NHSFailing in reply to Callendersgal

Thanks, points taken.

I've also lived in or have spent very long periods of time in underdeveloped countries (I've had 18 full international house moves in my life - furniture and all!) and with my family have been subject to some pretty awful medical treatment, perhaps the worst case being failure of an overseas doctor to correctly interpret tests that (apparently) clearly showed that my then 25-year old wife had cancer. Incredible luck that we subsequently ended up in Houston, Texas, where it was diagnosed & cured at an advanced stage. She is still alive, and healthy.

However, I don't agree with comparing our performance to underdeveloped countries. I have to admit, I was a bit (actually very!) horrified at the cancer survival rates map of western Europe which has the UK coloured red and France green. I think that's the level we should be striving for.

Yes, the government raises its revenue for the health service from us, but the number of people requiring treatment from the system is rising exponentially. Therefore, the money that goes into the health service has to rapidly increase or the number of people has to rapidly decrease. But the people are here already so that won't happen. We are already incredibly, incredibly, highly taxed compared to most other developed nations, when all of the 'stealth' taxes are taken into account and we have arguably reached the point where attempts to extract more money from the population will result in decreased, not increased, revenues, and worse than that, decreased economic performance. I'm already familiar with examples of this happening.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that a diagnosis of how we got to this point won't help. Yes, we 'are where we are' but understanding why is important to fixing it and at least slowing the rate of increase of under-capacity going forward. That will involve a combination of more money and quite rapid decrease in the rate of immigration. Both of those measures need to be implemented quite fast. It is do-able (maybe) but not by a smug government with its head in the sand pretending that no problems exist and with no plan.

Vyoung286162 in reply to NHSFailing

Wait Call back 1030pm in stead call back at 0315am not good then I had sleeping tablet to take at that time I rang Sandwell adive I needed

(0)Report

NHSFailing in reply to Chaosnhavoc

OK - thanks, yes - the problem however was that it was a Sunday and I could not get the NHS 111 doctor that I spoke to, to take me seriously, even after overcoming the language problem that we were having (his English was very poor). So no GP to the house. Had transport but the condition (without going into details) meant that I couldn't leave the house. Later in the day my condition worsened considerably, with a very high fever (temp of 41) and I ended up at the A&E of the local hospital, partly comatose, where the triage people whisked me immediately to a treatment ward, put me on an intravenous Co-amoxiclav antibiotic drip with intravenous paracetamol to bring the temperature down - all eventually successful. Couldn't fault that part of it - they were absolutely superb, ultra professional and very, very quick and obviously very effective. OK - so why didn't I go to A&E earlier? I know the hospital very well. They are at or above capacity for significant periods and that includes A&E. Not their fault. From what I saw it is an incredibly well organised hospital with superb & dedicated personnel. The number of people living in the area that the hospital serves is increasing exponentially - so now we've reached capacity. What comes next? It is difficult to see any solution without action from the Government, and I'm not seeing that. It is urgently needed. The example that I gave of the physio in my earlier post: I did not mention that the total time to get an appointment (same condition) last year was 2 months; now it's 8 months. An indication perhaps of the pace at which the system is becoming overwhelmed (in this part of the country at least).

So my update on the NHS (this region only, personal experience & from others I know); fantastic treatment in an emergency; otherwise a significant deterioration in service from even a year ago.

Bravo for mentioning the points system. I've been personally subject to that in Australia and it works beautifully. The Aussies would help set that up if the Government would swallow it's pride and ask for it. Needs to be a bit quicker than 'over time' though.

Don't agree about the overseas aid. Have also lived or been heavily involved in some of the so called third world countries where our money goes and a lot of it ends up lining pockets. Used to think it was a great idea. After having seen how those countries operate & having assessed that against the benefits, I'm dead against it, especially the ring-fenced percentage of GNP, which means we have to fling out of the country a fixed amount each year, come what may.

Now your last point - (whinging!) - didn't say the countries were better, just health treatment, and the latter wasn't broken when I came back. Hard to argue that one if you look at the league tables of major nations concerning treatment success and survival rates. We're way down the table and failure to diagnose at an early stage (long waiting lists to see specialists) is cited as the reason. We can't get anything done about it by staying silent. Governments (all colours) and the EU have got us to this point by lack of planning. Pressure from the population may or may not succeed but it's worth a try.

NHSFailing in reply to ruiyyanko

Thanks for your reply, ruiyyanko. There is a huge difference between Australia & Singapore on the one hand and the UK on the other and that is the rate of assimilation of immigrants, both historic and present. Australia & Singapore have always controlled the rate of immigration to levels that can be absorbed without undue strain on public services. Furthermore, of the 42.9% foreigners that you quote in Singapore, the majority are not immigrants, they are long-term and short-term employment pass holders. My daughter is currently one of those. She has a 5-year employment pass, but has no rights to stay beyond that, and in fact, if her employment terminates there (for instance in a recession), the five-year pass terminates with it. A 'sustainable rate of assimilation' of immigrants is built into Australia's immigration policy. The UK's problems with the NHS & other services stem from poor immigration management (at times it seems like no immigration management) recently compounded by the EU's 'open door' policy. No country can absorb immigrants at this rate. The Eastern Europeans are lovely people (seriously) but essential services such as the NHS cannot be maintained at an acceptably functioning level under those conditions. Even if billions and billions more are thrown at it, there still remains the problem of growing the NHS infrastructure at a pace that will keep up with it. Hospitals can't be built overnight. At this point, Australia would greatly slow the rate of visa issuance until the system caught up. Germany, France and the EU forbid us from doing that. Unfortunately a large section of the population saw Brexit as the solution. Implementation of Brexit will take a very long time. In the meantime, the UK government needs to implement whatever measures it can under EU law to reduce pressure on the NHS from uncontrolled and poorly managed immigration. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is being done. If we recognise that this is part of the problem then we can try to put pressure on those that purport to run this country (no party is without blame) to get something done.

