frontline health service cuts

ninky_2

blueboy43 wrote: »

Next week on Jackanory, the story of a Romanian asylum seeker living in Buckingham Palace eating caviar at the taxpayers expense.

well that's clearly rubbish. romania is in the eu.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

well let's a pretty flawed way of looking at things. the call centre staff are crucial to the way the ambulance system operates. often they have to give advice on first aid, assess a situation in seconds, prioritise one need over the other and also be savvy enough to spot possibly hoax callers.

imagine calling 999 and not being answered or not being put through to someone in the right service swiftly.

cutting back on call centre staffing (or 'steamlining' as you call it) is not a better option than losing paramedics.

It is if it can be done without losing service, like all services there will be busy and not so busy times of day.
I don't know the ins and outs but I am fairly sure you could make some cuts by looking at this, not all cuts have to mean the service decreases?
But this does not answer why london are cutting and not others by a similar amount? you would think rural services would get hit harder as their service is more spread out?

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

It is if it can be done without losing service, like all services there will be busy and not so busy times of day.
I don't know the ins and outs but I am fairly sure you could make some cuts by looking at this, not all cuts have to mean the service decreases?
But this does not answer why london are cutting and not others by a similar amount? you would think rural services would get hit harder as their service is more spread out?

do you think they don't already take into account the fact there are peak times?

london ambulance has been asked to say 53million over the next five years. i would imagine other ambulance services will probably see cuts unless someone comes up with a cleverer way to make the required "efficiency savings".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-funding-pressures-hitting-frontline

The ambulance cuts prompted the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, to issue his second reminder in 72 hours to health service managers that there should be no cuts to patient services as part of the drive to make £15bn to £25bn in "efficiency savings" by 2015.

FTBFun

blueboy43 wrote: »

Next week on Jackanory, the story of a Romanian asylum seeker living in Buckingham Palace eating caviar at the taxpayers expense.

They've been eating OUR swans too, according to something somebody just made up.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

do you think they don't already take into account the fact there are peak times?

london ambulance has been asked to say 53million over the next five years. i would imagine other ambulance services will probably see cuts unless someone comes up with a cleverer way to make the required "efficiency savings".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-funding-pressures-hitting-frontline

The ambulance cuts prompted the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, to issue his second reminder in 72 hours to health service managers that there should be no cuts to patient services as part of the drive to make £15bn to £25bn in "efficiency savings" by 2015.

I am glad in your eyes the public service has the right number of employed for every job and there is no waste!
But if that was the case why did the last government not raise taxes to cover the costs instead of just adding more and more debt for years?
Was it denial?

Why don't ambulance services merge? create joint or national call centers? It's not ideal but you can drive down costs without cutting service.

Don't forget why they are here ninky, I know you don't like the fact why we have been overspending on the public sector since 2002 but something has to give somewhere.
Correcting someone elses mistakes is rarely a nice job.

But we can all make this as political as we like, it would still be happening who ever got in!

ninky_2

FTBFun wrote: »

They've been eating OUR swans too, according to something somebody just made up.

swan and other small game is good for you. more omega 3 and other vital nutrients than domesticated animals. unlike some of our seafood they are hardly endangered either.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

I am glad in your eyes the public service has the right number of employed for every job and there is no waste!
But if that was the case why did the last government not raise taxes to cover the costs instead of just adding more and more debt for years?
Was it denial?

Why don't ambulance services merge? create joint or national call centers? It's not ideal but you can drive down costs without cutting service.

Don't forget why they are here ninky, I know you don't like the fact why we have been overspending on the public sector since 2002 but something has to give somewhere.
Correcting someone elses mistakes is rarely a nice job.

But we can all make this as political as we like, it would still be happening who ever got in!

of course you can always adjust things. but why is the focus on waste and over resourcing when actually much of the public sector suffers chronic understaffing and lack of resources?

if mcdonalds had queues around the block it would open more branches and take on more staff. it wouldn't start cutting back management or get the burger flippers to take orders at the same time.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

of course you can always adjust things. but why is the focus on waste and over resourcing when actually much of the public sector suffers chronic understaffing and lack of resources?

if mcdonalds had queues around the block it would open more branches and take on more staff. it wouldn't start cutting back management or get the burger flippers to take orders at the same time.

I can't agree on the bold bit some of the public sector is vastly inefficient like the CSA.

Your mcdonalds quote suffers on one point. If mcdonalds spent more than it brought in since 2002 there would not be a mcdonalds.
You can only spend more to make greater losses for so long. Throwing staff at the problem may not be the fix.

And the other point is you are totally wrong if a private sector company is busy but not profitable it scales back operations without a jot of outcry from the public sector (neither should there be).

Why would you look at employing more without investigating why there is a que?
your response to a problem is that of every decision of the 00's, throw more money at it, employ more it will make it better.
I think the proof is there that the amount of increased spending did not produce an equiverlent raising of service, in some cases it got worse.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

of course you can always adjust things. but why is the focus on waste and over resourcing when actually much of the public sector suffers chronic understaffing and lack of resources?

if mcdonalds had queues around the block it would open more branches and take on more staff. it wouldn't start cutting back management or get the burger flippers to take orders at the same time.

Years ago, Mcdonalds had a load of competition. In the end they did the job more efficiently and put most of teh others out of business. They did not do that by being inefficient with their resources.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

I can't agree on the bold bit some of the public sector is vastly inefficient like the CSA.

Your mcdonalds quote suffers on one point. If mcdonalds spent more than it brought in since 2002 there would not be a mcdonalds.
You can only spend more to make greater losses for so long. Throwing staff at the problem may not be the fix.

And the other point is you are totally wrong if a private sector company is busy but not profitable it scales back operations without a jot of outcry from the public sector (neither should there be).

Why would you look at employing more without investigating why there is a que?
your response to a problem is that of every decision of the 00's, throw more money at it, employ more it will make it better.
I think the proof is there that the amount of increased spending did not produce an equiverlent raising of service, in some cases it got worse.

but if it was charging 10p for a burger when it could get a quid (not taxing enough) or giving away free milkshakes (unnecessary tax breaks) or even letting some very regular customers have free food on the house (tax avoidance and non doms) it might look at why revenue was down.....

what happened to the lib dem promise of a robin hood tax?