The Labour Party won the 2005 UK general election with 35.3% of the popular British vote. The Conservative Party was just a few points behind with points behind at 32.3% of the popular vote, but because of the first past the post voting system, the Labour Party had a significant majority with 356 parliamentary seats […]
Continue Reading General Election 2010 Poll Results
The Cornish Democrats will certainly be getting my vote. It’s high time that decent regional parties gained influence, instead of the London-based parties with their strange euro-centric metropolitan ideas.
Dear moderator
Sorry, was I supposed to include the party’s website on my comment? – I’ve added it above.
You don’t have to add a link, sure people could use Google if they wanted to find them.
I added the URL to your first comment for you so all bases are covered :-)
David
There is a prospective independent, Dr Stephen Hopwood, standing in my constituency of Totnes who has raised the issues of 9/11, which was an inside job, yet is used as the excuse for our troops coming home in body bags from Afghanistan.
Dr Hopwood has also raised the issue of our vitamins and natural medicines being banned by the European Union’s Codex Alimentarius Guidelines that no one wants yet are being forced upon us by the undemocratic EU. He has also talked about how many of the problems faced today stem back from the private bankers who print and control the money supply.
At last, a candidate who stands for truth, as opposed to the usual BS on offer from the main political parties. Although, I’m not convinced many of the sheeple out there will join me by breaking away from voting for a mainstream political party, it will at least be refreshing to vote for someone who has seen Loose Change 2, Terror Storm and The Money Masters, so knows actually what is going on in the world (google and watch them if you have not seen these films, before making a snide remark).
I hope voters in the rest of the country who know what’s really going on too have the opportunity to vote for a candidate that speaks the truth.
View Comment
I will be voting for Plaid Cymru. Labour and Gordon Brown have steered the UK on the whole into a big mess indeed. The London based parties of the Liberals, Conservatives and Labour do not seem to have any intrest of Wales at heart.
Labour state that they have created a fair Wales, they haven’t. According to the EU Wales is a poor region, on an equal footing with Eastern European countries such as Latvia and Lithuania I believe. If Labour have championed the cause of the Welsh working class, as they say they have, why is it that approx 200,000 Welsh children live below the UK poverty line?
It is my firm belief that further devolution and maybe independence for Wales is the only way that Wales can look after itself, do the best for our country and protect our unique culture and language.
That is why I am voting for Plaid Cymru
View Comment
@ Sarah in the Desert. Local authorities have nothing to do with the DSS policies you have referred to in the 1997. The DSS is run by the civil service which has a national mandate with no scope for local authority input.
“People have short memories and tend to vote for the party that they believe will make their own lives better.” Is that not what you are doing? The Tories would make my own personal finances better but I’d never vote for them in a million years.
“Bupa cover isn’t cut out for everyone and the NHS should be very thankful that people like us have it and don’t drain the service..” but what you fail to realise is that BUPA consultants are also NHS consultants. Every time your insurance company profited from your own misfortune in being ill, the NHS also lost that consultant’s time to the private sector. British medical students are unable to train and be licensed in the UK without training through the NHS. So effectively, the NHS produces the UK trained clinicians which you pay for (minus the huge chunk your insurance company gobbles up).
Your NHS ideas don’t include “…those with hereditary or long-term illnesses that are through no fault.”. It would be interesting to see how you would legislate for this if you have time to summarise?
“You think it’s in your interests for Labour to stay in power as they are the source of your income and you believe they will stay true to the NHS.” How can the Labour party be the source of my income? If by that you mean the NHS, then they may well be my source of income but may not be, but the private option for work can be far more lucrative so this is not really an issue of my own personal finances. However, on the contrary, the Tories would make me a lot better off financially but they still, as an organisation and as an ideology, make me want to hurl.
There was nothing wishy washy about my post on me not caring about the EU as much as you and other posters. I simply stated that for me the improved NHS is a massive issue (life and death), much bigger relatively than the press driven hysteria about the EU. You brush vastly improved NHS waiting lists off as if it’s hardly worth a mention, which perhaps to relates to your private healthcare status and lack of residence in the UK. For me, years of waiting on the NHS for surgery was the most scandalous thing about the UK in the late 90s, bar none. And that epitomises the mess I was referring to. And now, it’s far far better.
You can educate yourself, take opportunities, make sacrifices, work really hard and still see the bigger picture, in that there are always people at the bottom of every pile, many of whom will be hard working themselves but without the opportunities you have had.
Yes there are people who don’t aspire to do anything, they are lazy, they are not contributing to society. That is a given in every country on this planet, so it shouldn’t be a reason to withdraw help from people who need it and deserve it.
View Comment
Helen,
I actually clarified my point with David on another thread of the situation available to single working parents due to a Labour shift in policy as I was in fact, incorrect this was a number of years ago now.
“People have short memories and tend to vote for the party that they believe will make their own lives better.” Is that not what you are doing?” – Yes, of course it is whilst understanding economically how it is better for everyone if you allow people to keep more of the money they work for. It’s good for the economy (the Laffer curve effect).
“Every time your insurance company profited from your own misfortune in being ill, the NHS also lost that consultant’s time to the private sector.” – this is nonsense, private doctors and consultants may have to be trained in the UK to practice there but to say that all of them work for the NHS and have their time sapped by private patients is wrong. I have used a vascular doctor here where I live who also has a surgery in the UK and does not work for the NHS at all; he used to many years ago but is now solely private, I’m fairly sure that he is not alone.
“You brush vastly improved NHS waiting lists off as if it’s hardly worth a mention, which perhaps to relates to your private healthcare status and lack of residence in the UK” – quite possibly and I can take that on the chin, obviously I have had a little experience of the NHS over the years some good and some bad. I just think that there shouldn’t be waiting lists at all, if you need treatment you should just get it and not have to wait until you’re half-dead or have bits falling off you before it’s treated; this is a problem because the NHS is a bureaucratic, over-subscribed public service.