ruiyyanko in reply to NHSFailing

Regardless of whether their stay is long-term or short-term, they would still be using the same resources as locals. Of the 11.3% here, there are many who also move back to their home country after a period of time. EU nationals still have to pay taxes and pass a "right to reside" test, while those from outside the EU face restrictions on how long they can stay, so I wouldn't say it is all that uncontrolled. Years ago, I remember a mate from Malaysia nearly facing deportation until he he managed to get another job. And wasn't a Singaporean woman recently sent back even though she was married to a British man and had resided in the UK for most of her life?

Depending on the type of EP your daughter has (5 years is pretty good...I remember my mum having to renew hers quite often), she will be eligible for PR after a certain period of time. Can't speak for Australia, but the immigration policy in Singapore is actually very generous because they rely heavily on FT (foreign talent), and many migrants do continue living there which is why it is so densely populated. However, it is true that for a tiny country to be capable of withstanding such a rapid rate of growth speaks more about their management skills as a whole, and not just in border control. A lot of other factors are involved so it's not quite black and white. There is no reason (apart from incompetence!) we can't cope with the level of immigration here in the UK as it's not all that high in the great scheme of things.

Also, I'd like to point out that Singapore's health system isn't exactly 'free' like ours here. And despite government subsidies, some less affluent citizens over there still struggle to afford better care than the bare minimum, whilst others have to supplement state plans with other insurance to get better coverage. And all this time, queues at their polyclinics aren't getting any shorter, with patients complaining that they sometimes have to wait hours to be seen. I can commiserate, because I have been one of them. And yet, at my local walk-in centre, the longest I ever had to wait was less than an hour.

(1)Report

NHSFailing in reply to Davidgiles

Hi - apologies for the delay in replying. Three interesting points there: 1) absolutely correct - it is a postcode lottery - I've found that out since my original post; 2) Ah - but - the point is that I've been an 'immigrant' in countries that have a functioning government that is properly organised and solves issues (as per your third point). I'm not against immigration. Only against immigration that is so uncontrolled by dysfunctional governments that it overwhelms public services. All of the countries in which I have lived have temporary residence and permanent residence categories. I lived and worked for years in the US (twice), Singapore (five times) and Indonesia (three times) but I was never an immigrant in any of those countries. The countries in question issue temporary residence visas for shortage job categories (up to four or five years, renewable if still needed). Similarly with Australia. Australia's philosophy has always been to control immigration very carefully so that public services do not become overwhelmed, and more importantly, so that when the next recession, financial crisis, or whatever, comes, and tax receipts plummet along with other government income, solvency can be maintained, social services can function and the out of work and others that need help can be supported. Allowing the open floodgates of uncontrolled immigration is mismanagement at the highest level in a country with as high a level of benefit and social support as the UK, because when that recession comes, which it surely will, government coffers will be strained to the limit and beyond. So, no, I haven't been an immigrant in any country other than Australia; I have lived in the other countries on 'needed person' long-term temporary residence visas and by definition not a strain on the system (because I wasn't allowed free public services in any of those countries). Yes, immigrants are needed, but have to be managed according to the needs of the country and in this country, as far as I can see (and as you imply), governments are managing very little.

That brings me to your third point: absolutely correct. That sounds like most countries I have lived in (even Indonesia, to an extent). Since the debacle of the last UK election it has become horrifyingly clear (to me anyway) that the UK is currently ungovernable and I don't mean because of the slim majority, but because of the totally inept politicians of the two major parties, poor management (NHS included) poor planning (of anything) and because of the lack of a detailed organised constitution . So when you mention Brexit, that brings me to another point. I now strongly believe that governance of the UK by the EU, by a Franco-German axis, by an EU superstate, or whatever, would be infinitely preferable to an independent UK under its current political system, after witnessing the horrifying ineptitude of the current government and the domesday scenario that would surely follow election of a Corbyn government. I actually now not just think that we should be in the EU, I think that we need to be rescued by it! All of a sudden, free movement of people looks like the lesser of two evils. So, health workers for the NHS from EU countries if needed; proper and controlled immigration management for workers from other countries if they are needed; strict enforcement of immigration laws to greatly lower and hopefully eliminate the influx of non-EU illegal immigrants. Immigration management would include such simple measures as exit immigration at airports (as in every other country I have ever visited!). Someone made a point earlier that temporary visas are issued: however as the Mayor of Calais pointed out, the UK doesn't actually know whether those people actually left and in many cases they haven't!

Apologies (to everyone) if some of this sounds off-topic, but the NHS is swamped by the sheer volume of patients seeking treatment and the waiting lists are growing by the month. Management of immigration isn't the whole story or the whole solution, but it should certainly be on the 'bullet point' list for necessary action.