Southampton misses out on £235m A&E cash boost

Daily Echo: Southampton General Hospital Southampton General Hospital

SOUTHAMPTON'S under-pressure accident and emergency department will not get any extra money - despite missing a key target for most of the past year.

It has missed out on a share of a £235m Government cash bonanza even though it has failed to see 95 per cent of patients within four hours in 38 of the last 52 weeks.

Southampton Itchen MP John Denham has slammed the Government for giving the city a “poor deal” while hospital bosses have spoken of their disappointment that they will not be getting any extra help to avoid a repeat of last winter when patients faced increased waiting times.

Ministers say the money has gone to the A&E departments most “at risk”.

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt yesterday announced that 53 A&E departments across the country will have a share of a new £235m fund next year to overhaul the way they cope with increased pressure.

But despite Southampton General Hospital’s frequent failure to hit the four-hour target, triggering an investigation by healthcare watchdog Monitor and urgent talks with nursing chiefs, the city’s emergency department will get no help.

Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester which missed the four-hour target over the winter months, has been considered for the extra cash, expected to be as much as £3.3m.

Mr Denham said: “It makes no sense not to help Southampton when the facts are clear: our A&E is missing its targets and patients are losing out.

“The unfolding crisis in A&E is a clear symptom of a system under pressure and there is no more visible sign that ambulances queuing up outside A&E units and patients waiting longer to be seen. Yet again Southampton gets a poor deal from the Tories.”

The decision shocked Harry Dymond, from Healthwatch Southampton.

He said: “This is a really big disappointment. They clearly need to get their targets achieved and that currently isn’t happening, yet others are getting the help and Southamp-ton isn’t.”

Bosses at University Hospital Southampton (UHS), which runs Southampton General Hospital, insist improvements have already been made without financial help.

Dr Michael Marsh, medical director at UHS, said: “This year we are preparing to face what we expect to be a very challenging winter that will place significant demand on our hospitals.

“We are disappointed that we will not be receiving funding for winter pressures that the NHS in this area is expected to face, however, we have been working hard to reduce waits where it is clinically appropriate to do so and have met the four-hour target in each of the past three months.

“We will continue to work closely with our fellow healthcare providers, council of governors and regulator Monitor to ensure we build on this progress over the coming weeks and months.”

A spokesman from the Department of Heath said that the money was given to the 53 trusts which were identified as the “most at risk” of delivering A&E targets by health watchdog Monitor and the NHS Development, as well as regional and national groups.

He added: “Decisions were made on the basis of risk of delivering A&E targets and other factors like financial risk, challenging local circumstances and needs of the local population. Proposals were reviewed by regional groups to ensure plans were evidence-based.”

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:37am Wed 11 Sep 13

loosehead says...

let's tell the truth here,it hasn't just happened that our A&E hasn't seen patients with in four hours.
I needed stitches whilst playing Rugby & I was up A&E for 5-6hours & most people who have been to A&E could tell you similar experiences & I haven't played for 5 years & my stitches were 15 years ago so not like it's just happened is it?
let's tell the truth here,it hasn't just happened that our A&E hasn't seen patients with in four hours. I needed stitches whilst playing Rugby & I was up A&E for 5-6hours & most people who have been to A&E could tell you similar experiences & I haven't played for 5 years & my stitches were 15 years ago so not like it's just happened is it? loosehead
  • Score: 3

8:07am Wed 11 Sep 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

The government is desperately trying to avert a pending winter disaster with NHS urgent care services. Although Southampton has missed out on the emergency funding Portsmouth has been more successful - with good cause.

The Queen Alexandra Hospital in Cosham is in desperate financial straits partly due to crippling debts resulting from a 'Private Finance Initiative' deal struck some years ago. There is a very real possibility that - without government hand outs - the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust will go bust. Private hospital providers are poised - like vultures - to take over here.

Of course one of the main reasons that NHS acute hospitals are facing huge pressures is down to the massive cuts to local Councils' social services budgets. Many of the additional emergency admissions to hospital are from elderly people who really ought to be seen in the community. Once admitted these elderly patients often end up being kept in hospital - for reasons of safety - because of the lack of adequate social care facilities.

Southampton City Council faces a staggering £60 million cut in budget over the next few years on top of the massive cuts imposed by the government since 2010. Inevitably this restricts the Council's ability to provide care services to vulnerable elderly people which have 'critical and substantial needs'. In other words more and more elderly people who need access to care feel the need to access this through admission via A&E.

Unless the government looks again at funding for Council adult social services the crisis in NHS A&E departments is set to get even worse.
The government is desperately trying to avert a pending winter disaster with NHS urgent care services. Although Southampton has missed out on the emergency funding Portsmouth has been more successful - with good cause. The Queen Alexandra Hospital in Cosham is in desperate financial straits partly due to crippling debts resulting from a 'Private Finance Initiative' deal struck some years ago. There is a very real possibility that - without government hand outs - the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust will go bust. Private hospital providers are poised - like vultures - to take over here. Of course one of the main reasons that NHS acute hospitals are facing huge pressures is down to the massive cuts to local Councils' social services budgets. Many of the additional emergency admissions to hospital are from elderly people who really ought to be seen in the community. Once admitted these elderly patients often end up being kept in hospital - for reasons of safety - because of the lack of adequate social care facilities. Southampton City Council faces a staggering £60 million cut in budget over the next few years on top of the massive cuts imposed by the government since 2010. Inevitably this restricts the Council's ability to provide care services to vulnerable elderly people which have 'critical and substantial needs'. In other words more and more elderly people who need access to care feel the need to access this through admission via A&E. Unless the government looks again at funding for Council adult social services the crisis in NHS A&E departments is set to get even worse. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 7

9:02am Wed 11 Sep 13

elvisimo says...

loosehead wrote:
let's tell the truth here,it hasn't just happened that our A&E hasn't seen patients with in four hours.
I needed stitches whilst playing Rugby & I was up A&E for 5-6hours & most people who have been to A&E could tell you similar experiences & I haven't played for 5 years & my stitches were 15 years ago so not like it's just happened is it?
I presume the are benchmarking against the figures over the last ten years - if the press and the doctors and experts are to be believed we are heading for a serious issue. Some thing you just cant "cut".
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: let's tell the truth here,it hasn't just happened that our A&E hasn't seen patients with in four hours. I needed stitches whilst playing Rugby & I was up A&E for 5-6hours & most people who have been to A&E could tell you similar experiences & I haven't played for 5 years & my stitches were 15 years ago so not like it's just happened is it?[/p][/quote]I presume the are benchmarking against the figures over the last ten years - if the press and the doctors and experts are to be believed we are heading for a serious issue. Some thing you just cant "cut". elvisimo
  • Score: 3

9:48am Wed 11 Sep 13

Niel says...

