The Cancer at the heart of the NHS.
‘Save Our NHS’ screech the placards! Who exactly is that ‘Our’ referring to?
‘Our’ as in ‘Our’ union ridden, hidebound, monolithic organisation that can keep endless middle managers in work writing reports, attending conferences, following the politically correct line?
Or ‘Our’ as in the recipients of health care?
They surely cannot mean the latter – for no one is suggesting that people be left dying in the streets as a result of reform.
The reform that is suggested is a part-privatised service. As we have here in France.
The Unions recoil in horror – ‘patients will be little more than consumers‘ they say. ‘Live consumers’ say I.
I had a phone call late last night. It was my friend Jane. Let me tell you about Jane.
We met because we had both written – from France – to the national health service’s ‘Sarcoma help line’. We asked to join their forum, which promised plentiful advice and support. We did so because we are both english, we both have leiomyosarcoma, and we were both becoming overwhelmed by the task of deciphering from the quick fire French which treatment from the array of treatments on offer to us, we should choose.
We were both turned down. We might be British nationals, we might both have subscribed for many years to the national health service, but ‘it would be too confusing’, I quote, for us to be allowed to view the conversations on that forum concerning treatment methods.
They offered to introduce us to each other, we could be our ‘own support group’. So we have been.
Incredibly, it turns out that we are the only two people in the whole of France that have this particularly aggressive form of cancer in the specific circumstances that we ‘enjoy’. We have, so the latest statistics tell us, a 14% chance of surviving to the five year period that is graced by the term ‘cured’. 14% sounds pretty good when you compare it to the alternative of ‘not surviving’.
Personally, I like it even better than 13%, and a whole lot better than 12%.
However, our personal circumstances are very different. I am on a collision course with the proverbial ‘three score years and ten’; I have had a damn good life, done all the things I ever wanted to do, and have the endless support of Mr G for when the prospect of a foreshortened future gets me down – and it does from time to time. If you have never had the ‘palliative care’ conversation with a Doctor, you cannot begin to understand how it strikes fear into your heart; how it is endlessly repeated in your brain during the most mundane conversations – ‘I couldn’t start work on it for three months’ says the builder, and your brain goes into free fall – ‘have I got three months’ it says?
I had the ‘palliative care’ conversation last October; it came as part of a range of options, which included mind bogglingly expensive surgery and further treatment with a prognosis roughly equal to that 14% that sounded so good a couple of paragraphs before.
A ‘range of options though’. I had already had extensive surgery; already had the chemotherapy, did I want to continue the fight, or give in gracefully? My choice, my body, my life. Not my cost though; I have paid my tax dues to France – in return they delivered every treatment I needed without question.
‘Jane’ went about things very differently, for very different reasons. She is the 40 year old single Mum of a ten year old boy. She speaks perfect French, she was married to a Frenchman, and so understood these conversations very differently. It wasn’t ‘A’ or ‘B’ for her, it was ‘ignore ‘A’ and let’s get on with the best possible options for ‘B’. For her son’s sake, she had to be in that 14%, there was no ‘choice’.
She flew off to Germany, to have the surgery done by the Doctor with the best reputation in the world for ‘success’; she paid for it privately, her friends and family raised the money. So far so good. The surgery was a huge success, leaving her with some tiny ‘mets’; small embryo tumours that were beyond the reach of the German laser gun. Chemotherapy was the answer. She flew to England, as she is entitled to do, having been a contributor to the national health service for most of her working life. The Royal Marsden Hospital. Envy of the world and all that.
The main reason for having done so was that she was now weakened by surgery, and facing Chemotherapy, she needed the help of her family to care for her son. One of the worst features of leiomyosarcoma is that when it decides it is ready to cart you off, it happens in days not weeks. You can be fine on Monday, overwhelmed on Thursday. We have both seen it happen to too many people. You don’t hang around doing the things you want to do; you don’t plan long term projects. So, England, and a home counties cottage and off to the Royal Marsden she went.
