« Hail Gordon Brown | Main | History thunders »

January 31, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

HuwOS

Junican, I really have to wonder how you form your impressions of what someone means.
It seems to bear so little resemblance to what they have actually said.

Paul stated that waiting lists are not the be all and end all, but that they do matter to the general public.
If there were not some official date then all people would have would be the anecdotal kind that you gave.
In your case it was good, but that is not always the case.
See for example:
http://www.scansol.co.uk/forum/8-month-waiting-list-t1520s100.html

At least official waiting lists stats can give you some idea of what the norm is, and the norm may then be acceptable to you or unacceptable.

If people's view from anecdotal evidence is at negative and at odds with the most likely experience,
but they have no idea that the most likely experience would be a service that they would have been happy with,
they may end up shelling out for private treatment that they cannot really afford simply because they believe that they would not get treated for a long time.

Ergo, Paul's concern about the government's apparent plan to no longer publish that kind of data.

DG didn't say anything negative about the NHS, he simply suggested that a GP will not send anyone straight to hospital without a good reason and whether rightly or wrongly considered your initial example as one that would be unlikely to prompt the GP to send anyone straight to hospital.

Junican

@ DG

I visited my doctor because a lump on my eyelid. The doctor rang my local hospital while I was there and arranged an appointment for the next day. The specialist was unsure and took a bit of the lump for a biopsy. Within days, the biopsy revealed that the lump was malignant, although not of the nature of melanoma. Within two weeks, I had an operation to remove the lump. A week or so later, I was informed that all the lump had been removed.

I call that damn good service, so please have another think about your impression of the NHS. The problem with the NHS is that it has been hijacked by the health zealots. Get rid of them, and most of the problems will be solved.

D.G.

"...would not his doctor send him IMMEDIATELY to his local hospital?"

His doctor most certainly would NOT send him immediately to his local hospital. If he did, and if all doctors did, A&E would be bursting at the seams. And A&E waiting times would rocket.

Most likely he'd be sent on his way with a prescription for laxatives and an injunction to "come back if it doesn't get better."

You inhabit a strange world, my friend.

Rob Findlay

'The Department of Health no longer publish waiting times data (the final publication was March 2010).'

Not true: go to http://tinyurl.com/49xns44 for up to date waiting times data.

HuwOS

cof

Junican

Mr Flynn.

Honestly, I do not understand what problem you are talking about. I mean, when has the NHS refused to treat a person with a serious and immediate problem?

The fault in your logic is that the waiting lists of which you speak must be non-urgent cases, otherwise, they would be treated immediately.

Can I ask you this - If a person presents himself to his doctor and says that when he has a poo, he bleeds from his orifice, would not his doctor send him IMMEDIATELY to his local hospital? And if it turns out that his problem is minor, and not life threatening, would it not be reasonable for him to wait a while for that problem to be corrected, if there are other people with more grievous problems? The idea that the NHS can solve every health problem IMMEDIATELY must be silly, and that is what you seem to be advocating.

But your 'group' is an artificial construction. It represents only what you wish it to represent. It has no more significance than the Womens' Institute, and probably much less. The reality is that your group is fraudulently purporting to be representative of a non-existent entity.

This is quite amusing - until one thinks about the likes of ASH, which one discovers has no actual popular support to speak of in terms of donations. If ASH has no such popular support, who is funding the 27 staff in Scotland and the 8 staff in England and why? And how is it possible for ASH to provide secretarial support to the All Party Anti-tobacco group without any money to pay the staff?

SCANDAL is the word to describe these things.

Do you see?

People are beginning to think that The Government is a fraudulent entity.

I see no reason for this not to be true.

The comments to this entry are closed.