Harry might be shocked, I'm not surprised, SGH like so may A&E dept's is overloaded with minor and time waster users. Cuts in social care, mental health provision and more means A&E becomes the 'access point'. Having squared away so much of the previous provision, cuts and funding short fall are seen by the mandarins as a 'leveling' device, so everyone is equal and so is the poor hospital provision, unless your rich enough to go private, or work in the civil service at a high enough level to have it provided for you...
Harry might be shocked, I'm not surprised, SGH like so may A&E dept's is overloaded with minor and time waster users. Cuts in social care, mental health provision and more means A&E becomes the 'access point'. Having squared away so much of the previous provision, cuts and funding short fall are seen by the mandarins as a 'leveling' device, so everyone is equal and so is the poor hospital provision, unless your rich enough to go private, or work in the civil service at a high enough level to have it provided for you... Niel
  • Score: 9

10:11am Wed 11 Sep 13

legod7 says...

Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power legod7
  • Score: 0

10:58am Wed 11 Sep 13

georgetheseventh says...

Why is this government once again rewarding 'failure' instead of praising the A&E's that struggled to make the grade ???
Why is this government once again rewarding 'failure' instead of praising the A&E's that struggled to make the grade ??? georgetheseventh
  • Score: -3

11:03am Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

It's unfortunate that Southampton didn't get any cash but then there are obviously other hospitals in the country that are in more need than Southampton. Simple really.

Not quite sure what any amount of money will do to the Hampshire County Hospital though, probably best to use the money for demolition costs as it's the only good thing that can be done with that death wish of a place.
It's unfortunate that Southampton didn't get any cash but then there are obviously other hospitals in the country that are in more need than Southampton. Simple really. Not quite sure what any amount of money will do to the Hampshire County Hospital though, probably best to use the money for demolition costs as it's the only good thing that can be done with that death wish of a place. sotonboy84
  • Score: -2

11:05am Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

legod7 wrote:
Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do?

Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding. sotonboy84
  • Score: -2

11:38am Wed 11 Sep 13

ohec says...

The answer is not to pump more money in but make sure that our A&E departments are used for their proper purpose and not for issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, so we should make a charge for all non urgent visits with a doctor deciding if your visit was appropriate, that should get ride of all the non urgent cases and leave the staff to do what they are intended to do.
The answer is not to pump more money in but make sure that our A&E departments are used for their proper purpose and not for issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, so we should make a charge for all non urgent visits with a doctor deciding if your visit was appropriate, that should get ride of all the non urgent cases and leave the staff to do what they are intended to do. ohec
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 11 Sep 13

good-gosh says...

These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples!
These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples! good-gosh
  • Score: 2

2:12pm Wed 11 Sep 13

legod7 says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do?

Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010. legod7
  • Score: 2

2:45pm Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.[/p][/quote]Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW. sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

2:59pm Wed 11 Sep 13

redsnapper says...

1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money.
2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums. redsnapper
  • Score: -2

3:16pm Wed 11 Sep 13

Lone Ranger. says...

It is quite interesting that the quote of £235m is mentiones as it appears that this number has been quite popular over the years.
.
Quote:- NHS sets aside £235m compensation for life-changing errors at birth
.
Quote:- Injuries to health workers cost NHS £235m
.
Quote:- NHS failings that left babies with brain damage set to cost £235m
.
Quote:-NHS signs £235m electronic x-ray deals
.
Quote:- A new contract for NHS consultants has cost an extra £235m
.
Quote:- Is the NHS right to spend £235m on metha
.
How odd that so many things are £235m.
.
And do you really think that this amount of money will be used or is just the same re-cycled number !!!!!!!
It is quite interesting that the quote of £235m is mentiones as it appears that this number has been quite popular over the years. . Quote:- NHS sets aside £235m compensation for life-changing errors at birth . Quote:- Injuries to health workers cost NHS £235m . Quote:- NHS failings that left babies with brain damage set to cost £235m . Quote:-NHS signs £235m electronic x-ray deals . Quote:- A new contract for NHS consultants has cost an extra £235m . Quote:- Is the NHS right to spend £235m on metha . How odd that so many things are £235m. . And do you really think that this amount of money will be used or is just the same re-cycled number !!!!!!! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

3:29pm Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

redsnapper wrote:
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated?

I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way. sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

3:54pm Wed 11 Sep 13

Lone Ranger. says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated?

I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you.
.
The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

4:13pm Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy.

But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them[/p][/quote]You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary. sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Wed 11 Sep 13

Lone Ranger. says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy.

But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.
... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer.
.
Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden.
.
Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on.
.
Yep i really like the country that you describe ......
.
Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them[/p][/quote]You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.[/p][/quote]... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

4:33pm Wed 11 Sep 13

legod7 says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.
sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money.
AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.[/p][/quote]Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH. legod7
  • Score: -2

4:37pm Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.
... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI
Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health.

If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US.

Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium…

Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'.

I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them[/p][/quote]You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.[/p][/quote]... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI[/p][/quote]Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health. If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US. Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium… Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'. I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency. sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

4:44pm Wed 11 Sep 13

legod7 says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.
... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI
Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health.

If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US.

Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium…

Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'.

