[arista]

Yes Good Move George


http://news.sky.com/story/1382950/ba...-3bn-nhs-boost


By April 2015


Labours plan
means there money will not go into NHS until 2017
thats if the get in power in may 2015
Ref: Ch4HDNews Live

[joeysteele]

Well it has taken this lot over 4 years and only just before a general election to actually do more for the NHS.
After causing most of the problems existing in it now by destroying the recovery that was in place in 2010 when they took power, by losing the growth that was increasing quarter on quarter too when they took power in 2010.
Then having inflation rising too thereby diminishing real spending power for all,not just for the NHS.

To cap that lot, they then wasted loads of funds on a top down re-organisation that they said would never take place.

A desperate too little too late that they have now in fact been shamed into doing, so no way,for me, should this shower be trusted with the NHS again.
Labour's plans are firmer and ongoing for the NHS, much more secure and will lead probably to a safer and more to the point better and harmonious continuity for the NHS over all aspects of care.

I hope few are fooled by the CON-servatives again as to the NHS, they always seem to set out to build it up a little before an election then run it into the ground after the election is over.

Remember Cameron's pledge, no top down re-organisation of the NHS under his govt, then after the election was over he threw that pledge out the window and couldn't start the process fast enough.
A con man as to the NHS and he always will be.
I wouldn't believe a thing he says as to it being safe with him.

[Kizzy]

It was 2 billion last I heard... is anyone going to fall for it?..seriously? :/

Excellently put Joey, I agree!

[kirklancaster]

More convoluted gerrymandering by politicians.

Fines on 'The Banks' for 'Forex Fiddling' amounting to £1.1 billion is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £1020 billion - yes; £1020 billion - real cost to the British Taxpayer of bailing out these inept greedy bastards since 2008 -- of which the said taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of around £145 billion.

So any governmental 'input' of £1.1 billion into any 'N.H.S Rescue' package can be seen for what it is - 'smoke and mirrors' drip feeding from an ocean of the banks money which fecking belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

Perhaps, the Government 'rhetoric' of the day, that the banks had to be rescued because they were "too big to fail", speaks volumes about the government's real attitude on the N.H.S, because an injection of only £3.1 billion on the N.H.S. in comparison to the £1020 billions of public money 'invested' on saving the banks, would suggest that the N.H.S. is deemed 'not too big to fail - or in other words, with 'privatisation firmly in mind - 'not really worthy of saving'.

Please bear in mind that I am not a 'Labour' voter so I have no 'personal agenda' here, and I am merely stating what I regard as the truth.

The 'Modus Operandi' behind this latest Government ploy is designed to impress non-Tory voters and recruit them to their cause, by bamboozling them that this 'Government Initiative' penalises the Banker's or traditional Tory supporters, to the benefit of the 'working classes', or traditional Labour supporters. Yet, it is all a con, and merely copies the very successful blueprint first drafted by that great political tactician Maggie Thatcher, which she employed during the 'Council House' sell off and State Owned companies privatisation of the 1980's.

That, however, is another post.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

More convoluted gerrymandering by politicians.

Fines on 'The Banks' for 'Forex Fiddling' amounting to £1.1 billion is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £1020 billion - yes; £1020 billion - real cost to the British Taxpayer of bailing out these inept greedy bastards since 2008 -- of which the said taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of around £145 billion.

So any governmental 'input' of £1.1 billion into any 'N.H.S Rescue' package can be seen for what it is - 'smoke and mirrors' drip feeding from an ocean of the banks money which fecking belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

Perhaps, the Government 'rhetoric' of the day, that the banks had to be rescued because they were "too big to fail", speaks volumes about the government's real attitude on the N.H.S, because an injection of only £3.1 billion on the N.H.S. in comparison to the £1020 billions of public money 'invested' on saving the banks, would suggest that the N.H.S. is deemed 'not too big to fail - or in other words, with 'privatisation firmly in mind - 'not really worthy of saving'.

Please bear in mind that I am not a 'Labour' voter so I have no 'personal agenda' here, and I am merely stating what I regard as the truth.

The 'Modus Operandi' behind this latest Government ploy is designed to impress non-Tory voters and recruit them to their cause, by bamboozling them that this 'Government Initiative' penalises the Banker's or traditional Tory supporters, to the benefit of the 'working classes', or traditional Labour supporters. Yet, it is all a con, and merely copies the very successful blueprint first drafted by that great political tactician Maggie Thatcher, which she employed during the 'Council House' sell off and State Owned companies privatisation of the 1980's.

