Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Has home training for doctors and nurses been underfunded?

Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?

 Kroem wrote:
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.

I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.

And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Has home training for doctors and nurses been underfunded?

Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?

If it is not producing enough to meet demand then I think, by definition, it is being underfunded if the intention was to reach a point where the UK is self reliant and doesn't have to fill vacancies with immigration.

Whether that is due to not enough course spaces available, or the courses not being attractive for students with the required grades compared to alternatives, or some other reason, definitely needs to be examined and debated.

Ah, riding the tooth removal afterglow. Enjoy it while it lasts and make sure you're stocked up on ibuprofen and/or paracetamol for when the stronger stuff wears off. Good luck!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.

I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.

And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.

It also raises the question of what constitutes as self inflicted. How can you prove that someone with lung cancer got it because they smoked, for example? We know that smoking massively increases the likelihood of you getting lung cancer from studies of cancer rates amongst large populations of smokers vs non-smokers, but there is no definitive way to prove that an individual case is due to smoking or not. Then what if someone smoked for 5 years when they were younger but quit and haven't touched a cigarette in 20 years? Do they get treated for their throat cancer or not? And how much would court cases of people trying to get treated for "self-inflicted" diseases cost the NHS?

defense editor of The Times :

https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/991253420664348672

BREAK - @marksedwill signals UK will never deploy @RoyalNavy's £6bln aircraft carriers into contested waters with a sovereign strike group. NSA says carriers will "almost inevitably - I would say inevitably" be used with other countries' ships and aircraft operating alongside

This is a nod to the fact that @DefenceHQ does not have the £ or capacity to field all the escorts/submarines/jets/MPA/support-ships to field a sovereign carrier strike group as well as continue with all other tasks

The NSA, however, did also talk about the need to retain sovereign capability for carrier strike (just didn't specify how this would be paid for...)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The quotas do seem pretty arbitrary, and unrelated to actual national needs or the educational output of British born staff. While I wouldn't characterise them as xenophobic, I do question their practical value.

I don't think there is a practical value beyond pandering to the xenophobes. We need people for x but can't get the due to an arbitrary limit.

It's self treating too; if it becomes unreliable to get a VISA to work in a UK hospital because of an arbitrary limit based on who else applied that month, the better doctors will just go somewhere .ore predictable instead of wasting time on the UK lottery.

A lot of the NHS problems are due to short sightedness: saving a few quid in home care pushing people into £1000/night wards and so on. Spending more money on the preventative and early care could save a fortune.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Has home training for doctors and nurses been underfunded?

Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?

If it is not producing enough to meet demand then I think, by definition, it is being underfunded if the intention was to reach a point where the UK is self reliant and doesn't have to fill vacancies with immigration.

Whether that is due to not enough course spaces available, or the courses not being attractive for students with the required grades compared to alternatives, or some other reason, definitely needs to be examined and debated.

Ah, riding the tooth removal afterglow. Enjoy it while it lasts and make sure you're stocked up on ibuprofen and/or paracetamol for when the stronger stuff wears off. Good luck!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.

I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.

And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.

It also raises the question of what constitutes as self inflicted. How can you prove that someone with lung cancer got it because they smoked, for example? We know that smoking massively increases the likelihood of you getting lung cancer from studies of cancer rates amongst large populations of smokers vs non-smokers, but there is no definitive way to prove that an individual case is due to smoking or not. Then what if someone smoked for 5 years when they were younger but quit and haven't touched a cigarette in 20 years? Do they get treated for their throat cancer or not? And how much would court cases of people trying to get treated for "self-inflicted" diseases cost the NHS?

Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.

Maybe we could say, we will only give you this expensive cancer treatment if you demonstrate lifestyle improvements in a similar manner? Maybe that already happens I don't know.

 Kroem wrote:

Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.

Maybe we could say, we will only give you this expensive cancer treatment if you demonstrate lifestyle improvements in a similar manner? Maybe that already happens I don't know.

It also opens the floodgates to definitions of self inflicted. I have had two hernia operations. The first was cause by lifting PAs and amplifiers around which was a work injury, but the second was caused by weightlifting. I could bench squat triple my bodyweight, was at less than 5% bodyfat, could run fast 10Ks etc. I was in good health, but I required an operation as a direct result of pursuing that good health. Do I get a second hernia repair on the NHS or not? Kids playing football? Amateur boxers? The student that breaks her ankle falling on cobbles after two glasses of wine? The one that does it after four?

