NHS: here's the unpleasant truth

chucky

lostinrates wrote: »

all of this is right. but its also as blinkered to suggest that the NHS provides full and complete care.

it doesn't provide full and complete care but it covers a hell of a lot more than most other countries.

the other thing that people are in denial are about and still have the ignorance to criticise the NHS is that the coverage of people that the NHS cares for is much more than again most other countries.

there are millions and millions of people that don't have this luxury that are paying for medical treatment years after it was received in the US.

people should be privilged to to have access to the NHS instead of putting their political propaganda that is being rolled out by Kokonut

We have had 13 years of Labour policy designed to get more people on the public payroll and converted into Labour-voting slaves who have no interest in enhanced efficiency.

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

people should be privilged to to have access to the NHS instead of putting their political propaganda that is being rolled out by Kokonut

Except I didn't write that, a doctor with 40 years experience in the NHS did....:eek:

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

Except I didn't write that, a doctor with 40 years experience in the NHS did....:eek:

so what's your view on the NHS Kokonut - do you think that it's a good thing that we all have access to the health care system that we have... :eek:

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

so what's your view on the NHS Kokonut - do you think that it's a good thing that we all have access to the health care system that we have... :eek:

Of course I do. The article is about how to improve the quality of the NHS for patients, it's not about privatising it...obviously you still haven't read it.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

Of course I do. The article is about how to improve the quality of the NHS for patients, it's not about privatising it...obviously you still haven't read it.

of course i read it... i got bored when it started getting political motivated instead of addressing the real issues that the NHS has... to be fair the political side of it was what attracted you and got you frothing

Blackpool_Saver

lostinrates wrote: »

all of this is right. but its also as blinkered to suggest that the NHS provides full and complete care. Drugs not available because of post code loteries or a national decision...for cancers, diseases of old age. Drugs for me are not available NHS, and personally, i think that's right...my condition is sufficiently rare and my outlook was (though I think I prove them wrong) sufficiently bleak to make it ''uneconomical'' to treat me, in much the same way a profitable insurance company would have to view it. BUT the crunch is, that if i go private for suitable drugs I also have to opt out of NHS for the rest of the treatment relating to my condition while I do that..while the differences are immense, the nhs have to take me back if i can't sustain treatment ...as a patient it feels much the same.

I am in the same position, my ongoing health issue is not tested for fully on the NHS, it was when I saw a consultant privately and he did extra blood tests I was able to be given the extra med and be helped. In the NHS that test is still not provided and people are still suffering when they don't need to.

kennyboy66_2

Here's the unpleasent truth about the NHS. Most of the extra money spent in the last 13 years has gone on the following.

Doctors & Nurses pay
Extra numbers of doctors & nurses
More expensive drugs
More managers.

I'm sure the author makes some good points but it smacks a little of the old fashioned arrogance of doctors, prefer to work alone in the "God" role rather than work in a team and whose attidute to junior staff is probably summed up by, "Don't you know who I am ?"

Blackpool_Saver

The reason we have so many foreign Doctors in this country is because our own people are not strict enough about enforcing learning, we have a nation of ungrammatical idiots and halfwits who could never be Doctors, and we also have this lower class degree now where non standard entrants can join, so we have ungrammatical tattooed idiots also in the so called professional ranks.

lostinrates

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I am in the same position, my ongoing health issue is not tested for fully on the NHS, it was when I saw a consultant privately and he did extra blood tests I was able to be given the extra med and be helped. In the NHS that test is still not provided and people are still suffering when they don't need to.

contraversially, I think its right that my condition, being extremely rare and usually leaving the patient incapable of working again and often just a drain on resources, is not necessarily treated. I find it more frustrating that i am held up as a shiny example of what is possible...when I know i can be so much better....anyway...

I think that what is provided by the Nhs is possibly too much. Friends have had cosmetic wok to ears and breasts because it is''psychologically damaging'' although no in the least disfiguring (too small breasts, or sticky out ears..) a different scenario from...I think an example Via quoted once, of very different sized breasts, or heavy breasts causing back ache. The latter two I see need for, the former two I do not.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I'm sure the author makes some good points but it smacks a little of the old fashioned arrogance of doctors, prefer to work alone in the "God" role rather than work in a team and whose attidute to junior staff is probably summed up by, "Don't you know who I am ?"

The author does make some good points, especially about the influence of ward sisters. The bit about some young admin skivvy asking a senior doctor for ID made me laugh though, imagine the outrage of discovering that not everybody in the hospital knows who you are and why you're important!