Brexit NHS Funding Promise broken

[Pannonian]

Pre Brexit: Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week. Vote Leave, take control.

Post-Brexit: No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief

[Beskar]

The situation within the NHS is rather shocking, and the Tories are hell-bent on privatization which will be a disaster for the electorate. I don't think people who are pro-privatization actually realise the consequences and shit-storm they produce, or they are that rich they don't care. The price to 'enjoy' the same perks as the USA is approximately 10x the current cost we pay, with the privilege of 50% of the population unable to afford basic health care. This is especially targeting the most vulnerable, like our older population who occupy 2/3rd of NHS services. Don't need to worry about waiting times then since no one can afford to access the services.

For a brief price comparison, for a mother who needs to have a c-section, this costs the NHS approximately, £1755-2582, sounds expensive right? According to these statistics, the average bill in the USA is $50,000 (£39,000). That is what your government wants, it wants to save £2500 by making the rest of us pay £39,000.

Another thing not listed in your article Pannonian is the massive cuts to local and council social services. This means that carers need to be employed by the NHS, to ensure people at home are receiving treatment, adding significantly more costs to the bill. This was something previously covered by social care budgets which are being slashed and squeezed in the name of 'Austerity'.

Also by turning the system from preventive healthcare to reactionary healthcare, the cost to everyone and the economy is increased even more. I am an advocate for even more funding for the NHS, Mental Health services especially, so let me drop this here. These figures were from Seamus Watson, National Mental Health Lead, Public Health England who I was speaking to last Monday. He says that Mental Health is the largest cause of disability, with 1 in 4 adults, and this costs the UK economy (businesses, benefits, etc) approximately £105 billion per year. Just for comparison purposes, the budget of the entire NHS last year was £116.4 billion. and only £11.7 billion of this is tackling Mental Health. With further cuts we get in Mental Health, with horrendously overstretched services, the costs to the UK economy significantly increase. Then we spend our money on the of likes Trident, at £31 billion (+10 billion in reserve)... the fact is, if we actually put significant money into Mental Health, or event the EU-leavers promised 18.2 billion, the cost of MH to the economy would decrease that significantly, that we would be able to fund Trident from the gains of that.

[rory_20_uk]

Services that are not state operated are not the state's fault when they screw up - they can also blame the trains, fuel prices etc and be the good guys in standing up for consumers rather than being the ones who are at fault.

Health services need to be honest: certain things are too expensive to do and keeping the elderly alive costs more than we have since when they are better they continue to cost a fortune.

But no one wants that conversation - to cut beds for no-hope premature babies since the papers cite the one who bucks the odds, free drugs for "at risk" gay men (as having to use free condoms is so last millennium) and on course oncology and rare diseases - a bottomless pit where nigh on infinite money can be spent.

Private companies would have to rationalise as we all know has to happen.

[Beskar]

Health services need to be honest: certain things are too expensive to do and keeping the elderly alive costs more than we have since when they are better they continue to cost a fortune.

But no one wants that conversation - to cut beds for no-hope premature babies since the papers cite the one who bucks the odds, free drugs for "at risk" gay men (as having to use free condoms is so last millennium) and on course oncology and rare diseases - a bottomless pit where nigh on infinite money can be spent.

Private companies would have to rationalise as we all know has to happen.

The conversations are had a lot in health circles, or the ones I am in, but the consensus is pretty clear, we as a society are not going to abandon people to suffer and die, and I am glad we are not. You mention about older people and you are correct, they are the biggest users of the health service by a long mile, and they are also the ones who contributed to it the most. What solutions are you actually proposing? The implication of your statement is abandoning them, is that a position you are considering advocating, or the play of the devil?

Being honest, I am happy for us to 'waste' money to give people a fighting chance, I believe in a moral society and we shouldn't just let people die due to a low chance, then grumbling over a collectively insignificant amount. However, I do agree that some choices such be privately funded as they are purely optional, and some lifestyle drugs do receive heavy debate, but these are usually not sanctioned as CCGs are too underfunded to make provision for them.