You have to wait for an appointment with a consultant in England of course; but the waiting list wasn’t too bad. Letters went from a GP to a consultant, and back to Jane. Royal Mail dragged their heels. Finally she saw the consultant. They agreed to give her chemotherapy. Not the full whack that had been given to me in France; just a ‘palliative dose’ – ‘you know we can’t cure you’ said the nurse as she set up the equipment. Jeez, thanks for the encouragement!
Incredibly, even the palliative dose has had a dramatic effect. She is left with just two tiny – 1cm each – ‘mets’. Nothing like the 50cm monster the Bergonie managed to rid me of, nor its offshoots – but is the Royal Marsden elated and looking to the next stage – radiotherapy?
No. It’s ‘not policy’ apparently because she has evidence of leiomyosarcoma in two places, and thus ‘only’ palliative care is on offer. Not as part of a range of options. She’s had to wait three weeks for that decision. It takes that long to get to see the consultant again.
This is a 40 year old single parent with a young child.
Last night she rang me; she wanted to know the details of how many different places I had ‘mets’ last October, and how big they were – and what the consultant had done about it. And I’m not a young single mother.
Suffice it to say, she was on the phone to my consultant this morning. What? Wait for a GP to write a letter – don’t be silly – she phoned him directly, that’s what you do here. We’re little more than consumers, right? She explained that she was currently in England and what had occurred.
‘How soon can you get here’, he said. ‘I can get a flight on Tuesday’, she said. Naturally she now has an appointment for Wednesday morning; I’m meeting her there. I don’t know what the outcome will be – but I do know for certain that palliative care won’t be the only option on offer. Fortunately she is the Mother of a French citizen, and she has paid her dues here too. She is entitled to the best France can offer.
They don’t give up on you here. They certainly don’t give up on young mothers. They don’t have ‘a policy’ on when it is worth ‘trying’ and when it isn’t.
They don’t have a committee that vets whether new treatments are cost effective or not. NICE, the anything but nice committee that does that in England has just refused to license the eighth consecutive cancer treatment they have turned down on the basis of cost.
Yet the Royal Marsden can find the money to fund a 48 page exhaustive inquiry into a third hand allegation where neither the name of the victim was known, nor the current name of the ‘second hand’ informant was known, regarding alleged abuse by Jimmy Savile. Turned out he’d never set foot in the place.
That’s political correctness for you. The British are repeatedly told that ‘The problem is that there is only so much money to go around and that therefore you have to allocate the scarce resources to the benefit of the most people possible’.
This statement then continues ‘Inevitably this will mean some treatments are declined’.
That shouldn’t mean life saving treatment – that should mean that first you limit the number of politically correct projects you undertake, like tying up a senior manager writing 48 page reports when ‘Operation Yewtree police searches have been unable to trace the potential witness referred to within the original allegation’; then you limit the number of ‘highly paid’ managers you employ; then you limit the number of non-life saving operations – like pinning back someone’s ‘traumatising’ ears from sticking out – unless they part fund it by holding an insurance policy.
No wonder they didn’t want Jane or I to have access to that forum – it would, I agree, have been too confusing to the British patients to have learnt that in the rest of Europe they don’t have a policy that a 14% chance isn’t worth taking.
- GildasTheMonk
August 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm -
Disgraceful. My best wishes to you both
- Dioclese
August 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm -
I totally agree with Gildas and ditto the best wishes!
On a more trivial note re the ‘creeping privatisation’ of the NHS, Mrs D has just had the cataract removed from her left eye on the NHS in a private hospital. Some of my ‘friends’ think it is disgusting that private resources are being utilised by the NHS. But then again, it saves the NHS building an operating theatre and it saves them building wards, day surgery centres and other miscellaneous buildings so it makes sense.
A while back, Mrs D had a skin cancer removed from the middle of her nose. We went private mainly because it’s right in the middle of her face and we wanted a surgeon to be given the time to do the job properly, rather than the 20 minutes the NHS give you with a man standing in theatre holding a stop watch. The NHS surgeon we saw warned her she would have saucer shaped dent in her face where they cut the thing out about the size of a 1p coin. “Not the way I do it” said the private guy. “How long will the operation take?” we asked. “As long as necessary” he replied. It was around 90 minutes and for £3,000 odd, you can hardly see it at all. Bit of a difference and worth every penny.
