run, but as I said it's political suicide without wholesale reforms to redistribute wealth across the generations on a massive scale.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

While that is the case people who lived to be 100 got far more out of it for their contributions. Which is part of the reason it's becoming unsustainable in the long run, but as I said it's political suicide without wholesale reforms to redistribute wealth across the generations on a massive scale.

So would you take away the state pensions those people have paid into or make it mandatory that they must die at a certain age?

Since they started paying in the NHS and medical research have concentrated on extehding life. That comes at a cost. One of the costs is work for more years like it or not.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So would you take away the state pensions those people have paid into or make it mandatory that they must die at a certain age?

Since they started paying in the NHS and medical research have concentrated on extehding life. That comes at a cost. One of the costs is work for more years like it or not.

Those aren't the sole options for resolving it.

I said 'wholesale reforms to redistribute wealth'- one or two measures wouldn't adequately resolve the problem.

We have one generation who sold off all the state assets for a low tax economy, who have accumulated wealth as a result and we have the other end of the spectrum paying for their own further education (unlikely to ever pay this debt off, so in effect an additional tax throughout their lifetime), struggling to get on the housing ladder, and who is having to pay taxes covering the interest for huge deficits and debts built up by previous generations.

It's not going to be sustainable to tell the second group that they are going to get punished again to cover the excesses of those who went before them.

A first step would be to break the triple lock on State Pension increases and link it to the CPI only - the triple lock is essentially a bribe to that part of the electorate anyway.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I said 'wholesale reforms to redistribute wealth'- one or two measures wouldn't adequately resolve the problem.

We have one generation who sold off all the state assets for a low tax economy, who have accumulated wealth as a result

Hold on, i’m 48, my wife is 43, both from working class backgrounds. Meaning that they worked. “ working class” seems to have a different meaning nowadays. i pull in a salary of £55K+. Her £130K+. We didn’t receive 1penny from our parents because they didn’t haven’t it. We didn’t get our first home until I was 30. We now, through hard work and good decisions live in a very nice house in the country. With a whopping mortgage that we can service.

So because i’m Doing the right thing you want to distribute my work? That’s what you’re saying...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hold on, i’m 48, my wife is 43, both from working class backgrounds. Meaning that they worked. “ working class” seems to have a different meaning nowadays. i pull in a salary of £55K+. Her £130K+. We didn’t receive 1penny from our parents because they didn’t haven’t it. We didn’t get our first home until I was 30. We now, through hard work and good decisions live in a very nice house in the country. With a whopping mortgage that we can service.

So because i’m Doing the right thing you want to distribute my work? That’s what you’re saying...

That's not actually what I said at all. I think you know that as you decided to remove the rest of my post from your quote for the sake of starting an argument.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Those aren't the sole options for resolving it.

I said 'wholesale reforms to redistribute wealth'- one or two measures wouldn't adequately resolve the problem.

We have one generation who sold off all the state assets for a low tax economy, who have accumulated wealth as a result and we have the other end of the spectrum paying for their own further education (unlikely to ever pay this debt off, so in effect an additional tax throughout their lifetime), struggling to get on the housing ladder, and who is having to pay taxes covering the interest for huge deficits and debts built up by previous generations.

It's not going to be sustainable to tell the second group that they are going to get punished again to cover the excesses of those who went before them.

A first step would be to break the triple lock on State Pension increases and link it to the CPI only - the triple lock is essentially a bribe to that part of the electorate anyway.

I'll be selective too in responding to your contribution.

Regarding the triple lock, it's the first time that a government has recognised the reduced ability of pensioners to stay abreast of inflation. True that many continue working into their seventies and beyond, but they pay tax on that which is obviously fair, and they'll pay tax on their pension increases if they are taking the pension.

On "redistribution of wealth", this usually needs a sledgehammer (of the Corbyn proposition) to bring into effect. That will result in a flight of capital and have the opposite effect of redistributing wealth. It would drain wealth and start a process of levelling everyone into penury.

We are a cog in the World's movement and farting around with the economic model/engine can be counterproductive.




---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 ----------

Oh - as regards the NHS:

It was fine until about 13 years ago when Gordon Brown got his hands on it. It was fine in the "Emergency Ward 10" days (Pre-Thatcher), when Matron ran the nurses and a Consultant ran the doctors. Now that it's full of managers, accountants and other "Yes Minister" apparatchiks, it is in a spiral of decline.