I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.
sotonboy84. Why do you think people pay NI contributions for. They are for running the NHS and for providing a state pension. People in the USA have to pay for health treatment BECAUSE they do not have a NHS
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them[/p][/quote]You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.[/p][/quote]... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI[/p][/quote]Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health. If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US. Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium… Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'. I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84. Why do you think people pay NI contributions for. They are for running the NHS and for providing a state pension. People in the USA have to pay for health treatment BECAUSE they do not have a NHS legod7
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.
sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.
I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.[/p][/quote]Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.[/p][/quote]I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong. sotonboy84
  • Score: 1

4:48pm Wed 11 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.
... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI
Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health. If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US. Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium… Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'. I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.
sotonboy84. Why do you think people pay NI contributions for. They are for running the NHS and for providing a state pension. People in the USA have to pay for health treatment BECAUSE they do not have a NHS
Thanks for stating the obvious Sherlock. People in the US pay for an insurance policy and get medical treatment when they need it.

What do you think happens in the UK if people are paying NI contributions but more people are taking from it than are paying in? Not rocket science. It's in the state it's in now. If people had to pay for their own insurance policies and not for the NHS through NI contributions, they would value it more and not abuse it.
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them[/p][/quote]You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.[/p][/quote]... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI[/p][/quote]Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health. If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US. Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium… Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'. I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84. Why do you think people pay NI contributions for. They are for running the NHS and for providing a state pension. People in the USA have to pay for health treatment BECAUSE they do not have a NHS[/p][/quote]Thanks for stating the obvious Sherlock. People in the US pay for an insurance policy and get medical treatment when they need it. What do you think happens in the UK if people are paying NI contributions but more people are taking from it than are paying in? Not rocket science. It's in the state it's in now. If people had to pay for their own insurance policies and not for the NHS through NI contributions, they would value it more and not abuse it. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 11 Sep 13

Lone Ranger. says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.
sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.
I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.
A supporter of the Conservative Party !!!! ........ I would never have guessed
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.[/p][/quote]Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.[/p][/quote]I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.[/p][/quote]A supporter of the Conservative Party !!!! ........ I would never have guessed Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

georgetheseventh wrote:
Why is this government once again rewarding 'failure' instead of praising the A&E's that struggled to make the grade ???
"Reward"? I don't think they're allowed to spend it on cake and bubbly y'know...
[quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: Why is this government once again rewarding 'failure' instead of praising the A&E's that struggled to make the grade ???[/p][/quote]"Reward"? I don't think they're allowed to spend it on cake and bubbly y'know... cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

good-gosh wrote:
These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples!
More people will die due to a lack of subspecialised expertise available. I'll keep the regional hospitals thanks.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples![/p][/quote]More people will die due to a lack of subspecialised expertise available. I'll keep the regional hospitals thanks. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

5:11pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

redsnapper wrote:
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money.
2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
2. Because then those in poverty will avoid treatment when they really SHOULD be getting it, they will deteriorate, and not only become less likely to survive but will end up costing the healthcare system MORE.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]2. Because then those in poverty will avoid treatment when they really SHOULD be getting it, they will deteriorate, and not only become less likely to survive but will end up costing the healthcare system MORE. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

5:15pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
redsnapper wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.
Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them
You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.
... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI
Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health.

If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US.

Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium…

Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'.

I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.
"Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium."

What planet are you on??!!??

There are more and more people out there that are relying on free foodbanks because otherwise they'd starve. People with no fridge or freezer (let alone TV) and only a microwave, so the foodbanks have to try and provide them with nutritious stuff that can be nuked. And you think that they can afford private health insurance?
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Good idea but what about people that can't afford £100 – do they not get treated? I would personally rather not pay NI contributions towards the NHS and be responsible for my own insurance. At least I would be seen when I needed treatment and not be funding those that take from it and don't contribute in any way.[/p][/quote]Well you can still go private there's nothing stopping you. . The NI contribution that you make will help someone not as fortunate as yourself ....... after all it only a few quid and some poor old lady would be so grateful ...... there you go .... lets see if you do it ..... after all you can afford hand made suits ..... a couple of them[/p][/quote]You're correct, nothing is stopping me and I have my own insurance policy. But, I should have a choice. I contribute to something which does not help me whilst there are people that do not contribute in any shape or form yet bleed it dry. If people had to pay for their own insurance like in the US then they might appreciate it a little more and use it only when necessary.[/p][/quote]... and so the people who cant afford the insurance .... well suffer. . Nice idea ....... lets get rid of the old ones who no longer contribute and are a burden. . Lets stop the kids from using it... they dont contribute ....... lets stop the unemployed as they dont contribute either ....... and so on. . Yep i really like the country that you describe ...... . Personally ....... i think that i would rather help my fellow man ... despite the small cost of NI[/p][/quote]Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium. It's about prioritising about what is really important and there aren't many things more important than your health. If people genuinely couldn't afford medical treatment then they could apply for hardship funding, as in the US. Old ones who are burdens? Your words, not mine. I don't consider old people burdens, I respect them but there's no point arguing this point with you if you're so narrow minded that you consider every old person in the UK poor and incapable of paying an insurance premium… Children's health care should be the responsibility of their parents. Yes, children do cost money to raise and a parent should be responsible for their healthcare as they should be to feed, clothe and care for them, not 'somebody else'. I have no problem helping my fellow man but only when a fellow man wants to help himself. Helping somebody is not just handing something to them on a plate until you get to a point that they don't appreciate it and the system is abused. Helping somebody is helping them and guiding them towards self-sufficiency.[/p][/quote]"Don't come out with that crap, nobody is so poor in the UK that they couldn't afford a monthly health insurance premium." What planet are you on??!!?? There are more and more people out there that are relying on free foodbanks because otherwise they'd starve. People with no fridge or freezer (let alone TV) and only a microwave, so the foodbanks have to try and provide them with nutritious stuff that can be nuked. And you think that they can afford private health insurance? cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

5:23pm Wed 11 Sep 13

good-gosh says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples!
More people will die due to a lack of subspecialised expertise available. I'll keep the regional hospitals thanks.
Have both and ease the overload.
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples![/p][/quote]More people will die due to a lack of subspecialised expertise available. I'll keep the regional hospitals thanks.[/p][/quote]Have both and ease the overload. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

A few bonus facts.

