Unsung NHS Heroes (potentially polical depending on how you read it)

[cstand]

9 hours ago, Crewton said:

When the NHS kicked off in 1948, all dentistry was free. Demand for false teeth in particular was so high, it would have bankrupt the country, so Atlee's government reluctantly had to limit what dentistry would be free and what would have to be paid for. Nye Bevan resigned over this, but Atlee had little choice. 

There is, therefore, a precedent for what @Archiedis suggesting, and I have some sympathy for that view. I wouldn't want to be the person deciding what is free and what isn't, but it's true that the NHS offers far more "elective" treatments than it was initially designed for. We have a simple choice : pay more through tax, or pay for some treatments that are "elective".

A little girl got lifesaving gene therapy treatment the other day. It cost £3m, but I'd say it was worth every penny. I'm happy to pay more through whatever method to ensure little girls like her are saved, because I can afford to, but I know not everyone is able or wishes to. I don't really envy politicians who have to solve that conundrum. 

Wow that’s about the best post I have ever read on this forum.

I salute you with your independent observations.

[ariotofmyown]

On 16/02/2023 at 19:27, angieram said:

Why is IVF on the NHS wrong? I needed IVF to have any chance of conceiving when in my early 30s, but lived the wrong side of a county boundary so would have had to pay to have it. It was a lot of money at the time. We couldn't afford it, hence I'm childless. 

I've lived with that for many years and come to accept it, but it was horrible.

Would I want  others to go through that? No. 

@angieram disregarding you are one of my favourite posters, that was one of the most poignant posts I've ever read on here. 

We were lucky enough to be able to afford IVF and fortunately it worked. I think it's terrible that you were not able to have that opportunity. Especially in a country with so much obscene wealth. 

I've made a similar point on the woke children thread when it disolved into crass opinions. It's these human stories that matter more than anything else. 

[angieram]

37 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

@angieram disregarding you are one of my favourite posters, that was one of the most poignant posts I've ever read on here. 

We were lucky enough to be able to afford IVF and fortunately it worked. I think it's terrible that you were not able to have that opportunity. Especially in a country with so much obscene wealth. 

I've made a similar point on the woke children thread when it disolved into crass opinions. It's these human stories that matter more than anything else. 

That's brilliant that it worked out for you, as it should.

I think it's absolutely marvellous what science can do to help us live better lives when the money is invested properly. There's actually more than enough to go around if it's spent wisely.

[ariotofmyown]

1 minute ago, angieram said:

That's brilliant that it worked out for you, as it should.

I think it's absolutely marvellous what science can do to help us live better lives when the money is invested properly. There's actually more than enough to go around if it's spent wisely.

Thankyou x

[cstand]

29 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

@angieram disregarding you are one of my favourite posters, that was one of the most poignant posts I've ever read on here. 

We were lucky enough to be able to afford IVF and fortunately it worked. I think it's terrible that you were not able to have that opportunity. Especially in a country with so much obscene wealth. 

I've made a similar point on the woke children thread when it disolved into crass opinions. It's these human stories that matter more than anything else. 

@angieramMy wife and I struggled to have children.

We ended up on fertility treatment.

We decided on the last treatment if it did not work we would not take IVF as it was too stressful.

This was our own personal decision and I would not try to convince anyone this was right for anyone else.

Totally agree with @ariotofmyown Angie is the best poster on the forum, but I might bias as my wife used to work for a charitable trust organisation but for a well known high street shopping chain.

Some of the requests from people for help was truly  heartbreaking. 

 

[angieram]

3 minutes ago, cstand said:

@angieramMy wife and I struggled to have children.

We ended up on fertility treatment.

We decided on the last treatment if it did not work we would not take IVF as it was too stressful.

This was our own personal decision and I would not try to convince anyone this was right for anyone else.

Totally agree with @ariotofmyown Angie is the best poster on the forum, but I might bias as my wife used to work for a charitable trust organisation but for a well known high street shopping chain.

Some of the requests from people for help was truly  heartbreaking. 

 

Sorry to hear that and we all cope with it as best we can. I hope life worked out well for you. 

I had a really good career and am probably enjoying a very different retirement than if we'd had a family. All this gallivanting around watching the mighty Rams, for example! 

[G STAR RAM]

20 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

I find it utterly bizarre that anybody who cares about our health service would consider voting for a party that has systematically dismantled it over a sustained period of time.

Well when the only other viable option has also been party to that dismantling then I dont think the NHS is the major issue that my vote would be based on.