The NHS needs taking back to its original operating model. The guvmin needs to make a hypothecated contribution model (NI) that is graduated according to your highest tax rate.

[jfman]

Flight of capital only applies if that’s easy to do. In a post Brexit world if people want to make profits in this country then it will be easier to tax.

The triple lock is a bribe. Nothing less and nothing more.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by denphone

These are the latest figures in given by the DWP of fraud and error in the benefit system.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...-2017-2018.pdf

---------- Post added at 10:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------



There will be a level of abuse within any system of that there is no doubt but the reality of how much is often replaced by the lazy uninformed uneducated media trash that some form their opinions from..

---------- Post added at 10:28 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------



Absolutely as some patients long term medical conditions are never going to improve and only worsen as time goes on and they certainly should have to go through the constant bureaucratic hurdles which they are currently having to face as we have seen with the PIP fiasco.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------



It will cost more more money then it saves.

Exactly.

One thing these figures also miss is the £10 billion or so that is not claimed in the first place.

Whatever system there is creating hoops for the claimants to jump through, the fraudulent claimers will not be the ones affected. After all, they have put a lot of time and effort into making sure their income continues.

The people affected are those who are told they are fit to work, whilst being hooked up to machines to keep them going through their latest cancer treatment. Those who are vulnerable and bewildered by the whole system who end up abused by sharks and the likes of Atos.

The obsession with nit picking over a tiny percentage of benefit claimants, is a distraction from the real problem of a tax system so convoluted that the wealthy can pay a smaller percentage of their income in tax than the poorest.

Meanwhile the other beneficiaries are private companies being paid for gash assessments, which long term cause so much misery.

Tax evasion is a far bigger loss to government finances than fraudulent benefit claims.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'll be selective too in responding to your contribution.

Regarding the triple lock, it's the first time that a government has recognised the reduced ability of pensioners to stay abreast of inflation. True that many continue working into their seventies and beyond, but they pay tax on that which is obviously fair, and they'll pay tax on their pension increases if they are taking the pension.

On "redistribution of wealth", this usually needs a sledgehammer (of the Corbyn proposition) to bring into effect. That will result in a flight of capital and have the opposite effect of redistributing wealth. It would drain wealth and start a process of levelling everyone into penury.

We are a cog in the World's movement and farting around with the economic model/engine can be counterproductive.




---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 ----------

Oh - as regards the NHS:

It was fine until about 13 years ago when Gordon Brown got his hands on it. It was fine in the "Emergency Ward 10" days (Pre-Thatcher), when Matron ran the nurses and a Consultant ran the doctors. Now that it's full of managers, accountants and other "Yes Minister" apparatchiks, it is in a spiral of decline.

The NHS needs taking back to its original operating model. The guvmin needs to make a hypothecated contribution model (NI) that is graduated according to your highest tax rate.

You ignore the fact that the NHS has had to change to due advances in medical research and new treatments which help people survive conditions which would have been terminal before, and that people are living longer, which takes more resources.

In the 1970’s (pre-Thatcher), premature births before 27 weeks had a 80% mortality rate, now it’s 89% survival rate (unfortunately, often with ongoing medical needs).

Cancer survival rates has greatly increased, but with the associated costs.

Survival from serious accidents has greatly increased (the "golden hour"), but again, at increased costs and often ongoing medical care.

Comparing the NHS in the 70s and now is like comparing a motor car factory in the 70s and now - different needs, progress has happened, more complex and and highly technical support is often required, and things are done differently because it’s a different world.

In 1970, the U.K. child mortality rate was 21.8 per 100,00 births, now it’s 3.7. Cancer survival rates (10 year) have doubled since 1970, and in the 70s, most premature births of under 25 weeks were left to die, nowadays most survive.

Trying to retrofit what one worked under different circumstances very rarely works.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'll be selective too in responding to your contribution.

Regarding the triple lock, it's the first time that a government has recognised the reduced ability of pensioners to stay abreast of inflation. True that many continue working into their seventies and beyond, but they pay tax on that which is obviously fair, and they'll pay tax on their pension increases if they are taking the pension.

On "redistribution of wealth", this usually needs a sledgehammer (of the Corbyn proposition) to bring into effect. That will result in a flight of capital and have the opposite effect of redistributing wealth. It would drain wealth and start a process of levelling everyone into penury.

We are a cog in the World's movement and farting around with the economic model/engine can be counterproductive.