“Yes there are people who don’t aspire to do anything, they are lazy, they are not contributing to society. That is a given in every country on this planet, so it shouldn’t be a reason to withdraw help from people who need it and deserve it.” – I don’t believe I was advocating that, I’m happy to support people who help themselves not the idiots who don’t.
View Comment
@ Sarah in the Desert
I actually said BUPA consultants are also NHS consultants, meaning that generally many of them work for both the NHS and private sector. I work for the NHS and you don’t even live here so my perspective on the UK health service is possibly more current than yours. You were acting like because you have gone private you are doing the NHS a huge favour, when in fact, there is a different indirect argument here which relates to the amount of NHS trained clinicians who then work in private sector. It’s not as straight forward as sapping somebody’s timetable. To be fair doctors doing private work often fulfil their NHS contract and their private one without compromise (their NHS patients simply wait longer). It’s a wider issue about UK tax revenue investment in educating and training clinical staff, some of which is then siphoned off into the private sector benefitting a minority (and benefitting the people sitting on the boards of insurance companies and private hospitals).
You did clarify your point to David about support with childcare in 1997, but in your comments to me you still seem to think of the NHS, the DSS, and the Labour party as the same entity. You claimed that the Labour party are the source of my income and haven’t clarified that to me.
You also haven’t answered my question about your proposed health service:
Your NHS ideas don’t include “…those with hereditary or long-term illnesses that are through no fault.”. It would be interesting to see how you would legislate for this if you have time to summarise?
You also wrote: “I just think that there shouldn’t be waiting lists at all, if you need treatment you should just get it and not have to wait until you’re half-dead or have bits falling off you before it’s treated; this is a problem because the NHS is a bureaucratic, over-subscribed public service.”
An example: In the UK, if your GP thinks you have symptoms suggesting a possible cancer, you wait no longer than 2 weeks to see an NHS specialist. If a hospital fails to meet the two week target (which very occasionally happens usually because of human error), it gets fined. You are out of touch with the NHS and are blind to the progress it has made.
I haven’t got a problem with those who choose to go private for healthcare, that is everyone’s perogative. I have got a huge problem with anybody trying to marginalise the NHS when it has clear that if the right investment is in place, it can improve. If we eliminate beurocrats from the NHS, we would then expect clinically trained staff to take on more administrative duties which is a massive waste of them as a resource. I agree the NHS is oversubscrided, becasue we are an unhealthy nation, and we have an aging population, but public money is being spent on health promotion, preventative services and screening so that in future the burden on the NHS will be relieved.
I’d be really interested to know how your proposed healthcare system in the UK, only for those who are not ill through anything they have self inflicted (how do you define this?), would be rolled out to the general population without any waiting lists, and how we would expect normal people to fund this if you also advocate “allowing people to keep more of the money they work for”?
Oh, and who would be making a big fat profit out of this new health model?
View Comment
Helen,
You’re correct you do have a bigger insight to the NHS and also an ingrained loyalty to it as you work for it. I have been a reluctant partaker and opted to go private.
“To be fair doctors doing private work often fulfil their NHS contract and their private one without compromise (their NHS patients simply wait longer)” – you’ll have to explain this one to me.. they fulfill both their contracts without compromise but at the same time their NHS patients wait longer, I don’t understand this.
“You did clarify your point to David about support with childcare in 1997, but in your comments to me you still seem to think of the NHS, the DSS, and the Labour party as the same entity. You claimed that the Labour party are the source of my income and haven’t clarified that to me.”
The NHS and the DSS are the entities that any new Government inherits and has to then manage and control, in effect their new employers (hence, your employers). Government policy changes directly affects both in the direction that they have to take (assuming of course, that the new Government has a majority house, which Labour does at present with a house representation of 346).
“You also haven’t answered my question about your proposed health service:
Your NHS ideas don’t include “…those with hereditary or long-term illnesses that are through no fault.”. It would be interesting to see how you would legislate for this if you have time to summarise?”
I’m going post another thread for my ideal of the NHS because of the questions you and David have put forward otherwise this would be a mammoth post!
“An example: In the UK, if your GP thinks you have symptoms suggesting a possible cancer, you wait no longer than 2 weeks to see an NHS specialist. If a hospital fails to meet the two week target (which very occasionally happens usually because of human error), it gets fined.”
If I even suspect I may have cancer I don’t want to wait for up to 5-6 days to see my GP and then another 2 weeks to see a Consultant (who occasionally may not be able to do so), I want to see someone within a day or two, 3 at most! What a horrendous 2 weeks that would be for anyone!
“You are out of touch with the NHS and are blind to the progress it has made. “ Obviously I am, I just don’t think it’s good enough, my expectations are a lot higher probably because I have experienced better (even in Government hospitals here in the ME).
“I haven’t got a problem with those who choose to go private for healthcare, that is everyone’s perogative” – you really don’t sound like it!
“I’d be really interested to know how your proposed healthcare system in the UK, only for those who are not ill through anything they have self inflicted (how do you define this?), would be rolled out to the general population without any waiting lists, and how we would expect normal people to fund this if you also advocate “allowing people to keep more of the money they work for”?”
I would define self-inflicted ailments to be those directly as a result of general self-abuse such as smoking, heavy drinking, drug-taking, obesity (through own fault) and sporting activities with a high risk of incidence.
“Oh, and who would be making a big fat profit out of this new health model?” Why is this such an issue for you? Organisations with profits pay employees (who pay tax and spend their earnings), have money to invest, grow and expand thereby creating more jobs and more tax, are generally more competitive and generally more cost efficient. Private Sector companies are not generally governed to use the EU Procurement Directives so it would be easier to work longer term with their preferred suppliers and reduce costs to supply and maintain the services.
The “right investment” that you have previously mentioned is not “investment” it’s more public money paid out of taxes and national insurance. It’s throwing good money after bad.
