|
Post by bertymax on Jan 19, 2011 21:54:22 GMT 1
Hey Downie, Just seen your other thread....maybe some of the peole who will lose their jobs can enroll on one of your unemployment courses! ahh, your not that bad afterall.
|
|
|
Post by blum on Jan 19, 2011 21:56:06 GMT 1
I would think it best you get your information from source rather than heresay on such an important matter. Far from heresay, my wife works there and it's going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jan 19, 2011 22:09:33 GMT 1
Where's Whichchurch? And Newtown is in Wales is it not?? Regardless of all the stupid sentimental postings and rivalry between Shrewsbury and Telford of over who's got the biggest town, this is actually about some childrens services being provided in Shropshire or possibly none as the current services at Shrewsbury are not up to standard and not far off being unfit for purpose. I live within the Shrewsbury area but nearer the Welsh border than most, so I would have to travel far further to get to Telford than I would RSH - but if I had sick children I would rather they were treated at the best services possible, rather than ones that weren't up to scratch but were closer. AInt you just being a bit selfish here? I am sure you would soon change your tune if you had a child that was seriously ill. My little girl has heart problems and i hope it never happens but having a 5 min trip to the kids ward in shrewsbury is much better than a 20 min trip to telford.This could be the differene between life and death. So i think your attitude stinks. What? I'm being selfish? In what way?? I said I live in the Shrewsbury area close to the Welsh border - moving these services would mean I would have to travel FURTHER to get to PRH than I would to get to RSH!! How is that selfish?? I stated that I would prefer to go to a unit with better facilities and services than one that is closer - as it is the services and facilities at RSH won't be sustainable in the future. But you would rather have substandard services than go further??
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jan 19, 2011 22:20:45 GMT 1
Outstanding post shrewsace. I have two broad questions. 1 Why is it supposed that GPs will be better able to handle an £80bn budget? Will this be in their spare time or won't they be bothering with actually seeing patients any more? Seems particularly odd when so many GP practices are run by managers recruited by the GPs themselves - they don't even manage their own practices (and why should they, they're doctors first and foremost). 2 Where is the government's mandate for such a huge change? The government consists of two minority parties, neither of which was elected on a promise of radical NHS changes. I care about the NHS too much to hope these "reforms" fail but there is no legitimacy in what the government proposes to do. The answer to number 1 is that they won't. GPs are not trained to do the kind of work that would be required to organise and run the services that they will have to. As it is, what part of the GP training scheme covers commissioning services, writing contracts, ensuring mechanisms are in place to ensure that services are being delivered, dealing with complaints etc etc. The other question is going to be what happens if a patient has a complaint? Possibly about their GP. At present there is another layer, the PCTs, that can do this and actually have the expertise to do this and can act as an independent if there is a complaint, or can organise alternative services if a provider isn't performing. This model proposed will mean the GPs are in charge of deciding what service providers will be used (and GP practices might well be one service provider) and they may well be in charge of dealing with complaints, that could well be about them. Nice - people are bound to get fairness there. The only way they could do this is to buy in experts who can specialise in these matters - of which its likely to be a sizable number of former PCT staff. Although obviously a. a lot of the former PCT staff won't just be sitting around waiting, they may have found alternative work. and b. this would hardly be 'removing that level of buerecracy' that the tories are on about. Oh of course disbanding PCTs, it's staff, setting up all of these new organisations, and housing them, and even just setting up basic websites and admin supplies is going to cost millions - none of which will be going on patient care. All at a time when the health service is like every other public service having to cut budgets, and is currently having to face the time bomb of an aging population, rising obesity etc Clever eh.
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Jan 19, 2011 22:31:26 GMT 1
Albionshrew!! different sector mate, Private sector........... we have all been screwed by the banks, accept it, cos there is square root we can do about it. This is about public sector......... what we pay tax for.......... getting value for money!! Poor Comparrison!! We pay for private sector too!