Both surgeons interestingly said the same: They’d do more for the NHS if the NHS had the funding to pay them. Instead they are limited as to the number of NHS clinics they can do each week. It’s not that they don’t want to or don’t have the time, it’s that the NHS won’t let them. That cannot be right, can it?
- Carol42
August 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm -
I was more or less told that because I smoked if my cancer recurred it would likely be palliative treatment! So far I am fine but I think I would head for France in that event, it would be worth paying. I hate the way the NHS works now, having lived for some years in Germany I know how different it is. I hope she gets the treatment she needs and that you both stay well.
Carol - Yvonne
August 8, 2014 at 4:28 pm -
Infostat, cargo-cult science and the policy sausage-machine: NICE, CHI and the managerial takeover of clinical practice – Prof. Bruce G Charlton MD
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/cargocult.html - GD
August 8, 2014 at 4:44 pm -
We have “part private” here in Ireland along with the highest paid Doctors in Europe, and it is a nightmare even compared to the NHS – as close friends who have just returned to the North of England because of multiple long term health problems that could not be properly dealt with here are happy to attest.
The proposed health care reforms in the UK will be a nightmare, that is not to say the NHS would not benefit from a totally different kind of reform. I will not pretend to be familiar with the structure of the NHS but I have yet to examine any form of public service that would not benefit from near “scorched earth” administrative streamlining. A two tier system, however, tends to fast breed Admin staff by it’s very nature.
- Mudplugger
August 8, 2014 at 5:42 pm -
The NHS is a monster, but one which no politician needing re-election will ever dare to challenge correctly.
Apart from its obvious ‘paralysis by analysis’, it is stuck in a dilemma of indecision on whether to do the thing right or to do the right thing.
Doing the thing right is simpler – you just get slicker, quicker, better, ideally using fewer resources. Doing the right thing involves lots of moral judgements about what the NHS should be doing and what it should not – for example, last week it was announced the NHS would now run a National Sperm Bank so that same-sex couples could procreate at lower cost than going private. Is that the ‘right thing’ to be doing, when the nation is already facing a population expansion set to overwhelm its infrastructure ? They’ve decided it is.
But both those decision levels put votes at risk – one employs fewer nurses so tickes the’ illogically emotive’ box, the other tells people to fund their own vanities because the rest of us don’t want to subsidise their tattoo-removals, breast enhancements or IVF. Cameron won’t ever address these difficult issues properly, neither will Miliband, neither even would Farage because he also understands the electoral numbers-game.
Trivial change may happen at the periphery of the NHS, job-titles and structures may change cyclically, but ‘the monster’ has a life of its own, cannot be quelled or tamed in our system of government and so will continue to be hungrier for yet more fuel and deliver yet worse performance. Depressing, ain’t it?- Mrs Grimble
August 8, 2014 at 10:37 pm -
That so-called “sperm bank for same-sex couples” is merely a normal sperm bank that that’s open to all: http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2014/08/the-mails-flawed-attack-on-sperm-bank-and-lesbians.html It’s not even “taxpayer-funded” – it got a single NHS grant, but customers still have to pay.
More tabloid nonsense – they must have run out of “Savile looked at me funny in 1967” stories.- Mudplugger
August 9, 2014 at 12:34 pm -
Agreed, they still have to pay something, but around half the price of the private channel – what’s the betting the NHS hasn’t costed it properly ? The over-population argument still applies to any unnecessary and unnatural breeding.
- Mudplugger
- Mrs Grimble
- waynebarwick
August 8, 2014 at 7:01 pm -
death panels are alive and well in the UK
- Robert Edwards
August 8, 2014 at 7:40 pm -
I rather doubt if the Minister of Health (a Tory, Henry Willinck) had this nonsense in mind when the White paper on ‘A National Health Service’ was published in 1944. The Country had learned some of the efficiencies necessary (and useful) when it came to dealing with the very ill. God knows, there were enough Guinea Pigs upon whom a policy could be practiced and some military efficiency was applied.