From David, “When it comes to the NHS there’s no comparison between Labour and the Conservatives, Labour actually care about the NHS. “ I’m really not disagreeing with you here. However, all political parties know that the NHS in its present form cannot continue forever, it has to change, the problem is that no one party has the guts to stand up there and do it because it’s such an emotive element and would be hugely unpopular if people start to think that they may have to start paying at least a proportion for their treatment.
“I’m afraid in this instance you’ve been away from the country too long to understand what it’s like now Sarah. “ Maybe, but can so much be different in 5 years? I suppose I have now other perspectives on how much better it could be if the systems were changed.
We made a choice of what kind of life we were prepared to accept for our hard work and unfortunately the one in the UK was not it, I do miss the UK but I just wouldn’t be prepared to live there again under a Labour government when all we were doing is paying into the system and not really getting anything positive out of it it made us think about why we were doing it.
View Comment
@ Sarah in the Desert
“…they fulfill both their contracts without compromise but at the same time their NHS patients wait longer, I don’t understand this.
Happy to explain. A consultant will be salaried to work for the NHS an fulfil their duties, as in do the amount of work the primary care trust has commissioned for local patients (for example enough work to maintain or reduce an 18 week general surgery waiting list (non urgent)). He or she may also spend 1 day a week working in a private hospital under contract to them, seeing private patients.
“If I even suspect I may have cancer I don’t want to wait for up to 5-6 days to see my GP and then another 2 weeks to see a Consultant (who occasionally may not be able to do so), I want to see someone within a day or two, 3 at most! What a horrendous 2 weeks that would be for anyone!”
Indeed it would be an awful wait. The reason it is two weeks is that the majority of 2 week wait patients do not have cancer. Specialists therefore have a lot of patients to see and discharge, with a minority to continue treatment. The idea is to allow GPs to make urgent referrals for anyone suspected to have cancer, so that those unfortunate people who do need further treatment do not slip through the net. It might not be good enough for you, but this system will be saving lives every day. The aim with more investment will be to reduce this waiting time.
I completely understand why people who can be seen quicker via private option would want to do so. Not least because of the emotional stress and worry. However, I’m talking about the general population. People who haven’t got that option open to them.
I certainly am loyal to the NHS. Not just because I work for it, but because I had my life saved. I appreciate what the NHS means to normal people.
“I haven’t got a problem with those who choose to go private for healthcare, that is everyone’s perogative” – you really don’t sound like it!
I wouldn’t have typed it if I didn’t mean it. I have got a problem with marginalising the NHS, a lifeline to the normal people of the UK.
“Oh, and who would be making a big fat profit out of this new health model?” Why is this such an issue for you?
I don’t agree with profiteering out of people’s misery. It’s quite simple. On your pojnt about tax contribution of private sector emplyees; equally people who work in the public sector pay tax and spend money. Healthcare professionals add value to themselves by training for years, and their earnings are then taxed.
“It’s throwing good money after bad.” – you think like this because by your own admission you can’t see the good the NHS does.
“Maybe, but can so much be different in 5 years?” – yes, improved waiting lists, a much more modern service. Things can get better too.
View Comment
“I have had a little experience of the NHS over the years some good and some bad. I just think that there shouldn’t be waiting lists at all, if you need treatment you should just get it and not have to wait until you’re half-dead or have bits falling off you before it’s treated; this is a problem because the NHS is a bureaucratic, over-subscribed public service.”
The above does show your lack of knowledge about the NHS today Sarah, it’s not like that anymore, that was what it used to be like under the Conservatives and one of the reasons why I’d never vote Tory. The have the “I’m alright Jack” attitude, because they can afford to pay for private health care!
Great if you can pay for private health care treatment, but what about the hard working British families who live on national minimum wage levels?
I had an operation just over 12 months ago and though it took time from first consultant appointment to actual operation, my operation wasn’t an emergency. Probably took about 18 months from deciding to go for the operation, having a minor procedure to confirm which disc needed fixing to the day of the operation (so wasn’t a straight forward, hello Doc, I need an op, OK Dave, here’s the date :-)) and that included a 2 months delays I caused: I was ill and had to put the operation off and got an appointment ~2 months later (I was a little worried it could be another 6+ months as I cancelled it).
And my operation was just before the latest waiting list targets kicked in, which means I’d have got my operation even faster today.
In 1997 the NHS waiting lists was a joke, people would die waiting for emergency treatment because the Conservatives did not invest in the NHS. As Helen has pointed out, if a hospital etc… fails to meet the minimum standards for treatment (patient had to wait too long) they get fined.
Ill people would wait months for cancer treatment under the Tories with no recourse, under Labour it’s weeks and if they fail they have options like forcing the NHS trust to send them to Europe for treatment if they can’t get it in the UK quickly enough.
When it comes to the NHS there’s no comparison between Labour and the Conservatives, Labour actually care about the NHS.
I’m afraid in this instance you’ve been away from the country too long to understand what it’s like now Sarah. It’s a hell of a lot better than it was in 1997. It’s not perfect by any measure, but it is improving continuously.
The complaints about the NHS have gone from waiting lists being way too long and people dieing on trolleys in passageways! under the Conservatives to patients wanting the new (expensive) treatments and hospital hygiene under Labour. Waiting lists are no longer the issue they used to be under the Tories.
Tories want to change the working time directive so junior doctors can work longer hours again. Under Labour it’s illegal for anyone to work unreasonable hours, do we really want to go back to over worked doctors being on call for 72 hours at a time?
I consider the NHS one of Labours biggest success stories and the Conservatives biggest failures.
David
View Comment
Hi,
I’ve just come across this website. It’s good to see a party which is no spin and does what it says on the tin. The bloke Jonathan Rogers looks like a man of integrity which is rare in politics as we know….
The website is here: www.cornishdemocrats.com
A Wallace
@ Sarah in the Desert
How can you reconcile these comments? They are both yours.
1997 “I wasn’t entitled to any kind of help to encourage me to stay in work and pay tax.”
NOW “…too right! We work hard for what we have, not relying on the Government to top up our incomes!”