[Montmorency]

Of course, with those complaints one has to realize that only the state can achieve service rationing - private companies will only focus on what gives them money, meaning a focus on high-risk and high-cost for those who can afford it.

Cancer research and treatment is booming in America precisely because that's where the money is for private industry. Same with things like end-of-life care and premature births.

[Husar]

Of course, with those complaints one has to realize that only the state can achieve service rationing - private companies will only focus on what gives them money, meaning a focus on high-risk and high-cost for those who can afford it.

Cancer research and treatment is booming in America precisely because that's where the money is for private industry. Same with things like end-of-life care and premature births.

And while that may sound cynical, why invent a quick cure if a year-long treatment basically means you get a long-term customer?
Before you say that's a stupid conspiracy theory, remember that CEO who raised a drug's price 5000 times just to make more profit.
The price elasticity for a cure to a deadly illness is probably really, really low.

[rory_20_uk]

The conversations are had a lot in health circles, or the ones I am in, but the consensus is pretty clear, we as a society are not going to abandon people to suffer and die, and I am glad we are not. You mention about older people and you are correct, they are the biggest users of the health service by a long mile, and they are also the ones who contributed to it the most. What solutions are you actually proposing? The implication of your statement is abandoning them, is that a position you are considering advocating, or the play of the devil?

Being honest, I am happy for us to 'waste' money to give people a fighting chance, I believe in a moral society and we shouldn't just let people die due to a low chance, then grumbling over a collectively insignificant amount. However, I do agree that some choices such be privately funded as they are purely optional, and some lifestyle drugs do receive heavy debate, but these are usually not sanctioned as CCGs are too underfunded to make provision for them.

I never said suffer. Palliative care used to be there to ensure there was no suffering.

The elderly have not necessarily contributed the most - especially since the cost of funding has shot up vastly. The solutions are either to continue to add money (no idea where this money is) or to ration the money there is. And to spend money giving some a chance means others are going to die who had a better chance. The money spent is not insignificant since of course it is not just the cost of the drugs, but the ongoing costs.

[Beskar]

I never said suffer. Palliative care used to be there to ensure there was no suffering.

I understand what you mean by that, but operations such as a hip replacement are not life-ending, and they could still be alive and kicking in 20 years time. So unless you are suggesting they should go without for 20 years in a situation where they are being disabled due to being unable to access services due to mobility.

I have to admit though, when I first read your last statement, I was reminded of this episode from Star Trek on a similar issue. In short, the custom on the planet was for its citizens to conduct a ritual suicide at the age of 60, to "avoid old age, infirmity, indignity, dependence on others, and the cruel uncertainty about when the end would come".

The elderly have not necessarily contributed the most - especially since the cost of funding has shot up vastly. The solutions are either to continue to add money (no idea where this money is) or to ration the money there is. And to spend money giving some a chance means others are going to die who had a better chance. The money spent is not insignificant since of course it is not just the cost of the drugs, but the ongoing costs.

The thing is, preventative health measures over the long-term have proven to save significantly more than the costs incurred over the life-time. So whilst you might complain lets say, £1000 treatment, if that treatment then saves us £10,000 down the line due to advances stages of a illness due to lack of treatment, then that is a saving of £9,000. There is then the added benefits of this on the economy, as it means that person can work more, earn more money, spend more money, which means as a society, we just saved even more. Given your background, you should have access to this evidence yourself to know I am not pulling this out of a hat. Could start picking things at random, even arguments such as Early Intervention Services for Psychosis are a good example, as in catching young people early during their most vulnerable, we prevent them from having to go into fully staffed inpatient units, become isolated and disconnected from society, being out of work, etc. So putting in money now means we will reap the benefits in the future. At the moment, we still do not have this fully implemented, so we are currently tackling those who are in that situation, and trying to provide support now for those who need assistance (in typical underfunded and undervalued NHS way).