I further suspect that it he thought it would be used as a loaded gun to point at the temple of an essentially kind and generous Nation as an excuse for job creation then he would ever have sponsored such a blueprint for blackmail.
I hope all goes well…
- Ancient+Tattered Airman
August 8, 2014 at 8:45 pm -
Fingers firmly crossed for you and the anonymous ‘single Mum’.
- Northern Lunatic
August 8, 2014 at 9:04 pm -
Prayers winging their way to you both Anna, from an admittedly ‘dodgy’ Christian, but the way I see it, if you’re praying for someone else, then they’ll hopefully be listened to…
I had a ligament reconstruction operation at a BUPA hospital. It was originally supposed to be done by the NHS, but they ‘misplaced’ my records for a while! Apparently they have a policy in place where if someone buggers something up, they give you a very nice phone call offering to pay for you to go private instead. And maybe hope that you don’t make some kind of complaint.
- kimjung
August 9, 2014 at 10:12 am -
France spends 20% more on health services than the UK. The NHS has serious problems not least the disgraceful quality of their buildings and hospitals. It is a bureaucratic monolith (like many private sector institutions) but homogeneity has advantages, public health research is second to none in the UK because of the ease with which statistics are collated across the institution. There is a good case for localising and democratising the institution and removing the corporate bureaucracy. Resistance to this is born out of fear that the state bureaucracy will simply be replaced by a private one in the interests of profit and the principle of universal equal access to treatment, which seems a good one, will be lost.
As long as pharmaceutical research is performed by dysfunctional corporate institutions rather than universities it is right that NICE negotiates drug prices. If they don’t the pharmas have a money printing licence.
- Ms Mildred
August 9, 2014 at 10:33 am -
I don’t really know what to say about NHS. We have been totally tangled with it for the last 6 years. We are the grouping that get the blame for its inefficiences. Diabetes…how very dare you!! Surviving into your mid eighties with 5-6 years of cancer…tut tut. All our mates are going through the cataract/hip routines. A couple of plumptious younger persons, we know, have had urinary stones…the good life perhaps, striking at an early age?All I know is I waited 3 hours with a kidney infection in a polyclinic one terrible weekday afternoon (surgery closed)…to be informed by a pretty and chatty young lady doctor that ‘I was the only sane person with an illness worth treating’ they had seen all day. What were all those younger people doing there then? No triage to weed out the ones with nothing better to do. The NHS is swamped with youngies who live unhealthy lives and fuss over minor bouts of feeling unwell, getting in fights, falling off killer heels and being drugged drunk or both. I help out by paying a hell of a lot for my latest hearing aids and dentistry too and try not to feel too guilty about being old.
- Pete
August 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm -
Anna, do you seriously think the NHS would be better if it was privatised? I worked in the NHS for 30 years on and off- I’ve also worked in a few private sector nursing homes. One I recall recruited its staff from Bulgaria because all the locals knew how dire it was and couldn’t be persuaed to work there. The standard of care was somewaht worse than on the “chronic wards” of the 1840s-vintage NHS mental hospital where I trained, but the main difference was that those patients who still had any money were paying £600 per week (this was nine years ago so God knows what they’re paying now). The home was run by a plc who had 100+ such places all over the UK. As in any plc the main aim was to maximise profits and hence share value for the shareholders. Despite raking in £60,000 per week from the 100+ residents, the home could not even manage to ensure adequare amounts of clean clothing, with the result that male patients were dressed in women’s slacks instead of trousers. Which of course meant that even those who could still use a toilet normally would wet themselves while trying to work out why they couldn’t find the zip!
I could go on, and on… Suffice to say that this place was rated “good” by the Care Quality Commission, so you can imagine what some other private homes are like.
- Cascadian
August 9, 2014 at 7:12 pm -
Pete, think about what you wrote. Why would families pay GBP600/week when as you say the same or better care is available “free” in the NHS? Obviously, because NHS rationed services are just NOT available and families struggle and scrimp to do what they deem best for their family members. This is entirely the landlady’s point, the NHS is rarely able to meet customer requests in a timely and efficent manner because at heart it is a marxist command-and-control organization devoted mainly to poor or no service.
Along with others, I hope the young lady gets the care she requires from the French health system and that fannying around with the Royal Marsden has not done irreparable harm. She is indeed fortunate to be able to consult the landlady and avoid whatever nonsense is being disseminated at the NHS Sarcoma help line-an oxymoron if ever there was one.- kimjung
August 9, 2014 at 10:12 pm -
The NHS has nothing to do with Marxism. It was proposed by a liberal and setup by a Fabian social democrats. It’s problems have nothing to do with command and control. They are principally 1) underfunding, 2) centralism 3) a bureaucracy necessary to perpetuate the pretence of a “market” in health care.
There is much wrong with the NHS but the essential principle that individuals should not be affected financially when misfortunes of circumstances, environment or genetics affect their health is a sound one. It should be fought for.
- Cascadian
August 10, 2014 at 12:16 am -
I suspect that somebody self-styled as kimjung may have totalitarian communist tendencies. Apparently in your world the reasons for failure of the National Death Service are……….” principally 1) underfunding, 2) centralism 3) a bureaucracy.”…… and yet centralism and bureaucracy (combined may I add with a communist CEO-Mr Nicholson, does not make the operation a Marxist command-and-control operation. I think most sensible people would disagree, the purported underfunding is mainly due to waste (hint-read the landlady’s post there is a theme you seem to have missed) and gross mismanagement.
It is also instructive that your “essential principle” of the NHS does not mention curing or assisting people in a timely fashion, perhaps your restated principle should read-individuals should not be affected financially when misfortunes, environment or genetics affect their health, therefore we (the NHS) ensure they do NOT receive life-saving therapies, a dead “patient” suffers no economic loss.- kimjung
August 10, 2014 at 7:43 pm -
You are welcome to draw an inference from my nom de Guerre, it is entertaining that you take it without irony.
To learn Marx’s view on bureaucracy you may consider reading here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy#Karl_Marx. Neither bureaucracy nor centralism were favoured by Marx, but I suspect the facts may not disturb your opinion. The present NHS bureaucracy is the product of a Liberal economist, Fabian socialism, the Conservative party and the New Labour party. Perhaps Marx enters the equation because you have been drinking too much of the landlady’s special.
It is interesting that you imply underfunding is purported rather than actual. Perhaps you would like to identify a universal health care system free at the point of use which spends less per head from the list given here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Perhaps Italy is one or Japan. Both countries with considerably healthier populations than the UK. You may also like to consider that we employ fewer doctors per capita than Bulgaria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10550335/UK-has-fewer-doctors-per-person-than-Bulgaria-and-Estonia.htmlMy essential principle does not mention curing or assisting people in a timely fashion because it is bloody obvious that is desirable. It is the essential function of a health system. A political principle that does not distinguish between options is not a principle it is rhetoric. As I said there is much wrong with the NHS, it does spend money unnecessarily on bureaucracy. However, it is right that if a treatment is unaffordable for a dustman who happens to get a treatable cancer it is unaffordable for Mr Cameron when he happens to get a treatable cancer.
Not every treatment can be afforded. We could devote the entire GDP to extending my lifespan, I think I would be lucky to go further than 100 years, whether 40 millions workers were medically trained and devoted to the effort. Decisions have to be made about when returns are diminish to the extent that a treatment it is not worth the cost. It is right that this decision is taken rationally, without reference to the wealth of the patient. The present system is not perfect but that is what it attempts to do.
- Edgar
August 11, 2014 at 12:32 am -
Straw man. The question is: why is a treatment unavailable in England while available in France?
- kimjung
August 11, 2014 at 1:01 am -
Because the French spend more on healthcare.
- kimjung
- Cascadian
August 11, 2014 at 1:51 am -
“My essential principle does not mention curing or assisting people in a timely fashion because it is bloody obvious that is desirable”…….to everybody except those employed by the NHS apparently, where people die for the lack of water and compassion.