[PistoldPete]

12 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

It wasn't so long ago that most decent companies offered private healthcare as part of their package to attract employees, but weirdly rampant capitalism has dulled their enthusiasm for treating their employees like anything other than a necessary evil. They can't even give us payrises so why would they give us free private healthcare 

Yes you could say the same about Company pension provision too , used to be provided by paternalistic employers now not nearly so much. The Government has pushed back on that by introducing auto enrolment, and maybe could do similar by forcing large employers to have medical cover for employees. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well when the only other viable option has also been party to that dismantling then I dont think the NHS is the major issue that my vote would be based on.

I think I’m at the point where I will look around and my vote will go to any party that opposes net zero in its current form as I truly believe it’s the biggest threat to this country there is , the money it will cost will only further massively drain the pot for vital stuff like the NHS, push the less well off further down the poverty ladder , widen the gap in life quality, choices and freedoms between the have and have nots further,

I honestly believe the green revolution that started many years back which I very much supported which was based on us consuming less, stopping the take make throw away obsession with growth has been very cleverly circumvented by making people believe that real green is throwing everything we have away ( outlawing them ) and forcing or conning us into buying buying buying more of stuff that when looked at fully is really no more green or sustainable than what we have 

I will vote rather than do what I have done in the past at times and think there’s no point in voting because not voting for one of the two is a wasted vote because I actually now believe we have to start somewhere,

I hope this post is not deleted as too political as I’m not preaching to support one side or the other , it’s just my honest opinion of where I feel we are , I’m not sure who I will vote for but will research who is closest to my views and vote accordingly 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes you could say the same about Company pension provision too , used to be provided by paternalistic employers now not nearly so much. The Government has pushed back on that by introducing auto enrolment, and maybe could do similar by forcing large employers to have medical cover for employees. 

And I think most would agree that would be a universal vote winner amongst the general public. It's  a simple common sense idea that benefits everyone

Sadly what we see though is large corporate interests lobbying  politicians to oppose anything that might put a dent in their profits. And so the politicians end up having to pretend that these things aren't possible, much as they'd like to do them. 

[bimmerman]

On 16/02/2023 at 18:05, Mucker1884 said:

Well, the way I'm reading this thread, I'd say it's jam packed with polics!  

I realised as I was typing what was going to inevitably happen

Following day, I was in MIU as one of my wounds was bleeding a lot, whilst I was waiting I was thinking what a service we get, we can turn up, get treated and leave again. How lucky are we to just have the random luck to be born here out of the other 6 billion people who would potentially not have access to healthcare/clean water/support if needed. Yes it's not perfect but we are so lucky to have what we have

[Wolfie]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

And I think most would agree that would be a universal vote winner amongst the general public. It's  a simple common sense idea that benefits everyone

Sadly what we see though is large corporate interests lobbying  politicians to oppose anything that might put a dent in their profits. And so the politicians end up having to pretend that these things aren't possible, much as they'd like to do them. 

Who pays for all this private healthcare for employees?

Companies will protect their profits by making either consumers pay or shareholders pay, which means that we all pay in the end via higher prices or lower pension returns. 

[Tamworthram]

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

And I think most would agree that would be a universal vote winner amongst the general public. It's  a simple common sense idea that benefits everyone

Sadly what we see though is large corporate interests lobbying  politicians to oppose anything that might put a dent in their profits. And so the politicians end up having to pretend that these things aren't possible, much as they'd like to do them. 

Isn't there a risk though that such an approach would further reinforce the existing two tier system of health care? Those that can afford it, or work for one said large corporates, get the private treatment whilst everyone else gets the NHS. For that reason it may not be a universal vote winner. Of course, in an ideal world, both tiers would be the same but I'm not convinced they ever would be. 

With a finite number of qualified medical staff, the theory that more people using private covers frees up NHS resources for the rest could also be flawed. If the private sector was expanded as proposed there is surely a good chance that they would attract staff currently working in the NHS.

[PistoldPete]

On 17/02/2023 at 09:57, Crewton said:

When the NHS kicked off in 1948, all dentistry was free. Demand for false teeth in particular was so high, it would have bankrupt the country, so Atlee's government reluctantly had to limit what dentistry would be free and what would have to be paid for. Nye Bevan resigned over this, but Atlee had little choice. 

There is, therefore, a precedent for what @Archiedis suggesting, and I have some sympathy for that view. I wouldn't want to be the person deciding what is free and what isn't, but it's true that the NHS offers far more "elective" treatments than it was initially designed for. We have a simple choice : pay more through tax, or pay for some treatments that are "elective".

