NHS not been invested in for years

[winkie]

Many people have wanted to train to be nurses and doctors but the government have not been interested....people in their 40s and 50s a career change....very good and able people....the training is not available, the money not invested in people....huge loss of able talent. The government not interest in training or upskilling their own people.?

[Si1]

32 minutes ago, winkie said:

Many people have wanted to train to be nurses and doctors but the government have not been interested....people in their 40s and 50s a career change....very good and able people....the training is not available, the money not invested in people....huge loss of able talent. The government not interest in training or upskilling their own people.?

I'd have thought the return on investment on doctors is dependent on getting some decades of work out of them. Plus 5 years is just for the medical degree, them there's more years of on the job training etc.

And in their 40s and 50s would they be able to go weeks without proper sleep at they develop their careers?

[Riedquat]

Of course they're not interested in training people. Why bother spending money doing that when you can let other countries pay to do all that inconvenient, expensive training and then pinch them? If you're going to spend any money on the NHS far better to build a shiny big building you can point to and say "I did that!" (extra marks if it wins architecture prizes for being hideous even by modern standards). No point in wasting money on the boring, invisible parts, such as staff and equipment to go in it.

[winkie]

8 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I'd have thought the return on investment on doctors is dependent on getting some decades of work out of them. Plus 5 years is just for the medical degree, them there's more years of on the job training etc.

And in their 40s and 50s would they be able to go weeks without proper sleep at they develop their careers?

I mentioned people who mid life change their career or line of work, it is also 20 and 30 year olds....my point is there is not the training or the investment, forward planning....the government is not interested in staffing our hospitals with our people....they would rather do it on the cheap using foreign labour, that are no better or worse than our own.....bring back the bursery and start recruiting, training and investing in the future, our kids want a future too.

All I can see is we are in the process of privatising our health service....building hospitals with public debt and selling it off....two tier health service, those who can pay for better will....the rest will be offered the basic no frills service, be grateful for what you are given.?

[winkie]

Even old age care the NHS do not offer any training for that.....they keep saying we will need extra nursing staff and carers....but they are not prepared to train or pay them.?

[Loving The Crash]

Conclusion:  The government should not be running a healthcare business on the side.

[longgone]

train for 5 years then they give you 26k LOL 

i can really see the incentive. 

[winkie]

5 minutes ago, Loving The Crash said:

Conclusion:  The government should not be running a healthcare business on the side.

Health care should not be run for profit...the customers will not profit from that...look at how the trains are run, not for the passengers but the investors and shareholders.?

[Loving The Crash]

29 minutes ago, winkie said:

Health care should not be run for profit...the customers will not profit from that...look at how the trains are run, not for the passengers but the investors and shareholders.?

Whoah - hold on there Comrade - all the more reason then to make sure that the shareholders are members of the public whether that be via their pension funds or investing directly.

The NHS is a s**thouse operation run by incompetents and it's time we all faced up to this truth and got rid.

[winkie]

1 minute ago, Loving The Crash said:

Whoah - hold on there Comrade - all the more reason then to make sure that the shareholders are members of the public whether that be via their pension funds or investing directly.

The NHS is a s**thouse operation run by incompetents and it's time we all faced up to this truth and got rid.

But ain't that the plan...run it down slowly over time...every year advertise how bad A&E will be each winter....two week wait for a doctor's appointment, 10 mins rushed with the doctor... some staff poorly paid and undervalued ...many old time experience leaving or retiring, more expensive agency staff so not to be on the books.etc...the then plan is that they hope people will welcome privatisation with open arms.....just like they did with British Rail...remember Railtrack.....you get a service that is no better, but twice the price.....and the rolling stock still old diesel not even electrified.....where is the money going? To overseas investors?.....because you only have to look to Europe no comparison, what is it they are doing right that we are not?...?

 

[scottbeard]

14 minutes ago, Loving The Crash said:

The NHS is a s**thouse operation run by incompetents and it's time we all faced up to this truth and got rid.

Or maybe replace the incompetents with competents instead...?

[scottbeard]

Just now, winkie said:

But ain't that the plan...run it down slowly over time...every year advertise how bad A&E will be each winter....two week wait for a doctor's appointment, 10 mins rushed with the doctor... some staff poorly paid and undervalued ...many old time experience leaving or retiring, more expensive agency staff so not to be on the books.etc...the then plan is that they hope people will welcome privatisation with open arms.....just like they did with British Rail...remember Railtrack.....you get a service that is no better, but twice the price.....and the rolling stock still old diesel not even electrified.....where is the money going? To overseas investors?.....because you only have to look to Europe no comparison, what is it they are doing right that we are not?...?

I think the privatised rail service generally is better than the old British Rail, but I do think it depends which line you're on as some have been shockers at times.

What they're doing is Europe is pumping massive taxpayer money into subsidising public transport projects.  I'm not sure I'd advocate the same in the UK.

[winkie]

2 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I think the privatised rail service generally is better than the old British Rail, but I do think it depends which line you're on as some have been shockers at times.

What they're doing is Europe is pumping massive taxpayer money into subsidising public transport projects.  I'm not sure I'd advocate the same in the UK.

Exactly at least their service is consistent....here we have a postcode lottery, in both health and transport.....why use the word massive...we waste money....I would rather see where good money is spent and benefit from it than throw it into a bottomless pit, and see no improvements from it.?

[Loving The Crash]

41 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I think the privatised rail service generally is better than the old British Rail, but I do think it depends which line you're on as some have been shockers at times.

What they're doing is Europe is pumping massive taxpayer money into subsidising public transport projects.  I'm not sure I'd advocate the same in the UK.