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 19, 2011 22:55:24 GMT 1
Albionshrew!! different sector mate, Private sector........... we have all been screwed by the banks, accept it, cos there is square root we can do about it. Poor Comparrison!! Really !!!!!! Who pays for the bonuses paid to bankers in the private sector then...the bloody tooth fairy ? p**s poor comparison
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 23:36:42 GMT 1
Outstanding post shrewsace. I have two broad questions. 1 Why is it supposed that GPs will be better able to handle an £80bn budget? Will this be in their spare time or won't they be bothering with actually seeing patients any more? Seems particularly odd when so many GP practices are run by managers recruited by the GPs themselves - they don't even manage their own practices (and why should they, they're doctors first and foremost). 2 Where is the government's mandate for such a huge change? The government consists of two minority parties, neither of which was elected on a promise of radical NHS changes. I care about the NHS too much to hope these "reforms" fail but there is no legitimacy in what the government proposes to do. Good questions. Listening to the discussions on T.V. today, under the new proposals there will be an " explosion" in the number of private health providers. Well, no s**te Sherlock. A blind man could have seen that one coming. I would,nt be surprised to see the slow disintegration of the NHS as we know it, and a system more on the lines of the American system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 23:43:15 GMT 1
Albionshrew!! different sector mate, Private sector........... we have all been screwed by the banks, accept it, cos there is square root we can do about it. Poor Comparrison!! Really !!!!!! Who pays for the bonuses paid to bankers in the private sector then...the bloody tooth fairy ? p**s poor comparison quite unbelievable!!
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 20, 2011 0:29:37 GMT 1
I don't understand who will see the doctors patients while they are spending the billions
I also don't understand why we trained so many NHS managers and now we don't want them, so we are going to have to train the doctors to manage, just like the managers did.
And I also don't understand why trained professionals in banking are protected because they "add value" to the economy, even though they nearly destroyed the economy, whereas trained professionals in the NHS, who have taken the NHS approval rating with the public to unprecedented levels, are now the whipping boys. Only one of those groups of people have failed in their job in the last 5 years.
And in a time of austerity, this change is expected to cost us money not deliver savings for a while.
All very strange.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on Jan 20, 2011 0:57:10 GMT 1
AInt you just being a bit selfish here? I am sure you would soon change your tune if you had a child that was seriously ill. My little girl has heart problems and i hope it never happens but having a 5 min trip to the kids ward in shrewsbury is much better than a 20 min trip to telford.This could be the differene between life and death. So i think your attitude stinks. What? I'm being selfish? In what way?? I said I live in the Shrewsbury area close to the Welsh border - moving these services would mean I would have to travel FURTHER to get to PRH than I would to get to RSH!! How is that selfish?? I stated that I would prefer to go to a unit with better facilities and services than one that is closer - as it is the services and facilities at RSH won't be sustainable in the future. But you would rather have substandard services than go further?? That's a simplistic view, another simplistic view is that it's better to have nearby childrens wards than none at all. It sounds like you don't have children (let alone poorly ones) so it's easy for you to say you'd be happy to let your child travel to Telford. In reality as Heavenly says, the extra time could prove disasterous. Also it's one thing for those that live in town itself, what about families in Nesscliffe, Oswestry, Minsterley, Crew Green, etc etc. Heck of a long way to travel to the PRH for them. Is it fair to expect people to travel an hour each way to hospital, quite tough on parents visiting a child in hospital for weeks/months? As regarding you saying Newtown is in Wales - do you think Welsh people should be barred from the RSH? Something else to bear in mind is many a time I've been caught in a huge jam on the A5 between preston island and wellington due to an accident or vehicles breaking down etc, obviously the ambulance should still get through eventually but it's more time wasted on those occasions, often once or twice a week.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 20, 2011 1:46:00 GMT 1
As I write, my dad is in hospital awaiting a heart operation. He's been in since Christmas Eve. He first felt ill and saw his GP in August. It took until December 23rd for him to see a consultant, who did some tests and called him into hospital next day. The GP had dithered, failed to come up with any sensible diagnosis and failed to treat the case with any urgency when it was clear to anyone that saw him that my dad was deteriorating.
I can't help but suspect that the GP is either negligent, incompetent or trying to save on his budget. Either way, I would not want him to be given any more responsibility. He already has responsibilities beyond his ability.
It's only one personal experience and that's no basis for policy in anything. But the personal will always influence our opinions.
"Reform"? Wouldn't be my word for it.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jan 20, 2011 1:46:30 GMT 1
No I'm not saying that, but at present the facilities at RSH are not going to be fit for purpose. Would people want their children treated at substandard facilities??
And you are right about the fact of something rather than none at all - however, isn't this one of the threats - to safeguard that some of these services will remain in Shropshire, rather than some services being lost outside of Shropshire, as the current system is not sustainable with the current budgets allowed from those marvelous people in charge of the country.
