The King Is Diagnosed With Cancer ?

[Yellow Bear]

41 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

the UK's head of state receiving cancer treatment finally, belatedly, lights a fire under the Brits' rear to demand better (and not just by chucking ever more money at the problem), bring it on

Sadly the NHS is a bit like the civil service, from about half way up too many non-jobs for (in this case) the girls, most of which have no idea about business management.

Edited February 8 by Yellow Bear

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

NHS is a bit like the civil service

It is.  Both organisations have to persuade the Treasury to give them extra funds.  Both have found that doing a poor job and blaming that on lack of funding gets them more money/staff/buildings/maybe even better pay and conditions - so they do it and so it goes on.  Its like training a dog, they should get rewarded when they do things right - not in the hope that the may do things right.

The way Treasury funding works tends to result in success getting penalised by reduced future funds on the basis that they are doing fine, so they obviously have ample resources and don't have red flag with the electorate. Conversely failure gets rewarded by additional funds because failure is a big highly visible red flag waving at the electorate and those running the failures they say they need more funds due to Treasury cuts, austerity, rising obesity, Covid and anything else they can think of - and the electorate believes them.

It's a bad system, but actually much more fundamental than just the party politics.  It's like dog training - rewards for successes, no rewards for mistakes.

[Flashman]

16 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

And I think that sums up your character very well.

Perhaps a better description of those using the King’s cancer as a political stick to beat him with is, “woke, virtue signallers.” Lots of guff about the fact he’s getting cancer treatment - the same as everybody else. 
I’m also sceptical about the assorted examples of lack of NHS services. In my own personal experiences in the last three years, consultations were performed within a fortnight of the GP’s referral to the local hospital. I’m lucky enough to live in England, so I can’t comment on the criminally poor service provided in Labour Wales & SNP Scotland. 

[GHE]

8 minutes ago, Flashman said:

Perhaps a better description of those using the King’s cancer as a political stick to beat him with is, “woke, virtue signallers.” Lots of guff about the fact he’s getting cancer treatment - the same as everybody else. 
I’m also sceptical about the assorted examples of lack of NHS services. In my own personal experiences in the last three years, consultations were performed within a fortnight of the GP’s referral to the local hospital. I’m lucky enough to live in England, so I can’t comment on the criminally poor service provided in Labour Wales & SNP Scotland. 

(My bold) which is very much a political statement. . .

 

Personally, I've had first-class NHS treatment since having my minor heart problem the year before last.  But, the fact remains, the NHS, try as they might, simply can't cope and the ordinary working people can't get the standard of care that they've paid for.

 

I don't think that ANYONE would want the King to get bad treatment, we just want everyone to get reasonably good treatment.

 

Latest example: Playing in a pool match on Monday, a member of the visiting team was taken ill. He has a known heart condition. Pulse racing, sweating, feeling dizzy. One of his friends rang 999, gave them full details, told them his pulse rate.  They said that it was an emergency and would send an ambulance, but that the ambulance would take at least 3 1/2 hours.  Needless to say, his friend took him straight to the hospital.

[udderlyoffroad]

13 minutes ago, Flashman said:

I’m also sceptical about the assorted examples of lack of NHS services.

Exactly how many league tables and performance metrics, showing the UK bouncing along the bottom of treatable cancers amongst developed nations, will it take to convince you?

We are literally rationing treatment in this country, whilst specialist centres paid for by the taxpayer sit closed due to administrative not-give-a-****ery.

I'm glad you got lucky in the treatment lottery, there are many others less fortunate than you.

 

15 minutes ago, Flashman said:

Perhaps a better description of those using the King’s cancer as a political stick to beat him with is, “woke, virtue signallers.”

What?

We don't begrudge him treatment, we want *some* treatment to be made available to the rest of us.

The metaphorical stick is beating politicians of all colours and NHS management, not Charles.  The lack of funds excuse will not wash any longer.

The UK population seeing how cancer treatment should work* in their head of state, could finally be the catalyst needed to sharpen the metaphorical pitchforks.

