NHS spending cuts.

[gcol]

By the way Gareth, I appreciate your comments and would like a straight answer from Joe but whatever that answer is Joe is as entitled to his opinions as anyone else and I will respect them even if they are totally at the other end of the spectrum to mine

Respected. Though what you need to realise is that Joe-90 is a lonely individual that takes pleasure in winding people up - this is fact. He also likes to be the centre of attention. What I'm betting has happened here is that he's shot his mouth off and made this post without properly thinking it through. Now it's unfortunate for him (and to an extent you) that your personal circumstances questioned his reasoning to such an extent that it makes him look like an idiot. Unless he responds to your original question saying otherwise, I should take it that he was trying to be Devil's advocate.

 

[phildigger]

Dextrous,not offended in the least-everyone`s entitled to their opinion and it`s obvious you`ve been through the mill recently regarding your mum so no probs mate.

Gareth- I`ve read enough of Joe`s previous topics to understand how he operates but give the guy credit where it`s due... Joe certainly knows how to start a heated debate

When I first read Joe`s comments on Friday must admit I was fuming but decided to wait and give a more considered response today but still feel he has a valid point. The system is groaning under the strain and is only going to get worse if nothing changes but again Joe why target the elderly and dementia sufferers?

 

[dextrous]

Dextrous,not offended in the least-everyone`s entitled to their opinion and it`s obvious you`ve been through the mill recently regarding your mum so no probs mate.

Gareth- I`ve read enough of Joe`s previous topics to understand how he operates but give the guy credit where it`s due... Joe certainly knows how to start a heated debate

When I first read Joe`s comments on Friday must admit I was fuming but decided to wait and give a more considered response today but still feel he has a valid point. The system is groaning under the strain and is only going to get worse if nothing changes but again Joe why target the elderly and dementia sufferers?

Indeed. My sister has MS and is, for want of a better word, "cabbaged". She has full time care and obviously has to be taken into hospital when she has seizures. At present, there is no known cure, and it is highly unlikely that she will ever recover. This is costing the taxpayer a lot of money to sustain her life. Would Joe also advocate pulling the plug on her? What other groups would he include - downs syndrome, autistics? Where would the line be drawn?

Still feeling like kissing me Joe?

 

[joe-90]

There has to be a line somewhere in regard to quality of life and who pays.

Somewhere in the next few decades it will be possible to keep the body alive almost indefinitely. There has to be a point whereby you 'get old and die' or live in a persistent vegetative state in perpetuity. The way it has to work in the first instance is that if a person goes into a home, as things stand today,they must sell their house to pay for it. Therefore, if someone has an incurable illness that won't be getting better in a hospital/hospice - then they should be forced to sell all their assets to pay for it - just as if they were in a care home. This would include any property that they'd 'trusted' to relatives.

The option is that everyone pays double taxation - would that be OK with you?

All of the parties are looking at cutting NHS spending - and 80% of it goes on the over 65s - that's why they must be targeted.

It's just simple maths really. Why waste money on the old when you can help the young. We need a paradigm shift in health care thinking.

 

[Nige F]

And by turning certain groups of people down for healthcare will mean the streets will be littered with the sick, disabled and mentally ill. It'll be like Croydon but on a national scale!!!

And Hastings... Guess who started " Care in the Community" and bought the working man`s vote If I was my son`s generation , I`d agree with joe . We are a greedy generation. There`s trouble ahead.

 

[dextrous]

There has to be a line somewhere in regard to quality of life and who pays.

Somewhere in the next few decades it will be possible to keep the body alive almost indefinitely. There has to be a point whereby you 'get old and die' or live in a persistent vegetative state in perpetuity. The way it has to work in the first instance is that if a person goes into a home, as things stand today,they must sell their house to pay for it. Therefore, if someone has an incurable illness that won't be getting better in a hospital/hospice - then they should be forced to sell all their assets to pay for it - just as if they were in a care home. This would include any property that they'd 'trusted' to relatives.

The option is that everyone pays double taxation - would that be OK with you?

All of the parties are looking at cutting NHS spending - and 80% of it goes on the over 65s - that's why they must be targeted.

It's just simple maths really. Why waste money on the old when you can help the young. We need a paradigm shift in health care thinking.

An interesting argument which will no doubt bring highly emotive responses. It does seem to beg a few questions, such as the purpose of someone paying NI all their working life and subsequently requiring the "insurance" to cough up. Or indeed all of us paying NI, not only to protect ourselves, but the ill and infirm within our families should the family not be able to pay for the treatement/care required.

Before looking at how an individual needs to subsidise their treatment, it must surely be worthwhile to ensure that the system itself is streamlined and fully efficient. The impression I have is that it currently falls well below any reasonable level of efficiency - I can't imagine commercial businesses surviving with the wastage and administrative costs that the NHS currently has.

As an anecdotal and unrelated example (atlhough it is public sector), my wife is currently Head of Humanities at a largish secondary school. Each year she has to write reports including exam analysis, faculty targets, ethnic diversities etc etc etc. Over the last year she has spent nearly 50% of her time writing these, and they have extremely limited real benefit for her staff nor the children. Thus she has limited time left to manage her team and actually help develop departmental methods for children to learn more effectively - instead she spends her time reporting on what little progress has been made in the reduced time available. If you consider this in fiscal terms, these reports cost (in relation to her salary alone and doesn't include that of other admin staff who are also involved with this) in excess of £20000 per annum, for no useful purpose. Extend this out to other faculties, and I estimate in manhours alone it adds to over a quarter of a million pounds. Like I said, only 1% of the content of these actually helps the children.

 

[Deluks]

- and 80% of it goes on the over 65s - that's why they must be targeted.

What are you suggesting Joe? That they be used as target practice for our armed forces?

That'll save even more cash! Killing two (old) birds with one stone.

 

[Norcon]

Over the last year she has spent nearly 50% of her time writing these, and they have extremely limited real benefit for her staff nor the children

.

Sounds like a 50% paycut should be in order.
If I spend work time doing an activity that reduces 50% of my productivity than my pay packet will get the chop quicker than a guillotine falling.
This is just one of the reasons why I fiddle my tax returns.