Even AFTER the increases in NHS funding that Labour brought in, the UK were still funding healthcare at less (per capita and as % of GDP) than most EU countries.

The OECD rated the NHS' cost effectiveness as 1st in a comparison of seven leading health systems - Australia, Canada, Germany, Holland, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. Overall (including quality, access, equity) it came 2nd. Pipped to the post by Holland, but far cheaper than the Dutch and more efficient. The obvious implication is that with equal funding it would be top.
A few bonus facts. Even AFTER the increases in NHS funding that Labour brought in, the UK were still funding healthcare at less (per capita and as % of GDP) than most EU countries. The OECD rated the NHS' cost effectiveness as 1st in a comparison of seven leading health systems - Australia, Canada, Germany, Holland, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. Overall (including quality, access, equity) it came 2nd. Pipped to the post by Holland, but far cheaper than the Dutch and more efficient. The obvious implication is that with equal funding it would be top. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 4

5:27pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

good-gosh wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples!
More people will die due to a lack of subspecialised expertise available. I'll keep the regional hospitals thanks.
Have both and ease the overload.
You can't fill small hospitals with dozens of subspecialised doctors good-gosh. They'd not have any patients to treat most of the time, and it would cost a fortune.

You can't just pick a handful of subspecialties and hope that the patients that present fit into those areas of expertise...!
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: These massive regional hospitals are all too easily overloaded. If an A&E expects 50 people an hour and that rises unexpectedly by 3 times to 150, then they can't cope. Go back to district cottage hospitals with 2 people an hour and if that rises by 3 times to 6 its perfectly manageable. Simples![/p][/quote]More people will die due to a lack of subspecialised expertise available. I'll keep the regional hospitals thanks.[/p][/quote]Have both and ease the overload.[/p][/quote]You can't fill small hospitals with dozens of subspecialised doctors good-gosh. They'd not have any patients to treat most of the time, and it would cost a fortune. You can't just pick a handful of subspecialties and hope that the patients that present fit into those areas of expertise...! cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

5:42pm Wed 11 Sep 13

loosehead says...

Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay.
They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government?
If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed
Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay. They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government? If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed loosehead
  • Score: -1

5:47pm Wed 11 Sep 13

loosehead says...

redsnapper wrote:
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money.
2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
redsnapper cameron/the government have increased the NHS budget each year but the NHS could take double the money now being spent & still need more.
the NHS is ring fenced so why not blame those who can't be bothered to wait for a Doctors appointment so go up A&E?
they use to queue an hour before Shirley walk in centre opened rather than wait a day to see their own doctors.
My Doctors has no appointments for colds or coughs so where do they go? A&E maybe?
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]redsnapper cameron/the government have increased the NHS budget each year but the NHS could take double the money now being spent & still need more. the NHS is ring fenced so why not blame those who can't be bothered to wait for a Doctors appointment so go up A&E? they use to queue an hour before Shirley walk in centre opened rather than wait a day to see their own doctors. My Doctors has no appointments for colds or coughs so where do they go? A&E maybe? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:03pm Wed 11 Sep 13

redsnapper says...

loosehead wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money.
2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
redsnapper cameron/the government have increased the NHS budget each year but the NHS could take double the money now being spent & still need more.
the NHS is ring fenced so why not blame those who can't be bothered to wait for a Doctors appointment so go up A&E?
they use to queue an hour before Shirley walk in centre opened rather than wait a day to see their own doctors.
My Doctors has no appointments for colds or coughs so where do they go? A&E maybe?
you have a good point about abuse of A&E ...unfortunately this government,,correcti
on no government has the ability to develop a national computerised system for anything without drastic overspend followed by total failure ..so the NHS spends massive amount on paper printing and record storage and hardly uses email or any computer based record keeping .....which is a crying shame because what we need is identity cards to help stop all this domestic and foreign health tourism abuse which costs the NHS millions....customer
s or patients could then be at least charged for the time and materials used to fix their broken toe or neck or the slight scratch behind their left ear!!!!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]redsnapper cameron/the government have increased the NHS budget each year but the NHS could take double the money now being spent & still need more. the NHS is ring fenced so why not blame those who can't be bothered to wait for a Doctors appointment so go up A&E? they use to queue an hour before Shirley walk in centre opened rather than wait a day to see their own doctors. My Doctors has no appointments for colds or coughs so where do they go? A&E maybe?[/p][/quote]you have a good point about abuse of A&E ...unfortunately this government,,correcti on no government has the ability to develop a national computerised system for anything without drastic overspend followed by total failure ..so the NHS spends massive amount on paper printing and record storage and hardly uses email or any computer based record keeping .....which is a crying shame because what we need is identity cards to help stop all this domestic and foreign health tourism abuse which costs the NHS millions....customer s or patients could then be at least charged for the time and materials used to fix their broken toe or neck or the slight scratch behind their left ear!!!! redsnapper
  • Score: 2

6:14pm Wed 11 Sep 13

AndyAndrews says...

redsnapper wrote:
1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money.
2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.
Hospital doctors and administrators should grow a pair and charge the immigrant health tourists. The drunks should go to the back of the queue until they sober up, unless badly injured of course.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: 1. Camerron is a liar, as he said he would not be cutting NHS money. 2. Why not introduce a £100.00 flat charge for A&E treatment especially at the weekend, when they seem to be chock full of stupid DIY accident victims and the usual cast of drunken and drugged bums.[/p][/quote]Hospital doctors and administrators should grow a pair and charge the immigrant health tourists. The drunks should go to the back of the queue until they sober up, unless badly injured of course. AndyAndrews
  • Score: 4

6:27pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

loosehead wrote:
Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay.
They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government?
If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed
"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors"

You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that:

1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E.