---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 ----------

Oh - as regards the NHS:

It was fine until about 13 years ago when Gordon Brown got his hands on it. It was fine in the "Emergency Ward 10" days (Pre-Thatcher), when Matron ran the nurses and a Consultant ran the doctors. Now that it's full of managers, accountants and other "Yes Minister" apparatchiks, it is in a spiral of decline.

The NHS needs taking back to its original operating model. The guvmin needs to make a hypothecated contribution model (NI) that is graduated according to your highest tax rate.

Originally Posted by Hugh

You ignore the fact that the NHS has had to change to due advances in medical research and new treatments which help people survive conditions which would have been terminal before, and that people are living longer, which takes more resources.

In the 1970’s (pre-Thatcher), premature births before 27 weeks had a 80% mortality rate, now it’s 89% survival rate (unfortunately, often with ongoing medical needs).

Cancer survival rates has greatly increased, but with the associated costs.

Survival from serious accidents has greatly increased (the "golden hour"), but again, at increased costs and often ongoing medical care.

Comparing the NHS in the 70s and now is like comparing a motor car factory in the 70s and now - different needs, progress has happened, more complex and and highly technical support is often required, and things are done differently because it’s a different world.

In 1970, the U.K. child mortality rate was 21.8 per 100,00 births, now it’s 3.7. Cancer survival rates (10 year) have doubled since 1970, and in the 70s, most premature births of under 25 weeks were left to die, nowadays most survive.

Trying to retrofit what one worked under different circumstances very rarely works.

The facts you describe are not in dispute.

It's the way the NHS is run, particularly at hospital level, front line, that I am criticising. Sure technical specialists are required in addition to clinical staff but in my dealings with the NHS, I sense too high an administrative burden which reduces the money available for midwives, district nurses and all the services we enjoyed in that way 20 years ag,.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The facts you describe are not in dispute.

It's the way the NHS is run, particularly at hospital level, front line, that I am criticising. Sure technical specialists are required in addition to clinical staff but in my dealings with the NHS, I sense too high an administrative burden which reduces the money available for midwives, district nurses and all the services we enjoyed in that way 20 years ag,.

The difference with Midwives and District Nurses is down to how GPs are funded separately from the rest of the NHS. GP services are increasingly run by private companies, who are squeezing out the traditional family doctor service. More and more areas are having to fight to keep local surgeries due to funding issues coupled with problems getting GPs. One local area has no GP service at all due to the Private company pulling out, with no one else willing to take it on. In a town that has tripled in size this causes a huge strain on the remaining Health Centres.

[1andrew1]

How can we fill these nursing vacancies?

There are 41,000 nursing vacancies in England. More than 5 per cent of NHS nurses come from the EEA, but last year there was an 87 per cent fall in the number coming to the UK, according to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. A recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimated that, by 2021, England could face a shortage of 51,000 nurses.

https://www.ft.com/content/8f2d6e22-...5-04b8afea6ea3

[Angua]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How can we fill these nursing vacancies?

https://www.ft.com/content/8f2d6e22-...5-04b8afea6ea3

Not helped by the cut to nursing bursaries, meaning even fewer are joining the profession.

Originally Posted by Angua

Not helped by the cut to nursing bursaries, meaning even fewer are joining the profession.

https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-even...een-a-disaster

Two years on from the removal of the NHS student bursary, applications to nursing degree courses have plummeted by a third in England.

Numbers applying to begin training in September 2018 have dropped 12% compared to the same time last year, resulting in a total decline of 16,580 since March 2016, the last year students received financial support through the bursary.

The fall in mature student numbers has been even more extreme, with a 16% drop by the June application deadline compared to the same point last year, and a total decline of 40% since June 2016.

Janet Davies, RCN Chief Executive, said: “Failing to recruit more nurses puts patients at risk, and with 40,000 nurse vacancies in England alone, we cannot sit back and watch applications fall year on year. It is clear now that removing the bursary has been a disaster. It is time ministers looked again at this policy, before patients suffer the consequences.

“On top of the serious decline in overall nursing applications, the 40% drop in mature students applying to study nursing is a particular concern. These students represent a vital part of the nursing workforce, particularly in mental health and learning disabilities. It is these areas that benefit most from the life experience mature students bring, and where the shortage of nurses is most keenly felt.”

The independent NHS Pay Review Body (PRB) warned this workforce gap could persist until 2027 unless immediate action is taken, jeopardising patient care for much of the next decade. In its official report to the Government last month, the PRB told ministers the removal of the nursing bursary had resulted in a marked drop in applications.

Lack of "joined-up" thinking...