There is a chronic bed shortage for Mental Health at the moment too, and some of the 'short term' decisions are actually costing the NHS significantly more money, due to how the system works. They close down hospitals in areas, combining them into larger hospitals with around 60% of the bed capacity of the Hospitals being closed down, then having to send off and pay for the patients to be in Private Hospitals. As you can imagine, the Private Hospitals charge 3x the rate of the trust providing the same service. So it is a practice of closing 100 beds, forcing those patients to occupy 100 private beds, so effectively costing the trust the price of 300 beds.

As for the statement about 'means others are going to die who had a better chance', this is not actually the case. What actually suffers are the non-life threatening treatments or further cuts to Mental Health services, even though Depression is the biggest cause of death in the country.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pre Brexit: Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week. Vote Leave, take control.

Post-Brexit: No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief

Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.

As it is, let's be reasonable here, the Tories are not "dead set" on Privatisation of the NHS, that's very much a fringe position in the UK - most Tory voters won't support it and nor with their MP's.

It's another example of a "nasty party" smear - i.e. bullshit that's been repeated so often people tend to believe it.

Aside from that, afaik the NHS already takes up the greatest portion of the Budget, why does it need more money?

It needs to spend its money more wisely, part of that is carefully considering who should be treated with a view to recovery and who is beyond recovering and simply being forced to persist in misery and suffering.

Of course, as with anything these days, the greatest cost is people.

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

[Montmorency]

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

Give them less than they demand?

[Brenus]

"If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late." How? Their vocation, as you mentioned, so how? Is it capitalism, market laws? Apply only for railways workers and civil servants?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late." How? Their vocation, as you mentioned, so how? Is it capitalism, market laws? Apply only for railways workers and civil servants?

They need more than £22,000 in their first year?

I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.

[rory_20_uk]

They need more than £22,000 in their first year?

I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.

Indeed. In the 1990's, junior doctors who worked the weekend worked Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, Sunday night and then Monday. They didn't complain and certainly not about patient safety! Cardiac Arrest was a great series that was based on the silly hours and dreadful support. Viewed as realistic by doctors and uncomfortably realistic by patients.

Why no complaints? Well... they did get paid for all these hours and if they were nice to the nurses their sleep wasn't too badly affected (I wouldn't have coped).

Now their hours are moved around to work Saturdays for no extra money and they are concerned they will shake with rage it'll put patients in danger (since complaining that they don't want to work Saturdays hardly wins sympathy).

[Beskar]

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

I am sure it won't be as ruthless as you would like to be treated yourself in an overworked and underpaid position. The idea that Junior Doctors refusing to "work late" as if they are punctual on the dot is simply ludicrous. Every Junior Doctor I have met in 9 years on frontline NHS services pretty much stayed behind and worked for free, putting their patients first, on every single shift. if this was asked of you, you would be flailing your arms, shouting about why you have to remain behind when the clock is done. These are people working over 60 hours a week minimum. The idea you can even utter such a comment shows the complete isolation from the facts, naivety you have on the issue, and contempt you have for these people.

They need more than £22,000 in their first year?

I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.

For a 64~ hour week, playing a very important role in managing the responsibility of peoples life and treatment in their hands? Basic maths works that out as £6.60 per hour. It is a complete steal, and Hospitals are taking them for muggins. You get better wages at Starbucks without having to do a very demanding and intensive studying for 7 years, racking up an ungodly amount of student debt.

You should be glad that people operate on a moral imperative to do work far below the financial reward, and having to work 50% more hours in the week too.

Personally, I would prefer Junior Doctors to get capped in the working time directive. But unfortunately, they are in so short supply, that the overtime costs will blow up the NHS budget more.