2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay. They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government? If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed[/p][/quote]"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors" You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that: 1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E. 2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

6:29pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

Ps - The Confed's report published this week makes good reading, if you're really interested. As is The Shelford Group's report to parliament that was released online today.
Ps - The Confed's report published this week makes good reading, if you're really interested. As is The Shelford Group's report to parliament that was released online today. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 2

7:46pm Wed 11 Sep 13

House Sparrow says...

sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses.
I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)
sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled) House Sparrow
  • Score: 1

7:55pm Wed 11 Sep 13

Stupideditor says...

Well if this government used more common sence and forgot about that white elephant they call hs2 then more a&e departments will have more cash to use. Also this government and the media are pre set on blaming pre hospital carers on failing the public. Well if the government put cash into career develoment into existing staff and invest on improving other services then the pressures on a&e will be even less...
Well if this government used more common sence and forgot about that white elephant they call hs2 then more a&e departments will have more cash to use. Also this government and the media are pre set on blaming pre hospital carers on failing the public. Well if the government put cash into career develoment into existing staff and invest on improving other services then the pressures on a&e will be even less... Stupideditor
  • Score: 4

8:00pm Wed 11 Sep 13

legod7 says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.
sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.
I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.
sotonboy84
Perhaps Southampton General Hospital did not get any funding because it has 2 LABOUR MP's and a LABOUR controlled council.
Very political indeed
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.[/p][/quote]Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.[/p][/quote]I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 Perhaps Southampton General Hospital did not get any funding because it has 2 LABOUR MP's and a LABOUR controlled council. Very political indeed legod7
  • Score: -2

9:09pm Wed 11 Sep 13

loosehead says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay.
They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government?
If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed
"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors"

You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that:

1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E.

2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.
Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open.
Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather.
I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen.
talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone?
NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit.
many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu.
Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay. They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government? If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed[/p][/quote]"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors" You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that: 1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E. 2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.[/p][/quote]Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open. Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather. I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen. talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone? NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit. many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu. Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Wed 11 Sep 13

loosehead says...

legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
legod7 wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.
As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.
Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.
sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.
I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.
sotonboy84
Perhaps Southampton General Hospital did not get any funding because it has 2 LABOUR MP's and a LABOUR controlled council.
Very political indeed
perhaps the fact they the department have said they managed to see all patients in under four hours over three months meant they were managing with what they've got whilst other A&E's weren't never came into your line of thought?
Sorry don't think this is a political thing as the Syria vote was it's just why give money to an A&E that's working okay whilst others are in serious trouble
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Ummmmm, without making cuts, how else are they going to fill the defecit? Pluck money from thin or treating it as it grows on tress as some parties do? Cuts have been made so yes, this £235m is EXTRA funding.[/p][/quote]As I said it is NOT EXTRA FUNDING it is only funding that has cut back since 2010.[/p][/quote]Yes, but it is EXTRA funding if the 2010 budget has been cut between 2010 and NOW.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 You appear to be a spokesperson for this absolutely awful CONDEM lot that are ruining our country. Cut funding year after year then turn round and say you can have some extra now. You are as blind as the rest of them thinking this is EXTRA money. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN THE NHS HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE CRUMBS JUST TO SURVIVE. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THE NHS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD, OR IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS FUNDED PROPERLY.THIS GOVT IS TRYING ALL IT CAN TO PUT THE NHS INTO PRIVATE HANDS WITH THE WEALTHY TORY BACKERS BEING THE FIRST AT THE TROUGH.[/p][/quote]I'm not a spokesperson, I'm a supporter of the Conservative party. A party who has no choice but to make cuts to reduce the country's debt which Labour left behind. That's why funding is cut, not just the NHS but all over. Spendthrift Labour with no thought for the future have left people such as yourself with the ridiculous idea that there is no end to the supply of money. Wrong.[/p][/quote]sotonboy84 Perhaps Southampton General Hospital did not get any funding because it has 2 LABOUR MP's and a LABOUR controlled council. Very political indeed[/p][/quote]perhaps the fact they the department have said they managed to see all patients in under four hours over three months meant they were managing with what they've got whilst other A&E's weren't never came into your line of thought? Sorry don't think this is a political thing as the Syria vote was it's just why give money to an A&E that's working okay whilst others are in serious trouble loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:18pm Wed 11 Sep 13

loosehead says...

legod7 wrote:
Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power
Sorry but the NHS has been ring fenced & in reality is receiving more now than under Labour so exactly where was the funding cut?
The problem with many NHS Trusts is the PFI scheme the Tories were opting for Labour c+cked up, They took out PFI's with such exorbitant repayments the hospitals that were built can't be staffed or kitted out unless other hospitals shut & other departments have their budgets cut these PFI's were taken out under a Labour government so why not put the blame where it belongs?
[quote][p][bold]legod7[/bold] wrote: Since this CONDEM lot took over the funding of the NHS has been cut year after year. Now they are saying that you can have some of the £235m extra funding. This £235m EXTRA is only the funding that they haven't been putting into the NHS since they took power[/p][/quote]Sorry but the NHS has been ring fenced & in reality is receiving more now than under Labour so exactly where was the funding cut? The problem with many NHS Trusts is the PFI scheme the Tories were opting for Labour c+cked up, They took out PFI's with such exorbitant repayments the hospitals that were built can't be staffed or kitted out unless other hospitals shut & other departments have their budgets cut these PFI's were taken out under a Labour government so why not put the blame where it belongs? loosehead
  • Score: 1

9:30pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

loosehead wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay.
They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government?
If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed
"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors"

You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that:

1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E.

2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.
Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open.
Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather.
I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen.
talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone?
NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit.
many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu.
Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?
The NHS budget has absolutely not increased under this government. Smoke and mirrors of a variety of sorts, not the least being the "Nicholson Challenge". Not the only one though, it really has been a masterpiece of duplicity.

I totally agree about the walk-in centre though. We need MORE of these facilities, not less.

Why was it closed? Cuts.