I understand you felt upset at the prospect of being better off at home in 1997 (again, Tories, not Labour). But now people, rather like yourself in 1997, do need income support, and it is more widely available. You seem to have a problem with people relying on the government to top up their incomes, judging by your second comment.
View Comment
“You seem to have a problem with people relying on the government to top up their incomes, judging by your second comment.”
It’s the lesser of 2 evils; would I rather pay tax to keep people at home or would I rather pay tax to help people work?
Many taxpayers don’t want to pay for other people, period, but as we had to I’d prefer to pay to keep people in work, I might not like it but it would be my preference if I only had the two choices.
As it is we don’t pay any tax at all now because we got so sick of paying too much tax for little benefit of it.
View Comment
Reforming the Health Service
The NHS has improved in the last number of years (I have never said it hasn’t) but this doesn’t mean it’s marvellous now. So many people do opt privately in order to jump the queue or gain treatments not available immediately.
Overhauling the health system in the UK would require all political parties to be in agreement and be fully committed to it’s implementation. My ideas here have holes in them because I’ve taken an general overview, there is no such thing as a perfect system and I’m not a policy writer and this is just my thoughts on how better the system could be not necessarily it be set in stone.
Free point of use to only those entitled to use it at no charge, through the use of health cards issued after registration with your chosen provider to show your entitlement. At present, as a non tax paying expat I can walk into any UK hospital for treatment free of charge, maybe not legitimately, but I could do it!
Every eligible (UK Resident) person has a basic healthcare cover for healthcare provided in Government hospitals should they choose to use it. General health insurance would be provided from either Government sponsored insurance agencies (for basic cover and to provide cover (means-tested) for low income or welfare recipients), privately undertaken or provided through employers under a company umbrella with supplementary insurance to cover illnesses / injuries caused by lifestyle choices. This basic cover would need to be paid for by either a reduction in National Insurance or a pledge not to raise National Insurance.
Health care would be provided from say around 85 – 100% of the medical costs however the co-payment would be wiped out the longer the illness persists (as is the case within the French system). There would be concessions for certain illnesses deemed to be through no fault which would be set by Government policy in conjuction with insurers.
You would have choice of using a basic low-cost Government hospital or a completely private medical institution depending on your level of cover and what you are prepared to pay for. I also see the need for charity hospitals (dare I say it, not unlike the PDSA!) to cover the gap for those who individuals who do fall through the net (such as the homeless for instance).
Existing pensioners who have already paid into the National Insurance system for their working lives would continue under the present NHS system of free use for all which would be scaled back as those entitled dwindle in numbers. Those already paying into the system for a number of years would automatically receive percentage discounts on the co-payment and insurance premiums to reflect this (so for example if you had been paying into it for say 20 years you would have a 2/3 reduction in premiums and co-payment).
The points I have tried to include to consider are:
1.People tend to be motivated to some degree by money or the prospect of paying it out so therefore making people responsible to some degree for their own health and personal safety
2.Dangerous sports injuries are paid for in full by supplementary insurers or individuals
2.Long-term illness and hereditary illness provision
3.Abuse of the system by those not entitled to it’s use
4.Cutting GP appointments through (possible reimbursable) co-payment on consultations (you might think twice about bothering your GP for that funny twinge in your left leg that you had yesterday morning, if you had to pay something towards it!)
5.Reduce / remove waiting times as more health providers would come to the market providing even more choice and easing the burden on over-subscribed facilities
6.Maintaining fairness for pensioners and those already contributing into the current system
7.Provision for low income and welfare recipients
8.I’ve assumed that those people suffering long-term / hereditary health problems and self-inflicted health problems are a mix of different demographics (not exclusive to one group of people)
9. Private or company insurance would allow people to take their treatment overseas and therefore removing further burden on specialist services or equipment
View Comment
Re: Healthcare reform
Thank you for explaining your ideas. I take issue with the majority of it on principle but would like to pick up a few points:
“The NHS has improved in the last number of years (I have never said it hasn’t) but this doesn’t mean it’s marvellous now.”
You said you you felt an NHS problem was ‘having to wait until you’re half-dead or have bits falling off you before it’s treated”. This is a massive contradiction. I’m not stupid enough to suggest the NHS is perfect, but I have faith in it’s ability to improve and give help to the general population when they most need it.
“I would define self-inflicted ailments to be those directly as a result of general self-abuse such as smoking, heavy drinking, drug-taking, obesity (through own fault) and sporting activities with a high risk of incidence.”
If a person has clinical depression, leading to morbid obesity how would you categorise this patient? If a patient has a genetic propensity for caddiovascular disease, but also drinks above the recommended number of units of alcohol (like most of the population), how would your new system prove the underlying cause of that disease? I agree that people need to take responsibility for their own health, but I believe we should drive home the message of health promotion; healthy eating, smoking cessation, drug/alcohol awareness. The smoking ban is another thing I am pleased has happened in the UK over the last 10 years.
“Cutting GP appointments through (possible reimbursable) co-payment on consultations (you might think twice about bothering your GP for that funny twinge in your left leg that you had yesterday morning, if you had to pay something towards it!)”
Do you realise that normal Joe Bloggs on the street would probably avoid going to the doctors even more if you introduced this. People with early symptoms would put off their initial GP appointment (because they are skint), and then could ultimately become a late presentation of something much more serious. People in the UK can see their GP for free. A concept such as this is abhorrent to me as it would marginalise poorer people.
“You would have choice of using a basic low-cost Government hospital or a completely private medical institution depending on your level of cover and what you are prepared to pay for.”
For this statement, I read differently:- “You would have no choice; if you’re on a low income you’d be using a basic low-cost Government hospital which will have been scaled back and stopped making progress, if you can afford it you’d be using a completely private medical institution, and how good it is will depend on how much money you’ve got.”
I appreciate you have spent time on this and thought this through carefully, and accept that you are not a policymaker; but in a general sense you don’t seem able to relate to people on low incomes and how this might effect them.
