Do you care about BCB?

[Fonz]

Perhaps, I don't know. The reality though is that most of the things we do have some sort of negative impact somewhere along the line, just as they do have a positive one.

The creation of the NHS is on the whole, a positive thing. But I suspect that no-one who saw it being born would have forseen it becoming the, what, 4th or 5th largest employer in the world, a political football of immense proportions and having to treat people for conditions that didn't even exist in 1945.

What sort of conditions are you thinking of?

Hip replacements etc
Cardiac surgery/ interventions
Loads of stuff to do with getting older- the population is getting older, partly to do with the effectiveness of the NHS.
Back when the NHS was born, antibiotics were novel. Now, they given out like sweets.
Cancer treatments- the drugs are eye-wateringly expensive.

We all have an expectation that the NHS will ‘deliver’, if not on-demand, then with a relatively short waiting time.

I know I’m answering Toby’s question. Sorry.

[Goat Boy]

Not necessarily new conditions but what about the consequences of obesity?

[The Modernist]

Maybe the fact we don't look to do things completely different is half the problem.

In a situation where there is absolutely no risk, then yes I agree. But the problem with social and civic issues is that for every change or reform you attempt, someone somewhere is affected and most often, in an unexpected manner.

For example, Thatcher didn't realise that by selling off council housing, something that enabled the working class to have property, she would create a crisis thirty years later. By creating mass unemployment in areas previously reliant on industry, there wasn't the realisation that it would create generational dependency on the welfare state. By removing the strict restrictions on gambling, Labour didn't forsee the unmitigated rise of betting shops in the high street.

I'm sorry but you can't claim that you can destroy the industry in a particular area and not understand it will have grave consequences in unemployment and increasing poverty. Even Heseltine understood that the inner cities were in desperate need of regeneration, unfortunately for him he seemed to be a bit of lone voice on this within the part at the time.
Isn't the more likely explanation that they didn't care because that's not where their votes were coming from?

[clive gash]

Or was it a way to shore up Working Class voters by selling them the idea that owning their own property was the way to prosper.

[Diamond Dog]

I'm sorry but you can't claim that you can destroy the industry in a particular area and not understand it will have grave consequences in unemployment and increasing poverty. Even Heseltine understood that the inner cities were in desperate need of regeneration, unfortunately for him he seemed to be a bit of lone voice on this within the part at the time.
Isn't the more likely explanation that they didn't care because that's not where their votes were coming from?

Oddly enough I think you're absolutely wrong. They totally knew the likely outcome (christ alive, they had enough people telling them the likely outcomes) but basically thought the(ir) gain outweighed the risk (which wasn't likely to happen on their watch anyway).

At least I know your ignore button works G!

[The Modernist]

I did read your post Pete, but I felt it was a point that needed reiterating. I probably should have quoted your post as well, but I'm lazy!

[Minnie the Minx]

Perhaps, I don't know. The reality though is that most of the things we do have some sort of negative impact somewhere along the line, just as they do have a positive one.

The creation of the NHS is on the whole, a positive thing. But I suspect that no-one who saw it being born would have forseen it becoming the, what, 4th or 5th largest employer in the world, a political football of immense proportions and having to treat people for conditions that didn't even exist in 1945.

What sort of conditions are you thinking of?

Hip replacements

A hip replacement isn't a condition, it's treatment for a condition. And without trying to be an arse, the reason I mention that is that Toby brought the NHS into the conversation (at least that's the way it read to me) in a conversation about positives and negatives of the NHS. He discussed what couldn't be predicted in 1945, possibly as a lead into discussing what is causing the NHS to not function. (Those are my words, I'm happy to accept that is not what Toby meant.)
Hip replacements are not causing the NHS to buckle. Goat Boy identifies an issue of higher clinical significance.
My post comes from my own experience of working in the NHS for 20 years. Three quarters of that was clinically based, but the rest of that time was working intimately with bed managers, planning, emergency medicine, patient flow. I have been very much in the belly of the beast and I could write a book on the varied and complex issues that cause the NHS to slow. I have friends who are COO of local hospitals who have to summarise in icy precision every day the factors that are having an impact on their ability to deliver care.
I am passionate about the NHS, but I also understand that it can't just "remain the same". How that is addressed is something I can hardly begin to piece together in my head, as I have to become dispassionate and understand far more about economics than I currently do (I know nothing about economics.)
How we address an increasingly ageing population who come into hospital often and for long periods for non -acute issues (and sometimes acute issues) sits at the heart of this very difficult conversation. Funding and inadequate social provision add to the problem.

