Failing NHS caused by the Tories?

[Obelix]

So basically you see someone who looks nice, has had a bit of money at some point and jump to conclusions on that. You reckon shes made more money that me why should she get it.

 

Sorry social medicine doesn't work like that. Everyone gets access regardless of how much you like it or not.

 

Now since the air in here is odious from your general mien and your unwarranted accusations you'll appreciate I won't be giving you the time of day from now on. I'd wish you a pleasant evening but my mother told me never to tell lies so I won't.

[ukdobby]

So basically you see someone who looks nice, has had a bit of money at some point and jump to conclusions on that. You reckon shes made more money that me why should she get it.

 

Sorry social medicine doesn't work like that. Everyone gets access regardless of how much you like it or not.

 

Now since the air in here is odious from your general mien and your unwarranted accusations you'll appreciate I won't be giving you the time of day from now on. I'd wish you a pleasant evening but my mother told me never to tell lies so I won't.

 

She didn't look nice,wherever did you get that from.

[stifflersmom]

She didn't look nice,wherever did you get that from.

 

So she didn't look nice, just "immaculately dressed". I see.

[ukdobby]

So she didn't look nice, just "immaculately dressed". I see.

 

Loads celebs are immaculately dressed but they don't look nice.hope you see.

[Cyclone]

It's because we treat to many people who don't contribute,if I knew the answer I would be earning a fortune.

Was in the dentist Wednesday and an immaculate dressed women came in with her Louis Viton bag,she was asked if she paid for her treatment and replied no,now I don't know her story but can imagine what I thought be it right or wrong but that's a big reason the nhs has no money.

 

So basically you've leapt to unwarranted conclusions and think you've found the answer that everyone else missed.

[I1L2T3]

I don't believe minor increases/decreases in funding explain the full picture. For those that are familiar with the way the NHS and Social Care interact, the crisis in Social Care appears to be one of the main aggravating factors in the NHS crisis. Many health, social care and local government analysts have been telling the government this since 2010 and the warnings have been getting louder and have been ignored by Cameron, Osborne and now May. Now it's really biting.

 

This is absolutely bang on.

 

The two systems are so finely balanced. A shift of maybe just 5% of high needs patients towards more NHS-oriented care because of social care deficiencies would be utterly catastrophic for the NHS

 

I said as soon as the coalition came to power that they were approaching cuts in a non joined-up way with ministers treating departments like individual fiefdoms. Now we're reaping the results.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2017 at 21:31 ----------

 

If funding has increased and the number of people using the service has "slightly increased" then there can not have been "defunding".

Which is true?

 

I'm just trying to have an honest debate. This depends on people being willing to withdraw statements they can't defend when challenged.

 

It's also about the profile of usage and changing demographics. More chronic illness. More elderly care

[Bob Arctor]

This is absolutely bang on.

 

The two systems are so finely balanced. A shift of maybe just 5% of high needs patients towards more NHS-oriented care because of social care deficiencies would be utterly catastrophic for the NHS

 

I said as soon as the coalition came to power that they were approaching cuts in a non joined-up way with ministers treating departments like individual fiefdoms. Now we're reaping the results.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2017 at 21:31 ----------

 

 

It's also about the profile of usage and changing demographics. More chronic illness. More elderly care

 

Health economics is quite clear that hospitals need to keep their bed occupancy rates at 85% or lower or they lose control of bed management and it will quickly escalate to 100% or higher which creates crisis. This has been clearly evidenced in practice in acute psychiatric units over the last 5 to 10 years so it's incredible that the government would take such chances by slashing social care funding.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Bob Arctor

[tinfoilhat]

Health economics is quite clear that hospitals need to keep their bed occupancy rates at 85% or lower or they lose control of bed management and it will quickly escalate to 100% or higher which creates crisis. This has been clearly evidenced in practice in aside acute psychiatric units over the last 5 to 10 years so it's incredible that the government would take such chances by slashing social care funding.

 

But they don't slash social care funding, councils do don't they?

 

And I don't think that should be the case. It should be centrally funded.

[Bob Arctor]

But they don't slash social care funding, councils do don't they?

 

And I don't think that should be the case. It should be centrally funded.

 

Are you playing Devil's Advocate? Social care funding is a huge chunk of what councils spend, so a 50% reduction in overall council funding will result in cuts to social care and can't be otherwise. If you talk to anyone who works in social care or in sectors related to it they will tell you that the cuts to support have been really significant. It doesn't need to be centrally funded it just needs to be adequately funded locally. It used to be, now it's not. That needs reversing immediately.

[tinfoilhat]

Are you playing Devil's Advocate? Social care funding is a huge chunk of what councils spend, so a 50% reduction in overall council funding will result in cuts to social care and can't be otherwise. If you talk to anyone who works in social care or in sectors related to it they will tell you that the cuts to support have been really significant. It doesn't need to be centrally funded it just needs to be adequately funded locally. It used to be, now it's not. That needs reversing immediately.

 

But if it's centrally funded it can distributed better (in theory I guess) and more importantly the government is responsible for it rather than palming it off to councils.