News1 min ago
Nhs Performance Measure Over 3,000 Times Worse Under The Tories
On Monday of this week I posted a thread entitled ‘The Interesting Times’ which included a youtube video link (see AB question link below).
Much of that video showed how badly Brexit is going – but the point of that post (as pointed out) related to a 2 minute segment which covered NHS performance measures that had declined under the Tories.
Without watching the video, you might have thought that things had got 5 times worse under the Tories – but had you watched the video, you would know that for a particular NHS performance measure, it had got to over 3,000 times worse.
Therefore it was a surprise to me that other that TTT’s benign comments, no one else considered it worth a response.
Have we reached the point where the NHS performing over 3,000 times worse under the Tories is of no interest to anyone?
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. 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.
'For a particular performance measure' could be meaningless if it's just one of many performance measures.certainly spending has gone up but maybe not in real terms per head....but whenever I hear nhs people talking about the problems I always want to ask what are they and management doing about it and what would help? An extra 10 billion s year? 50 billion? Whay would it be spent on? Would it make much difference if it takes 10 years to train new doctors?
//Therefore it was a surprise to me that other that TTT’s benign comments, no one else considered it worth a response.//
Perhaps that's because you rarely, if ever, post credible evidence of what you're claiming. All you do is spin around cheap videos featuring mouthy nonentities. Your readers were bound to twig it sooner or later.
Hymie it is not just the NHS that is 3,000 times worse since the Cons grabbed the keys to No 10 ..14 years ago It is the whole Country that is worse off .. From cost of living. to public services .Defence etc etc the only departement that is flourishing under the present Gov is the 5Cs...The Crooked, Conservative, Con Crony Club.
Leaving aside the validity of the measure for a moment, who runs the NHS? Not the government. The government provides the cash - that's all it does. It is up to the vast numbers of NHS directors, managers and scribes who use that cash to run an efficient service. And basically they don't.
All an alternative government can do is to throw more cash at the NHS. And that will be futile. In the last fifteen years NHS funding has increased by 2.8% annually in real terms (i.e. allowing for inflation). Over and above that, substantial additional funds were provided to deal with the pandemic. During that time its outcomes have deteriorated - some of them alarmingly.
What is needed is a government which will grasp the nettle and ditch the NHS in its current form. Its performance will continue to decline because its model is fundamentally flawed and it doesn't matter how much money is thrown at it. That won't happen under a Conservative government and it won't happen under a Labour government. So we're stuck with it and the result will be a service that rather resembles NHS dentistry - one of "last resort" available only to people who live on benefits. You think I'm exaggerating? Ask yourself why NHS performance has deteriorated despite huge sums of money being lavished on it and ask yourself what is needed to stop that decline. If you can come up with a reason which lays the blame on government (apart from them abrogating their responsibility to ditch it for a new model) then I'm all ears.
NJ said //who runs the NHS? Not the government//
Well, Mr. Sunak must have thought he had some control over it, pledging to cut waiting lists – perhaps he should be told, and then the Tories could proclaim that the state of the NHS has nothing to do with them.
Somehow I don’t think Joe Public will buy that one.
I'm not going to watch it but if one probably minor measure is 3000 times worse than it was then either it's measuring something that's low priority or some part of the NHS management is allocating the ever increasing resources to other things, maybe the wrong things. Throwing another few billion at the NHS won't make a dent in that
The following 4 key NHS performance measures all got worse by between 10 and 16 times
· People still on an elected care waiting list after 18 weeks
· People waiting more than 2 weeks to see a cancer specialist
· People waiting longer than 4 hours in A&E
· People waiting more than 4 hours on a hospital trolley for an emergency hospital bed
And the following NHS performance measure got worse by over 3,000 times:-
People waiting more than 12 hours on a trolley for a hospital bed (non-emergency)
“Well, Mr. Sunak must have thought he had some control over it, pledging to cut waiting lists – perhaps he should be told,…”
Mr Sunak is a politician – and a fairly low calibre one at that. Politicians believe they have control over all sorts of things that they haven’t. It makes them feel important.
“…and then the Tories could proclaim that the state of the NHS has nothing to do with them.
Somehow I don’t think Joe Public will buy that one.”
Well if Joe Public thought about it properly they’d realise it isn’t anything to do with them. Mrs Thatcher did not win the Falklands War. The government provided the funds. The rest was up to the Armed Forces, directed by their senior officers.
The NHS is in the state it’s in because it is badly organised and badly managed. It is not up to the government to organise and manage it and those who are responsible for doing so are not capable enough to do it. It will fare no better under a Labour government. They will simply trumpet that they’ve “invested” even more money in it when in fact they might as well stand outside Parliament tearing up fifty pound notes. In recent years more funding has led to worse outcomes, and so it will continue.