 

18 minutes ago, Flashman said:

I’m lucky enough to live in England, so I can’t comment on the criminally poor service provided in Labour Wales & SNP Scotland. 

That famous queue for NHS dentistry on the news the other day was in Bristol, still counts as England.

 

*Although, we could simply ask...anyone from any other Western European nation.

[Fargo]

What treatment will the king get - the best money can buy of course. More than anyone on nhs would get.

Same any thing in life if you got the money you can buy anything and that includes 5* health care.

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, Flashman said:

Perhaps a better description of those using the King’s cancer as a political stick to beat him with is, “woke, virtue signallers.” Lots of guff about the fact he’s getting cancer treatment - the same as everybody else. 
I’m also sceptical about the assorted examples of lack of NHS services. In my own personal experiences in the last three years, consultations were performed within a fortnight of the GP’s referral to the local hospital. I’m lucky enough to live in England, so I can’t comment on the criminally poor service provided in Labour Wales & SNP Scotland. 

The only person making this political is yourself. I'm glad you don't seem to have experienced a lack of care in the NHS and are happy with it, I can assure you when you watch people you care greatly about die because of a lack of treatment for a perfectly treatable condition, the last thing on your mind is politics.

[Diver One]

I was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2012, I thought I had a leaky blood vessel. I was so wrong! Anyway NHS was amazing from locum doctor to hospital to recover. 9 tumours, 8 surgeries, 30 ish doses of chemo and immuno therapy. I now go back yearly for a check. I couldn’t fault my treatment in any way

[johnphilip]

11 hours ago, Diver One said:

I was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2012, I thought I had a leaky blood vessel. I was so wrong! Anyway NHS was amazing from locum doctor to hospital to recover. 9 tumours, 8 surgeries, 30 ish doses of chemo and immuno therapy. I now go back yearly for a check. I couldn’t fault my treatment in any way

Long may you stay that way. I get my PSA checked twice a year after my prostrate cancer treatmen.

[Lloyd90]

On 08/02/2024 at 10:19, JohnfromUK said:

It is.  Both organisations have to persuade the Treasury to give them extra funds.  Both have found that doing a poor job and blaming that on lack of funding gets them more money/staff/buildings/maybe even better pay and conditions - so they do it and so it goes on.  Its like training a dog, they should get rewarded when they do things right - not in the hope that the may do things right.

The way Treasury funding works tends to result in success getting penalised by reduced future funds on the basis that they are doing fine, so they obviously have ample resources and don't have red flag with the electorate. Conversely failure gets rewarded by additional funds because failure is a big highly visible red flag waving at the electorate and those running the failures they say they need more funds due to Treasury cuts, austerity, rising obesity, Covid and anything else they can think of - and the electorate believes them.

It's a bad system, but actually much more fundamental than just the party politics.  It's like dog training - rewards for successes, no rewards for mistakes.

So we should cut off funding to current failing or badly performing services?
 

In some sort of hope they then completely revolutionise the way they work? 

What jobs / cuts can we do without? Apart from the “woke” jobs that people obviously complain about… which if cut would be a drop in the ocean funding wise. 
 

Can we do without HR? Managers? Do private hospitals not have managers? Do staff not have supervision, training, oversight, do people not collect statistics and look at trends for planning. 
 

Prisons, Police, Social Care, NHS, Ambulance Service, then we have flooding blamed on lack of maintenance from water ways etc. 

How is a single public service not functioning to any decent standard? Surely a single one would be able to be run / managed effectively if it’s all down to failures of management? 
 

Private hospitals such as the one the King has used, where he is able to start major treatment within days of a diagnosis, isn’t just better managed, the issues and situation they face are significantly different. 
 

If someone overstays, needs additional treatment, whatever, they bill for it, itemised bills for everything they do. 
 

They don’t have a set budget that they have to make last for the year no matter what. 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

So we should cut off funding to current failing or badly performing services?

We need to understand that simply pouring money into "current failing or badly performing services" is not the magic answer that will make it all work perfectly.

Spending the funds wisely and efficiently on front line services would be a good start. 

