Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Howard's NHS Lie...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
You know I was tempted to put a poll in here, something along the lines of “What do you think of Michael Howard?” with the only option being that he was a smarmy, lying, stomach-churning git.

But I cannot prove that he is either smarmy, stomach-churning or indeed a git so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on those points.

The reason that he is today’s subject of MoK’s vitriol is this little story. You see, this is my patch that he is talking about, not just his constituency. And he lied. There are no patients waiting 20 months for radiotherapy in this area.

But then such accusations are not new to Mr Howard. A few months ago there was a TV programme – a Panorama one I believe – which showed Oxford Radcliffe at it’s worst, with patients being made to wait in ambulances because the A&E department didn’t have space.

Mr Howard saw this and apparently thought that he could make political capitol from it. So he publically suggested that the same thing was happening in to patients in his constituency.

Never one to make sure that the facts supported his rhetoric, he was quickly undone when it was proven that this wasn’t the case. Not only did the local Acute NHS Trusts deny his claim, but so did GPs and the Ambulance Service. Do you think that he has publically apologised?

Does it look like he will here? Does he ever?

I never thought I'd agree with Anne Widdicombe on anything, but never has anyone described him better than when she suggested that there was "something of the night" about him.

Putting his comments into context, we have the launch of the new plan from the NHS, an evolution from the NHS plan which is due to run its course by March 2005.

Some details are here or you can read the entire plan here

The Tories naturally have their own view. It doesn’t differ greatly from Labours but there are a couple of fundamental differences.

Firstly, the Tories will do away with targets. Thus losing their ability to see if hospitals are actually offering care to a unified standard across the country. In a way it would ensure that the “postcode lottery” which troubles so many people would actually worsen.

Secondly is their plan to offer 50% of the cost of private treatment. Sounds great at first glance. So who benefits from this policy?

Is it the poor, who cannot afford private treatment and who therefore rely on the NHS, noting that the prevalence is disease (and therefore demnad on the NHS) is higher in deprived areas. Or is it the rich who would go private anyway but now only have to pay 50% of the charge, on those occasions that they actually need healthcare anyway?

Is it the NHS which will benefit as funds are redirected into the private sector thus preventing the NHS from investing in new services, or from investing in the ones which it already has. Or is it the private sector who may see an increase in demand but will be able to up their costs knowing that the NHS will take up half the increase, and the patients will not mind because they will still be paying less than before?

Now, I’m am not an advocate for Labour, I object to so many things which they do in our name. But if you want to maintain and improve the NHS, if you want to make sure that services remain local and “free” then you really don’t need me to tell you who to vote for.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sorry but the Tories remain Tories. And that means that the NHS will suffer- if not be wiped out- by them.

    If people would prefer to have a private health insurance only system like in the US then it doesn't matter, but if people do want to see a strong and free NHS for everyone then voting Conservative is not an option.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Lukesh
    There is something about that 50% private thing that doesn't sound right, oh I know, that we have to pay the extra 50% when we could get it for free on the NHS, but there again it eases the pressure on the NHS.

    I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment, but as usual with the Tories is doesn’t address the fundamental problem. All it does is give a surface sheen.

    By investing in the private sector all that happens in the resources and funding is taken away from the NHS. All that will happen in these cases is that the money will go into the hands of the companies, and their sharholders. By investing the same amount in the NHS you get greater capacity. This means that we would not only be able to treat the individual, but also the patients which cmoe after.

    Basically, this system is pouring money down the drain.
    As for the lying, oh well, it was a lit but come on Tories are not the biggest liars Labour are the biggest ones, promises after promises, but what do we get back?

    The lies I was referring to were not levelled by Labour, but they have their own track record as the article I posted suggests.

    Currently though the Govt is not lying about what the NHS Plan has achieved. They promised it would deliver many things, in the main they have kept those promises. Where they have failed, they have said so. Can’t ask for more than that really.
    What do you think targets achieve? They achieve what someone thing wants to aim but they also achieve red tape and can make things a lot worse.

    I think that they achieve exactly what they were designed to do, and make perfect project management sense. We need targets. We need to know what it is that we are trying to achieve and I don’t believe that the Tories will remove all targets, I just think that they will have different ones.

    Back in 1996 there was no waiting target (and let’s face it that’s what we are talking about here) and therefore there was no limit as to how long a patient would wait for surgery. So the Govt didn’t care if someone waited six weeks or over eighteen months. And eighteen months was noting unusual. Now though, there is a target which says that no-one should wait more than nine months (this will be six by March 2005). In order to achieve that managers have had to review the way services are delivered and they have asked doctors to do the same. No change in the NHS can be accomplished without the input and support of doctors.

    As a result changes have happened and patients no longer face such huge, unnecessary, waits. Do you think that would have happened without a target?

    The A&E wait, another contentious issue, has meant ath hospitals have needed to look at what happens to patients from the moment they turn up at A&E until they evetually leave the hospital. It has brought in changes to the way access to beds is controlled (including handing over control to doctors), to developing nursing staff to treat people rather than make them wait to see a doctor.

    There is also another issue is has changed. One upon a time you would attend A&E. You would be seen by a receptionist, then a nurse (who wasn’t allowed to diagnose you), then the A&E junior ((who didn’t have enough experience to treat you, but need the education), then the A&E Consultant (who would refer you to the specialist team), they would send their junior (who didn’t have enough experience to treat you, but need the education), he would call his consulatnta and eventually your treatment would be carried out by the first nurse you saw because adminstering drugs etc is beneath a consultant, and his junior had to see the other patients. That could take hours, of course if you needed a bed you would wait for that too.

    Now, you can attend A&E, be registered by the receptionist and then been seen and treated by the nurse. No messing about, very little waiting.

    Targets brought that change. Not private investment.
    Do you think that voting Labour will make sure the NHS stays FREE? It's the same with the Conservatives. But the Tories are trying to ease the pressure on the NHS with Private health care. If only the Tories would pay 100% then they would get my vote.
    What do we do? Vote Labour and get treatment late on the NHS or be forced to go private and pay 100% towards the cost or Vote Tory and be able to get treatment privately at 50% cost?

    100% of the cost of going private?

    It costs the NHS approx £6,500 to replace a hip. If you go private it will cost approx £10,000. So how would 100% funding help the NHS?

    What the labour proposal offers is, from the moment you GP refers you, an 18 week wait for surgery. Not for a appointment, but for the whole thing, outpatient, diagnosis test, surgery.

    This compares to the 18 month wait you used to have and that was just for the period after the diagnosis. You also had to wait months ofr outpatients, and months for diagnostic tests.

    Now tell me that the investment hasn’t made, and won’t make a difference.
    and by voting Labour in we'll have another 100,000 peddle pushers, more red tape, more promises, less work done!

    I presume that you mean “pen pushers” rather than “peddle pushers”.

    Let me ask you this. When you have a leaky pipe, do you ask a milkman to fix it?

    Of course not, because they aren't trained to offer such a service. So why would you ask a medically trained person to manage people?

    There isn’t a suggestion that managers will diagnose you, or operate on you. So why should a doctor manage the NHS? Why should we take up their valuable time managing a service instead of delivering it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The pen pushers, etc claims are just hopeless accusations by the Tories.

    The fact is that the NHS is getting better, not worse. There is room for improvement naturally, but the Tories know very well Labour has done a much better job of managing the NHS that the Tories ever had.

    Then again, that's all part of the Conservatives masterplan. Allow the NHS to decay to the point where a private healthcare system can be 'sold' to the public.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but Lukesh the tories by doing this will undermine the NHS as it will take money out of the public sector and into the hands of shareholders of these private health care companies.

    And also the only people that can afford private health care will benefit from this policy as they are vast amounts of people in this country who could not afford even 50% of the cost.

    Also i hate the idea of health insurance as they have been cases in America where these companies refuse to pay up when someone gets a serious disease or injury. I prefer what we have here it is at least fair in the sense that everyone who pays taxes contriubtes to the NHS and that everyone has an equal right for medical help.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here's a little stat which highlights how investment in the NHS increases capacity.

    March 2000 - 120 people per day treated in "walk in centres"

    March 2004 - That figure has increase to 4,500
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Howard's NHS Lie...
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    You know I was tempted to put a poll in here, something along the lines of “What do you think of Michael Howard?” with the only option being that he was a smarmy, lying, stomach-churning git.


    I will support that :p

    I watched the Health Debate live on BBC Parliament. To be honest it just does sound like if the Conservatives get to instigate their plans for the NHS it will go down hill. Surely if they want more to have help going to the private sector, then more staff would have to join the private sector... the best ones? :chin: Surely those who can not afford this subsidised private health care will be left with a worse system....

    I would like to keep my NHS state funded totally thanks :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by lukesh
    You have got it wrong on this pen pushers. I'm not talking about the part where it's improved the NHS. I'm talking about the stupid pathetic jobs printed in the Guardian Jobs section.

    Example?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Example?

    the one that always makes me smile is
    "teenage pregnacy coordinator"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by lukesh
    If the NHS is doing as good as you are saying, why is it a key topic in the elections? Why are people constantly moaning about it?

    i guess it is a key topic because it cost a lot of money.