Please don't come back with 'Labour did...' stuff loosehead - I'm not doing party politics here. The coalition have been a waking nightmare, but Labour certainly laid the foundations.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay. They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government? If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed[/p][/quote]"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors" You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that: 1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E. 2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.[/p][/quote]Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open. Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather. I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen. talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone? NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit. many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu. Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?[/p][/quote]The NHS budget has absolutely not increased under this government. Smoke and mirrors of a variety of sorts, not the least being the "Nicholson Challenge". Not the only one though, it really has been a masterpiece of duplicity. I totally agree about the walk-in centre though. We need MORE of these facilities, not less. Why was it closed? Cuts. Please don't come back with 'Labour did...' stuff loosehead - I'm not doing party politics here. The coalition have been a waking nightmare, but Labour certainly laid the foundations. cantthinkofone
  • Score: -1

9:37pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

Oh, and you're also quite correct about the A&E recruitment crisis. It's an extremely demanding job, with unsociable hours, massive responsibility and emotional strain, and - what most don't realise - also has no prospect of supplementing your NHS work with private practice.

Fortunately us potential patients however, it's *less* of a problem for our local hospital. As a specialist teaching hospital with an international clinical reputation, and a level one major trauma centre to boot, it's an attractive proposition for new A&E consultants/registra
rs/nurses. Probably still difficult to fill those posts, but I'm sure it must be a **** sight more difficult at Winchester/Salisbury
/Portsmouth/Bournemo
uth/Poole/etcetcetc.
..
Oh, and you're also quite correct about the A&E recruitment crisis. It's an extremely demanding job, with unsociable hours, massive responsibility and emotional strain, and - what most don't realise - also has no prospect of supplementing your NHS work with private practice. Fortunately us potential patients however, it's *less* of a problem for our local hospital. As a specialist teaching hospital with an international clinical reputation, and a level one major trauma centre to boot, it's an attractive proposition for new A&E consultants/registra rs/nurses. Probably still difficult to fill those posts, but I'm sure it must be a **** sight more difficult at Winchester/Salisbury /Portsmouth/Bournemo uth/Poole/etcetcetc. .. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 1

9:38pm Wed 11 Sep 13

cantthinkofone says...

That asterisked word was "d@mn". Rather over-sensitive censorship it seems!
That asterisked word was "d@mn". Rather over-sensitive censorship it seems! cantthinkofone
  • Score: 1

7:27am Thu 12 Sep 13

loosehead says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
loosehead wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay.
They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government?
If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed
"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors"

You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that:

1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E.

2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.
Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open.
Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather.
I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen.
talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone?
NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit.
many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu.
Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?
The NHS budget has absolutely not increased under this government. Smoke and mirrors of a variety of sorts, not the least being the "Nicholson Challenge". Not the only one though, it really has been a masterpiece of duplicity.

I totally agree about the walk-in centre though. We need MORE of these facilities, not less.

Why was it closed? Cuts.

Please don't come back with 'Labour did...' stuff loosehead - I'm not doing party politics here. The coalition have been a waking nightmare, but Labour certainly laid the foundations.
I'm not trying to bring party politics into this but you seem to think that the budget hasn't increased under this government yet even the opposition admit that it has the problem they say is it hasn't increased enough so in real terms it's been cut?
out goings have increased more than the money coming in has increased so cuts?
no matter how far you go back,no matter who was in power you would be waiting more than four hours in A&E so it's been a problem for many years & not one that's just happened
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay. They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government? If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed[/p][/quote]"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors" You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that: 1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E. 2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.[/p][/quote]Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open. Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather. I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen. talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone? NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit. many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu. Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?[/p][/quote]The NHS budget has absolutely not increased under this government. Smoke and mirrors of a variety of sorts, not the least being the "Nicholson Challenge". Not the only one though, it really has been a masterpiece of duplicity. I totally agree about the walk-in centre though. We need MORE of these facilities, not less. Why was it closed? Cuts. Please don't come back with 'Labour did...' stuff loosehead - I'm not doing party politics here. The coalition have been a waking nightmare, but Labour certainly laid the foundations.[/p][/quote]I'm not trying to bring party politics into this but you seem to think that the budget hasn't increased under this government yet even the opposition admit that it has the problem they say is it hasn't increased enough so in real terms it's been cut? out goings have increased more than the money coming in has increased so cuts? no matter how far you go back,no matter who was in power you would be waiting more than four hours in A&E so it's been a problem for many years & not one that's just happened loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:21am Thu 12 Sep 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

loosehead wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
loosehead wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay.
They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government?
If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed
"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors"

You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that:

1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E.

2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.
Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open.
Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather.
I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen.
talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone?
NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit.
many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu.
Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?
The NHS budget has absolutely not increased under this government. Smoke and mirrors of a variety of sorts, not the least being the "Nicholson Challenge". Not the only one though, it really has been a masterpiece of duplicity.

I totally agree about the walk-in centre though. We need MORE of these facilities, not less.

Why was it closed? Cuts.

Please don't come back with 'Labour did...' stuff loosehead - I'm not doing party politics here. The coalition have been a waking nightmare, but Labour certainly laid the foundations.
I'm not trying to bring party politics into this but you seem to think that the budget hasn't increased under this government yet even the opposition admit that it has the problem they say is it hasn't increased enough so in real terms it's been cut?
out goings have increased more than the money coming in has increased so cuts?
no matter how far you go back,no matter who was in power you would be waiting more than four hours in A&E so it's been a problem for many years & not one that's just happened
When the coalition government came to power in 2010 they were faced with implementing the 'Nicholson challenge' of taking out a staggering £20 billion p.a out of the annual NHS budget. This equates to a 4% year on year reduction in real terms - unprecedented in any modern health care system.

Labour would also have inherited the Nicholson challenge, though I suspect they would have chosen to address this differently. The coalition government's top down NHS re(dis)organisation has cost the taxpayer £3 billion and the failure of Osborne's austerity policies for the economy now mean that the NHS faces a £30 billion deficit on top of further massive cuts in council social services budgets.

