Destruction of the NHS is well under way.

This may not be the best place to post this topic but I just feel the need to mention. Seeing all these news reports of hospitals failing and people needlessly dying while in care of the NHS, is the con/dem government's tactic to destroy the NHS's reputation. In the hope that eventually everyone will have such a bad impression of it that the public will want to switch to private healthcare. People please! DO NOT be fooled by this, our NHS is a good service which we need to keep. Can anyone truly say that we want our NHS replaced with a private healthcare system where people who cannot afford treatment's are left to die? Even a conservative voter wouldn't want to put money before peoples lives.

Discuss.

 

I've no idea why they're trying to destroy the nhs. Other countries (America for one) often look at it with envy. The government need to strengthen it, not waste time, energy and money destroying it slowly

 

I don't think anyone is trying to destroy the NHS. The NHS is on its knees and has been at least since the last lot were in power. Its on its knees because of the trend of privatisation. It is all about cost now, and much of that cost goes to private companies or quangos to oversee everything, and not enough goes to the front line.

I don't think the latest media coverage is an attempt to destroy the NHS. Its highlighting very real and dangerous issues that I have seen first hand.

When my step dad was in hospital slowly dying after having a stroke (he was not written off as terminal at this point), he simply didn't get looked after. As he was a smoker, the doctor had ordered that he have nicotine patches, as his injured brain simply couldn't cope with the extra stresses of the physical effects of withdrawal. Yet on numerous occasions he was left without a patch, suffering cold turkey, with all the physiological impact that has, while his brain is trying to recovering from a haemorrhage. He had a several more strokes after the initial one. The outcome may have been the same had he been given the treatment that the doctor ordered (which was not just the nicotine patches, that's just one example), but equally the outcome might have been different. We don't blame the front line staff. There simply weren't enough of them and every time we went to the hospital, no matter what time, 9 times out of 10 we'd see the same staff. They were far too few and working far too many hours. There's no way they could possibly get it right under that kind of pressure.

A mate of mine nearly died in his early 20s. After repeatedly complaining of abdominal pain, and repeatedly being sent away, he eventually collapsed unconscious and was found in a heap at the bottom of the stairs by a mate. His appendix has ruptured.

I was once prescribed medication that would have been very harmful to me. The GP was absolutely without blame. The records had been mixed up. I only spotted the mistake when I noticed they'd got my address wrong, and it turned out there was someone else with the same surname as me suffering a very serious ailment. When I brought this up with the GP, he seemed very despondent and just said "this is the NHS".

My father in law died due to a cancer in his throat. He'd been to the GP many times over many months complaining of a sore throat that wouldn't go away. Perhaps if the NHS maintained better records, and if the GPs were given more than about 3 minutes to assess somebody, it might not have taken the dentist to notice the growth in his mouth that ultimately led to the diagnosis, far too late for anything to be done.

I could go on. The NHS is in a dire state. I'm glad we have it, its better than nothing, and I think the staff on the front line are good people. Its just so badly managed and so disorganised its a miracle it still works at all. If there is any government scaremongering on, and I don't think there is but if there is, maybe it is a last ditch attempt to save it by scaring people off using it for anything non-essential, so as to try to reduce the workload perhaps.

 

My experience of the NHS (myself & elderly in-laws) is that's it's an absolute shambles and continues to get worse. Virtually all the patient/visitor car parking at the local hospital has now been turned into staff parking, but despite all these extra staff the service has completely deteriorated. The wards now have great long reception desks with loads of busy staff behind them, all of whom are far too busy to deal with anyone.

 

Personally I think the NHS does a lot more than we realise, much more than the original idea.

Therefore it needs more funding.
The money is there but governments prefer to send it to other countries

But at the same time I do think there is an awful lot of waste which could be tightened up on.


The whole set up needs looking at, but if every time some one tries to sort it out we get scaremongering, regarding destroying the NHS.

As to the offending hospitals which are killing people.
Lets see how many managers and top people get the sack, and I mean the SACK, not asked to resign, but totally booted out in disgrace with no golden hand shake.
We wont, it doesn't happen that way in this country.

 

Ok, three questions from you, which you ask: Discuss.

#1 ~ could you afford to spend up to £300.000 for life saving treatment if you became seriously ill?
#2 ~ is the con/dem government's tactic to destroy the NHS's reputation
#3 ~ Can anyone truly say that we want our NHS replaced with a private healthcare system where people who cannot afford treatment's are left to die?

Here goes:

#1: Maybe? Depends on the conditions applied to the 'repayments'/terms/conditions; how 'seriously' ill (moribund? That's pretty "serious"!) And my bet would be that the format for this would be on a par to an insurance based business?

#2: Do you have evidence that this is their strategy? Or, is this based purely on your interpretation of events/tactics/motivation?

#3: Two issues rolled into one there: Do we want the NHS replaced with a private healthcare system? Well, it already exists and has done for a good number of years (I'm daring to suggest: before you were born?) BUPA anyone? So, the question might be: Do we want the NHS replaced by a solely private system?
The second point is quite an emotive one, especially in view of the latest research into the Liverpool Care Plan Which is happening to a generation who have paid quite sufficiently into the NHS system (had a different "choice" been made available at the start of work, would they have chosen NHS over private insurance ... who knows? I don't and won't presume either).

It's a really weighty subject in its own right. But, I do have to say, that the 'care' does appear to vary according to region and according to the "Trust" who are performing a particular hospital's strategic objectives, performance ratios, operations management (as in business management, not as in "hospital operations" per se) and human resources.

So, the real questions depends on a few factors: just "who" is 'running' the NHS? And, who is 'running' a particular "Trust"? Are they all singing from the same song sheet? Are they employing the "right" people, with the right knowledge/skill base/ethics (in line with the core values of the organisation?) or, are they falling foul of Senior Managers, who may well be highly qualified to "manage", but who are putting staff in place who are highly qualified medically, but sadly lacking in managerial skills? One does not equal the other: unfortunately. And I believe that is where the core issues lie. And that isn't political either, just common sense.

 

I work for the NHS (only admin in IT) and there does seem to be an awful lot of managers and not much happening and no one dares make a decision. Also, I hope you realise the purpose of a 'Trust' is to generate money and to be profitable. Is the ultimate slave driver, money, the best way to decide on what's best for patient care? Our government obviously thinks so.

The NHS is a great thing but there isn't enough spent on patient care.