Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

NHS vs. Red Cross - a humanitarian crisis?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38538637

The NHS is disputing Red Cross' claims of a humanitarian crisis across hospitals in England.

Should they be getting involved in the politics? Does the government need to be spending more on the NHS?
«13456710

Comments

  • http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38538637

    The NHS is disputing Red Cross' claims of a humanitarian crisis across hospitals in England.

    Should they be getting involved in the politics? Does the government need to be spending more on the NHS?

    there was a joke doing the rounds up in Cumbria during the floods .. a Red Cross boat approaches a family stuck on the roof of their ultra flooded house .. 'thank god you've arrived to rescue us' .. said the mum of the family .. 'Oh no, we're not a rescue team we're collecting for Syrian refugees, have you got a few pounds to spare ?' replied the captain of the boat ..

    At least the RedX is taking a stance on BRITISH matters .. it is a very rich charity, perhaps it could fund a few more initiatives as do the Nuffield and MacMillan organisations, help eased the strain on a very overstretched NHS
  • Admittedly I don't have all the facts and I'm sure someone could come back at me with a reason why it doesn't happen, but I've always found it ridiculous that the NHS isn't overfunded let alone an given a reasonable amount. Just doesn't make sense to me when everyone relies on it.
  • The wife is a sister in our local hospital she generally works around an extra 10-12 hours per week (unpaid), hardly ever gets any sort of break. In my opinion is if all nhs staff 'worked to rule' it would collapse within a fortnight.

    As would most companies.
  • Popcorn anyone? Salted or sweet?
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited January 7
    seth plum said:

    One traditional stance of the Tories is that the voluntary sector and the charitable sector do a marvellous job and should be part of it.
    The problem is the extreme end of right wing politics who think charity ought to cover all the areas they don't fancy paying for. Some right wing thinking is that everything ought to be private, and taxes lower so people can pay for their own health service or street lighting or whatever.

    This has not just been an issue for the tories but every government over the last twenty or thirty years. PFI under labour has put a heavy strain on the NHS. Also sadly charities have played a large part for many years but I agree this has got worse recently. More money should be spent on the NHS, which becomes more expensive every year. The trouble is I don't think people want to pay extra money through taxation.
  • It's long overdue that we reduced the overseas aid budget and spent some of it on the NHS and other care services.

    £12.2 billion pounds per annum is a staggering sum and if only £0.5M was diverted away from foreign causes such as Ethiopian pop groups (it now has), it would make a massive difference.

    I'm all for foreign aid, but not in such massive sums, when our own services are in dire straits.

    this .. the story you quote is almost surreal in it's reality .. £22,000,000 is the figure quoted by the BBC
  • Huskaris said:

    As is always the case with the NHS, your opinion will be based entirely on your political leanings.

    My personal opinion is that you could quadruple the amount of money the NHS gets and it would still be demanding more. That is not *just* a criticism of how much they love pissing money up the wall but also a comment about the drug companies/equipment manufacturers who will base their prices on what they know the NHS can afford.

    It's the NHS though, so mustn't grumble... Labour good, Tories bad etc... Such an asinine argument.

    100% This.

    Throwing money at the NHS will only solve short term issues.
  • "Humanitarian crisis" is hyperbolic language.

    NHS spending hasn't been cut, the problem is that in never rises enough to meet the increasing costs of treatment.

    These are the current major areas of government expense. Yes you can raise a bit more from taxation (bearing in mind the massive deficit) or alternatively make cuts somewhere else to pay for more NHS expenditure

    image
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited January 7
    I'm not blaming people in foreign countries. I'm blaming ALL of our politicians for spending a bit too much abroad on projects that are most definitely not going towards people in desperate need, but are funding pop groups and such like.
    Spend abroad where it is desperately needed and spend here where it is also desperately needed and stop wasting money on projects that are not desperately needed.

    As you say our politicians should provide proper care to our own citizens as well and there is enough money for both if it isn't wasted.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38538631

    The government has axed plans to fund a five-member Ethiopian girl band, saying there are "more effective ways" to invest UK aid.
    International Development Secretary Priti Patel reviewed the funding after reports that pop group Yegna had received millions from UK taxpayers.
    The government planned to give Girl Effect, the organisation which created Yegna, £11.8m between 2015 and 2018.
  • seth plum said:

    One traditional stance of the Tories is that the voluntary sector and the charitable sector do a marvellous job and should be part of it.
    The problem is the extreme end of right wing politics who think charity ought to cover all the areas they don't fancy paying for. Some right wing thinking is that everything ought to be private, and taxes lower so people can pay for their own health service or street lighting or whatever.

    George Osborne was very keen on food banks, as I recall. Hard to credit that food banks should be needed in one of the richest countries in the world...
    Once again they should not be needed. There is enough money if it is spent correctly.
  • SDAddick said:

    Huskaris said:

    It's long overdue that we reduced the overseas aid budget and spent some of it on the NHS and other care services.

    £12.2 billion pounds per annum is a staggering sum and if only £0.5M was diverted away from foreign causes such as Ethiopian pop groups (it now has), it would make a massive difference.

    I'm all for foreign aid, but not in such massive sums, when our own services are in dire straits.