View Comment
Helen, in all honesty, you answered fairly predictably for someone who is embedded into the NHS system. You see what you want to see.
I stated 85 – 100% medical costs provided, means-tested for low earners / welfare recipients(the poor people you’re talking about).
You have failed to grasp that I can’t go into the finer detail firstly without knowing the finer detail – this is a general synopsis of what the system could be or probably what it is likely to be in the future.
Rather than just saying to throw more money at it through increasing people’s taxes (some of whom never engage the public health services) I’m attempting to make it better and fairer for everyone and to actually give people a choice on where they can go for treatment, opening up the health market would encourage new providers for all to use.
The NHS saved your life, well that’s great for you, some people are unfortunately at the mercy of their local NHS Trust who may not be performing as well as others. Some surgery is just not offered until things are really bad, such as vascular surgery, you have to be really suffering, ulcerous and at the risk of gangrene before the NHS would even consider surgery which then potentially costs more than if it had been done earlier.
I never said or implied scaled back services in Government Hospitals only scaled back free for all service for future generations so providing affordable private services your freeing up government services. I would still expect a good level of service and facilities but without the stress of over-subscription.
Joe Bloggs probably doesn’t go to the doctors because he knows that he probably won’t get an appointment for at least 5 days, will sit in a waiting room with a load of ill people coughing and spluttering all over the place, feeling hacked off with the doctor who rushed him because he only had 7 minutes allotted to him and forgot to tell him about that other thing which he will now have to make a separate appointment for!
I’m curious as to how you see the French and Canadian healthcare systems considering they are health insurance based too and considered far superior to the UK.
View Comment
“Joe Bloggs probably doesn’t go to the doctors because he knows that he probably won’t get an appointment for at least 5 days, will sit in a waiting room with a load of ill people coughing and spluttering all over the place, feeling hacked off with the doctor who rushed him because he only had 7 minutes allotted to him and forgot to tell him about that other thing which he will now have to make a separate appointment for!”
You just made that all up Sarah as it’s not the GP service I and my family use on a regular basis.
I’ve a long term disability that had me back and forth to my various GPs for almost 20 years. Add to that having a wife and three kids (which 90% of the time I go with when they visit the surgery) and the normal sort of trips to GP surgeries etc… and I’ve spent more than my fair share of time seeing various GPs: moved quite a bit and since 20 have been part of 6 GP surgeries with at least double that amount of GPs. Even had a vasectomy at a GP surgery and a toe nail partially removed (that was awful, the injections to supposedly numb pain hurt like hell!).
Not one of the GPs or GP surgeries I went to could be described as you’ve described them Sarah. Each one had their own system, but all of them had the option if it was an emergency to see a GP that day.
We’ve called out doctors out of hours on possible emergencies (young parents = panic at baby with a cold :-)).
The best (though worst for me) GP system I used was you’d turn up unannounced and wait your turn (first come, first served). Tended to be an hour wait, though if you went at a non busy time 10 minutes. This was terrible for me as sitting/standing in a waiting room for an hour hurts my back, but for others they could get to see a GP within an hour of turning up. So if a patient decided they need to see a GP, they’ve probably seen a GP that day with that surgery.
Surgery we are with now you phone in the morning to book an appointment, if it’s an emergency they fit you in. If non urgent and no non emergency appointments available you can try the following day or book a day/time in advance (they prefer calling on the day). This surgery is also very open to using the phone for a consultation, which has been really useful for me as over the last few years I couldn’t travel to the surgery much. I had surgery on my back 12 months ago and all my GP consultations since have been over the phone.
I don’t recall a single GP limiting us to 7 minutes, quite the opposite, I’ve had consultations taking over 20 minutes without feeling rushed and chatting about life in general: almost every time we’d explain our kids are home educated and they’d try to covertly quiz them (check they aren’t illiterate), we’d have GPs etc… telling us they should look into going into the health service**!
** Pet peeve of mine and the wife, when we take the kids to the doctors or something we’d research what might be wrong beforehand, discuss with the kids etc… so they knew what might be wrong. We’d explain what we thought to the GP etc… and the kids would then repeat what we’d explained to them earlier. We’d have GPs thinking our kids are medical geniuses in waiting, very funny!
Two of my kids have needed emergency treatment (requiring hospital treatment) after visiting a GP and in both cases it was arranged immediately: we drove straight from the GP to the hospital where everything was in place ready.
A GP thought my wife might have an ectopic pregnancy (fortunately the GP was wrong), but she arranged for a consultation the following morning at around 8am. The consultant my wife saw went in early to fit the appointment in.
I’ve seen the improvements over the years, under the Conservatives I waited over 6 months to see a rheumatologist for the first time (suspected I might have ankylosing spondylitis, fortunately I didn’t) followed by a further 3+ months wait for the results of basic blood tests, followed by another 3+ month wait for a bone scan and another 3+ months to see the consultant again for the results. It took over 2 years just to rule out arthritis, by which time I’d been out of University for 2 years and was no closer to going back to finish my final year of a degree!
The health service is far from perfect, but it’s not like you describe it Sarah and it’s not the NHS the Conservatives almost destroyed with their lack of investment.
David
View Comment
I’m sorry but this is not the NHS we experienced, maybe the difference between NHS Trusts perhaps?
I really don’t think it was brilliant under Conservatives, I think it should have been reformed by them when they were in power to incorporate the private sector, I wouldn’t be surprised if not providing more money wasn’t part of the plan – to make it so awful that people would welcome the overhaul.
Digressing slightly, I also wouldn’t be surprised that the whole DSS system isn’t designed to piss you off into getting a job with all their forms, paperwork and appeals process so only the determined would get the benefits! :-)
Anyway, I stand by my statement that the NHS is brilliant in an emergency and can’t be faulted but they do fail people and you are governed by your particular Trust.
In 2004/5 (where I lived) there was no such thing as an out of hours doctors visit, you either had to drag yourself out of your death-bed and go to some pooled doctor’s centre or call an ambulance or go to A&E and wait for 4 1/2 hours.