Locally to me, there is a huge problem - you can't get an ambulance when needed (and it's not just around here either).  Why?

Because the initial cause is that there are a long line queuing outside the local A&E as the hospital can't take in the patients.  More are queuing occupied than are 'available for duty'.  Why?

Apparently because the new 'centralised' A&E which opened in October on which they have spent a fortune (£35M since a critical report 3 years ago rated them 'inadequate') - actually has less capacity than it's predecessor arrangements (which used several smaller units).  This was all set up quite recently - and they were given a big budget to have a new A&E at the (also quite recent) major hospital.  It has been a disaster.  They are now apparently considering pouring in more money ...... as they declared "critical incidents' in both November and December.

There are a load of underlying reasons - all of which boil down to a shambles of a management - who have managed to spend a load of money and achieve a worse service.  Perhaps a BIG part of the reason is that A&E was originally planned to handle 45,000 patients a year, but the demand is 75,000.  Well someone (not doctors, nurses, but management and planners) got that badly wrong.

Throwing money at poorly performing organisations without changing how they manage it will fail.

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

There are a load of underlying reasons - all of which boil down to a shambles of a management - who have managed to spend a load of money and achieve a worse service.  Perhaps a BIG part of the reason is that A&E was originally planned to handle 45,000 patients a year, but the demand is 75,000.  Well someone (not doctors, nurses, but management and planners) got that badly wrong.

Throwing money at poorly performing organisations without changing how they manage it will fail.

No, what it boils down to is funding. 
 

Those planners didn’t look at that project and say “right they need to serve 75,000 people so let’s build a place that can only manage 45,000… that’ll be a laugh!”. 
 

What very very likely has happened is that they’ve priced up a site than can manage 75,000 and its significant more than they have a budget for! 
 

Instead they have to design something within budget, and that’s what you got. 
 

I believe @oowee had similar issues when working for the Government on a project for electric car chargers. They asked him to look at how many chargers they needed to cover the country, when he worked it out they basically said “we aren’t spending that much, make do with this amount”. 
 

What are managers supposed to do without the resources / infrastructure?

 

Failures of Government.  

 

[12gauge82]

We've simply got too many people in the country. How the wokies have the nerve to constantly whinge about underfunding, while forcing the under served public to pay for  illegal immigrants, who then put further pressure on the already drowning NHS is beyond me and those dots are conveniently never connected by mainstream media.

[Newbie to this]

24 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

We've simply got too many people in the country. How the wokies have the nerve to constantly whinge about underfunding, while forcing the under served public to pay for  illegal immigrants, who then put further pressure on the already drowning NHS is beyond me and those dots are conveniently never connected by mainstream media.

[Wymondley]

40 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

We've simply got too many people in the country. How the wokies have the nerve to constantly whinge about underfunding, while forcing the under served public to pay for  illegal immigrants, who then put further pressure on the already drowning NHS is beyond me and those dots are conveniently never connected by mainstream media.

Which is in fact the answer to practically every single whinge thread on here, from the NHS to flooding.

 

[Penelope]

55 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

We've simply got too many people in the country. How the wokies have the nerve to constantly whinge about underfunding, while forcing the under served public to pay for  illegal immigrants, who then put further pressure on the already drowning NHS is beyond me and those dots are conveniently never connected by mainstream media.

The Great Replacement

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

No, what it boils down to is funding. 

We will have to agree to disagree.  You will not 'solve' the NHS crisis by pouring more money into the black hole.

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

What are managers supposed to do without the resources / infrastructure?

Managers are supposed to manage the budgets (and they have £180 BILLION, so they are hardly 'without budget) they have and keep within them.  When new resources/infrastructure are needed, they have to 'bid for' funds - which will require sound justification.

Although the NHS isn't a typical 'business', the same rules apply - you have to spend wisely to meet the targets.  If you don't - customers will go elsewhere.  Then a normal business would have to take measures to recover the competitive edge.

The 'problem' with the NHS is that most customers can't afford to go elsewhere; and you could add (for many anyway) that they have paid their subscriptions for the NHS all their lives.