Or do we only do it for ongoing illnesses rather than injuries? Does the person with type 2 diabetes have to demonstrate that they're keeping a healthy diet indefinitely or they start paying for insulin?

It's a monstrous can of worms we'd be cracking open. And once it's open the road only goes one way.

 Kroem wrote:
Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.

Maybe we could say, we will only give you this expensive cancer treatment if you demonstrate lifestyle improvements in a similar manner? Maybe that already happens I don't know.

Feth no. Its an attack on the founding principles of the NHS. Do you want to gift the Tories the means to destroy the NHS? Because this is how you destroy the NHS.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.

I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.

And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.

You’re also starting to enter the eugenics quandary there.

In a pure view, eugenics has genuine merit. We can effectively breed out debilitating conditions, things which are genetic issues with no cure.

But, somebody has to divvy up what is and isn’t an undesirable condition. Some might same Down’s Syndrome. Yes, it can be limiting in many cases - but in others, it doesn’t stop the person living a fulfilling life, even if some of their horizons are inherently limited. And how does one put it into practice? So many genuine evils lurking under a not unreasonable facade.

With your proposal, I can also see some merit. Consider George Best. A chronic alcoholic. He received a liver transplant, and went back on the sauce. Who else might’ve been in need of that liver? Who died so he could go back on the pop and wreck it again? Cold heartedly, and with the benefit of ever perfect hindsight, he wasn’t deserving of that second chance. But, alcoholism isn’t pure selfishness. It’s a mental disorder and addiction. Many alcoholics are able to dry out successfully, and essentially make amends. Who decides there? Where does that line of reasoning stop? One could easily argue the majority of HIV infections are ‘self inflicted’. How do we weed out the genuinely reckless, from the momentarily stupid?

How about Cancer? Take a look back, and you’ll realise many people just didn’t know the risk. For smoking, there was deliberate obfuscation by the tobacco industry. Yet a child born to smokers is significantly more likely to take up the habit themselves. Where does the parent’s culpability end, and the individuals begin? I smoke myself, and I know it’s a bloody stupid thing to do. Yet, I’m addicted. And unless you’ve ever had an addiction yourself, you’ve no point of reference to criticise my struggle to quit outright.

Overeating and obesity. How much choice does a person have if it’s a manifestation of depression, anxiety or loneliness? What if the poor sod only has access to shonky ready meals? Control your salt intake - tricky to do when one has to shop at the bottom end of the market, where such nasties tend to be found in greatest abundance?

What if someone is more genetically prone to say, Kidney Disease, but doesn’t find out until the Docs diagnose and start treating?

Another example. My Dad had a mild heart attack a year or two ago. Nothing too serious. Couple of stents, and he’s not dead. But turns out, he may have a genetic disorder which means his body just doesn’t deal with cholesterol. How in the name of Satan’s 10’ of throbbing red gristle could he have possibly known that? And if Dad has it, there’s a rough 50% chance I’ve got that wonky gene too. And my brother. Have we been reckless and irresponsible there?

Too many pitfalls dude. Waaaaaaaaaaaay too many.

Haha OK OK I won't institute my takeover of the NHS and implement this policy!

I can see how drawing the line between those that deserve treatment and those that don't is probably more difficult than just treating them all in the first place

 Kroem wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Has home training for doctors and nurses been underfunded?

Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?

If it is not producing enough to meet demand then I think, by definition, it is being underfunded if the intention was to reach a point where the UK is self reliant and doesn't have to fill vacancies with immigration.

Whether that is due to not enough course spaces available, or the courses not being attractive for students with the required grades compared to alternatives, or some other reason, definitely needs to be examined and debated.

Ah, riding the tooth removal afterglow. Enjoy it while it lasts and make sure you're stocked up on ibuprofen and/or paracetamol for when the stronger stuff wears off. Good luck!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.

I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.

And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.

It also raises the question of what constitutes as self inflicted. How can you prove that someone with lung cancer got it because they smoked, for example? We know that smoking massively increases the likelihood of you getting lung cancer from studies of cancer rates amongst large populations of smokers vs non-smokers, but there is no definitive way to prove that an individual case is due to smoking or not. Then what if someone smoked for 5 years when they were younger but quit and haven't touched a cigarette in 20 years? Do they get treated for their throat cancer or not? And how much would court cases of people trying to get treated for "self-inflicted" diseases cost the NHS?

Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.

... ...

I believe that is correct, but it is not because doctors believe people should be punished for drinking, it is because doctors believe that people who continue to drink won't benefit from a liver transplant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I believe that is correct, but it is not because doctors believe people should be punished for drinking, it is because doctors believe that people who continue to drink won't benefit from a liver transplant.

Well, not even that they won't benefit (they will for the time that it is healthy before they damage it like their previous liver), just that their lifestyle will damage the organ and reduce its expected life. Which would mean in X years that person would need another liver.

Whereas if they gave it to the next person on the list who doesn't drink, that liver will likely last a much longer time and said person will need less transplants over their life (depending on how long each organ lasts).

If someone offers a live liver donation to the alcoholic, I don't think the doctors would refuse unless the donation would cause the donor serious health issues or their liver was already damaged in some way.

Anyway, we can all return to our favourite subject of Tory civil war.

Tory Brexiteers have laid down the law to May with an ultimatum on the Customs Union ahead of today's cabinet meeting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43969101

Should the chairman of the 1922 Committee expect a flurry of letters in his inbox?

I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.

Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.

If she wasn't in an impossible position (no-one in their right mind wants to be PM right now), then she'd have been replaced months ago.

She is today using her position to whip Tory MPs to vote against releasing government papers on the Windrush scandal, because, of course, she is the scandal. So the position has its positives for her.

 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.

Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.

I think the Tories, like all incumbent governments, write off the local elections. Hell, nobody bothers to turn up to them anyway, expect political geeks like me.

Corbyn had a bad local election a few years ago. Never did him any harm.

On another note, are police and crime commissioners up for re-election tomorrow?

I'm sure reds8n will be there at 7am to cast his vote for one

No election in my area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43811553

No election in my area either.

I always vote in local elections, but for me it's always been easy because by good lukc I have always happened to live a couple of minutes walk from my polling station.

I reckon this election will see a higher than normal turnout. I think Remain voting areas, such as most of London, are going to register a strong protest against the government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Are foreign countries really "queuing up for trade deals" with the UK?

TL/DR: No.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.

Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.

I think the Tories, like all incumbent governments, write off the local elections. Hell, nobody bothers to turn up to them anyway, expect political geeks like me.

Corbyn had a bad local election a few years ago. Never did him any harm.

On another note, are police and crime commissioners up for re-election tomorrow?

I'm sure reds8n will be there at 7am to cast his vote for one

But it does pile on pressure on a weak PM that has a tendency to move from one stepping stone disaster to the next largely self inflicted. No one will challenge May whilst Brexit is going on. They will let her hang herself metaphorically and then try and ride in as a saviour (which is why they are all practising the silly "I have a weak bladder and my underwear is sticking to my nether regions pose".

It is likely the local elections will be a mixed bag. Traditionally older, and hence more polarised, people vote in local elections. The Tories will be hoping to gain any loss in the UKIP vote which is likely to happen in certain areas. However given the current rumours they may just stay away. However bizarrely I also think the windrush saga in these areas may benefit the Tories. Labour I think will probably gain in areas where things like the Windrush issues, the growing disparity in wages etc is having a greater effect. Grenfell in London could also cause people to vote against the establishment. Not sure about LDs, they might gain if people go back to "I'm really a Tory/Labour supporter, am hacked off with what they are doing but won't vote for the other side". Tthis might effect Labour more than the Tories because of their respective stances on Wrexit. As such I expect a polarised vote.

The lords really have been insisting on a lot of common sense recently. This must be Hellish for May. Latest is no checks or infrastructure on NO border
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-ireland-border-house-of-lords-theresa-may-eu-a8333466.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1525284210

That and her new Home secretary opposing her plans.

So much for DINLT's hysterical rant earlier.

 r_squared wrote:
That and her new Home secretary opposing her plans.

So much for DINLT's hysterical rant earlier.

May only backed down from these customs plans because of Brexiteers laying down the law the other day.

The EU think the customs plans are unworkable, and the Moggs of this world think they reduce Britain to vasall status.

