Jump to content

The NHS safe with New Labour


Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/2022572/NHS-hospitals-lose-32,000-beds-in-a-decade.html

 

The NHS has LOST 32,000 beds in the last 10 years despite a pledge by "straight kinda guy" Bliar at the turn of the century that there would be 7000 MORE beds by 2010.

 

Can we believe anything this government tells us? :roll::roll::roll:

 

Time to get shot of them and at the same time save a fortune by leaving the EU to their own corrupt devices. :x:x:x:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to believe what any government tells us, so the problem I have is getting shut of one bunch of sleazy liars and replacing it with another. :?:?:?:?

 

Interesting story I read about Maggie when in power - was asked to pick the man of the match at an FA cup final involving Ipswich in the 70's.

 

Apparantly one of her favourite players at the time was a Trevor Whymark of Ipswich. So who do you think she chose as man of the match. :? You've guessed it ................. the only problem being that he wasn't even playing :?:?:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting Busby, but why are you changing the subject? I know Maggie is an easy target but 16 years is a long time. :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to emphasise the point that nothing changes with a change of government :o

 

However you choose to emphasise the reduction in beds but not the fact that between September 1997 and 2006 the total number of NHS staff increased by over 280,000 (27 per cent.); the number of doctors and hospital dentists employed in the NHS in England increased by 35,993 (40 per cent.) to 125,612; the number of nurses employed in the NHS in England increased by 79,479 (25 per cent.) to 398,335; and the total number of qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the NHS in England increased by 38,200 (40 per cent.) to 134,498.

 

So was the beds reduction an easy target???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much point in having all that staff if the patients can't get in the hospitals. :roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHS is NOT safe under any of them. :shock: The rot set in under Thatcher, with the concept of "internal competition" and "choice" being floated, and initiated the break-up of a National Service with Local accountability, into a patchwork of disjointed "Trusts" (Quangos), run by faceless, unaccountable boards. The first thing Rosie Knight did at Warrington General, was to cut staff and impose generic working, introduce out-soucing to unaccountable contractors and introduce superficial improvements like curtains (which we now know hosted super-bugs!). We lost the strict dicipline and authority provided by "the Matron", with it's easily understood and effective line of management, and defused power within Hospitals to Departments, each competing against each other for a share of reducing funds. :roll: Then along came Bliar ("things can only get better"), who, instead of reversing this process and returning to a Service, available from cradle to grave, FREE at the point of consumption, decided to continue with this anarchy. Oh yes, they've thrown money at it, ?billions, without any accountable tracking systems, to ensure the money reaches patient care, improves staff efficiency and moral, and isn't spent on expensive art works in the Hospital foyers. Instead of prioritising medical care, managed by experienced clinicians at the coal face and scrutinised by locally elected Councillors on local Health Authorities; they continued with the Quangos. They tried to (like many other State Services) micro-manage it, which gave rise (without any long term ideology or planning) to an acute shortage of doctors and nurses, who had to be hastily recruited from abroad. Then realising the acute staff shortage, they (to their credit) trained (in short time) an army of replacement doctors and nurses; only to discover that there were not enough jobs available for them, thus providing overseas countries with the surplus of this trained (at the tax-payers expense), expertise. With a large proportion of GPs due to retire, and an increasing need for preventative and devolved systems, they then wasted ?millions on an obscene pay deal for GPs, which gave them more money for less hours, and substituted the familiar doctor-patient relationship for unobtainable out of hours locum services. :roll: Yes, one debacle after another, by one Government after another, all attempting the short-term "quick fix", as they are unable to see beyond the horizon of 5 yearly elections. :cry: The NHS is indeed a bottomless pit financially, it's successes sow the seeds of even more demands, and with changes in social demographics, we have a higher proportion of elderly demand, with an "I want" generation extending the scope of such demand. What we need to decide as a Nation, is just what parameters of Health Care we want, and just how much we are prepared to pay for it, then let the clinicians get on with it, without further political interference. :cry::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last two words sum it up Obs. Political interference, i.e. Big Government. Big Mistake more like! :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to emphasise the point that nothing changes with a change of government :o

 

However you choose to emphasise the reduction in beds but not the fact that between September 1997 and 2006 the total number of NHS staff increased by over 280,000 (27 per cent.); the number of doctors and hospital dentists employed in the NHS in England increased by 35,993 (40 per cent.) to 125,612; the number of nurses employed in the NHS in England increased by 79,479 (25 per cent.) to 398,335; and the total number of qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the NHS in England increased by 38,200 (40 per cent.) to 134,498.

 

So was the beds reduction an easy target???

 

Remember the old saying Busby, "lies, damn lies and statistics". The figures you quote, are they an actual head count and are they full time equivalents, and is there an element of double counting. It is true, the NHS has employed far more people.....I think it is now one of the biggest employers in the world. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much point in having all that staff if the patients can't get in the hospitals. :roll::roll:

 

Apparantly, and one can only go on figures provided, because of the faster turnaround and less need to stay in hospital, the bed occupancy figures have reduced from 98% to 84% over the last 5 years, so it appears the reduction in beds is justified, but I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as others on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true Keith, however it could be argued that as people are sent home earlier and many procedures can now be dealt with as day cases...and most people are happy with that, then the provision of care in the community....district nurses & GPs making home calls etc etc needs to be increased. There is also the point that given the above, if the number of annual procedures remained static then bed spaces could be reduced, however I understand more procedures are being carried out each year so there would be both an increase in demand for beds due to increased workload and a decrease due to greater "efficiency", so it is whether the overall decrease takes acount of those two factors.

 

In fairness, spending on the NHS has tripled over the last 10 years, question is has all of that money....our money, been efficiently spent. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those with Party affiliations, could advise readers as to their policies for the future of the NHS? :?:wink:

 

Think we are keeping ours to ourselves until nearer an election, seems as though if we publish them they'll get "stolen". :wink:

 

PS I've just been texted with instructions that I have to post a PS, that whatever they are, they will be brilliant...so there you go. :D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...