Will Boris now fund the NHS properly?

[Moominmammaatsea]

Today’s papers are reporting that Boris can’t thank his doctors and nurses enough and that he is crediting the NHS with saving his life. AIBU to wonder if the PM will now have a change of heart and fund the NHS properly and reward all its workers with the pay rise he voted down before?

Nurses and doctors 100% and bring back nursing bursaries.

I love to say yes too, but if the economy tanks ( as it probably will do) then there won't be any extra money unfortunately.
I know my answer is a bit simplistic but that's how I see things panning out.
It will be rough for a long time.
It's very depressing.

"Nor Brown/Blair for giving GPs such a whopping pay rise they could afford to reduce their working hours, which has crippled the GP system ever since."

So you're actually arguing that GPs were paid TOO much and this ruined the GP system?

Make me sound like bankers.

Letting GPs buy out of their out of hours commitment so cheaply was a huge mistake.

Boris is a cunning, cunning man. He is playing a character. He appears to be all grateful to the NHS for saving his life but when it comes to reality, he doesn't give a shit. Just like he played the part of a bumbling buffoon. He is never, EVER going to think of the common man. He will never change his ways...

To be fair ( and I've never voted Tory ever) how can they fund anything until people start paying tax again? They have pumped money into the system now as they haven't had much choice. Keeping this up will be impossible in the long term. I'm no economist but it's not looking great.

The NHS was an awesome idea that relieved people's fear of illness, to a degree, in an era when medical knowledge and capability was in its (relative) infancy. 70 years on, life expectancy has grown immensely and people survive many years WITH conditions that would have killed them quite fast 20 years ago, or would have seen them off via flu turning to pneumonia.

The advance in medical practice is welcome.

But the corollary is that everyone now thinks that their granny, age 75, should be saved by every possible and expensive medical intervention, despite said gran having eaten and drunk her fill (to excess even) for 65 years should be saved to watch daytime TV alone for another 18 months.

The NHS, if not carefully managed, could very easily absorb 100% of GDP, and still not prevent the death of elderly and ill people.

I know it's not easy to distance oneself and de-personalise topics when you are worrying about a sick member of your family. Everyone craves a few more moments with individuals they cherish. But no one who reads this is going to live forever. We ALL die, of or from or with something, eventually.

Actually jasjas, the NHS spends somewhere in the mid range of EU nations on healthcare as a % of GDP. Less than Germany, Scandinavia and France, which use social/employer/employee co funded insurance, and a bit more than Spain/Italy and Portugal, which also use social/employer/employee co funded insurance. The difference is that all those models have a mix of state/private providers competing to deliver the care service that is needed. So it is done efficiently and quickly.

You may be too young to remember when the telephone service was a state monopoly. I was told in 1987 that it would be TWO YEARS wait to have a landline installed in my flat. Regrettably, the NHS still operates on that basis.

You may be too young to remember when the telephone service was a state monopoly. I was told in 1987 that it would be TWO YEARS wait to have a landline installed in my flat

No, i am not.
The reason for that was that cables were wrapped in cardboard, then plastic, there was no capacity like there is with fibre/IP networks, Strowger and electromechanic TXE exchanges needed a team of engineers to keep them running and adding in a new subscriber involved a huge amount of work, the buildings were huge to fit in these exchanges, BT were also running out of numbers, hence 01/02/03 etc. Modern exchanges are run remotely now and take a tiny amount of the space.
The growth in telecoms in the 80s and 90s led to massive investment in new equipment that enables new DSL subs to be added very quickly and thats with copper.

Easy for people with zero knowledge to criticise, you might as well compare a Audi A4 to a Ford Popular.

Live in hope but I doubt it, so far what comes out of his mouth usually differs completely from his actions

Wouldn't it be wonderful if he did have a change of heart and actually fund the NHS properly? I'd love it if he did.

Sadly, I don't think it's likely. He's been happily voting against that for decades now. He's not like Trump, desperate for public love (in which case he might do it as a vote-winner, which it definitely would be). He's in this for as much as he can get for himself and his friends, and all of them are looking to private health care. The party has defunded and defunded the NHS, taken away so many services, so that people feel they can only get healthcare by going private. Our local chemists has a sign saying that you can speak right away to a GP (if you pay a massive amount). That would be a laughable offer if the government hadn't reduced training, given appalling conditions to those working through the NHS etc so that the public forgot that 20 years ago you could get a GP appointment easily on the same day, could have a GP who knew you and your family, because there were so many more.

Sorry, but it makes me furious. If he does have a real change of heart, I'll be thanking him endlessly, but if he does then he has a huge, huge amount to do to balance out the past decisions his government has made. Even if he wanted to, I don't believe that the party donors or other MPs would let him.

If I was craving nicotine, tough shit
Not a smoker myself but we routinely use nicotine patches in ICU. The last thing you need is the stress of withdrawing from it when also in pain and experiencing anxiety etc. Can't do right for doing wrong sometimes.
And the person moaning about nursing staff bumping up their wages on agency rates, does that extend to nhs consultants having private work too ?

@Hermanhesscat, the difference between consultants taking on private work is the private patient funds the private work, agency fees come from the NHS budget.

the difference between consultants taking on private work is the private patient funds the private work, agency fees come from the NHS budget.

But the consultants use NHS resources to support their private work, so get the income but don't have the same expenses, i.e. happy to use their own NHS secretarial staff, happy to use NHS office equipment, happy to "refer back" to NHS for use of xrays, scans, blood tests, etc. I.e. best of both worlds. "Perks" they couldn't get if they didn't have one foot in the NHS - i.e. if they were wholly private, they'd not have that access to NHS resources. All that kind of thing needs to be stamped on - if consultants want to do private work, then everything re that private work needs to be funded by the consultant themselves - i.e. a Chinese wall between the private and NHS work.

Genuinely interesting details about the pre-privatisation ancient prone network @jasjas1973. I knew there was limited capacity, but not why. Having moved from the US where one strolled into the AT&T store, registered, and collected one's preferred handset and cable by colour and length, and the service was active 12 hours later it seemed pre-historic, and typical of UK public sector service.

....ancient phone network... obviously.

But the consultants use NHS resources to support their private work

One of the most important ways they rely on the NHS to support their private work (and this includes totally private consultants nearly everywhere in the country) is by not having to pay towards private ICU facilities if things should go wrong - either due to fault or just normal risk. They can just transfer patients back to the NHS (possibly leading to the cancellation of surgery of someone who had been waiting months).

Consultants contracts I think are for 20 hours per week 'contact time' (administration isn'the counted but would probably add up to a standard week - I am not saying they just do 20 hours 'work') this was designed so they can do private work too.

The management and procurement is the problem, not the funding. Can you prove that or is it just your opinion. The NHS spends less than 10% of funding on admin and management, the percentage of managers is lower than the average in business.

Do you think there shouldn't be admin or management, how do you think people get paid, how works out rotas both for staff and access to facilities like operating rooms. Of course they need that level of admin and management.

I suppose with procurement you are going to tell us they pay too much for paracetamol or similar, that usually comes up. You realise they can't pop down to poundland to buy a few million tablets? Do you want everything to be quality tested or are you happy for them to buy your med off ebay?

I suppose with procurement you are going to tell us they pay too much for paracetamol or similar, that usually comes up. You realise they can't pop down to poundland to buy a few million tablets? Do you want everything to be quality tested or are you happy for them to buy your med off ebay?

No idea about management, but procurement is ridiculous. The fact that by and large trusts work alone, some even at hospital level is crazy, many frameworks are notoriously pricey, and investment in procurement professionals (and pay) is too low. The supply chains are monopolised when there's zero need, and many suppliers view it as a gold mine. More investment in training staff to be leading in the field to secure the best value and quality for money, continue to centralise it and make the most of becoming a more desirable customer for businesses ie we need 10,000 beds rather than I am an individual hospital I'll just have 10 please- economies of scale.

I don't understand how you can be fined for only buying wine if off licences are allowed remain open.

Sorry wrong thread

With rising life expectancy, the NHS in its current format is unsustainable. Even if funding was significantly increased (unlikely with a Tory government), it wouldn't be enough.

I would welcome a system based on that of many European countries, part state provided and part paid for at point of use.