Last night on BBC news there was a big fuss being made about NHS budgets and hospital performances, with heated discussions from the House of Commons (Westminster). Well I have a few suggestions to knock some cost off the taxpayers' bill:
Have you ever been abroad and needed medical treatment? I have. First question they ask is not "Where does it hurt?" or "What is the problem?". No! The first question is always, "What is your credit card number?" or "What is you Medical Insurance cover?". So why do we let visitors to the UK get away without paying? That's the first change, should save millions.
Next up, "young ladies" from across the Commonwealth coming to the UK to have their "virginity restored" on the NHS. Apparently, according to NHS statistics this has jumped from 300 cases per year in 2010 to 17,500 in 2012 and is expected to rise in 2013. Why? Did they get laid on the NHS? No, of course not! So (again) why are they getting away without paying?
Then there are old people who fall over (shouldn't victimise the elderly as this could apply to anybody really, but... ). For example, father-in-law has the odd tumble, he is 85 years old and resident in a home. Every time it happens the home phones for an ambulance and sends him off to hospital for a check up. There he ends up waiting for 4 hours to have blood tests, then waits another hour or so before being admitted to the Medical Assessment Unit for an overnight stay because he has a heart condition. This is all part of his medical history, so why, when the call is received does the NHS not check his records and dispatch a paramedic and/or doctor. Put an SLA on the service to get to patient within 1 hour and penalties on them if they refer patient to hospital and hey presto.... A better service for the patient. A more efficient service for the NHS. A less costly service for the taxpayers.
On top of that have at least one Walk in Clinic open 24/7 in every town for anybody who has the ability to get there (I suggest they don't do the driving if their ability to do so is impaired) which is staffed by the doctors and paramedics who are also on call for trips and falls (and other similar, non-life threatening health issues). Adequate car parking with £1 per half hour of parking, fully refunded if the stay is more than 3 hours. Cost effective service that's close to self financing.
Hospitals themselves... many need rebuilding or refurbishment. Don't do like Derby has and close the one just off the town centre and build a massive "one stop shop" away on the outskirts of town. If it is close to town centre people can use public transport to get in and out. Ambulance and other mobile services can get to all parts of the city / toewn / area without having to cross from one side of town to the other, keeping costs down. People travelling a greater distance can get in using rail travel (god help them). And do we need massive "one stop shop" hospitals anyway? Form an NHS network with each specialising in certain types of care. It has to make sense!
But hey! Since when have politicians ever made or applied sense to the equation?
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Le Tour de France
Normally the world's news media would jump on a British success such as Chris Froome's win on the Mont Ventoux, but no, to a man (lead by the French press who don't have a domestic Tour winner in the wings) they are bombarding Froome and the Sky team with doping questions.
OK, I accept that the revelations from the weekend of athletics doping is playing a part in this, but why are we not seeing a proactive WADA intervention taking up the offer made by Sky to make all training data available to the WADA for analysis? If the WADA systems are robust enough then there should be no problem with producing a ruling based on the Sky data. If they don't act doesn't that call into question whether the WADA systems are robust enough and therefore call into question the rulings they have made on the athletes that they have so far identified as 'doping cheats'.
What we have no unfolding before us is the real legacy of the 'Lance Armstrong years'. But cycling has been under so much tighter scrutiny since Armstrong was relieved of his titles. The penalties for the use of chemicals to enhance performance have become so much more fearful and effective.
So I hope that the press/world's media will dump doping into a dead-end siding for now and let us all enjoy the spectacle that is le Tour de France, enhanced as it is with the prospect of a British winner, even though that in itself is not a given seeing as how we have the double ascent of Alpe-d'Huez coming up on Friday. Never done before it will seriously test everyone and the domestics have failed Chris Froome before and if that is repeated then he could be in trouble. Whatever, that day's riding and the result will be a sensation! Miss it if you dare.