A little girl got lifesaving gene therapy treatment the other day. It cost £3m, but I'd say it was worth every penny. I'm happy to pay more through whatever method to ensure little girls like her are saved, because I can afford to, but I know not everyone is able or wishes to. I don't really envy politicians who have to solve that conundrum. 

Interesting insight, except I don’t think it’s even as simple as you suggest. For a start I don’t accept that raising marginal rates of tax above the current rates will in the long run actually raise any extra tax. 
 

Also you suggest it’s a simple choice between raising  taxes or rationing NHS services based on type of service. It really isn’t that simple at all.. there are many ways of rationing NHS services .. means testing another option. Currently NHS services are already rationed anyway, based on factors like age if patient and effectiveness of treatment.

The UK model is pretty much unique across the world so to say there are only two choices just isn’t true. There are multiple different methods being used in different countries to deliver healthcare.. some plainly better than others. Ours is not the best nor is it the worst . 
 

and you seem to alight on IVF as an elective measure ripe for rationing.  But that is pretty important for the mental health of the parents. As is abortion, mental health of the mother being a predominant reason for most abortions. Is that an elective measure that should be rationed too? It is frankly a moral minefield .. can we keep free healthcare for all please it’s so much easier from a moral perspective. 
 

please excuse the rant. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

11 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Isn't there a risk though that such an approach would further reinforce the existing two tier system of health care? Those that can afford it, or work for one said large corporates, get the private treatment whilst everyone else gets the NHS. For that reason it may not be a universal vote winner. Of course, in an ideal world, both tiers would be the same but I'm not convinced they ever would be. 

With a finite number of qualified medical staff, the theory that more people using private covers frees up NHS resources for the rest could also be flawed. If the private sector was expanded as proposed there is surely a good chance that they would attract staff currently working in the NHS.

Most of them do work for the NHS.  Private work is actually conducted at the Royal.  They just pay a fee to use the facilities .  Literally upstairs from NHS to private.

[ketteringram]

@PistoldPete

By all means, let's keep free health care for all. I mean it's great right? Free! 

Any ideas as to how you'd fund it?

[Stive Pesley]

45 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Most of them do work for the NHS.  Private work is actually conducted at the Royal.  They just pay a fee to use the facilities .  Literally upstairs from NHS to private.

As I just discovered. Given all my health issues in the last year and my total disillusionment with my treatment under the NHS, I had a look at how much it would cost to get a private consultation

Surprise surprise - most of the gastro consultants at the Royal are also working part time on a private basis

So is it any wonder that they are short staffed on the NHS side and therefore unable to spent the time and care required to communicate with me properly?

The next obvious question is - why is it so much more attractive to do private work on the side, rather than full time on the NHS? ?

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, ketteringram said:

@PistoldPete

By all means, let's keep free health care for all. I mean it's great right? Free! 

Any ideas as to how you'd fund it?

See my post above. 

[Crewton]

4 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Interesting insight, except I don’t think it’s even as simple as you suggest. For a start I don’t accept that raising marginal rates of tax above the current rates will in the long run actually raise any extra tax. 
 

Also you suggest it’s a simple choice between raising  taxes or rationing NHS services based on type of service. It really isn’t that simple at all.. there are many ways of rationing NHS services .. means testing another option. Currently NHS services are already rationed anyway, based on factors like age if patient and effectiveness of treatment.

The UK model is pretty much unique across the world so to say there are only two choices just isn’t true. There are multiple different methods being used in different countries to deliver healthcare.. some plainly better than others. Ours is not the best nor is it the worst . 
 

and you seem to alight on IVF as an elective measure ripe for rationing.  But that is pretty important for the mental health of the parents. As is abortion, mental health of the mother being a predominant reason for most abortions. Is that an elective measure that should be rationed too? It is frankly a moral minefield .. can we keep free healthcare for all please it’s so much easier from a moral perspective. 
 

please excuse the rant. 

I don't think I made any specific mention of IVF tbh, but in the whole question of what the NHS should provide FOC it's obviously something that people feel strongly about either way and the way it's been rationed out in the past as mentioned by Angie has clearly been unfair and iniquitable. 

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I don't think I made any specific mention of IVF tbh, but in the whole question of what the NHS should provide FOC it's obviously something that people feel strongly about either way and the way it's been rationed out in the past as mentioned by Angie has clearly been unfair and iniquitable. 

Ok sorry it was possibly someone else who mentioned it. . More generally I think (as you said) that picking and choosing which procedures should be charged for is a minefield and I would prefer to keep to a principle that healthcare should be free at point of use (not free obviously).