And no I don't believe Welsh people should be barred from the RSH, however, I would really have to ask why there are such a lack of hospital facilties in Wales period - after all there is a different parliment is there not?
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jan 20, 2011 1:51:40 GMT 1
As I write, my dad is in hospital awaiting a heart operation. He's been in since Christmas Eve. He first felt ill and saw his GP in August. It took until December 23rd for him to see a consultant, who did some tests and called him into hospital next day. The GP had dithered, failed to come up with any sensible diagnosis and failed to treat the case with any urgency when it was clear to anyone that saw him that my dad was deteriorating. I can't help but suspect that the GP is either negligent, incompetent or trying to save on his budget. Either way, I would not want him to be given any more responsibility. He already has responsibilities beyond his ability. "Reform"? Wouldn't be my word for it. That certainly sounds like a case of a sizeable GP error in some way. And would be worthy of a complaint. And that's another part of what I was saying before - under the new proposals you would be complaining about a GP to another GP - maybe even a colleague. The other problem with these proposals is that GPs will now find that the relationship they have with their patients will change. They will no longer be able to blame anyone else if services aren't there or aren't running smoothly - at present they can and in doing so can be extra understanding with the patient. However, it'll be them in the firing line.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Jan 20, 2011 9:47:35 GMT 1
Forget changing the record, the fact of the matter is simple, the current spending is unsustainable, regardless who is in charge. Change is needed, and if we can change, cut out some of the red tape, and improve then so be it, if people lose jobs, that is unfortunate. So the Tories are in power and once again we hear "Unemployment is a price worth paying" Unemployment wasn't right under Labour and it is rising under the Tories nearly 1m youth unemployed and your friendly cuddly Cameron ends Future Job Fund, ends EMA. The cost of Youth Unemployment is estimated at over £7bn a year surely it would be better to employ these people rather that the country ending up with another lost generation. Has Cameron and Osborne learnt nothing from Thatchers "no such thing as society" years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 17:22:00 GMT 1
This isnt a thread i can really get involved in (although would like to), but with regards the moving of the childrens ward to prh.
i understand the worries of parents, but my understanding is that "blue light emergencies" would go to the nearest A and E dept, regardless of where the childrens ward is, so talk of loosing vital minutes is perhaps a little off the mark.
transfer to the most appropriatte place would take place once the child had been stabilised.
both of my grand children have been treated this way, both ending up in paediatric itu at stoke (our nearest provider for paediatric intensive care).
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jan 20, 2011 17:52:12 GMT 1
This isnt a thread i can really get involved in (although would like to), but with regards the moving of the childrens ward to prh. i understand the worries of parents, but my understanding is that "blue light emergencies" would go to the nearest A and E dept, regardless of where the childrens ward is, so talk of loosing vital minutes is perhaps a little off the mark. transfer to the most appropriatte place would take place once the child had been stabilised. both of my grand children have been treated this way, both ending up in paediatric itu at stoke (our nearest provider for paediatric intensive care). Happy with all that Matron, but what about midwife led births that all of a sudden need to become consultant led births PDQ as in the case of my lad? I agree with Windy and I said it on another thread we really need two facilities of a size in proportion to the areas they cover. I know that neo-natal unit in Shrewsbury has amazing pieces of kit to get ill/prem babies to specialists hospitals if required once they have been delivered, but my worry is the delivery. Also, regards the banks. Public money bailed some of them out, so it is our money and we should be more vocal about it.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jan 20, 2011 18:04:56 GMT 1
I'm just glad of the news he's still alive. 12 months ago he was a media Whore averaging 7/8 photos a week in the local press. These days he's hardly ever in the local rag and is keeping a very low profile, wonder why
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 18:07:16 GMT 1
Nicko,
Ref the banks, completely agree, but the time to put the conditions was when the loan was made, but no, the banks were taken on the word that they would curb the bonuses, lend more to small businesses, and to property.
rather than safeguard these important points, they were taken at the word, now, its back to the record profits, high bonuses and generally everyone being shafted by them, but because they are basically owned by shareholders,we can be as vocal as we want, it will mean nothing.
The other way, is boycott the banks, dont use the mortgages, credit cards, overdrafts............. dont use them to hold your savings, put it under your floorboards!!
but that is also not realistic is it!!
the only viable option would to have a state owned bank........... and everyone use that!!