This is a recipe for a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Neutral commentators like Chris Ham of the Kings Fund makes stark warnings this week about the pending failure of many acute hospitals and Chris Hopson, (ex-Tory) spokesperson for the NHS Foundation Trust Hospitals speaks gloomily of a very big train heading for a very big crash.

Be afraid ... be very afraid.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Listening to the news today Southampton A&E has over the last three months seen A&E patients in less than four hours so should be okay. They also said it just wasn't down to A&E times & the others needed the money for other parts of the hospital so why doesn't the Echo print the whole criteria to get this balloon payment instead of the article where every one can blame the Government? If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors the same problem the walk in unit in Shirley had when it opened & until it closed[/p][/quote]"If I'm not wrong the biggest problem with A&E units is people going there instead of going to the doctors" You are wrong unfortunately. The biggest problem with A&E is that: 1) Cuts to social funding have meant that patients can't be discharged quickly, so there are no beds in hospitals to admit the patients to from A&E. 2) Cuts to social funding have meant a greater number of people reaching crisis point without enough support, and either self-presenting at A&E, or being sent there by their GP because there are no other options available.[/p][/quote]Take yourself back to when Shirley walk in centre was open. Go there at least one hour before opening maybe two hours & you'd see people with chairs sat out side no matter what the weather. I & my wife went to have a blood test I was waiting four hours my wife was doing shopping & was told she was to late as the waiting time was over four hours & they'd be shutting before she could be seen. talk to some of the people in there & they were there because they Had a cough or they couldn't be bothered to wait for an appointment at their doctors well now that unit is shut where exactly do you think they've gone? NHS budget has increased each year under this government & is now receiving more money than under Labour the biggest problem A&E has is trying to get staff to work in the A&E unit. many doctors won't sign up as they're not local GP's & many of the A&E patients should be going to the doctors or staying home with coughs & the Flu. Do you all think that throwing more & more money at the NHS will solve the problem?[/p][/quote]The NHS budget has absolutely not increased under this government. Smoke and mirrors of a variety of sorts, not the least being the "Nicholson Challenge". Not the only one though, it really has been a masterpiece of duplicity. I totally agree about the walk-in centre though. We need MORE of these facilities, not less. Why was it closed? Cuts. Please don't come back with 'Labour did...' stuff loosehead - I'm not doing party politics here. The coalition have been a waking nightmare, but Labour certainly laid the foundations.[/p][/quote]I'm not trying to bring party politics into this but you seem to think that the budget hasn't increased under this government yet even the opposition admit that it has the problem they say is it hasn't increased enough so in real terms it's been cut? out goings have increased more than the money coming in has increased so cuts? no matter how far you go back,no matter who was in power you would be waiting more than four hours in A&E so it's been a problem for many years & not one that's just happened[/p][/quote]When the coalition government came to power in 2010 they were faced with implementing the 'Nicholson challenge' of taking out a staggering £20 billion p.a out of the annual NHS budget. This equates to a 4% year on year reduction in real terms - unprecedented in any modern health care system. Labour would also have inherited the Nicholson challenge, though I suspect they would have chosen to address this differently. The coalition government's top down NHS re(dis)organisation has cost the taxpayer £3 billion and the failure of Osborne's austerity policies for the economy now mean that the NHS faces a £30 billion deficit on top of further massive cuts in council social services budgets. This is a recipe for a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Neutral commentators like Chris Ham of the Kings Fund makes stark warnings this week about the pending failure of many acute hospitals and Chris Hopson, (ex-Tory) spokesperson for the NHS Foundation Trust Hospitals speaks gloomily of a very big train heading for a very big crash. Be afraid ... be very afraid. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 2

12:25pm Thu 12 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

House Sparrow wrote:
sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)
Not at all, you get what you pay for. Your NI contributions are subsidised because everybody else in the country is forced to pay them too regardless of if they use the NHS or not. I should have the choice to opt out and pay my own insurance and those that want an NHS, pay NI contributions that are reflective of the amount of people in the scheme.

I value my health and want top quality care as soon as I need it and not be forced to pay for a service that doesn't give me what I want.

I'm not sure where you are getting quotes from my premium is affordable. I have relatives in their 60's with existing health conditions who pay around £50 a month. Hardly breaking the bank for the security of high quality care when you need it.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)[/p][/quote]Not at all, you get what you pay for. Your NI contributions are subsidised because everybody else in the country is forced to pay them too regardless of if they use the NHS or not. I should have the choice to opt out and pay my own insurance and those that want an NHS, pay NI contributions that are reflective of the amount of people in the scheme. I value my health and want top quality care as soon as I need it and not be forced to pay for a service that doesn't give me what I want. I'm not sure where you are getting quotes from my premium is affordable. I have relatives in their 60's with existing health conditions who pay around £50 a month. Hardly breaking the bank for the security of high quality care when you need it. sotonboy84
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Thu 12 Sep 13

Lone Ranger. says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)
Not at all, you get what you pay for. Your NI contributions are subsidised because everybody else in the country is forced to pay them too regardless of if they use the NHS or not. I should have the choice to opt out and pay my own insurance and those that want an NHS, pay NI contributions that are reflective of the amount of people in the scheme.

I value my health and want top quality care as soon as I need it and not be forced to pay for a service that doesn't give me what I want.

