How to solve the NHS funding crisis

thor

If Rees Mogg gets in then expect to see that stuff about kids and the elderly being implemented in the tory manifesto.

antrobus

Linton wrote: »

The current NHS problems are almost all due to to the increased number of the frail elderly. Go to any A&E or doctors surgery. Why should these people who have outlived their economic usefulness sponge on the rest of us? Stop treating them. The next major load on the NHS - children. Parents should have to pay for them to be treated. If they cant afford it they shouldnt have children. With these simple measures the rest of us can get immediate appointments and hospital referrals when we want them...

Build the gas chambers. Place the order for the Zyklon B.

Of course, you do realise that you will be first in the queue?:rotfl:

Linton wrote: »

...
Alternatively perhaps funding our medical services to the same level as every other developed country would be a start. If they can afford it why cant we? Or is it we dont want to?

Spending the money is the easy bit.

Paying for it is the hard bit.

Herzlos

antrobus wrote: »

Spending the money is the easy bit.

Paying for it is the hard bit.

Spending money in the right places could actually save money (more social care, more assisted living facilities etc). Every hospital bed night you can offload to anywhere else will save hundreds.
Every person you can treat before they go to a hospital will save hundreds.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

Spending money in the right places could actually save money (more social care, more assisted living facilities etc). Every hospital bed night you can offload to anywhere else will save hundreds.
Every person you can treat before they go to a hospital will save hundreds.

Not necessarily
Each person you save doesn't become an immortal god never to need healthcare again
Each person you save is mostly just kicking the can down the road and they often come back with more problems.

Maybe the NHS and public should accept this
Why save a 90 year old from a heart attack if the result is going to be 10 more years of bed bound dementia and soiling themselves?

We should seek a good life and a good death

Cakeguts

Quite a lot of the problem is that the NHS is not interested in what happens to future generations in terms of care required or quality of life and it is not interested in preventative care. It also doesn't seem to have th power to overide any completely potty decisions that some relatives make. For my mother who had very bad Parkinsons disease we were asked if we wanted to not resuscitate. Why would anyone want to resuscitate someone who was so disabled with Parkinson's that they could no longer swallow and who was 80? Surely this decision should be left to the doctors not some potty relative? I don't think any of these decisions should be left to relatives with vested interests in the person surviving because they are not the ones who have to live with their decision.

Herzlos

Very true, people will die eventually, and will need care eventually.

But what's better for the individual and state out of these 2 conditions:
1. Elderly person needs 3x daily visits for 3 weeks from a community nurse for medication/dressing changes, but stays in their assisted living apartment.
2. Elderly person stays in hospital for 3 weeks.

I'm not talking about dealing with serious stuff at home, I'm talking about catching stuff that's relatively trivial at home, instead of it resulting in costly medical attention. Unless you're talking about killing older people at the first sign of a medical complaint?

Cakeguts

GreatApe wrote: »

Not necessarily
Each person you save doesn't become an immortal god never to need healthcare again
Each person you save is mostly just kicking the can down the road and they often come back with more problems.

Maybe the NHS and public should accept this
Why save a 90 year old from a heart attack if the result is going to be 10 more years of bed bound dementia and soiling themselves?

We should seek a good life and a good death

The problem is that unless you have been really, really ill you don't understand the difference between life and quality of life. The most important thing is quality of life. I don't think that being in pain and stuck in a wheelchair with brain damage and a lot of physical disability is good quality of life in terms of what a human being would normally expect. The problem is the pain. A very disabled person who can't communicate can't tell you that they are in pain. The NHS creates this problem for some people by keeping them alive. Everyone who is born is going to die. What most people would want is a good quality of life as pain free as possible and then a peaceful death?

Cakeguts

Herzlos wrote: »

Very true, people will die eventually, and will need care eventually.

But what's better for the individual and state out of these 2 conditions:
1. Elderly person needs 3x daily visits for 3 weeks from a community nurse for medication/dressing changes, but stays in their assisted living apartment.
2. Elderly person stays in hospital for 3 weeks.

I'm not talking about dealing with serious stuff at home, I'm talking about catching stuff that's relatively trivial at home, instead of it resulting in costly medical attention. Unless you're talking about killing older people at the first sign of a medical complaint?

It is never good for anyone of any age to stay in hospital for 3 weeks.

kabayiri

Here's a small start.

Allow euthanasia through a scrutinised process.

My uncle was but a shell in his remaining years, and the whole family knew this.

The NHS and social care costs to keep his body alive were considerable.

Cakeguts

kabayiri wrote: »

Here's a small start.

Allow euthanasia through a scrutinised process.

My uncle was but a shell in his remaining years, and the whole family knew this.

The NHS and social care costs to keep his body alive were considerable.

I expect the benefit to him was about zero?