Edgar is right to attempt to bring us back to the original arguement, to his question I would say the NHS free-at-the-point-of-delivery ideal is utter nonsense, any free good will have infinite demand, now we hear the camoron has extended that free good to Gaza confirming what many already know, that treatment of foreigners is a massive drain on resources, to the detriment of British taxpayers. The French system with it’s part-privatized system is demonstrably more responsive and seems to be more successful.
Of course removal of many layers of bureaucracy from the command-and-control system would also help immensely.- kimjung
August 11, 2014 at 11:14 pm -
> any free good will have infinite demand
Indeed, rationing is inevitable, as I said, otherwise we could invest the nations GDP in my life extension fantasies. The alternatives are 1) rationing by utilitarian calculation, determined democratically, with the extent of rationing independent of the patients wealth, or 2) rationing by the patient’s willingness to pay, which is determined partly by his/her good fortune and circumstances. I favour 1). I do not pretend the NHS offers 1) but at least it pretends to.
- Cascadian
August 13, 2014 at 2:25 am -
I believe it is the pretence the NHS believes itself to be a world-class service that lies at the heart of this discussion.
Royal Marsden for all it’s airs-and-graces obviously provides far inferior service to the French system in timeliness and efficacy
Rationing is not inevitable, it merely requires the provider to state clearly what services will be provided to their subscribers-only, perhaps have small fees to discourage frivolous visits and a tariff for all foreign users and then manage costs fiercely, NHS is incapable of that and is therefore in constant crisis.
- kimjung
August 13, 2014 at 9:18 am -
> I believe it is the pretence the NHS believes itself to be a world-class service that lies at the heart of this discussion.
Well, I initially challenged your view of Marx’s opinions, about which you seem to know little. I think the quality of the service provided by the NHS is in many respects a disgrace. So I’m not sure where “world-class” comes into the discussion. Perhaps you just haven’t followed my argument.
> Rationing is not inevitable
On the one hand you claim rationing is not inevitable, on the other hand you claim “any free good will have infinite demand.” If you can settle on a consistent position, then we can have an argument.
> manage costs fiercely, NHS is incapable of that and is therefore in constant crisis.
Despite continued attempts to use the NHS as a funnel for passing public funds to a City firms unable to profit in competitive market, the organisation is highly efficient.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-servicesNot that this is a merit on it’s own, many unpleasant institutions can be efficient. I simply raise the point to make it clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Your argument is a series of prejudices.
- kimjung
- Cascadian
- kimjung
- Edgar
- kimjung
- Cascadian
- kimjung
- Cascadian
- Pete
August 9, 2014 at 4:30 pm -
Of course the depressed, demoralised, spiteful, abysmally-paid staff at that “home” were not “union-ridden”, as you put it. If you really don’t know why NHS workers might want to be in Unions, I suggest you talk some minimum-wage workers who are NOT in unions and find out how they’re treated. Then ask yourself would you really want to be looked after by people who are themselves routinely treated like dirt. And BTW I think you’ll find that those French health workers whom you praise so highly are ALL in trades unions, and probably more effective Unions than the British ones for that matter.
- Engineer
August 9, 2014 at 8:46 pm -
Almost anything run by the British state tends to be run on ‘one size fits all’ lines. All GPs must follow the same basic contract, be they a remote rural practice, an inner city one, or serving a well-heeled Home Counties dormitory town. Will a speciaist oncology unit respond well to the same management and organisation as a provincial general hospital? At the moment, they pretty much have to.
As the ‘users’ of the service, our options are far too limited. Imagine going into your local supermarket and finding they’re out of stock of potatoes. What do you do? Wait until stock comes in, or go down the road and buy some from one of their competitors? Try that with healthcare – can’t get an appointment with your GP until next week? Just ring round and find one that can fit you in tomorrow? Oh no – not allowed.
The ‘service’ offered by the NHS just isn’t good enough. It won’t reform itself (except to it’s own advantage), and politcians – our elected representatives – seem deeply unwilling to reform it. Until someone in politics develops the balls to take on the vested interests and face them down, we’re stuffed. We’re condemned to put up with an indifferent and expensive service, because there’s nothing else. We pay for it. We’re the customer, but apparently we’re not ‘right’ at any time.
- Mudplugger
August 9, 2014 at 9:14 pm -
It’s interesting to read that Virgin, ever attracted by some easy money, is now investing in a service which provides instant GP consultation on-line. No doubt it will be ‘private’ and charged at a profit-making rate but, if it succeeds, it may attract many of the next generation of patients away from their old stuck-in-the-mud surgeries, which could then lead to proportionate reductions in their funding or, perish the thought, the old-style GPs would finally realise that they’re actually in the customer service business and recognise that, if they don’t smarten up and compete, Branson will quickly eat their well-paid lunch.
It’s a long game, but it could just kick-start a process of change without the politicians needing to drive it (which they never will for electoral reasons).
- Mudplugger
- delcatto
August 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm -
Mudplugger has nailed this. My son is 21 and he is adamant that he wants private healthcare. He has suffered as a child at the hands of the NHS & he is fully capable of sifting through information & forming his own conclusions. Ironically, I am a nurse & I have worked for nearly 30 years in the NHS as well as a short stint in private healthcare. Having been a staunch supporter of the NHS for many years I no longer have faith in it. A European style insurance system would be better with the customer dictating what they would like for their healthcare because they pay for it.
- Cascadian
August 10, 2014 at 2:44 am -
And now the camoron has announced that a “world-class team is being assembled to assist in Gaza”. The perpetually “underfunded and understaffed” NHS who cannot even bring water to thirsty patients is about to bring it’s brand of patient-killing to solve an international crisis.
I am sure all the Gazans are fully up-to-date with their NI contributions and therefore “should not be affected financially when misfortunes of circumstances, environment or genetics affect their health” as my friend kimjung would say.
Sorry single mum, you made the mistake of paying into the system, there will be no help for you. - Disillusioned_Patient
August 14, 2014 at 9:06 pm -
A rather interesting argument can be had over the “blood pressure” business, statins and the like argument. They find you have “higher than the norm” blood pressure, so you are prescribed a medicine No 1 for that. The side effect of the medicine is raised cholesterol – so you get a statin, medicine No 2. That, in turn, raises your blood sugar, so now you get a medicine No 3 for the type 2 diabetes you now have. Interestingly, No. 1 also has the side effect of making diabetes worse, makes men have erectile dysfunction (but hey ho, women don’t get that, and anyway, blokes over 60? Who cares?) Statin gives you as well as the diabetes, the most appalling muscle cramps, but you’d like a three week holiday several times a year, wouldn’t you? After all, the only pain killers that work will constipate you, so you’ll stop eating, and then the first shit you have in 3 weeks will rip your arse! Great: the pill No 3 will make you depressed, or maybe suicidal, so that’ll be good for you (even if you aren’t already depressed because you haven’t had a hard-on in four years). But you’ve lowered your blood pressure, so that must be good for you, mustn’t it?
Interestingly, the statistics (and we know how the NHS collects those) say that those with high blood pressure will suffer 10 less heart problems than those with ‘normal’ blood pressure per 1000 patients in 5 years – or 2 per year. If the data is good, this is an 0.2% improvement – or, in other words, 998 out of the 1000 have no change in outcome. Is it worth the side effects? Not for the individual. But wait for it – who benefits? Answer: if you have a million people with high blood pressure, then lowering it will save you 4000 acute beds every year! The statistics work for the NHS, but they aren’t worth it for the individual.
And if you think the pills are costing the NHS – well most of them cost pence, and the people who pay prescription charges cover those who don’t pay. If you are supplying drugs that cost pennies to millions of people you can still set up a production line that makes big profits!
It’s managerialism as per the ‘cargocult’ article, but the beneficiary is the NHS, and not the individual patient. They aren’t daft, those highly-paid people at the top of the NHS, you know!
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }