Junior Doctors row: 98% vote to strike

[JFKvsNixon]

[/color]On the subject if the NHS being a basketcase. http://news.sky.com/story/1643885/1100-nhs-never-disasters-in-four-years

 

As disgraceful as the incidents that you highlighted are, is the NHS any worse or any better than other systems in other countries? Surely if you're using that article as evidence that the NHS is basketcase you'd have to know this.

[onewheeldave]

A lot of that is just nonsense from the Tory handbook of NHS attacks

 

Got any evidence to back any of this up?

 

I'm no Tory

 

We both know, that this-

 

The NHS is a mess. It's pathetic admin system alone guarantees it will be a mess.

 

Comparing it to the American medical system and offering that as some kind of reason to think the NHS isn't a mess, is like saying muds OK cos it's better than dog***t.

 

Here we go par for the course placation by a habitual apologist. The NHS is so far removed from 'perfect' that to use the term in connection with it, is absurd.

 

I do agree that you can say the same ('it's not perfect') about any large organisation, but, unlike the NHS, supermarkets are actually fit for purpose, and, while I am less tolerant to long waits than most, the fact is, I can get from one end of a supermarket queue to another, without starving to death, unlike the NHS, with waiting lists that are so long, that there's a fair chance the patient will die of their illness before they get seen.

 

or anything like it, is not from any Tory handbook.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:45 ----------

 

I agree that it's a mess, but why do you think it got into this state? (Genuine question.)

 

My opinion- over-systematisation.

 

Decision makers getting ever further removed from patients whose lives are affected by their decisions.

 

Those decisions being informed by a medical study system that is provenly corrupt and whose output is significantly affected by commercial interests and political lobbying.

 

An approach based primarily on symptom management, with totally (in the main part) preventable diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity leading to huge numbers of patients requiring life-long symptom management, thus ensuring that resources are not available to tackle the prevention of those diseases in the future.

 

Overwhelming evidence is showing that heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity are pretty much entirely due to what we eat.

 

Overwhelming evidence shows that less developed nations where the population eats primarily a traditional plant based diet of relatively unprocessed food, simply do not suffer from epidemics of diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity (obviously mortality rates are often blurred by sanitation issues- but, in the absence of those, such people tend to live long healthy lives and are active even in old age).

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:49 ----------

 

More importantly, how do you think it can be sorted out? I would be happy to pay a bit more, but then the waste would drive me mad, so I would need to be reassured that we were getting value for every penny.

 

I don't think it can be now- the NHS is doomed.

 

As the key problem is bureaucracy and over-systematisation, even if more money were available (it isn't), it would only lead to greater bureaucracy, more systematisation an even greater numbers of patients on life-long symptom management and an even more clogged up system.

[Anna B]

I'm no Tory

 

We both know, that this-

 

 

 

or anything like it, is not from any Tory handbook.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:45 ----------

 

 

My opinion- over-systematisation.

 

Decision makers getting ever further removed from patients whose lives are affected by their decisions.

 

Those decisions being informed by a medical study system that is provenly corrupt and whose output is significantly affected by commercial interests and political lobbying.

 

An approach based primarily on symptom management, with totally (in the main part) preventable diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity leading to huge numbers of patients requiring life-long symptom management, thus ensuring that resources are not available to tackle the prevention of those diseases in the future.

 

Overwhelming evidence is showing that heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity are pretty much entirely due to what we eat.

 

Overwhelming evidence shows that less developed nations where the population eats primarily a traditional plant based diet of relatively unprocessed food, simply do not suffer from epidemics of diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity (obviously mortality rates are often blurred by sanitation issues- but, in the absence of those, such people tend to live long healthy lives and are active even in old age).

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:49 ----------

 

 

I don't think it can be now- the NHS is doomed.

 

As the key problem is bureaucracy and over-systematisation, even if more money were available (it isn't), it would only lead to greater bureaucracy, more systematisation an even greater numbers of patients on life-long symptom management and an even more clogged up system.

 

Thankyou, an interesting response.

 

With regards to the bit in bold, (which I generally agree with,) I was listening to Radio 4 the other day which was talking about the same problem in Finland where they had a similar obesity epidemic and problems in general with the Finnish diet.

It was decided that to change it required a whole government approach that included every department. They changed everything, from the way products were farmed and sold, to diet in the home and education in schools. A real co-ordinated, joined up approach, which worked wonderfully well, and solved the problem.

The speaker said it could never happen here because there are too many vested interests and powerful lobbyists putting a spanner in the works at every turn.

Taming wholesale obesity is about much more than just what individuals put in their mouths. (See the history of corn syrup if you're interested.)

[*_ash_*]

Thankyou, an interesting response.

 

With regards to the bit in bold, (which I generally agree with,) I was listening to Radio 4 the other day which was talking about the same problem in Finland where they had a similar obesity epidemic and problems in general with the Finnish diet.

It was decided that to change it required a whole government approach that included every department. They changed everything, from the way products were farmed and sold, to diet in the home and education in schools. A real co-ordinated, joined up approach, which worked wonderfully well, and solved the problem.

The speaker said it could never happen here because there are too many vested interests and powerful lobbyists putting a spanner in the works at every turn.

Taming wholesale obesity is about much more than just what individuals put in their mouths. (See the history of corn syrup if you're interested.)

 

bold: *eugh*

 

..

[spilldig]

I'm no Tory

 

We both know, that this-

 

 

 

or anything like it, is not from any Tory handbook.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:45 ----------

 

 

My opinion- over-systematisation.

 

Decision makers getting ever further removed from patients whose lives are affected by their decisions.

 

Those decisions being informed by a medical study system that is provenly corrupt and whose output is significantly affected by commercial interests and political lobbying.

 

An approach based primarily on symptom management, with totally (in the main part) preventable diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity leading to huge numbers of patients requiring life-long symptom management, thus ensuring that resources are not available to tackle the prevention of those diseases in the future.

 

Overwhelming evidence is showing that heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity are pretty much entirely due to what we eat.

 

Overwhelming evidence shows that less developed nations where the population eats primarily a traditional plant based diet of relatively unprocessed food, simply do not suffer from epidemics of diseases like heart disease, type II diabetes and obesity (obviously mortality rates are often blurred by sanitation issues- but, in the absence of those, such people tend to live long healthy lives and are active even in old age).

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:49 ----------

 

 

I don't think it can be now- the NHS is doomed.

 

As the key problem is bureaucracy and over-systematisation, even if more money were available (it isn't), it would only lead to greater bureaucracy, more systematisation an even greater numbers of patients on life-long symptom management and an even more clogged up system.

 

I also think more money would be a waste of time because of bureaucracy.

I reckon a little bit of common sense would do some good.

[El Cid]

I guess this saga is not over yet. A junior doctor was on question time, saying that Wednesday was the day that most deaths occurred.

Maybe more deaths on a weekend are caused by alcohol, what type of deaths spike at the weekend?

[JFKvsNixon]

I guess this saga is not over yet. A junior doctor was on question time, saying that Wednesday was the day that most deaths occurred.

Maybe more deaths on a weekend are caused by alcohol, what type of deaths spike at the weekend?

 

All the research suggests that there are actually less deaths at the weekend than during the week. This is due to a lot less operations and other risky procedures being performed at the weekend.

 

The research that Hunt kept on quoting stated that you were more likely to die if you were admitted at the weekend, but not die on the weekend that you were admitted.

[Gamston]

I guess this saga is not over yet. A junior doctor was on question time, saying that Wednesday was the day that most deaths occurred.

Maybe more deaths on a weekend are caused by alcohol, what type of deaths spike at the weekend?

I thought someone on Question Time said a person is more likely to die at the weekend because any visit to the hospital is more likely to be as a consequence of an emergency, while if a person goes to the hospital during the week, it is more likely likely to be a prearranged apointment . Both sides cherry pick statistics to suit there own agenda .

 

The person who spoke the most common sense on last night's Question Time was Julia Hartley-Brewer .

[El Cid]

Not much in the news about this, a high ranking Tory defects.

 

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/east_ham_conservative_defects_to_labour_over_junior_doctors_dispute_1_4444149

[sgtkate]

I thought someone on Question Time said a person is more likely to die at the weekend because any visit to the hospital is more likely to be as a consequence of an emergency, while if a person goes to the hospital during the week, it is more likely likely to be a prearranged apointment . Both sides cherry pick statistics to suit there own agenda .

 

The person who spoke the most common sense on last night's Question Time was Julia Hartley-Brewer .

 

The next part of the quote was that people going to hospital on their wedding day were far more likely to die than those who went on other days. The same logic as going at weekends.

 

I totally agree both sides can and do cherry pick stats to suit their argument.