The NHS

lemonjelly

Generali wrote: »

I'm sure many remember this from 2000:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/320/7229/205

It must be good if the Government is spending more on health, right? There's nothing more important than health, apart from the kiddies perhaps. Well, as ever, it's not quite as simple as that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/03/primary-care-trust-nhs

Hmm, you put in more money but get less out. That's not so good. Why spend so much extra on wages though?

Unison, the public sector workers union has 2 members on the Labour Party's ruling committee and sponsors (pays for) 78 MPs (including cabinet ministers) and 5 MEPs.

http://www.unison.org.uk/labourlink/pages_view.asp?did=86

Of course the money also flows from the taxpayer to Unison, courtesy of the Labour Government:

http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/18673.pdf

Plating devils advocate generali:

Firstly, I'm not convinced that something like the NHS & relative success can be measured in "output". It doesn't produce anything. So what is the defionition of "output" here.

In reality, the focus should be on the correct treatment at the correct time delivered effectively. Not sure how you'd measure this though.

Secondly, it appears there is a big criticism of the unions, as they are open about the support they give to the labour party (not unsuprising, given that the labour party are supposed to be the party for the workers - excuse me while I laugh). However, the unions are protecting the interests of their members, in a legal way, & like they are obliged to do. As opposed to say the large scal companies who sped a lot more than quoted lobbying, pressuring, buying up evidence etc to ensure their business gets its way on employment law reforms, or preventing competition.

I'd prefer to examine how the huge pharmecuetical (sp?) companies make excessive profits from the NHS & do all in their power (legal & potentially illegally, & most certainly imorally imo) to protect their interests & income, costing the NHS vast amounts. Or alternatively, how these contractor companies are taking state funds to provide "services" to the NHS on the cheap, at a profit to them (though with a noticeable depreciation in quality).

Wasn't it the guy who developed the vaccine for polio in america? When he successfully did so, the university he worked for told him to get it patented - it'll make millions they said. His response was "there is no patent for this vaccine". It was available for all. A gift to humanity - & look at the benefits it gave us.

ruggedtoast

Everyone's got an opinion on the NHS but the truth is even the government dont appear to know how much it costs or where the money goes, or what value it brings.

I suspect that funding is very unequal. From my experience as a patient like everyone else, even within a small GP clinic there are some people doing an excellent job and some who literally cant be bothered to do lift a finger.

As many of these are doctors on £100k for working 4 days a week as are admin on £16k for a 37 hour week.

I had a situation with a GP, as well as finding him professionally incompetent , I felt that he went out of his way to belittle me in front of the female medical student that he was obviously trying to impress.

When I wanted to complain I found its impossible to do so without turning it into a giant grievance involving the entire practice and face to face meetings and arbitrators.

So like everyone else I didnt bother, and his useless service carries on as unnoticed as the gp in the office next doors excellent one. Which is basically what they want.

I dont agree with the union conspiracy. The unions are too weak to dictate policy. If people of influence end up in senior positions in a union they will use that influence to benefit themselves. The same as they do in investment banks, the government, senior management etc.

I am a member of a Unite and in three different workplaces going through redundancies they have been as much use as a chocolate teapot. Its not really their fault, they just dont have much power and the reps are usually too worried about their own jobs to make many waves.

StevieJ

peterg1965 wrote: »

My wording was incorrect. I should have said the NHS NEEDED (as opposed to needs) more funding. Sorry..

Why are you apologising, I thought you said this?

It needs more than cash to sort the NHS out.