Gave up trying for appointments at the doctors on some occasions, got offered 2 weeks ahead once and told to phone for an ambulance if it wasn’t good enough. Got told to phone Parentline once! I mean, phone Parentline!! I went bloody crazy down the phone at the stupid woman.
I lived on the outskirts of a city so that probably didn’t help our service. My mother lived a little further away and usually got her appointments within a reasonable time frame.
View Comment
@ Sarah in the Desert
“Helen, in all honesty, you answered fairly predictably for someone who is embedded into the NHS system.”
I could work privately or for the NHS or both so I’m not embedded. I just appreciate a good thing (for the wider population, not just for myself) when I see it. Not really bothered if it’s predictable or not. I’m not aiming for controversy or surprise in my posts, just conveying how I feel.
You say you don’t want to go into finer detail, but you need to at least think about the question I asked before:
If a person has clinical depression, leading to morbid obesity how would you categorise this patient? If a patient has a genetic propensity for caddiovascular disease, but also drinks above the recommended number of units of alcohol (like most of the population), how would your new system prove the underlying cause of that disease?
On thinking about this, you will realise this is impossible to legislate for. Surely money is better spent of helping people live healthier lives in the first place?
You wrote “Joe Bloggs probably doesn’t go to the doctors because he knows that he probably won’t get an appointment for at least 5 days, will sit in a waiting room with a load of ill people coughing and spluttering all over the place, feeling hacked off with the doctor who rushed him because he only had 7 minutes allotted to him and forgot to tell him about that other thing which he will now have to make a separate appointment for!”
This proves you base your view of the NHS on anecdotal, outdated evidence. Will the waiting rooms of your new health model not contain ill people? Will the doctors have unlimited time? Time is money especially in the private sector.
Sure, we all agree services need to be improved but thankfully the NHS is doing that year on year. You see it as throwing more money at a bad thing, I see a genuine improvement because of that investment.
As for French/Canadian systems, I am aware of their merits. The difference is, this is the UK and we already have the NHS, and one of the best, most unique things about the UK is the NHS. Long may it continue to modernise, improve and be invested in.
@ David. I agree with your assessment of GP surgeries in the UK. The current situation is that GPs must offer patients an apt within 48 hours (obviously sooner in emergencies or out of hours). There will be some practices which are better run than others (as I’m sure would be the case in any healthcare model). My GP practice (NHS) is fantastic.
It is also worth mentioning that private healthcare institutions in the UK are just as capable of letting patients down.
View Comment
Helen,
The country just can’t afford this system it will have to change. All the improvements that you are talking about cost money (tripled funding since 1997, not saying its a bad thing but I question its affordability now and in the future) and will keep costing more for reasons not even connected with the improvements you’re talking about…
“The NHS needs real terms funding increases of 1.1 per cent a year just to keep up with population growth and demographic changes. But bringing the NHS up to international standards through extra investment in public health and prevention would require £3.6bn a year on top of the economists’
most optimistic 2 per cent real terms increase scenario. “
https://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/cost-of-nhs-growth-revealed/5004247.article
The budget for 2010-2011 for the NHS is 110 billion gbp (a shortfall of around 8-10 billion in what is actually needed so wait for the cuts just in time for the next Government!), income tax revenue predicted for 2010 is 140 billion.
Another interesting article relates to the seven years of plenty and now seven years of famine for the NHS – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8091427.stm
“I’m not aiming for controversy or surprise in my posts, just conveying how I feel.”
Me too, being a forces child and now an expat I also happen to have experience of many healthcare models outside the UK some of which are hugely successful.
“If a person has clinical depression, leading to morbid obesity how would you categorise this patient? If a patient has a genetic propensity for caddiovascular disease, but also drinks above the recommended number of units of alcohol (like most of the population), how would your new system prove the underlying cause of that disease?”
I personally couldn’t, I’m not a doctor I would leave it to qualified professionals who could categorise and advise on the best way to manage this scenario. Forcing my arm, I suspect it would be something along the lines of root cause so in effect you would be treating the clinical depression and the morbid obesity would be a symptom of that. If this particular aspect of the model didn’t work then it would have to be modified, I have no issue with saying that I have already said it isn’t perfect! I didn’t think I would need to account for every eventuality in putting forward my ideal of reform!
“This proves you base your view of the NHS on anecdotal, outdated evidence.”
I accept that my opinion is based from the latest 2004/05 but ask yourself, is it likely to be outdated when the cuts that are now being forced really start to take effect? The NHS is at the mercy of the Government and the budget it’s allocated.
“Will the waiting rooms of your new health model not contain ill people? Will the doctors have unlimited time? Time is money especially in the private sector.”
Of course there will be ill people, the more important question is, are the waiting rooms more or less likely to be brimming with lots of ill people, therefore will the doctor have more time to spend with each patient or increase the times set for individual appointments? Time IS money, are you suggesting these doctors work for free??? Do NHS doctors work for free? Do you?
“Surely money is better spent of helping people live healthier lives in the first place?”
Sorry, again that was my lack of finer detail, I just assumed that people reading would realise that my statement of the Government low cost basic healthcare means having a stake in something that costs them money therefore they more than likely would attempt to mitigate that cost as much as possible through various means such as promoting healthier living / screening, etc.
“It is also worth mentioning that private healthcare institutions in the UK are just as capable of letting patients down.” You are correct as I know of 2 people who had surgery where it failed them when it shouldn’t have done, I also happen to think that if you open the market and increase the competition you tend to up their game too.
My belief in the reform of the NHS is about giving MORE people more of a choice as well as their own responsibility for their healthcare. Sometimes the “one size fits all approach” or “if it’s good enough for me it should be good enough for you” ideology is just not appropriate or acceptable to many people.
View Comment
“Of course there will be ill people, the more important question is, are the waiting rooms more or less likely to be brimming with lots of ill people, therefore will the doctor have more time to spend with each patient or increase the times set for individual appointments?”
Pulled this part of the conversation out on it’s own as it allows for an interesting point.
IF all GP surgeries are over crowded with ill people etc… and the NHS is over worked. How would going to a partial private health care system change this without damaging the health of the nation?
I ask because it sounds like you are wanting a US style health care system, but possibly with a better safety net short to medium term (for people who have paid national insurance all their life).
In the US health care system the poor in society queue for hours for free health care when ever it is offered because they can not afford private health care insurance. Basically their health is not a high priority as they can’t afford to pay to be healthy.
The US style health care system is great for people who can afford it, but for those who can’t suffer and your ideas would push our health care system towards the US style (not suggesting you want to go exactly US style).
Makes you feel any better I’m stumped about what needs to be done regarding the NHS in the future. Unless we start making massive and cheap breakthroughs in health care (like a tablet we all take once a day for perfect health, wouldn’t that be great** :-)) as population grows and more are elderly and no longer contributing financially to the economy, something has to give.
** Would be great, but more of our population grows old and that’s more of a drain on other resources! As horrible as it might sound, people dieing relatively early (before retiring, but not too much before) is a good thing for the economy as they have contributed, but don’t become a drain on resources in old age!
I’m hoping science and technology provides the answers long term. NASA years ago created a report (cost millions) looking at the future and among other interesting concepts they set out plans for mining the moon with automated robotic factories that could build almost anything. We’d send up the resources to the moon to build one very large automated factory that would mine all the resources needed on the moon to build more automated factories. Within a generation we’d have something like a billion automated factories on the moon that could build pretty much provide anything we needed without using any resources on our planet. This would free up space for more people to live on the planet.
I know it all sounds science fiction, but this is from NASA research of what’s likely to be possible in the future. Probably not in ours or our children’s life times, but interesting to think long term of how the planet will cope with the challenges of the current unsustainable population growth ahead.
David
View Comment
Thanks,I appreciate the objectivity.
“IF all GP surgeries are over crowded with ill people etc… and the NHS is over worked. How would going to a partial private health care system change this without damaging the health of the nation?”
This whole question has so many aspects to it in answering! I’m not making the assumption that all practices are overcrowded but I have experienced (albeit at least 5 years ago) using inner city GP practices where you don’t even get a seat in the waiting room it was so crowded with people packed together like sardines. It wasn’t all of the time but it was some of the time.
My whole point really was freeing up the over-subscription of current facilities by allowing entry to private providers who can provide the same or more comprehensive services than the Government. Part of any feasibility study by new providers would identify location and requirement of services.
At the minute, private healthcare in the UK is still expensive because it is still only used by a small percentage of people, who more often than not just dip in and out of its use and rely on general NHS services. The more take up there is the lower the costs become.
People when faced with choice will go to the facilities that they can afford to go to and even be prepared to pay a little extra for additional perks / luxuries if it was more affordable.
I have based my ideas on the french, spanish, canadian and the health care we have here in the UAE (I can’t fault it here, even the Government hospitals are outstanding).
I didn’t really consider the US as they do have a system where a fair number of their citizens are without any cover at all (around 15 million I believe). I have tried to take the positives and include all people to have at least some form of basic health service for when they need it.
In terms of keeping the nation healthy the Government would still need to expend money to some degree in the promotion of healthier lifestyles, promoting the screening and general health checks. A lot of insurance policies allow for general screening periodically, the basic low-cost policies would still have to include this.
I do think it is important that people are made to take at least some responsibility for their health where they can and money tends to be a motivator and some will of course just not bother and still expect to be treated!
View Comment
The health reforms you talk about could free up over subscribed NHS facilities, but if so many British people are paying for private health care (if it’s compulsory, they have to), taxes for the NHS would have to reduce and the NHS would have to scale back.
Result is those who can afford it pay for private health care and get good treatment, those who can’t afford a good health provider (there’s bound to be cheap health insurance offers that aren’t very good cover wise) are left with an under invested NHS.
The poor suffer, just like with the US system.
At least with the NHS we are all in the same situation unless you are well off and pay for private health care, which is expensive here: I haven’t even looked into private health care as I have pre existing conditions, would cost a fortune.
Speaking of which, what about people like me?
If I was pretty much healthy now I could easily afford private health care premiums, but I’m not healthy.
I don’t smoke or drink, but have had two discs fused in my back, have iffy knees and one hip hurts like hell. All are physical wear and tear type damage, but I’ve had these problems in a serious form (needing treatment) since my early twenties when I was at University and couldn’t afford private health care.
I currently take quite a large dose of morphine every day for pain (have taken pain meds for 15+ years and probably will for years to come), possibility of needing an operation on my hip as it’s not getting better on it’s own. Knees are probably going to need some work later in life as well.
I get hay fever in summer, used to have a single steroid shot for that, but that’s no longer an option (banned treatment) so in summer I pop antihistamines all the time.
None of my health problems are self inflicted, I had back problems at 18, maybe earlier (unlucky I suppose). Can you see BUPA taking me on at reasonable premiums?
I just had a look at BUPA and selected which is their full cover minus “complementary medicine” (which I’d never use).
Take a look at the things not covered beyond complementary medicine:
Bupa Heartbeat doesn’t routinely cover the following conditions and treatments. Full details can be found in the membership guide.
* Ageing, menopause and puberty
* AIDS / HIV‡
* Allergies or allergic disorders
* Birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes‡
* Chronic conditions‡
* Complications from excluded or restricted conditions / treatment
* Convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care‡
* Cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment‡
* Deafness
* Dental / oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage etc)‡
* Dialysis‡
* Drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use‡
* Experimental drugs and treatment‡
* Treatment to correct eyesight (eg long or short sight)‡
* HRT and bone densitometry‡
* Learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems
* Overseas treatment and repatriation
* Physical aids and devices‡
* Pre-existing or special conditions
* Pregnancy and childbirth‡
* Screening and preventive treatment
* Sleep problems and disorders
* Speech disorders‡
* Temporary relief of symptoms‡
* Unrecognised providers or facilities
Even if I’d joined BUPA as a child I’d not be covered for my current health care problems, specifically:
* Allergies or allergic disorders
* Convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care‡
* Chronic conditions‡
* Temporary relief of symptoms‡
“Temporary relief of symptoms” is a good one, it would appear BUPA wouldn’t cover medications that don’t cure a condition, but only manage it like pain medications.
4.24 Temporary relief of symptoms
We do not pay for treatment, the main purpose or effect of which is to provide temporary relief of symptoms or which is for the ongoing management of a condition.
Exception: We may pay for this type of treatment if you need it to relieve the symptoms of a terminal disease or illness.
For me they’d have helped diagnose the problems, probably paid for the operation on my back, but nothing else!
I am right in believing BUPA is the biggest supplier of private health care in Britain? Talk about waste of money if they won’t treat long term medical conditions, that’s the elderly screwed then!
David
View Comment
The health care system will have to change eventually, unless the nation as a wholes takes responsibility for it’s health (I won’t hold my breath waiting!).
We do need a nation that takes responsibility for it’s health and I can see why you feel changes will force people to think about their health more.
I think you are wrong, if a person decides to smoke all their life they are not thinking about the money it costs to pay for the cigarettes let alone the potential costs to their health in the future.
Some people are stupid, they smoke, drink too much alcohol, lay on a beach for two weeks a year soaking up enough UV DNA damage to cause skin cancer later in life and are then surprised when their health fails!
I find the parents with obese kids the funniest. Their kids (the vast majority anyway) are unhealthy fat because they let them over eat. It’s not rocket science, if your kitchen is filled with junk food (crisps, chocolate etc…) and you let your kids eat as often as they like, they’ll get FAT and will be unhealthy later in life. I have three sons, none of them are overweight, youngest loves eating and if we had the attitude of eat whatever you want when you want, he’d be overweight. I’ve spent the best part of three years stuck in bed (my back problem, 20+ hours a day lay down, I live like a couch potato!), if I ate junk food I’d get so big I’d not be able to get out of bed! I can’t exercise anywhere near as much as I want to (or used to), but by being careful with what I eat (I’m far from a saint, I love chocolate) I’m around 1 stone over my perfect weight.
I won’t donate my organs, not because I don’t disagree with donating organs, but because I don’t want a retarded smoker or alcoholic to get my lungs/liver after I’ve looked after them so well (my health problems are not self inflicted through self abuse). Since there’s no system in place to give organs to those in need who haven’t brought the problem on themselves, I’m not on the donor list.
So I might argue against your proposed health care system, but I do agree people need to take responsibility for what they bring on themselves, but what you’ve proposed will hurt those who through no fault of their own are needing the NHS.
I’d make people pay for their mistakes through taxes, increase the tax on anything that causes a strain on the NHS. A person wants to risk cancer by smoking, fine, but your going to pay for it through a massive tax on cigarettes. Similar with alcohol, with the anti social aspect of alcohol abuse I think it’s even more important to make over drinking expensive.
David
View Comment
A few things, supplementary insurance would be taken up by some people in the same way some people declare they are smokers for life insurance purposes (to make sure they pay out), I think how you go about including it is important when setting the system up.
Company insurance policies differ vastly so in some cases you wouldn’t actually need to take additional coverage it would automatically be included as a perk of your job. I’m not assuming that all those people with unhealthy lifestyle choices would be the only ones to have only the basic cover.
“Some people are stupid” – Yay! I’m not alone! :-)
“but what you’ve proposed will hurt those who through no fault of their own are needing the NHS” – explain more fully for me..?
“I won’t donate my organs, not because I don’t disagree with donating organs, but because I don’t want a retarded smoker or alcoholic to get my lungs/liver after I’ve looked after them so well”,
That’s really tragic but sort of understandable, would you want the likes of George Best getting your liver after trashing the first donated one if he was still alive? They can have whatever they like of my organs as long as they cremate the rest! I don’t want any university medical students dissecting my unmentionables!! I went out with a medical student once and I know how much fun they have poking about dead bodies or bits of!
View Comment
““but what you’ve proposed will hurt those who through no fault of their own are needing the NHS” – explain more fully for me..?”
Under a private health care system people will have to pay more based on the likelihood of them contracting an illness etc… Just like with car insurance it’s assumed young drivers are idiots and will kill everyone on the road they meet in the first few years. Reach 25 years (I think it’s 25?) of age and your suddenly an over night safe driver, 50 years plus and you can do no wrong when it comes to driving a car :-)
If a family has a genetic predisposition to breast cancer for example, the insurance premiums are going to be higher.
If you have a preexisting condition that requires long term management, premiums are going to be higher.
That’s now business works and your system is changing a lot of our health service to be business orientated instead of health orientated.
I’m all for forcing people to take responsibility for their health, but private health care hurts those who have done nothing wrong, just unlucky.
David
View Comment
“That’s really tragic but sort of understandable, would you want the likes of George Best getting your liver after trashing the first donated one if he was still alive?”
No I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t have given him the first liver if he wasn’t going to look after it (I’m not familiar with his life to that degree, so no idea if he’d sobered up). Certainly wouldn’t have given him a second liver (third if you consider his original liver) when there’s a waiting list with people more deserving of a chance of full life.
I’d rather my organs rot in the ground than go to someone who has abused their body with smoking, alcohol and drugs.
I kind of like the idea of my body going to medical research even though I know it won’t necessarily be fully respected, at least it trains the next generation of doctors and you never know you could get into a military project and come back as a zombie cyborg :-)
To go on the donor list I’d need to know a trusted family member would get to meet the recipients or at least get information on them and agree they are worthy of the gift. Wife feels the same way, so with the current system no donations from us I’m afraid.
David
View Comment
How about taking responsibility for your own health? If people weren’t so ignorant/stupid about taking care of themselves in their day to day lives, maybe the government wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.