[Rayge]

Any chance of changing my vote to 'I'm on the verge of leaving'?

[Insouciant Western People]

I am passionate about the NHS, but I also understand that it can't just "remain the same". How that is addressed is something I can hardly begin to piece together in my head, as I have to become dispassionate and understand far more about economics than I currently do (I know nothing about economics.)

Do you think that the NHS has become such a politically weaponised thing that many politicians are now terrified of even discussing changing it (however that might take place), for fear of the backlash that would likely follow?

[Fonz]

What sort of conditions are you thinking of?

Hip replacements

A hip replacement isn't a condition, it's treatment for a condition. And without trying to be an arse, the reason I mention that is that Toby brought the NHS into the conversation (at least that's the way it read to me) in a conversation about positives and negatives of the NHS. He discussed what couldn't be predicted in 1945, possibly as a lead into discussing what is causing the NHS to not function. (Those are my words, I'm happy to accept that is not what Toby meant.)
Hip replacements are not causing the NHS to buckle. Goat Boy identifies an issue of higher clinical significance.
My post comes from my own experience of working in the NHS for 20 years. Three quarters of that was clinically based, but the rest of that time was working intimately with bed managers, planning, emergency medicine, patient flow. I have been very much in the belly of the beast and I could write a book on the varied and complex issues that cause the NHS to slow. I have friends who are COO of local hospitals who have to summarise in icy precision every day the factors that are having an impact on their ability to deliver care.
I am passionate about the NHS, but I also understand that it can't just "remain the same". How that is addressed is something I can hardly begin to piece together in my head, as I have to become dispassionate and understand far more about economics than I currently do (I know nothing about economics.)
How we address an increasingly ageing population who come into hospital often and for long periods for non -acute issues (and sometimes acute issues) sits at the heart of this very difficult conversation. Funding and inadequate social provision add to the problem.

I’m with you.

I expanded my lust a little just to give a few more examples of things that didn’t really exist, or wouldn’t have been predicted to be so expensive. None of them individually would cause the NHS to implode, but collectively...

Hip replacements were the first thing that sprung to mind. A huge amount of resource was/is directed at this sort of elective surgery in an effort to keep waiting lists short- a marker for hospital effectiveness.
70 years ago it would have been unthinkable.

[Fonz]

Just saw my typo. I’m not changing it.

[clive gash]

Any chance of changing my vote to 'I'm on the verge of leaving'?

Where’s the option for “Yes, where else could I speak my brain”

[Belle Lettre]

But hip replacements help to reduce the need for extended and acute care ( which cost more) do they not? My mother-in-law could hardly stand before hers, and now she's positively racing around.

[Jimbo]

From what I've heard stem cell therapy may change medicine in a big way and if all one needs is an injection to cure arthritis or any number of ailments then the expense of surgery will be significantly decreased.

[Fonz]

But hip replacements help to reduce the need for extended and acute care ( which cost more) do they not? My mother-in-law could hardly stand before hers, and now she's positively racing around.

Hip replacements are fantastic!

But in the olden days people were expected to cope with their arthritis. At very little cost to the taxpayer!
Plus, more are surviving to an age where their hips need replacing.

[Darkness_Fish]

Any chance of changing my vote to 'I'm on the verge of leaving'?

All this talk about the elderly and infirm getting you down?

[KeithPratt]

Any chance of changing my vote to 'I'm on the verge of leaving'?

Oh a proto-flounce!

[sloopjohnc]

I haven't read this thread in a few days, but how did it go from "Do You Care About BCB"" to "Do you care about the NHS?"

[KeithPratt]

A remark about how right wing BCB had become.

[sloopjohnc]

Re: socialized medicine, however, I heard an interesting radio interview with an author and Canadian doctor and the author was saying that Canada and the US were seriously debating the subject at the same time years ago. Canada's doctors were so against the idea that they actually went on strike to protest. Eventually it passed and went into law. The main difference, as I take it and sold it to Canadian physicians, is while the NHS is run by the government, the Canadian system isn't and all that's managed by the Canadian government is billing.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/24/55333611 ... ystem-work