OK, I accept that the revelations from the weekend of athletics doping is playing a part in this, but why are we not seeing a proactive WADA intervention taking up the offer made by Sky to make all training data available to the WADA for analysis? If the WADA systems are robust enough then there should be no problem with producing a ruling based on the Sky data. If they don't act doesn't that call into question whether the WADA systems are robust enough and therefore call into question the rulings they have made on the athletes that they have so far identified as 'doping cheats'.
What we have no unfolding before us is the real legacy of the 'Lance Armstrong years'. But cycling has been under so much tighter scrutiny since Armstrong was relieved of his titles. The penalties for the use of chemicals to enhance performance have become so much more fearful and effective.
So I hope that the press/world's media will dump doping into a dead-end siding for now and let us all enjoy the spectacle that is le Tour de France, enhanced as it is with the prospect of a British winner, even though that in itself is not a given seeing as how we have the double ascent of Alpe-d'Huez coming up on Friday. Never done before it will seriously test everyone and the domestics have failed Chris Froome before and if that is repeated then he could be in trouble. Whatever, that day's riding and the result will be a sensation! Miss it if you dare.
Restricted Benefits imposed in UK
Yesterday the big fuss in the news media was all about it being the day when benefit claimants would be restricted to £26,000 p.a.
Why all the fuss? That is £26,000 tax free benefits, or, £500 per week. I have worked for nearly 40 years and that is very close to what I receive as net pay after all deductions have been taken. These are limits on benefits that are in the main being claimed by people who have never worked, the scroungers in our society who have nothing better to do than complain that the state isn't paying them enough to stay at home.
I have been made redundant 4 times and only once did I qualify for any 'benefits' and that was job seekers allowance (JSA) which was/is a farce at roughly £66 p.w. Nobody can live on that! But because my wife had/has a full time job that is all I qualified for. In my view the government (and all those that went before it) have got its priorities wrong. Instead of paying out a pittance to people who have lost their job and are seeking re-employment and paying out big money to those that have never worked, what they should be doing is paying out a realistic amount to those seeking work and a pittance to those that have never held a job down for more than a day or so.
This government should be commended and lauded for starting to get to grips with benefits payouts. Yesterday was a good start but it needs to go much further, like (for example) making payment of any benefits AT ALL dependent upon having been resident in the UK for a minimum of 12 months and having worked, and earned, at a level where National Insurance contributions and minimal/lowest level tax has been paid for a minimum of 6 months. That would stop free-loaders coming into the country and being subsidised by benefit payouts while looking to take jobs that could be done by UK residents, and stop all the school / college / university leavers from drawing benefits until they have held down a job (working while in education would count if it met the earlier suggested criteria).
Why all the fuss? That is £26,000 tax free benefits, or, £500 per week. I have worked for nearly 40 years and that is very close to what I receive as net pay after all deductions have been taken. These are limits on benefits that are in the main being claimed by people who have never worked, the scroungers in our society who have nothing better to do than complain that the state isn't paying them enough to stay at home.
I have been made redundant 4 times and only once did I qualify for any 'benefits' and that was job seekers allowance (JSA) which was/is a farce at roughly £66 p.w. Nobody can live on that! But because my wife had/has a full time job that is all I qualified for. In my view the government (and all those that went before it) have got its priorities wrong. Instead of paying out a pittance to people who have lost their job and are seeking re-employment and paying out big money to those that have never worked, what they should be doing is paying out a realistic amount to those seeking work and a pittance to those that have never held a job down for more than a day or so.
This government should be commended and lauded for starting to get to grips with benefits payouts. Yesterday was a good start but it needs to go much further, like (for example) making payment of any benefits AT ALL dependent upon having been resident in the UK for a minimum of 12 months and having worked, and earned, at a level where National Insurance contributions and minimal/lowest level tax has been paid for a minimum of 6 months. That would stop free-loaders coming into the country and being subsidised by benefit payouts while looking to take jobs that could be done by UK residents, and stop all the school / college / university leavers from drawing benefits until they have held down a job (working while in education would count if it met the earlier suggested criteria).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)