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jan 20, 2011 18:32:20 GMT 1
Nicko, Ref the banks, completely agree, but the time to put the conditions was when the loan was made, but no, the banks were taken on the word that they would curb the bonuses, lend more to small businesses, and to property. rather than safeguard these important points, they were taken at the word, now, its back to the record profits, high bonuses and generally everyone being shafted by them, but because they are basically owned by shareholders,we can be as vocal as we want, it will mean nothing. The other way, is boycott the banks, dont use the mortgages, credit cards, overdrafts............. dont use them to hold your savings, put it under your floorboards!! but that is also not realistic is it!! the only viable option would to have a state owned bank........... and everyone use that!! I only use my bank as a place to get my wages paid in, which as you can imagine don't last long in there anyway. I don't have a credit card, an overdraft facility and my morgage is with a mutual building society that's never been in trouble (er yet). If I could I'd rather be paid in cash, weekly. My savings (such as they are!!) and my wifes are with a mutual building society. I have actually thought about closing my bank account and moving to my building society, but I don't trust my HR department to carry out their side of things without a major hic up, drama and involve one of them having a week off with stress. I feel I could do well without a bank. A state owned bank wouldn't be a bad idea actually.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jan 20, 2011 18:58:01 GMT 1
the only viable option would to have a state owned bank........... and everyone use that!! WHAT! - and have lending rates nearer to the 0.5% base rate than the 4% or so (cheapest) mortgage rate banks are currently offering. How the hell will banks be able to afford massive staff bonuses then!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 19:02:48 GMT 1
the only viable option would to have a state owned bank........... and everyone use that!! WHAT! - and have lending rates nearer to the 0.5% base rate than the 4% or so (cheapest) mortgage rate banks are currently offering. How the hell will banks be able to afford massive staff bonuses then!!!!!! My fear at the moment is that rates will go up significantly over the next 2 years!!
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jan 20, 2011 19:07:03 GMT 1
WHAT! - and have lending rates nearer to the 0.5% base rate than the 4% or so (cheapest) mortgage rate banks are currently offering. How the hell will banks be able to afford massive staff bonuses then!!!!!! My fear at the moment is that rates will go up significantly over the next 2 years!! Totally agree - and that would cause mayhem with "Nice but dim" Osbornes sums
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 20, 2011 19:38:36 GMT 1
Nicko, Ref the banks, completely agree, but the time to put the conditions was when the loan was made, but no, the banks were taken on the word that they would curb the bonuses, lend more to small businesses, and to property. They can't do anything about RBS or Lloyds? It's not all about bonuses, SeanBroseley posted a link to an article containing some of the ideas being proposed to reform the banking system. If you missed it, here it is again: www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/How_do_they_get_away_with_it_0.pdfOne of the worst things about this government is that they attempt to wash their hands of the responsibility for their actions by saying they have "no choice", trying to instill a sense of inevitability when each of their decisions is a political choice. Or the old "it's all down to Labour,we're bankrupt there's no money left, Gordon sold all the gold, we're all in it together, don't let union barons take over the country".
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 20, 2011 20:57:35 GMT 1
We do have state owned banks - the ones tax payers money bailed out!
The politicians tell us that they can't do anything about the banks as they contribute over 20% of our tax revenue - this is a big lie.
Lord Digby Jones said it last June and again on the Today programme last month. He was challenged the first time and did not respond, the second time (after much prompting) he said he heard it at a bankers dinner!
The fact is, according to the Financial Times, that the tax take from the entire financial sector is 11%.
So I say tax any bonus over one weeks salary at 95% and if the casino bankers don't like it let the greedy barstewards bugger off and ruin someone else's economy.
Financial institutions that run on conservative, non speculative lines will remain, we will have institutions we can trust and our money will be safe.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 20, 2011 21:38:43 GMT 1
Echo entirely what Shropshire Tenor says. We are lied to consistantly by the banks and it's time they were held to account (sic)
Similarly we should go after those multi nationals that consistantly avoid paying their tax demands such as Vodafone and the £600 million they have had written off by the revenue, that would pay for a few public services !
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Jan 21, 2011 10:59:25 GMT 1
We are lied to consistantly by the banks and it's time they were held to account (sic) At 9.55 this morning the highest share rise on the London Stock Exchange is...........................Royal Bank of Scotland (up 5.6%) seems a few "in the know" reckon they're a good bet to squirm away a few billion more this year
|
|