It takes a special kind of talent to unite Brussels and Rees-Mogg.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
The lords really have been insisting on a lot of common sense recently. This must be Hellish for May. Latest is no checks or infrastructure on NO border
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-ireland-border-house-of-lords-theresa-may-eu-a8333466.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1525284210

Most of those Lords probably worked for the EU at one time, and I think there's a provision in their pensions that stops them criticising the EU, so they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.

Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.

I think the Tories, like all incumbent governments, write off the local elections. Hell, nobody bothers to turn up to them anyway, expect political geeks like me.

Corbyn had a bad local election a few years ago. Never did him any harm.

On another note, are police and crime commissioners up for re-election tomorrow?

I'm sure reds8n will be there at 7am to cast his vote for one

But it does pile on pressure on a weak PM that has a tendency to move from one stepping stone disaster to the next largely self inflicted. No one will challenge May whilst Brexit is going on. They will let her hang herself metaphorically and then try and ride in as a saviour (which is why they are all practising the silly "I have a weak bladder and my underwear is sticking to my nether regions pose".

It is likely the local elections will be a mixed bag. Traditionally older, and hence more polarised, people vote in local elections. The Tories will be hoping to gain any loss in the UKIP vote which is likely to happen in certain areas. However given the current rumours they may just stay away. However bizarrely I also think the windrush saga in these areas may benefit the Tories. Labour I think will probably gain in areas where things like the Windrush issues, the growing disparity in wages etc is having a greater effect. Grenfell in London could also cause people to vote against the establishment. Not sure about LDs, they might gain if people go back to "I'm really a Tory/Labour supporter, am hacked off with what they are doing but won't vote for the other side". Tthis might effect Labour more than the Tories because of their respective stances on Wrexit. As such I expect a polarised vote.

I'll be surprised if more than two men and a dog turn out for these elections. You can't use these as a measure of the nation's pulse.

The EU think the customs plans are unworkable, and the Moggs of this world think they reduce Britain to vasall status.

It takes a special kind of talent to unite Brussels and Rees-Mogg.

These two things are not the EU and Rees-Mogg agreeing.

Rees-Mogg can only think the arrangement will reduce the UK to vassal status if he thinks it will actually work.

The EU doesn't think it will work.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The EU think the customs plans are unworkable, and the Moggs of this world think they reduce Britain to vasall status.

It takes a special kind of talent to unite Brussels and Rees-Mogg.

These two things are not the EU and Rees-Mogg agreeing.

Rees-Mogg can only think the arrangement will reduce the UK to vassal status if he thinks it will actually work.

The EU doesn't think it will work.

It's still a mess though, and the bottom line is that May is dithering as usual.

A decision needs to be made, but it's been kicked down the road. Again!

Whatever May does, one side is guranteed to be annoyed, so she needs to come off that fence and make the decision, as she is paid to do, otherwise she should step down for somebody else.

May's primary objective is to prevent the Conservative Party from blowing up.

Her no.1 problem is that the contradictions of Brexit simply can't be resolved without appalling fallout on one side or another almost certainly leading to the Consertive Party blowing up.

May's method to resolve this dilemma is therefore to avoid any decisions which would force the issue to a crux, and hope that something turns up.

Sterling campaign work by the Tories again :

being put through people's doors in Bromley

Genuine LOL!

"What we've done for a Ward/Wards, etc."

feth all, apparently.

At least they saved a lot of money on copy writing.

Tough on X/Y/X : tough on the causes of X/Y/Z

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Most of those Lords probably worked for the EU at one time, and I think there's a provision in their pensions that stops them criticising the EU, so they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Do you have anything to back up that claim? It sounds like complete fertilizer to me, for each segment.

I don't believe that most Lords have worked for the EU.
I don't think there's a provision about not bashing the EU for people who work for them (how does Farage get round it?)
I don't believe they'd go through with Brexit if they didn't agree with it just to avoid "biting the hand that feeds them". They can't get sacked, so there's no threat there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
May's method to resolve this dilemma is therefore to avoid any decisions which would force the issue to a crux, and hope that something turns up.

At this point I think this is the plan. I'm struggling to believe that they can be so unintentionally incompetent. They can only be stalling until they find a way to get out of it with the party intact. The only way I can see them doing that is if they can fob the decisions over to the EU, Labour or the Lords.