That, however, is another post.

Great post

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

More convoluted gerrymandering by politicians.

Fines on 'The Banks' for 'Forex Fiddling' amounting to £1.1 billion is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £1020 billion - yes; £1020 billion - real cost to the British Taxpayer of bailing out these inept greedy bastards since 2008 -- of which the said taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of around £145 billion.

So any governmental 'input' of £1.1 billion into any 'N.H.S Rescue' package can be seen for what it is - 'smoke and mirrors' drip feeding from an ocean of the banks money which fecking belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

Perhaps, the Government 'rhetoric' of the day, that the banks had to be rescued because they were "too big to fail", speaks volumes about the government's real attitude on the N.H.S, because an injection of only £3.1 billion on the N.H.S. in comparison to the £1020 billions of public money 'invested' on saving the banks, would suggest that the N.H.S. is deemed 'not too big to fail - or in other words, with 'privatisation firmly in mind - 'not really worthy of saving'.

Please bear in mind that I am not a 'Labour' voter so I have no 'personal agenda' here, and I am merely stating what I regard as the truth.

The 'Modus Operandi' behind this latest Government ploy is designed to impress non-Tory voters and recruit them to their cause, by bamboozling them that this 'Government Initiative' penalises the Banker's or traditional Tory supporters, to the benefit of the 'working classes', or traditional Labour supporters. Yet, it is all a con, and merely copies the very successful blueprint first drafted by that great political tactician Maggie Thatcher, which she employed during the 'Council House' sell off and State Owned companies privatisation of the 1980's.

That, however, is another post.

Really well said, I have a lot of family who work in the NHS,their view is too too little,too late and a pre election bribe of sorts.
They also repeat that this govt,simply does not listen to them at all and that a great deal of the problems in the NHS are because of the confusing and costly reforms this govt. made.

I hope the electorate are not fooled again,Cameron got some support back when he said he would do no top down re-organisation of the NHS.
I hope that pledge is constantly mentioned all through the 2015 campaign because as you said and I said too, this is a con.

The difference I feel with David Cameron and Margaret Thatcher is that she was believed overall by voters,this PM has shown terrible judgement,in my opinion, all through his premiership and also that his word is near meaningless too.
Especially concerning the NHS.

[user104658]

They just throw around the word "billion" because to simple mind it sounds like "lots and lots of money!!!". 3 billion will make no real difference to the NHS. A budget increase of 3 billion per year would make very little perceivable difference.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They just throw around the word "billion" because to simple mind it sounds like "lots and lots of money!!!". 3 billion will make no real difference to the NHS. A budget increase of 3 billion per year would make very little perceivable difference.

Are you seriously suggesting an extra 3000 million injected per year wouldn't noticeably improve services?

[the truth]

the b(w)ankers should be forced to clean the hospitals too and wipe the faeces off the mattresses

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Are you seriously suggesting an extra 3000 million injected per year wouldn't noticeably improve services?

Given that the NHS running costs are somewhere in the region of 120 billion per year, a 3 billion increase per year would only be a budget increase of 2.5%. So... No... I don't think it would noticeably improve anything at all.

In fact, given the sliding health standards being brought on by austerity measures, within 5 years we'll need a budget increase 5 times that just to be performing at the same level as currently.

A 3 billion one off injection is an absolute joke. Like I said: it's just a stunt to dazzle people with big numbers that aren't actually (in national budgetary terms) very big at all.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Given that the NHS running costs are somewhere in the region of 120 billion per year, a 3 billion increase per year would only be a budget increase of 2.5%. So... No... I don't think it would noticeably improve anything at all.

In fact, given the sliding health standards being brought on by austerity measures, within 5 years we'll need a budget increase 5 times that just to be performing at the same level as currently.

A 3 billion one off injection is an absolute joke. Like I said: it's just a stunt to dazzle people with big numbers that aren't actually (in national budgetary terms) very big at all.

Good post T.S. - Most of any budget increase will be swallowed up by one devious method or another, and eventually find its way surreptitiously into the pay packets of the NHS top earners anyway -- or what's left of it after the 'increased' admin costs are met from it.

Or am I just a cynical bastard?