I'm not sure where you are getting quotes from my premium is affordable. I have relatives in their 60's with existing health conditions who pay around £50 a month. Hardly breaking the bank for the security of high quality care when you need it.
So you want to choose to opt out of NI then if you could ..... after all why should you pay for both as you put it.
.
Who would pay for any prescriptions for you .....
.
If you had an accident in a car ..... what will you do wait for a private ambulance to come along and pick you up and treat you.
.
Who pays for the care of your pregnant wife ( hypothetically ) ... who pays for your kids at the dentist, doctors, hospital ........ there isnt an insurance policy for all of that ......... thats affordable ........ Thats why there is no "opt out" of NI
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)[/p][/quote]Not at all, you get what you pay for. Your NI contributions are subsidised because everybody else in the country is forced to pay them too regardless of if they use the NHS or not. I should have the choice to opt out and pay my own insurance and those that want an NHS, pay NI contributions that are reflective of the amount of people in the scheme. I value my health and want top quality care as soon as I need it and not be forced to pay for a service that doesn't give me what I want. I'm not sure where you are getting quotes from my premium is affordable. I have relatives in their 60's with existing health conditions who pay around £50 a month. Hardly breaking the bank for the security of high quality care when you need it.[/p][/quote]So you want to choose to opt out of NI then if you could ..... after all why should you pay for both as you put it. . Who would pay for any prescriptions for you ..... . If you had an accident in a car ..... what will you do wait for a private ambulance to come along and pick you up and treat you. . Who pays for the care of your pregnant wife ( hypothetically ) ... who pays for your kids at the dentist, doctors, hospital ........ there isnt an insurance policy for all of that ......... thats affordable ........ Thats why there is no "opt out" of NI Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

3:05pm Thu 12 Sep 13

sotonboy84 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
House Sparrow wrote: sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)
Not at all, you get what you pay for. Your NI contributions are subsidised because everybody else in the country is forced to pay them too regardless of if they use the NHS or not. I should have the choice to opt out and pay my own insurance and those that want an NHS, pay NI contributions that are reflective of the amount of people in the scheme. I value my health and want top quality care as soon as I need it and not be forced to pay for a service that doesn't give me what I want. I'm not sure where you are getting quotes from my premium is affordable. I have relatives in their 60's with existing health conditions who pay around £50 a month. Hardly breaking the bank for the security of high quality care when you need it.
So you want to choose to opt out of NI then if you could ..... after all why should you pay for both as you put it. . Who would pay for any prescriptions for you ..... . If you had an accident in a car ..... what will you do wait for a private ambulance to come along and pick you up and treat you. . Who pays for the care of your pregnant wife ( hypothetically ) ... who pays for your kids at the dentist, doctors, hospital ........ there isnt an insurance policy for all of that ......... thats affordable ........ Thats why there is no "opt out" of NI
Yes you're quite right, I would choose to opt out. I would continue to pay my prescriptions as I do now, but at the price they cost.

No, if there was a choice to opt out and the health system was based on the US health system, by law an ambulance has to take you to hospital and treat you, regardless of if you have insurance or not. It is therefore your responsibility to make sure you're insured to cover the cost of your care. Insurance or not, the hospital has to see you and this 'basic' level of service is funded by taxes. Any ongoing or preventative treatment is funded by insurance.

If you had to pay for pregnancy care then you would make the decision to have children based on if you could afford them. It's no different to people popping out children in the UK now with no means whatsoever to support them as they can just claim benefits which are funded by the state. You pay for your children the same way you can chose to now, cough up or get an insurance policy.

You have the very wrong attitude that many people in the UK have which is that 'the government' is seen as some sort of divine entity will look after you if anything goes wrong. The government is there to run the country and defend it, not support everybody in it because they don't want to support themselves. The result of taking more than is going into the pot is the mess that the country is left in now and the current government are trying to rectify it so all your moaning about cuts and enough is not being done for you is the direct result of years of abuse from people that can't help themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: sotonboy 84 obviously has rose-tinted glasses. I have just done a private insurance quote for myself and my wife. The monthly premium come to mare than 26% of our monthly income and that is before it get added to for pre-existing conditions! (I had cancer 10 years and my wife is disabled)[/p][/quote]Not at all, you get what you pay for. Your NI contributions are subsidised because everybody else in the country is forced to pay them too regardless of if they use the NHS or not. I should have the choice to opt out and pay my own insurance and those that want an NHS, pay NI contributions that are reflective of the amount of people in the scheme. I value my health and want top quality care as soon as I need it and not be forced to pay for a service that doesn't give me what I want. I'm not sure where you are getting quotes from my premium is affordable. I have relatives in their 60's with existing health conditions who pay around £50 a month. Hardly breaking the bank for the security of high quality care when you need it.[/p][/quote]So you want to choose to opt out of NI then if you could ..... after all why should you pay for both as you put it. . Who would pay for any prescriptions for you ..... . If you had an accident in a car ..... what will you do wait for a private ambulance to come along and pick you up and treat you. . Who pays for the care of your pregnant wife ( hypothetically ) ... who pays for your kids at the dentist, doctors, hospital ........ there isnt an insurance policy for all of that ......... thats affordable ........ Thats why there is no "opt out" of NI[/p][/quote]Yes you're quite right, I would choose to opt out. I would continue to pay my prescriptions as I do now, but at the price they cost. No, if there was a choice to opt out and the health system was based on the US health system, by law an ambulance has to take you to hospital and treat you, regardless of if you have insurance or not. It is therefore your responsibility to make sure you're insured to cover the cost of your care. Insurance or not, the hospital has to see you and this 'basic' level of service is funded by taxes. Any ongoing or preventative treatment is funded by insurance. If you had to pay for pregnancy care then you would make the decision to have children based on if you could afford them. It's no different to people popping out children in the UK now with no means whatsoever to support them as they can just claim benefits which are funded by the state. You pay for your children the same way you can chose to now, cough up or get an insurance policy. You have the very wrong attitude that many people in the UK have which is that 'the government' is seen as some sort of divine entity will look after you if anything goes wrong. The government is there to run the country and defend it, not support everybody in it because they don't want to support themselves. The result of taking more than is going into the pot is the mess that the country is left in now and the current government are trying to rectify it so all your moaning about cuts and enough is not being done for you is the direct result of years of abuse from people that can't help themselves. sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

11:41pm Thu 12 Sep 13

sparkster says...

I think it would help the A&E considerably if people went to the doctor or the walk in centres or pharmacy with trivial things instead of filling up the A&E, many things can be sorted with over the counter medicines
I think it would help the A&E considerably if people went to the doctor or the walk in centres or pharmacy with trivial things instead of filling up the A&E, many things can be sorted with over the counter medicines sparkster
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree