The NHS

[Scuffer]

He believes that if we scrap the NHS healthcare would be free somehow. He has been rather coy about explaining how though.

Oh, rich parents you mean

 

[Hotpoint]

Cheers, very good of you.

I'm aware of what the guidelines are currently, I was wondering if anyone knew on what basis they were chosen, like on risk of patient infections, benchmarked against someone other country, best achievable level, adapted from guidance for food production, that sort of thing. I don't think anyone will actually know becaue I suspect the actual answer is 'drawn up on the back of an envelope on the basis of what sounds good'. But some standards are better than none

From what I recall when I involved in that sort of thing it was a bit more scientific than that. Have you tried asking NHS estates themselves?

As for your other query vis-a-vis actions actions against contractors have you tried putting in an FOI request? (goes against the grain to suggest it, I hate those things, I've wasted too many hours compiling answers for them )

 

[Scuffer]

Hmmm, good call. At least you can be sure it won't be a frivalous enquiry!

 

[Hotpoint]

Hmmm, good call. At least you can be sure it won't be a frivalous enquiry!

It would make a change. The really irritating ones are the ones for Newspapers, you can tell when they don't get the answer they wanted because the story never actually appears

 

[Scuffer]

Heh! Because I work for a university rather than the NHS, it can be rather tricky to get access to do work. Then I read the standard of some of the reporting, and I understand why they can be rather twitchy about 'outsiders' coming into test surfaces and the like.

 

[Perfection]

The NHS needs to update its tables

Spoiler :

Consultant, General Medical Council (GMC) code not known C9999998
Dentist code not applicable (dentist does not have Dental Practice Board number) D9999981
Dentist, Dental Practice Board code not known D9999998
General Medical Practitioner (GMP) code not known G9999998
Locum refers Code of GP for whom locum is acting
Midwife M9999998
Ministry of Defence (MoD) Doctor A9999998
No registered General Practitioner G9999981
Nurse N9999998
Other health care professional H9999998
Overseas visitor exempt from charges TDH00
Private patients/Overseas visitor liable for charges VPP00
Prison doctor P9999981
Referrer Code not applicable, e.g. patient has self-presented or not known X9999998
Referrer other than General Medical Practitioner, General Dental Practitioner or Consultant R9999981
Organisation Default Codes Code
Code of General Practitioner Practice not known V81999
Commissioner Code for Ministry of Defence (MoD) Healthcare XMD00
Dentist Practice V81998
Organisation Code (Code of Provider) - non-NHS UK provider where no organisation code has been issued 89999
Organisation Code (Code of Provider) - non-UK provider where no organisation code has been issued 89997
Practice code not applicable V81998
Practice code of Ministry of Defence (MoD) Doctor V81998
Primary Care Trust code not applicable (e.g. overseas visitors, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland).
Note: this code must not be used in the Commissioning Data Set (CDS) header. It is not a default Commissioner code. X98
Primary Care Trust of residence not known
Note: This code must not be used in the CDS header. It is not a default commissioner code. Q99
Prison Practice V81998
Referring Organisation Code not applicable X99998
Referring Organisation Code not known X99999
Strategic Health Authority of residence not known Q99
Organisation Site Default Codes Code
Site Code (of Treatment) - not a hospital site (for use on Out-Patient CDS) R9998
Site Code (of Treatment) - non-NHS UK Provider where no Organisation Site Code has been issued 89999
Site Code (of Treatment) - non-UK Provider where no Organisation Site Code has been issued 89997

http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs....des/default_codes_summary_table.asp?shownav=1

Seriously though, the NHS is probably better then the nasty monsterosity of privatized and public healthcare that is the US system.

 

[Scuffer]

The NHS has faults, but it does a decent job and is pretty much free at the point of deliver. if you are rich enough (or your employer is), and you don't want to slum it with the proles, you can go private and recieve treatment from exactly the same medics faster, but without the backup of a hospital full of experts should it go wrong.

 

[happy_Alex]

The fundamental problem with the NHS is very simple.

Overexpectation

If we want a service that uses bespoke cleaning, tonnes of medical staff, fancy drugs, the latest equipment, free car parking (and the list of failings I've seen is very extensive) then someone has to pay for it.

It's also an absolutely colossal establishment, and personally I don't buy the idea it is over-managed either. Just think of all the different branches and aspects, the number of people and departments there actually are in the NHS. The number of buildings, of functions, of systems, of records, of supplies, of new research to co-ordinate.

Of course, it isn't perfect. Something so vast is bound to have absurdities and inconsistencies. But for the tiny price paid, it ain't so bad

That's an intresting point. I haven't said much, still reading the posts and reading up about NHS management structure.

 

[Bad Player]

i know what your on about and the only way they can get more money is to
1)increase taxes
2)(my favourite)increase taxes of cigarates and give all taxes to the nhs.

I like the 2nd option! It might reduce cigarette consumption (especially it might deter teenagers with less money from starting) and makes people who choose to damage their health for no gain pay for their treatment.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Threads like this are interesting but not as much fun without certain extreme conservatives screaming that the NHS is dangerous, communist and will sent Britian into financial ruin

 

[Bad Player]

I'm a conservative and I have criticisms of the NHS but I also have criticisms of the private health fund system in the USA!

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I'm a conservative and I have criticisms of the NHS but I also have criticisms of the private health fund system in the USA!

I have no problem with conservatives or their views on the NHS, everyone has an opinion. But this fella was extreme in his long-term predictions for the NHS. Seriously.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Theres a great way to generate extra tax money which could be spent on the NHS. It's called legalising and taxing marajuana.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

So tell me – Would you pay £5 for a pack of spliffs (or whatever they are called nowadays) from the ‘Tobacconist’ or £1 from the dodgy pusher down the pub?

 

[ComradeDavo]

So tell me – Would you pay £5 for a pack of spliffs (or whatever they are called nowadays) from the ‘Tobacconist’ or £1 from the dodgy pusher down the pub?

The guy in the pub charges £20.

 

[happy_Alex]

Theres a great way to generate extra tax money which could be spent on the NHS. It's called legalising and taxing marajuana.

Woa! You want to pay for the NHS by creating a whole raft of other medical problems?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Woa! You want to pay for the NHS by creating a whole raft of other medical problems?

How would that create problems? People already smoke weed. Legalising it would take the money out of the hands of the dealers and into government coffers, whilst generating jobs.

If you are reffering to pyhscoligical aspects, well firstly there is no fool proof evidence og weed actually causing any harm, and what sketchy evidence tehre is applies to he strong types of weed, and of course regulation of what could be sold would mean taht the government could control the strength of the weed and ensure that none of the really strong types were on sale.

 

[happy_Alex]

How would that create problems? People already smoke weed. Legalising it would take the money out of the hands of the dealers and into government coffers, whilst generating jobs.

people commit crime, it dosn't mean it should be legalised. A lot more people would start using it (which, lets face it, would mean smoking it) if the governent decriminalised it.

If you are reffering to pyhscoligical aspects, well firstly there is no fool proof evidence og weed actually causing any harm, and what sketchy evidence tehre is applies to he strong types of weed, and of course regulation of what could be sold would mean taht the government could control the strength of the weed and ensure that none of the really strong types were on sale.

Regarding psycholoical aspects, I am not familier with evidence either way, but what I do know is this, it's addictive (and its combined with nicotine) and of the three people I know who smoked it regularly 1) friend from school, became very overweight (the 'munchies') and very paranoid 2) girl at college I knew, became very paranoid and needed psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia and 3) my cousin, serious user, hugely overweight. So okay, might be all correlation but having known these people I don't think so...

Secondly, and I think you'll agree that most people consume cannabis as joints, so there would be an increase of smoking related illness particularly so as one sucks harder on a joint and holds the smoke in longer than for a conventional cigarette.

 

[ComradeDavo]

people commit crime, it dosn't mean it should be legalised. A lot more people would start using it (which, lets face it, would mean smoking it) if the governent decriminalised it.

If you define a crime as soemthign that is wrong, it is not a crime.

Regarding psycholoical aspects, I am not familier with evidence either way, but what I do know is this, it's addictive (and its combined with nicotine) and of the three people I know who smoked it regularly 1) friend from school, became very overweight (the 'munchies') and very paranoid 2) girl at college I knew, became very paranoid and needed psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia and 3) my cousin, serious user, hugely overweight. So okay, might be all correlation but having known these people I don't think so...

Secondly, and I think you'll agree that most people consume cannabis as joints, so there would be an increase of smoking related illness particularly so as one sucks harder on a joint and holds the smoke in longer than for a conventional cigarette.

Firstly, it's not addictive. If Tobbaco is addictive then ban tobbaco.
Secondly, I know alot of weed smokers myself, and most of them are fine. You know what does cause people to be overweight? Alcohol.

Thirdly, we had a thread on CFCa while ago about a study that found theres no extra rick concernign smoking a joint. It was to do with the THC killing old cells. You know does killlots of people thoguh? Alcohol. Shall we ban that?

 

[kristopherb]

Stop all pointless* operatons, after the age of 18,or they pay 50% towards the operation.
Free life saving operations.
No operations what so ever if the operation is to counter any thing which is smoking related.
People which are curtianly going to die that and that have a limited life(can't move without aid)

*complex operartions which don't save a live