ChatterBank1 min ago
So why is it that
22 Answers
we can always find billions annually to throw away to foreign "causes" and that includes the soon to be eussr, yet a paltry £13million cant be found for a needed hospital over here in the UK.
http://
Absolutely disgraceful
http://
Absolutely disgraceful
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't know that area at all well.
I gather that Clevedon has a population of only 21,000.......about.
Money in the NHS is tight and the "pot" for "foreign causes" is separate from the NHS pot.
Do you want mediocre health care at a local district hospital or first class modern technology at a regional hospital ( which i guess would be Bristol)?
£13 million would, in my opinion, be better spent at regional level and hence I agree with the decision to scrap the building of a new district general hospital in Clevedon.
I gather that Clevedon has a population of only 21,000.......about.
Money in the NHS is tight and the "pot" for "foreign causes" is separate from the NHS pot.
Do you want mediocre health care at a local district hospital or first class modern technology at a regional hospital ( which i guess would be Bristol)?
£13 million would, in my opinion, be better spent at regional level and hence I agree with the decision to scrap the building of a new district general hospital in Clevedon.
So far £375billion has been spent on Quantative Easing. The Government bought back its debts from the banks and that was supposed to free up the banks to invest in the economy and get the country moving again.
Except they didn't. Not much new investment is being made and the banks kept the money. So capital projects like hospitals have to be built by the Government, except they have no money because they gave it all to the banks.
Except they didn't. Not much new investment is being made and the banks kept the money. So capital projects like hospitals have to be built by the Government, except they have no money because they gave it all to the banks.
We also seem to be able to find billions so that people can take trains between London and Birmingham slightly faster than they did before!
You could build 3,000 community hospitals for that
And have first class local AND regional health systems
Still it's important to get between London and Birmingham eh?
You could build 3,000 community hospitals for that
And have first class local AND regional health systems
Still it's important to get between London and Birmingham eh?
O-G
\\ I'm unsure I'd want to travel to Bristol just to get to the hospital.\\\
The hospital is NOT being taken away from you, it is just not being embellished,basic medical care will still be present. The millions saved would be diverted to the regional hospital to give you a superb, modern state of the art facilities.
Wouldn't you like that ?
\\ I'm unsure I'd want to travel to Bristol just to get to the hospital.\\\
The hospital is NOT being taken away from you, it is just not being embellished,basic medical care will still be present. The millions saved would be diverted to the regional hospital to give you a superb, modern state of the art facilities.
Wouldn't you like that ?
I agree with Squad on this one. It is not just bricks and mortar you are paying for but the staff and facilities in that hospital. If it were to go ahead you will probably land up with 2nd rate surgeons who are unable to be a master of all types of operations and your life chances would be a minimum.
Better to have a rtegional hospital employing the very best medical staff and equipped with the latest diagnostic and operating equipment. The drawback is having to be treated a few more miles from home but if your nearest and dearest wants whats best for you a few miles extra travelling is worthwhile.
Better to have a rtegional hospital employing the very best medical staff and equipped with the latest diagnostic and operating equipment. The drawback is having to be treated a few more miles from home but if your nearest and dearest wants whats best for you a few miles extra travelling is worthwhile.
-- answer removed --
well said Sqad.
Gromit, Browns PFI is causing the problems with interest payments. NHS spending is increasing in real terms, unfortunately the NHS is so inefficient and laden with levels of bureaucracy as well as being over manned in non front line services that the funds are being eaten up before they can reach the 'shop floor'. I would add that, in my experience, the front line staff (nurses and doctors) are first class and do a fantastic job. But when you go to an outpatient appointment and there are three/four clerical staff checking patients in to see one or two doctors you realise there is something wrong.
Gromit, Browns PFI is causing the problems with interest payments. NHS spending is increasing in real terms, unfortunately the NHS is so inefficient and laden with levels of bureaucracy as well as being over manned in non front line services that the funds are being eaten up before they can reach the 'shop floor'. I would add that, in my experience, the front line staff (nurses and doctors) are first class and do a fantastic job. But when you go to an outpatient appointment and there are three/four clerical staff checking patients in to see one or two doctors you realise there is something wrong.
@TheNovice - Browns PFI? Who was the PM who presided over the introduction of PFI schemes in the UK? Hint- it wasn't Brown.
When you say the NHS is inefficient, what institutions and organisations are you comparing it to, and what performance indicators are you measuring to arrive at your conclusion?
I would agree with you that there is too much middle management. The NHS is actively addressing this. As an example, Pathology services in East Anglia are being rationalised, and where there were around 28 middle managers of the different discipliines within pathology currently spread across 7 hospitals, There will probably only be 4-7 after the rationalisation. This kind of reorganisation, and centralisation of services is not just happening in East Anglia or just Pathology.
I simply do not believe your comment about 4 clerical staff solely involved with booking in patients for 2 doctors.I spend a lot of time in many different hospitals across most of the south of england as part of my job. Never have I seen anything like this.
When you say the NHS is inefficient, what institutions and organisations are you comparing it to, and what performance indicators are you measuring to arrive at your conclusion?
I would agree with you that there is too much middle management. The NHS is actively addressing this. As an example, Pathology services in East Anglia are being rationalised, and where there were around 28 middle managers of the different discipliines within pathology currently spread across 7 hospitals, There will probably only be 4-7 after the rationalisation. This kind of reorganisation, and centralisation of services is not just happening in East Anglia or just Pathology.
I simply do not believe your comment about 4 clerical staff solely involved with booking in patients for 2 doctors.I spend a lot of time in many different hospitals across most of the south of england as part of my job. Never have I seen anything like this.
^ agree with above, too. Some years back in East Kent one major hospital was downgraded, we can only afford to man two major A&E units 24/7.
The argument about the public purse sounds sensible but you can't swap money between pots. The NHS was massively overspent under the last administration, we locally had to save £1m a week at the end of the last financial year. There just isn't the money in the system to pay for new hospitals, it's bad enough trying to keep the existing ones going.
The argument about the public purse sounds sensible but you can't swap money between pots. The NHS was massively overspent under the last administration, we locally had to save £1m a week at the end of the last financial year. There just isn't the money in the system to pay for new hospitals, it's bad enough trying to keep the existing ones going.
// The Coalition Government is pushing ahead with private finance initiative (PFI) projects despite branding the funding model as "discredited" and "dodgy" before the 2010 election.
Chancellor George Osborne has given the go-ahead for 61 PFI projects, worth a total of £6.9bn, since coming into power. //
http://
Well well, in opposition they say PFI is terrible and then quietly they do the same when they are on power. Yet another U-Turn perhaps?
Chancellor George Osborne has given the go-ahead for 61 PFI projects, worth a total of £6.9bn, since coming into power. //
http://
Well well, in opposition they say PFI is terrible and then quietly they do the same when they are on power. Yet another U-Turn perhaps?
PFI is a pernicious drug for politicians - they get the showpiece projects without showing any expenditure on their books - all the glory, and pushing the pain into the future.
Gordon was famously addicted to it.
The current lot are strapped for cash after the previous lot maxed out the credit card, and the temptation must be irresistible.
Gordon was famously addicted to it.
The current lot are strapped for cash after the previous lot maxed out the credit card, and the temptation must be irresistible.
