Mr. Arse can I introduce Mr Fooking Elbow?

 

Last Monday on holiday the nipper broke her ankle so had to go to A&E in Exeter. Walked up to the reception gave our details, sat in the waiting room and was called by one of the 4 triage nurses on duty after a whole 5 minutes wait. Then took to X ray, 5 minutes later job done with an appointment to see the consultant on Thursday.

 

Went back on Thursday, seen on time, took to the plaster technician, nice pink cast, on our way with the consultant's notes and CD of the X rays in 10 minutes. He told us we'd have to sort out follow up care when we got home. All in all brilliant.

 

Get back home spend most of Friday trying to ring the fracture clinic at Trafford General. Obviously being a Friday they'd all fooked off home early. Got through yesterday they said we had to take her to A&E. Got there, board on wall said there was a 3 to 4 hour wait. Went to reception and was told we'd need to see the triage nurse. Politely pointed out that we know whats fecking wrong with her, we've got the consultant's notes and copies of the X ray, we just need booking in to see someone in the fracture clinic. Nope, got to see the triage nurse (not the singular) and wait 4 hours. Fecked it off and went in first thing this morning.

 

No one there so saw the triage nurse - back into an empty waiting room. Waited 40 minutes then asked if they had any idea when we'd be seen. Was told doctor with someone with chest pains. Said we just need an appointnment with the fracture clinic don;t need to see a doctor. They said oh right yeah, don't suppose you do and gave us an appointment for Friday

 

Fooking, entirely fooking useless. I'm moving down south.

Mr. Arse can I introduce Mr Fooking Elbow?

 

Last Monday on holiday the nipper broke her ankle so had to go to A&E in Exeter. Walked up to the reception gave our details, sat in the waiting room and was called by one of the 4 triage nurses on duty after a whole 5 minutes wait. Then took to X ray, 5 minutes later job done with an appointment to see the consultant on Thursday.

 

Went back on Thursday, seen on time, took to the plaster technician, nice pink cast, on our way with the consultant's notes and CD of the X rays in 10 minutes. He told us we'd have to sort out follow up care when we got home. All in all brilliant.

 

Get back home spend most of Friday trying to ring the fracture clinic at Trafford General. Obviously being a Friday they'd all fooked off home early. Got through yesterday they said we had to take her to A&E. Got there, board on wall said there was a 3 to 4 hour wait. Went to reception and was told we'd need to see the triage nurse. Politely pointed out that we know whats fecking wrong with her, we've got the consultant's notes and copies of the X ray, we just need booking in to see someone in the fracture clinic. Nope, got to see the triage nurse (not the singular) and wait 4 hours. Fecked it off and went in first thing this morning.

 

No one there so saw the triage nurse - back into an empty waiting room. Waited 40 minutes then asked if they had any idea when we'd be seen. Was told doctor with someone with chest pains. Said we just need an appointnment with the fracture clinic don;t need to see a doctor. They said oh right yeah, don't suppose you do and gave us an appointment for Friday

 

Fooking, entirely fooking useless. I'm moving down south.

 

 

Mick - I refuse to believe a word of it. There's a socialist government in place which champions the NHS. Can't be reet.

suppose you do and gave us an appointment for Friday

 

Unfortunately, if it's anything like Royal Bolton Hospital, they'll be giving everyone the same time slot and see you on a first-come-first-served basis. You'll be in with all the chavs who, for some reason, think having an entourage of chavvy pals looks good. You'll be with all the dirty f?ckers who think not washing prior to their hospital appointment is acceptable. You'll be with a load of not-rights who think you and your kid want to speak to them.

 

Join BUPA!

Trafford General is the worst hospital in England.

Unfortunately, if it's anything like Royal Bolton Hospital, they'll be giving everyone the same time slot and see you on a first-come-first-served basis. You'll be in with all the chavs who, for some reason, think having an entourage of chavvy pals looks good. You'll be with all the dirty f?ckers who think not washing prior to their hospital appointment is acceptable. You'll be with a load of not-rights who think you and your kid want to speak to them.

 

Join BUPA!

 

Can't wait.

Unfortunately, if it's anything like Royal Bolton Hospital, they'll be giving everyone the same time slot and see you on a first-come-first-served basis. You'll be in with all the chavs who, for some reason, think having an entourage of chavvy pals looks good. You'll be with all the dirty f?ckers who think not washing prior to their hospital appointment is acceptable. You'll be with a load of not-rights who think you and your kid want to speak to them.

 

Join BUPA!

 

And another thing; at what point does the entertainment value of using your broken-legged mate's crutches subside? They all think they're the first!

And another thing; at what point does the entertainment value of using your broken-legged mate's crutches subside? They all think they're the first!

 

One day a rain's gonna fall.

I think Antony Scholefield covers this one fairly well -

 

"To sum up, the operative side of the National Health Service began by receiving the property of some 2,600 hospitals without paying any compensation. Over the past 60 years it has reduced the number of beds by 60 per cent and sold off much of the property, pocketing the proceeds. In its early years, it had immense financial good fortune due to medical changes and advances. Virtually no money was spent on capital additions by the NHS in the 1950?s compared to what was spent by the charities and municipalities in pre-war days. Fundamentally the NHS was utilizing the asset of the former charities and municipalities and, unless one assumes they were grossly inefficient or kept resources idle, it had no more resources than was available before 1948 (less, as they were sold off) so it could hardly give a better service and capital expenditure was not kept up. "

 

Other nice tid bit -

 

"NHS funding increased by 21.5% between 1999 and 2002 but the number of patients treated rose by only 1.6%. "

 

The NHS just reinforces what we already know; once you prevent management being stake-holders, any organisation becomes run for the management. 10 years of inherited economic growth have been spent on civil service payrises and the creation of more and more bureaucracy.

worst thing ever to happen to this country...

 

it attracted every gypsy, waif and scrounger south of the channel onto these shores....

 

the Americans have it right, Insurance....

 

I just feel sorry for the overworked and underpaid doctors and nurses that have to put up with that on a daily basis...

The NHS just reinforces what we already know; once you prevent management being stake-holders, any organisation becomes run for the management. 10 years of inherited economic growth have been spent on civil service payrises and the creation of more and more bureaucracy.

 

Go on then, tell us where he's wrong, please.

Oh sorry forgot to add....

 

The NHS is far from a perfect service, we all know that and I'm sure we can all name one incident where they have let us down either with botched appointments, long waiting list - even killer bugs lurking on the underside of your bedside sink. But come on, even Tory Boy Maaarsh has to conceed that no goverment would ever abandon the NHS and even Thacher's grim attempts to run it into the ground didn't work.

 

Free at the point of care. Remember what that actually means. To help the poorest in society a free health service is essential. If you can afford it and don't like it then fine you can pay for your health care, that is your choice and fair dos to you.

 

But remember in naming everyone one of those incidents where the system has let you down, I bet you can recall many more where it has helped you or your family. Where there many people on here who were born in BUPA hospitals?

 

As I say its not perfect, but an alternative based on medical insurance? I'd like to see the compliants then. The USA has more than 50 million people without healthcare cover because they cannot afford it, is this a better society to let these people die of preventable illnesses? Maybe you do (mind you there was someone on here arguing for a revaluation of Hitler the other day so I guess anything is possible!)

But come on, even Tory Boy Maaarsh has to conceed that no goverment would ever abandon the NHS

 

That's quite a different issue than whether it is a working well. The reality is the amount of healthcare provided in Britain is now lower than before the NHS was created. there were over 1100 charitable hospitals providing care in the UK in 1948. The idea that people died in the gutter before the NHS is simply laughable. The NHS actually reduced heathcare investment. As with all of Labour's great achievements, we have equal access to levelled down services.

I've not got a problem with most of that, though I think service should be on a 'credits paid in' basis (not money), so if you or your nominee (parent, gaurdian, spouse) have paid nowt in then your on a 18 hour wait for that back back certificate.

 

Anyway, come on, humour me, tell me the civil service hasn't grown out of all proportion under the reds. Go on, please.

Balls to the paupers, I've got BUPA!

Go on then, tell us where he's wrong, please.

 

not saying he is wrong but he is good at presenting facts in a certain lights...