    Agreed, one thing is for sure, every penny that goes to someone from abroad in NHS services should come out of our foreign aid budget. It might mean that there is less Spice Girl groups in Ethiopia, and for that I can only apologise for being a cold hearted bastard, but sometimes, and this is a cliche, charity begins at home.
    If, as the sixth largest economy in the world, you cannot figure out how to provide proper care to your own citizens, it is ridiculous to blame people in foreign countries who desperately need help (some of which is the result of the empire). This is not a Labour or Toy thing, this is a human decency thing.
    First of all, I would completely disagree with the idea that empire has been a negative influence on these countries. I would argue, as an example, that India would be far, far worse today were it not for the Empire's influence, and don't get me wrong a lot of that was to exploit their natural resources, but no one would deny the Romans did a lot, and I am sure a few hundred years from now once all the self hating people have died away the British Empire will be viewed in a similar way.

    And I am not blaming foreign countries at all. My personal opinion is that money that is wasted is money that is wasted. We waste a LOT of money. Claims of £350 million a week are ridiculous when it comes to the EU, but we waste a lot of money that we needn't waste. A lot of money isn't going to blankets for Syrian migrants, or food for the starving, it is going to ridiculous vanity projects... Spending money for the sake of spending money (as we are commited to in our foreign aid budget as it is locked in at a percentage) is ridiculous.

    Huskaris said:

    As is always the case with the NHS, your opinion will be based entirely on your political leanings.

    My personal opinion is that you could quadruple the amount of money the NHS gets and it would still be demanding more. That is not *just* a criticism of how much they love pissing money up the wall but also a comment about the drug companies/equipment manufacturers who will base their prices on what they know the NHS can afford.

    It's the NHS though, so mustn't grumble... Labour good, Tories bad etc... Such an asinine argument.

    I've worked in the NHS under both labour and conservatives. Both equally bad.

    There are some fundamental issues regarding funding that are just not widely understood.

    The NHS of today is about as high tech as you can get and it gets more high tech year on year. It's a fact of life that leading edge medical equipment is expensive and whereas 20 years ago it could adequately perform for a good number of years these days it's more or less obsolete buy the time it's bought and installed. Patients demand the best and why shouldn't they. The level of training required to use the new generations of equipment is enormous. Bright young things are just not interested in doing the highly educated stress filled, target driven under paid jobs the NHS has to offer.

    Again. I could go on forever.

    My point exactly, but instead, any time a Conservative so much as stands for election, they want to privatise the NHS and throw everyones gran out onto the pavement to die, whilst lighting their cigars with crisp £50 notes they have stolen off some poor pensioner somewhere. Like I said it is ridiculous and the arguments about the NHS are much, much more complex than that, especially with regards to things like NHS inflation which you mention. Medical inflation runs at a much higher rate than general inflation, for obvious reasons such as tech and innovation which costs money.

    If you increase the value of the NHS budget year on year by the consumer prices index, in real terms for the NHS, it is getting poorer.
  • Of course doctors are overpaid, how else can my dermatologist neighbour afford a J-reg Volvo.
  • seth plum said:

    One traditional stance of the Tories is that the voluntary sector and the charitable sector do a marvellous job and should be part of it.
    The problem is the extreme end of right wing politics who think charity ought to cover all the areas they don't fancy paying for. Some right wing thinking is that everything ought to be private, and taxes lower so people can pay for their own health service or street lighting or whatever.

    George Osborne was very keen on food banks, as I recall. Hard to credit that food banks should be needed in one of the richest countries in the world...
    My original post wasn't about Tory v Labour, but about the extreme end of right wing thinking that says individuals should fend for themselves in virtually every circumstance. Like in the good old days I suppose.
    The issue is always about how much tax, who ought to pay it, and what it should be spent on, and the politics is about choosing the decision makers. One part of the choice spectrum is philosophical.
  • SDAddick said:

    I'm not blaming people in foreign countries. I'm blaming ALL of our politicians for spending a bit too much abroad on projects that are most definitely not going towards people in desperate need, but are funding pop groups and such like.
    Spend abroad where it is desperately needed and spend here where it is also desperately needed and stop wasting money on projects that are not desperately needed.

    As you say our politicians should provide proper care to our own citizens as well and there is enough money for both if it isn't wasted.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38538631

    The government has axed plans to fund a five-member Ethiopian girl band, saying there are "more effective ways" to invest UK aid.
    International Development Secretary Priti Patel reviewed the funding after reports that pop group Yegna had received millions from UK taxpayers.
    The government planned to give Girl Effect, the organisation which created Yegna, £11.8m between 2015 and 2018.

    Fuller context:
    "She said the Yegna grant was simply “one component” in a wider programme promoting the rights and wellbeing of women and girls in the country.

    “UK aid in Ethiopia is combating forced child marriage, violence, teen pregnancies - all those really, really big, substantial issues,” she said.

    “We are doing a range of work there. That is just one programme, one project. It is actually doing substantial work combating the issues that I've highlighted. But at the same time all programmes are under review.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/priti-patel-yegna-girl-effect-52-million-uk-taxpayer-international-aid-ethiopia-a7513956.html

    From the IMF (that notorious Communist organization) about how empowering women is good economics:
    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/03/revenga.htm

    I know all of this doesn't make for a sexy Mail headline though.
    Admirable aims, but that is still a shit "component"

    I know all of that doesn't make for a sexy Guardian headline though.
Sign In or Register to comment.