• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
swiss_democracy_for_all

NHS performance slumps - Doh, why, I wonder?

Recommended Posts

tbh, that's why I hate the So-Called BBC. It's just propaganda.

Every time a hospital is shown on the telly they have obvious foreign looking nurses/ doctors. Then an article like this doesn't mention immigrants need healthcare as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of many major reasons:

Quote

Despite a severe shortage of doctors in the NHS, medical school places are restricted by the government to just over 6,000 a year. This is exacerbated by many newly-trained doctors quickly leaving the NHS to work for agencies, private providers or overseas.

http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/our-news/end-limit-medical-training-places-reduce-dependency-overseas-doctors

Why would you set such a limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The performance of the British doctors has dropped significantly in the last year. I always knew they were no good! The sooner we can replace them all with cheaper, more productive immigrant doctors the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spygirl said:

The BMA sets the limit.

Nuts.

Like having Ford union set the number of car workers.

 

More than nuts. 

Reckon shoving a few hundred million into seed funding for new startup generics manufacturers could probably save billions over a decade or so. There's so many areas to save money it is untrue. Making a meaningful effort to stop health tourism would be an obvious candidate too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The failure of centralised workforce planning is illustrated by the fact that the NHS is using up to £12 million per year from its training budget for overseas students to study in the UK – who are free at the end of their course to leave the UK.

International students who study undergraduate medicine are given their placement fees (at £34,000 per year) – the same as any UK national student.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

That is actually insane. That means that Imperial College trains about 5% of medics in the UK. A full two thirds of students at Imperial are foreign these days - most of those are going to fuck off back home once they're qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, This Time said:

That is actually insane. That means that Imperial College trains about 5% of medics in the UK. A full two thirds of students at Imperial are foreign these days - most of those are going to fuck off back home once they're qualified.

Yup, and it means that we strip other poorer countries of their doctors to make up the shortfall.

I thought it was a joke when I first heard it; I still think it's a joke but accept that it is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have told this story before.  I went to see an orthopaedic consultant. Introduced myself as doctor.   He asked "a medical doctor?"  " no, a proper doctor I replied". Oh how we laughed.  xD

anyhow, that got us talking about how educationalists (I think he meant hr but whatever) had ruined his recruitment processes.  Rather than him selecting his team, choosing those with the best potential, he was told who he would be training.  The people chosen, were chosen so that certain boxes could be ticked. He was not a happy bunny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swissy_fit said:

Didn't know that, wow.

Dear oh dear that little cartel will be most unhappy as AI breaks into their territory in the next few years.

I read an artile in one of the Lwayers papers about a disucssio nthat the SRA/Bar should start limiting the number of Law graduates.

The BMA was mention as an example of how to 'maintain quality' i.e. prices.

Amazin what a bit of supply meeting demand does for prices.

There's so mnay jobs a GP does that a Nurse can do. And so many jobs a Nurse does that an untrained health assiatnt can do.

Medicne, NHS esp., is a closed shop. And not for good reasons - i.e. danger. At the mo. its pretty dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, This Time said:

That is actually insane. That means that Imperial College trains about 5% of medics in the UK. A full two thirds of students at Imperial are foreign these days - most of those are going to fuck off back home once they're qualified.

It's a business. The postgraduate courses are so full of non-EU precisely because the tuition fees are so lucrative. Sometimes the students even bring with them industrial sponsors that grease the wheels even further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Generation Game said:

It's a business. The postgraduate courses are so full of non-EU precisely because the tuition fees are so lucrative. Sometimes the students even bring with them industrial sponsors that grease the wheels even further. 

That's what happens when you appoint the chairman of GlaxoShitKline as rector. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoeDavola said:

When I saw this on the So-Called BBC this morning, the story just below it was about how the NHS has to pay for HIV drugs so that people can have unprotected sex with strangers with a lower risk of getting HIV. Now of course I'm not saying that gay chaps are bringing down the NHS but the attitude displayed there is, i.e. complete lack of any personal responsibility.

If you want an NHS, then the government needs to take care of immigration and health tourism and wasteful spending and all that, but the rest of the population have to stop being big fat binge drinking messes.

If you think this is bad wait until the current crop of 30-something fatties hits their 50's. It'll be an absolute shit storm.

It reminds me of this:

 

99d60aa377784b858e599cb4c2f428806c3ca09d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

99d60aa377784b858e599cb4c2f428806c3ca09d

Yup.

I've also noticed that the hardest leftie/socialist types that I know, are the people who actually pay little/no tax into the state themselves. In fact most of the chaps I'm thinking of as I type this pay no tax, because they earn so little (one works 3 days a week min wage; could never be arsed doing more), or don't declare what they earn. They are lazy, paying little or nothing in - yet feel qualified to comment on how the economy is being run despite never having achieved anything....

....sounds to me like they're just after free money, and have found a way to make it sound virtuous.

Edited by JoeDavola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

It reminds me of this:

 

99d60aa377784b858e599cb4c2f428806c3ca09d

Did that stop being true after QE? Seems to me the PPE politicians think it did. The bankers know it didn't stop being true of course, and are chuckling quietly to themselves....

I never thought I would want that old hag back, but right now, a full-strength Thatcher government with a big majority is exactly what the UK needs, both to deal with the EU and the benefits mess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Welsh NHS had a shortage of dentists so the Assembly increased training of new dentists but locked them into long contracts with the NHS in return for their training. They appear not to have done the same with doctors.

Still a shortage of NHS dentists though but not as bad as 10 years ago.

Edited by The Masked Tulip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dipsy said:

If we're going to discriminate to make it fair, then we'll end up discriminating based on ability to pay.

Remember that the taxes on cigarettes have been at eye watering levels for years in order to "fund the NHS".

This is going to kick off big time.

 

Edited by SpectrumFX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dipsy said:

Sounds good on the surface as it's for non-serious cases only, but it's a bit of a slippery slope. Not sure I'd be comfortable with other manifestations of this.

I'd wager that most on here would be up in arms if it was mooted that those who pay the most in should receive preferential treatment, eg rich people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the answer then? If we want a truly universal health system that pays for everything all the time, taxes will have to rise substantially even if we stabilised the population. The NHS is a bottomless pit. Limiting non urgent treatment for those that in the main can do something to improve their surgical outcomes seems sensible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dipsy said:

What's the answer then? If we want a truly universal health system that pays for everything all the time, taxes will have to rise substantially even if we stabilised the population. The NHS is a bottomless pit. Limiting non urgent treatment for those that in the main can do something to improve their surgical outcomes seems sensible to me.

Taking my money off people by force to fund universal services, and then telling them that they can't have access to those universal services because they don't live their life in the manner approved by some committee isn't the answer.

"From each according to his ability, and to each according to what the committee on moral righteous says he deserves" isn't that snappy is it? And as an approach It certainty has no obvious philosophical claim to any moral authority.

Your question assumes that a truly universal service can't be afforded. If that's the case, then the first step is to stop pretending that it can be.

Maybe we should start asking questions like why do people get free perceptions for things like ibuprofen that cost pennies? 

Why do we need prescriptions at all for things like athsma inhalers that you can buy over the counter in other countries?

Why are doctors still prescribing nicotine replacement therapies that are more expensive than vaping, and less effective? In fact, any and all of which are cheaper than smoking, so actually why have any of it on prescription at all?

Why can't we stop the rampant health tourism?

PFI. Jesus, just why? What the fuck was alt that even about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about people who are obese because they're ill or immobile? There's too much incentive there for the NHS to put off the likes of ankle, knee and hip surgery in the hope that the patient becomes too overweight by the time they get to the top of the list. There's also incentive to blindly follow BMI and tell people like the picture below that they are obese and need to lose weight.

Clay-Matthews-sack.jpg

Also, most people are obese because of the decades of unsound nutritional advice pushed by the NHS amongst others. You follow the food pyramid and get most of your calories from carbs then almost inevitably get fat. You then try to lose weight following standard nutritional advice so spend your days hungry and miserable. Maybe you've got the willpower to live with the hunger for a month or even a few months and lose a bit of weight but willpower is a finite resource and you fall off the wagon then gain all the weight back plus a few more pounds. Lather, rinse, repeat and you eventually reach the point where you've got too much weight to lose or you just can't face the months of hunger again so you give up. Most 'landwhales' don't want to be fat but are doomed to fail when it comes to weight loss unless they manage to break free of a lifetime of programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By swiss_democracy_for_all
      OK so a poll. I want to challenge a popular idea that the UK is crowded. Except that it does seem like it is crowded when I go there......
      However the population density per km2 of usable land in Switzerland is almost double that of the UK, but here it doesn't seem too crowded, especially outside the cities.
      The Swiss have relevant laws - when a commune(small local entity about the size of a church parish) wants to increase it's population, it has to build appropriate infrastructure to accompany it. Immigration is proportionately similar or higher than the UK I might add.
      So - is the UK really crowded, or is it just that successive governments have allowed massive immigration and have done nothing about the infrastructure, allowing the elites, banks and land cartels to milk the situation, squeezing everyone in at ever-higher prices?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.