 

 

if there are less beds it is because less are needed because there are less long term illnesses that need treating in hospital for months on end.

 

Like many others I have had close family who have received long term treatment for health problems, my mum for cancer which led to her death, me dad is disabled having had his leg amputated to save his life.

 

Both had extended stays in hospital and the treatment they received came from people who at the time were nothing short of angels.

 

The NHS might be badly run, it is a long way short of perfect but based on my experiences it is soemthing we have in this country that we should be ragging very very proud of. Not because it is run currently by labour but because it provides something that other people in the world can nly dram of.

That's quite a different issue than whether it is a working well. The reality is the amount of healthcare provided in Britain is now lower than before the NHS was created. there were over 1100 charitable hospitals providing care in the UK in 1948. The idea that people died in the gutter before the NHS is simply laughable. The NHS actually reduced heathcare investment. As with all of Labour's great achievements, we have equal access to levelled down services.

 

 

But as a society we were asking this question 30 years ago (increase in population, increase in elderly people ect how will the NHS cope etc) and it carried on. The key world in Charitbale hospitals is the word charity, it needs donations or wealth independant backers and how would this be rolled out nationwide? These hopsitals that you talk of range from huge teaching facilites such as St Guys to mainly holding places in the regions for those with illnesses which they were going to die from and how good these were depended on if the local council could be bothered putting ratepayers money into them. I'm sorry but i don't agree with out that people 'did not die in the streets' they were certainly dieing of illnesses which those who could afford medical care were not. Also Beveridge does not agree with this statement when he formulated his post war report on tackling the 5 great problems of the time these being want, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness which were killing British society.

 

So to surmise you want better services with inequal access, those who can't afford should just doff their cap and die quietly in the corner?

I was in Bupa with work for years and private dentistry but opted out of both last year....2 reasons...partly because I'm a young(ish) fit(ish) bloke(ish) who at the moment doesn't need it or a lot of treatment..

 

Secondly, I'm paying all my taxes, National Insurance and why should I pay into the service and not use it when required...when every other half gypo, soap dodging fleabag pays nowt, has no intention of ever paying out in and gets their prescription of 20 different types of tablets, treatments and services for free.

 

Typically since then, I've had to use the NHS for 2 ops on my sinus'...no problems in my experience.

 

The second one through the NHS, the ENT assessments, the operation, prescriptions and after care were all done at the Beaumont, which if I'd been paying BUPA would be where I had gone for the same thing and pay ?100 excess through work for the privelidge.

But as a society we were asking this question 30 years ago (increase in population, increase in elderly people ect how will the NHS cope etc) and it carried on.

 

I wish I could say I was suprised you used such weak logic - quite apart from being irrelevant to anything I said, past performance without a ceteris paribus condition is quite useless as a predictor. Britain could already spend it's entire GDP on medical care and not cover all possible illnesses to the extent possible at the moment. The important practical debate is not NHS = perfect vs. NHS = awful, but, given we're unlikely to get rid of it, what level of service should we provide. The simple reality is that people will always die who could, under modern medical science, have survived, because of the cost of medical provision. We must therefore be honest about this reality and attempt to decide what the correct level of universal provision should be - I suspect we could spend every penny earnt in Britain on this endevour and still not satisfy you.

 

The key world in Charitbale hospitals is the word charity, it needs donations or wealth independant backers and how would this be rolled out nationwide?

 

I'm afraid it was national at the time; the NHS did not make capital expenditure at its inception as hospitals already existed.

 

These hopsitals that you talk of range from huge teaching facilites such as St Guys to mainly holding places in the regions for those with illnesses which they were going to die from and how good these were depended on if the local council could be bothered putting ratepayers money into them.

 

Funding fell for healthcare under the NHS (and did not reach the 1930s levels until 1962), after it nationalised charity property without a penny of compensation. The simple reality is that total health provision fell. This is not up for debate I'm afraid.

 

I'm sorry but i don't agree with out that people 'did not die in the streets' they were certainly dieing of illnesses which those who could afford medical care were not.

This is still true now - please see above - do you think we should provide healthcare in every situation we possibly could, regardless of cost?

 

Also Beveridge does not agree with this statement when he formulated his post war report on tackling the 5 great problems of the time these being want, disease, squalor, ignorance and idleness which were killing British society.

 

I think you're a little over enthusiastic if you believe Beveridge was on your side too. Frankly I don't think much of his ideas, but I have at least read his report, and he would not recognise the modern welfare state as anything remotely near his suggestion.

 

So to surmise you want better services with inequal access, those who can't afford should just doff their cap and die quietly in the corner?

Now there's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one.

 

I'm afraid I am off out now, but this has been as boring as ever.

I was in Bupa with work for years and private dentistry but opted out of both last year....2 reasons...partly because I'm a young(ish) fit(ish) bloke(ish) who at the moment doesn't need it or a lot of treatment..

 

Typically since then, I've had to use the NHS for 2 ops on my sinus'...no problems in my experience.

 

The second one through the NHS, the ENT assessments, the operation, prescriptions and after care were all done at the Beaumont, which if I'd been paying BUPA would be where I had gone for the same thing and pay ?100 excess through work for the privelidge.

 

I gave up my BUPA and ended up spending ?3k on my knee rather than waiting months if not years for NHS as I'd been told it'd take that long...

 

Then a mate of mine gets the same op in about 8 weeks...suppose it all depends on where you live?

I'm afraid I am off out now, but this has been as boring as ever.

 

 

Indeed it is

 

wish I could say I was suprised you used such weak logic - quite apart from being irrelevant to anything I said, past performance without a ceteris paribus condition is quite useless as a predictor. Britain could already spend it's entire GDP on medical care and not cover all possible illnesses to the extent possible at the moment. The important practical debate is not NHS = perfect vs. NHS = awful, but, given we're unlikely to get rid of it, what level of service should we provide. The simple reality is that people will always die who could, under modern medical science, have survived, because of the cost of medical provision. We must therefore be honest about this reality and attempt to decide what the correct level of universal provision should be - I suspect we could spend every penny earnt in Britain on this endevour and still not satisfy you.

 

 

And that is where we fundamentally differ - I don;t believe you have offered any realistic funding 'system', what do you propose? Independant charitable funding for hospitals? Are you that keen to get away from any state involvement? I also don't believe beveridge was on any side but his report was and still is probably the most important social post war document which led directly to the creation welfare state. If the system that you misrepresent here was so perfect why was there a need for such a policy?

 

I'm sorry but a smug revisionist history of post war society challanging the need for a national health service, died a death with Hobsbawn and this isn't me being dialectical or following a party line.

 

But you are right, this is really dull.

I'm afraid I am off out now, but this has been as boring as ever.

 

 

Game, set & match Maaash in 3 straight sets.

 

Crawley you didn't even break his serve.....

 

Fcuk me, some of the posters on here aren't all not rights

 

Quite interesting reading though, for Tues afternoon.

Edited July 15, 200817 yr by Crew86

Game, set & match Maaash in 3 straight sets.

 

Crawley you didn't even break his serve.....

 

Fcuk me, some of the posters on here aren't all not rights

 

Quite interesting reading though, for Tues afternoon.

 

 

Well if you agree that 1930s Britain's healthcare system was better before the NHS and therefore the Beveridge report was a farce then you will be in the minority. I'm afarid that this is up for debate regardless of what Maaarch says.

As I say its not perfect, but an alternative based on medical insurance? I'd like to see the compliants then. The USA has more than 50 million people without healthcare cover because they cannot afford it, is this a better society to let these people die of preventable illnesses? Maybe you do

Spot on that, US healthcare is just a money making scheme,anyone seen Sicko?

 

I know Michael Moore twists things but its was a great film,think we should all be grateful of the NHS. IMO.

Edited July 15, 200817 yr by M G WHITES

My 9 year old broke his arm about 2 months ago and the nurses/doctors/consultants were fantastic with him especially in the new childrens A&E at Bolton general, i have nothing but praise for them

I was told by a nurse that the new childrens A&E is to keep the young ones away from all the drug taking, abusive not rights so they don't become frightened

Good idea i thought, well done Bolton NHS

ceteris paribus condition

 

I'm going to use this as my phrase of the week.