Indeed. In the 1990's, junior doctors who worked the weekend worked Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, Sunday night and then Monday. They didn't complain and certainly not about patient safety! Cardiac Arrest was a great series that was based on the silly hours and dreadful support. Viewed as realistic by doctors and uncomfortably realistic by patients.

Why no complaints? Well... they did get paid for all these hours and if they were nice to the nurses their sleep wasn't too badly affected (I wouldn't have coped).

Do you really think those working conditions are satisfactory? You pretty much came out and said they are not, and you highlight this is not a modern thing, but something that has been going on for years. The fact you had to rely on good will of the Nurses to allow you to have a couple of hours asleep in a seat in a corner is definitely unacceptable. As a patient, do you really want your old junior doctor self treating you? They just got rudely prodded awake by their bleeper, coming to you half-a-sleep, rather groggy, and expecting them to make decision on your treatment/healthcare?

You also said yourself, world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies. If market forces were in effect, the wages of Junior Doctors would significantly increase, and they probably even get better hours and treatment. There would also probably be up-skilling of Nurses and other allied Professionals, with more Nurse Prescribers, and other, to reduce the burden on services.

[Pannonian]

Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.

As it is, let's be reasonable here, the Tories are not "dead set" on Privatisation of the NHS, that's very much a fringe position in the UK - most Tory voters won't support it and nor with their MP's.

It's another example of a "nasty party" smear - i.e. bullshit that's been repeated so often people tend to believe it.

Aside from that, afaik the NHS already takes up the greatest portion of the Budget, why does it need more money?

It needs to spend its money more wisely, part of that is carefully considering who should be treated with a view to recovery and who is beyond recovering and simply being forced to persist in misery and suffering.

Of course, as with anything these days, the greatest cost is people.

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

Talk to the moderators if you have a beef with the thread title. I posted it in the EU referendum thread before it got split off. You can see that in the title of the first few posts in this thread.

[Kralizec]

Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.

He's a member of the current government. If he was serious about the promise he could resign in protest. At the minimum some explanation is required.

[Sarmatian]

Well, the logical answer is that UK is still part of EU, so nothing changed in that regard. Britain still pays that money to EU.

Of course, evem if it weren't for that, Britain still wont be able to transfer that money to NHS for two reasons:
1) the sum is lower than advertised
2) UK would be forced to spend programes that are now funded by EU

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, the logical answer is that UK is still part of EU, so nothing changed in that regard. Britain still pays that money to EU.

Of course, evem if it weren't for that, Britain still wont be able to transfer that money to NHS for two reasons:
1) the sum is lower than advertised
2) UK would be forced to spend programes that are now funded by EU

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

[Husar]

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

re 2) -- As do poor people, and somehow they still don't leave a society that makes them contribute more than they get back.

If there were actually an effect of the EU dragging the UK down, it certainly can't be found in the economic statistics:
http://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/Brexit

The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.

How much of that money they "save" will be left once all the benefits are actually gone?
And about keeping the benefits, and the nasty EU wanting to take the benefits away, even with citizenship and other things people usually agree that with benefits, you also get responsibilities. Why would EU membership be about cherry-picking your benefits? That's just greedy.

[Pannonian]

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

The bare numbers don't tell everything. The UK government has a tendency to concentrate funding on London. The EU makes sure the provinces get their share of funding. Hence the southwest voting to leave the EU, then promptly asking the UK government for reassurances that EU funding will be made up for. They're idiots who deserve every bit of pain that they will get from shooting themselves in the foot.

[Kralizec]

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

1) He is correct, no doubt about it. The UK's government statistic agency has repeatedly debunked the figure cited, yet the Leave camp continued to use it during the referendum campaign.

2) The point is not that the UK receives more than it gets in return, but that part of the UK's contribution is reimbursed by EU investment.

The UK's net contribution is about half of the figure cited by the Leave camp, IIRC. Furthermore the general expectation is that leaving the EU single market is going to result in economic shrinkage, leading to a net financial loss, making cuts to the NHS far more likely than any extra money.