    How many visits are there to the NHS each day? millions. Sorry not to be that accurate, but MoK highlights 4500 visits to Walk-in Centres. How many of those people who use the NHS actually complain?

    It's always the bad stories that get the press.

    When you get to working age, one thing you discover is that a lot of people moan, about everything.


    btw. did you know that the NHS is the 2 largest employer in the world. the top three being the Chinese army, the NHS and the Indian railway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Orignally posted by Lukesh
    If the NHS is doing as good as you are saying, why is it a key topic in the elections? Why are people constantly moaning about it?

    The answer to the first part is easy. It’s a key topic because it’s a public service which costs the tax payers billions of pounds. The public want to be sure that they are getting value for money. Oh, and because the politicians can’t help meddling ;)

    People moaning is a problem with perceptions, but sometimes perfectly valid. The public also seem to think that you can change the entire organisation in a year. We’re now only four years into the NHS Plan and much has changed, but still people want more. As we improve services, so public expectations increase – fuelled by politicians and the media – and it isn’t always possible to match up to what the public expects.
    So, now that we have targets for operations, this makes it an issue? I'm with you now!
    Ok You have won me over on the targets but it still creates too much red tape!

    As I said, the public demands value for money. Who will provide the evidence for that assessment to be made? Doctors? Nurses?
    No obviously not. Do you know who I am referring to as Pen Pushers? I'm talking about them jobs printed in the Guardian. ''30k to be a Non-Smoking coordinator". We don't need these. We already know that smoking is bad for you. I think this is just wating money and mocks Labours achievements with Employment.

    If we know it is bad for us, why do we still smoke?

    Do you know how much smoking related disease costs the NHS?

    BTW The smoking cessation co-ordinator is likely to be a community nurse ;)
    Theres another one. Managers, I have read before that there are more managers than Doctors, nurses etc put together.

    A myth.

    The statistic is that there a more people employed by the NHS who aren’t[/]I doctors or nurses, than who are.

    Those who aren’t include – pharmacists, porters, phlebotomists (blood tests), radiologists, radiographers.

    Would you say that these people are “valueable”?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by lukesh
    I'm not a Guardian reader. You are arn't you? Check when ever they publish jobs.

    I used to see them when I delievered papers. There were tons, I couldn't believe my eyes. For telling people to stop smoking you can pocket 30k!

    I've got a job, so I don't often read the vacancies pages.
    But 30K for helping people stop smoking? Sounds OK to me. Smoking costs the NHS millions each year. Its very hard to give up, its an addiction on a par with heroin and cocaine. Just 'cos tobacco is legal doesn't make it easy to quit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its also obvious that heroin and crack are bad for you. People still use them.
    Oh and you wouldn't have a clue about addictions counselling. You haven't enough life experience. Unless you can tell us all about the cycle of change, triggers, cravings, motivation interviewing etc?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you want to read that into what I wrote, thats up to you, but its not what I meant. What I meant was that it helps to have a little experience of life, people and how people tick, to be a succesful addictions counsellor. And at 16, most people don't have that. I didn't and I suspect you don't either. So I'm disputing your statement "I'll do it for nowte if you want?". You couldn't do it I think. Its a highly skilled job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would imagine that if the person holding that position is doing their job well it will be saving the State an awful lot more than the 30K they earn. The average cost to the NHS alone per cancer patient treatement can be astronomical.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by lukesh
    Ok fair enough but Blagsta Iam really thick and stupid arn't I? I know nothing, Iam always wrong and your always right.

    Thats your issues coming out mate, I haven't said any of that in my recent posts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I said - thats your issues. Not mine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    whatever :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by lukesh
    Personally I think they are pathetic jobs, they mock the Governments achievements. Isn't it obvious that Smoking is bad for you? I or no one doesn't need someone to tell you that. I'm sure they do more than that but 30k for that is money down the drain. I'll do it for nowte if you want?

    It's not just about helping smokers to quit, it's also about educating people so that they never start, never become addicted.

    What the NHS is doing here is taking a long-term vision. By employing these people now, we may cut down on the £1bn which smoking diseases cost the NHS every year.

    Is £30k really that much, would £1m be too much?

    As I said, the person in question will be a trained nurse, with about 10 years in the NHS. If you think that you could do thier job then you are deluded and not a little patronising.

    BTW We all know that it is unhealthy, agreed, but I still smoke as do several millions other people in the UK. That message alone does not, and will not, work.
Sign In or Register to comment.