[joeysteele]

Any further funding for the NHS is welcome and will make some difference albeit not a massive difference.
It will make the better contributions as long as it is targetted at care and it is ensured that trust managers don't cream off more NHS resources.

Therein lies a greater problem with the NHS,the trust management and the staff it takes that are connected to same.
Get more of them out into hands on care and cut the management numbers,making them much more accountable for their negligence and in fact incompetence too a fair bit of the time.

That will take time and this govt. will not do much in that area, it is an area I hope Labour will look at more and also since Labour are into not only the treatment of the sick in hospital but also the wider care of same,that all new funding going into the NHS by Labour,will be targetted and ensured it is used for the hands on or after care process.

Not all,by any means, are poor but the trust management of hospitals is to blame for a lot that goes wrong,these people are almost a waste of space.
I said a long time ago, when visiting a hospital, some of the 'management' staff could not even direct visitors to a ward.
All they do is seemingly wander round with files and clipboards,those people are a drain on NHS resources,taking positions away from the nursing, hands on care, that is really needed on wards etc;

Any new funding will assist in part however and help make a difference albeit not a big one.
This funding to be announced by George Osborne won't even bring the NHS back to the ring fenced power of funding that was in place in 2010,since value has been stripped down with higher costs of living and no growth for almost 3 years since late 2010.
Which is why this is too little, too late from a now panicked govt. as to the NHS with much clearly going wrong more and more each month.

As Labour state, funding needs to be increased but also the whole health care strategy too, that is why Andy Burnham intends to take in the health and social care process too.
As he said, you have elderly people almost imprisoned in hospital for a time when they needn't be,simply because the resources are too slow to be implemented for them to be at home again.
Also lots of other areas of after care too.

Something that has been made worse by the top down re-organisation of the NHS,that was pledged to be not going to happen,David Cameron's words.
Then he did them.
There is a mess to sort out again in the NHS as there was in 1997, when the Conservative left the NHS on its knees with wards closed and a shortage of nursing staff.

Well, here we go again and no way should this coalition, either party in it, be trusted with the NHS.
Labour overlooked some things as to the NHS and may do so again but they still did far more,and in fact a great deal more, to build it up over their 13 years in power than the last 2 Conservative led govts. have ever done.

The NHS will never be 100% perfect, you cannot have such a massive organisation like the NHS and not have things go wrong at times somewhere.
It would be great if that wasn't so but overall the NHS is a fantastic asset and one that should always be nurtured and not brought down, and in fact run down by govts. such as this present govt has,for political purposes.

No more full re-organisations of the NHS, of course things need to be improved and evolved into better care practices but top down re-organisations,such as the chaotic and unnecessary one this govt. carried out,only cause confusion, delays and bigger problems in the NHS rather than serve any real purpose of better and improved care.

[Kizzy]

Amazing post Joey, 3 billion is 3 billion it would stabilize vulnerable A&E services that are struggling in key areas for instance.
Maybe if it was spread out it wouldn't be felt but it would ease the pressure and that would impact in patient care. Not that I think that that's the intention here.... The only thing the conservatives plan to do to save money is to restrict services, it's starting now..

'Despite every effort from the renal community – led by NKF and the All Party Parliamentary Kidney Group (APPKG), NKF learnt yesterday that Ministers have decided that as from April 1st 2015 Dialysis will be commissioned by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG’s) and that NHSEngland will no longer be responsible for dialysis.'

http://www.kidney.org.uk/home/news-2...ioning-status/

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

Amazing post Joey, 3 billion is 3 billion it would stabilize vulnerable A&E services that are struggling in key areas for instance.
Maybe if it was spread out it wouldn't be felt but it would ease the pressure and that would impact in patient care. Not that I think that that's the intention here.... The only thing the conservatives plan to do to save money is to restrict services, it's starting now..

'Despite every effort from the renal community – led by NKF and the All Party Parliamentary Kidney Group (APPKG), NKF learnt yesterday that Ministers have decided that as from April 1st 2015 Dialysis will be commissioned by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG’s) and that NHSEngland will no longer be responsible for dialysis.'

http://www.kidney.org.uk/home/news-2...ioning-status/

I remember 2 different kids both dying in the same week because there were no Renal Dialysis machines to treat them, and that's over 20 years ago Kizzy. £10 billion's not enough, but I guess £3 billion's a start - if it is not swallowed up by admin costs and actually does reach patient care.