I pay for "Breastfeeding Coordinators"!

PasturesNew

I saw this and thought of you guys: http://hubpages.com/hub/breastfeedingisbest

Matt1977

A few years ago I recall seeing two job adverts from Norfolk AND Suffolk County Councils advertising for a 'Terrys Nappy CoOrdinator' (or something similar).

I can understand there being some sort of motivation to get parents to recycle their babies' nappies but still...what a flipping waste of taxpayer's money! :mad:

ILW

Think it turned out that terry nappies were less "green" than disposables in the end.

Mr_Mumble

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Healthy people are unprofitable. Lets ban it.

Very telling that you think not forcing people to pay for something via taxation is akin to banning it.

Cleaver

Whilst I'm not making a comment as to whether Breast Feeding Coordinators are 'valid' or not, it's always interesting that the public focus their vitriol on posts such as these. Even if every PCT in the country had a few it wouldn't add up to that much money in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to really see wastage on an epic scale add up how much per year we pay nurses, doctors and other healthcare professionals to treat drunken morons in A&E every single night of the week. Billions of pounds I assume.

Maybe the two aren't comparable, but I'd prefer a woman who is having trouble breast feeding to get help than I would a drunken moron who's got in to a fight get stiched up in A&E.

Mr_Mumble

in response to Kennyboy's post here:

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Cutting breastfeeding coordinators (you do seem to love this area of spending) may or may not be a good idea, but why would it impact the economy any less than VAT increase ?

Surely the difference is that it impacts some individuals to a great extent rather than everyone by a small extent.

Breastfeeding coordinators was a cheeky shorthand for an awful lot of government jobs that - if they are wanted - would be provided by the private sector.

Folk in many government vocations always take it as an affront when it is suggested other people shouldn't be forced to pay their wage. If it is a worthwhile job then people will pay for the service out of their own money.

ps if there was evidence that babies that were breast fed were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital in the first 6 months than babies that were bottle fed, would you agree that there might be a cost/benefit reason for encouraging breast feeding ?

I don't see how you could measure this easily. The vast majority of mothers know of the benefits of breastfeeding (which is the main reason I'm against the job role inside the NHS - it is a marketing and administrative job not a medical one) so it isn't a matter of simply measuring incidence of hospital admittances. You need to measure how many are simply ignorant of the benefits and how many have decided to ignore the advice. Going a step further should mothers be forced to breastfeed if there is no medical reason they can not to save the NHS/society money?!

Cost benefit is continually used by those supporting ever greater spending on the NHS not reduce costs! I have no idea on particular schemes* but I do know that the NHS costs 4 times as much in real terms as it did in 1950. I know Beveridge and Attlee expected healthcare costs to fall in the forties, I know that the richer the country the more they spending on healthcare as a % of GDP. I just don't see why with the NHS now rationing cancer drugs how a top-down command economy is a good way to run a health system. That goes for far more serious matters and larger costs than the coordinators , e.g. £730m spent on methadone treatment for drug addicts.

*Admittedly for such young people there is likely to be more of a benefit that the usual nonsensical tropes about smokers or drinkers costing the NHS money.

Loughton_Monkey

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Breastfeeding coordinators was a cheeky shorthand for an awful lot of government jobs that - if they are wanted - would be provided by the private sector.

Indeed. As I have learned recently, irony and metaphors are not readily understood on these forums. I blame the army of 'school curriculum review and consultancy co-ordination assistants' for not having the subject of 'irony' taught in schools.

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Cost benefit is continually used by those supporting ever greater spending on the NHS not reduce costs! .....

You took the words out of my mouth to slap this one down.....

A 'True' cost benefit analysis would have the government having as many of us as possible smoking. On one side there is the draconian extra tax we pay during a lifetime of smoking. Plus there's a huge saving in state pension when we die significantly earlier. Weigh this up against a bit of extra health care [and deduct a bit because smokers are less obses]. And you have a "winning" formula!

I really wish someone would do an informed documentary about other countries' health systems. A good example would be South Korea of which I have some experience. Personally, I would have this system any day! Basically there are hospitals. Every member of the [qualifying] population (the majority) have their 'identity card' proving their right to medical treatment.

You simply turn up at a hospital [say a Samsung one]. You see a doctor [exactly like a GP]. He talks. He diagnoses. He examines. He then declares [e.g.] you need an x-ray. You go yards round the corner and have one. Within 30 minutes, you're back in front of the same 'GP' who has the x-ray on his computer. This tells him you need an MRI scan. So you go round another corner and have one. At 10:30, you are yet again back in front of the same GP......

In one of my cases, it was kidney stones. So at 11:00 I am having lithotrypsy on my kidney stones. At 12 noon I am back in the office, fully cured, armed with some antibiotics.

They don't understand the words 'waiting list', let alone have one. They would never understand the expression 'Area Health Authority' or similar. I am given to understand there are very few 'pen pushers', administrators, or 'managers'.

No 'cost benefit analysis' on this earth would 'prove' that having a waiting list would be 'cheaper'. It wouldn't. And you don't need to have any analysis to know which system is better for 'quality' of health!