+1 The railways are far better now than they've ever been - and I'm on Southern Rail - All the service problems we had a few years back were down to good old fashioned union action.  Remember that Winkie Corbyn?

What also gets to me about the NHS is the millions we spend every year subsidising f***wits to s*** out endless kids by providing free maternity services (not to mention SMP).  After that it's free education, tax credits, and housing benefit.  The more kids you have, the more you can take...housing crisis anyone?

[Shrink Proof]

51 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

What they're doing is Europe is pumping massive taxpayer money into subsidising public transport projects.  I'm not sure I'd advocate the same in the UK.

Too late. Taxpayer subsidy of the privatised railway is about 300% of what it was for British Rail. Whether we are getting value for money is an interesting question...

[winkie]

Speak for yourself, can't speak for the railways because rarely used them then, but the underground and buses were cheap relatively and always got a seat, never felt like a sardine in tin....the trains outside London are too expensive it is cheaper to drive or even fly.... don't go near them, their ticket system is so complicated, and not reliable....what has politics got to do with it....when we privatised our electricity, we were told we could buy a few shares and have a stake, we were then forced to sell to foreign investors, had no choice....so much for that promise.

Why you hoping to buy shares in the NHS??

Edited November 8, 2019 by winkie

[winkie]

33 minutes ago, Loving The Crash said:

+1 The railways are far better now than they've ever been - and I'm on Southern Rail - All the service problems we had a few years back were down to good old fashioned union action.  Remember that Winkie Corbyn?

What also gets to me about the NHS is the millions we spend every year subsidising f***wits to s*** out endless kids by providing free maternity services (not to mention SMP).  After that it's free education, tax credits, and housing benefit.  The more kids you have, the more you can take...housing crisis anyone?

See above post...

Re tax credits, housing benefits, childcare costs....low wages and high rents and house prices mean normal working people no longer can afford the basics....before putting towards student loan debt, a pension, cost of travel to work and possibly be added health insurance costs....why bother to work when your own country does not want to invest in training for a job that will make a difference.? 

[Switch625]

3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Of course they're not interested in training people. Why bother spending money doing that when you can let other countries pay to do all that inconvenient, expensive training and then pinch them? If you're going to spend any money on the NHS far better to build a shiny big building you can point to and say "I did that!" (extra marks if it wins architecture prizes for being hideous even by modern standards). No point in wasting money on the boring, invisible parts, such as staff and equipment to go in it.

Thanks to PFI they don't spend ANY money on those big shiny buildings, at least not upfront. No that would be far too sensible. What they do is outsource the construction and then rent the buildings back over many decades for eye-watering sums of money, whilst spending exorbitant costs on servicing. Effectively putting the taxpayer on the hook for even more money with longterm contracts that can't be escaped from. As ever, if you want to understand why such a system would be contemplated, when it is clearly not fit for purpose, ask the simple question 'Who stands to gain from this?' and then just follow the money .....

[nothernsoul]

If the NHS was so crap and unpopular Boris Johnson would have its privatisation in the manifesto and campaign openly for it. Let the people decide. Of course politicians dont do that, they privatise by stealth. And if privatisation was so great wouldnt the NHS have become far more efficient over the last few decades as more and more market forces have been introduced? 

[Flopsy]

I've been trying to find the figures from how much it cost to change from PCTs to CCGs. No luck so far. No idea as well if they are cheaper to run in the end.

Bit of a bugbear of mine as I joined one of the patient groups during the transition. The PCT staff were receiving payouts and then going to the CCG's or similar health authorities. 

In my current area services are being cut and I can't see any sign of improvement to any of the things I need. As an example my local medical centre had it's own physio team. They have all gone and it's done through referral to a private company.  Can take weeks just to get the telephone appointment which is the first step to seeing an actual physio. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Flopsy

[doomed]

The NHS has already failed. The commies say there should be no profit in healthcare when in reality you can't provide a decent service without it.

The exact reason the NHS is the monstrosity most have to rely on is because there is no profit motivation or accountability. 

[Arpeggio]

29 minutes ago, doomed said:

The NHS has already failed. The commies say there should be no profit in healthcare when in reality you can't provide a decent service without it.

The exact reason the NHS is the monstrosity most have to rely on is because there is no profit motivation or accountability. 

German system is private, insurance based and non-profit and doctors et al. are well paid.

For some reason, people think the word “private” means insurance companies are going to want to provide enough money for there to be a profit on top of costs of claims.

You’re wrong about NHS > profits though, they are massive, it’s just it’s not the NHS making these profits.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Arpeggio

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

If the NHS was so crap and unpopular Boris Johnson would have its privatisation in the manifesto and campaign openly for it. Let the people decide. Of course politicians dont do that, they privatise by stealth. And if privatisation was so great wouldnt the NHS have become far more efficient over the last few decades as more and more market forces have been introduced? 

Just like the financial system.

More efficient and productive with every passing year thanks to the profit motive and Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.

 

[Arpeggio]

3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Just like the financial system.

More efficient and productive with every passing year thanks to the profit motive and Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.

 

 

Yet the NHS paid £1500 for £2 pot of cream....

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/boots-charge-nhs-1500-single-pots-moisturiser-sell-2/02/02/

One small example of what is endemic with the NHS.

[Bluestone59]

5 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Or maybe replace the incompetents with competents instead...?

That's not the British way though is it?

I've been at work 50 years and I had a quick think about this; I couldn't recall it ever happening.

A handful of firms I encountered didn't need to do this as they didn't allow the problem to develop the first place.