People wait longer at A&E

This Is Wiltshire: People wait longer at A&E People wait longer at A&E

ABOUT 200 patients each week have been left waiting longer than the nationally-capped four hours for care at the Great Western Hospital’s accident and emergency department since the beginning of January – a third more than in December.

Last week, 82.2 per cent of patients were treated within four hours, falling short of the NHS’s required target of 95 per cent.

This represented a nearly 10 per cent drop from the 91.2 per cent seen in good time at the start of December.

It meant 256 people were forced to wait longer than four hours in various stages of discomfort or illness. A total of 93 people spent between four and 12 hours on trolleys.

In the week ending January 26, 88.2 per cent of people attending A&E were treated within four hours, while 166 waited longer.

This marked a further decline from the 89 per cent recorded in the previous seven days, but a slight rise on the week ending January 5, when 81.8 per cent of A&E patients were seen within the required time period.

In the first week of December 91.2 per cent of patients were seen in time, and 118 left to wait for treatment. The figure plummeted to 84 per cent by the end of the month.

Health chiefs at the Great Western Hospital said, as well as an increase in chronic diseases and a steadily growing and ageing population placing heavy pressures on the department, people are also wrongly assuming A&E should be their first port of call even when suffering from a common cold or minor ache or pain, prolonging waiting times.

Too often they believed they would be seen quicker at the emergency department.

This comes despite a well publicised campaign launched in 2011, urging patients to ‘Choose Well’. The campaign aimed to ensure people were informed of all their options when in need of medical assistance, to prevent further clogging up of the A&E department.

“The first thing people should think about is self care and make sure they have paracetamol at home and common cold remedies,” said emergency department consultant Dr Stephen Haig.

“They should also see their pharmacists who are able to give advice on things like sore throats and pains. They can go to their GP surgery, the out-of-hours GP, or the walk-in centre. If it is more serious they can attend the A&E.

“We are certainly feeling a lot of pressure and we have seen a steady five per cent increase of A&E attendance year on year.

“We have got an ageing population and the population of Swindon itself is growing. Inevitably we are going to have more people with medical emergencies. And if a small number of people chose better it would ease pressure.”

He added: “The figures are frustrating for us because we feel we are not performing as well as we can. We want to be able to see people as soon as possible and it’s a concern.”

Phoenix surgery GP Dr Peter Swinyard explained that NHS waiting times targets should be taken with ‘a pinch of salt’ as they in no way reflected the quality of care received by patients at the emergency department.

“Sometimes it is appropriate for people to wait a bit longer before being rushed out of the door or being admitted inappropriately. The targets are artificial and we should look at how how patients are being treated. The A&E department does a cracking job.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:41am Fri 14 Feb 14

anotherimigrant says...

That's because they are one of the worst and most badly run hospitals in the UK.

They are never ever late drawing their wages, never late for going home, never ever miss a tea break.

several of the management,(sic) are outright blatant liars and wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the nose.

They should be in administration and the present incumbents replaced. sacked would be better.
That's because they are one of the worst and most badly run hospitals in the UK. They are never ever late drawing their wages, never late for going home, never ever miss a tea break. several of the management,(sic) are outright blatant liars and wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the nose. They should be in administration and the present incumbents replaced. sacked would be better. anotherimigrant
  • Score: 0

9:24am Fri 14 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

It seems we're witnessing the final death throes of the NHS. Barely a day goes by without some new revelation about how bad it's become.

Time for a serious rethink. It's completely unaffordable in its current form of employing almost 2 MILLION people in any case.

That's 1 NHS employee for every 34 people in the country. Completely ridiculous.
It seems we're witnessing the final death throes of the NHS. Barely a day goes by without some new revelation about how bad it's become. Time for a serious rethink. It's completely unaffordable in its current form of employing almost 2 MILLION people in any case. That's 1 NHS employee for every 34 people in the country. Completely ridiculous. ChannelX
  • Score: 4

10:42am Fri 14 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

Instead of 'health chiefs at the GWH' banging on blaming old people, growing populations, and idiots presenting at A&E with common colds and sore throats causing x% of missed waiting time targets, let's see some real figures.
Tell us the precise number of these "time wasters" with trivial illnesses. With the amount of paperwork and admin staff available it should be straightforward to present facts, not emotive pleas for sick people to go somewhere else. Besides, it's winter, they were expecting a 'surge' of cases, isn't that why they rushed out to hire a load of foreign nurses?
In another article, 'virtual clinics' at the GWH have apparently saved £500k this year. There's half a million quid that could be used to speed things up a bit in A&E, no?
Instead of 'health chiefs at the GWH' banging on blaming old people, growing populations, and idiots presenting at A&E with common colds and sore throats causing x% of missed waiting time targets, let's see some real figures. Tell us the precise number of these "time wasters" with trivial illnesses. With the amount of paperwork and admin staff available it should be straightforward to present facts, not emotive pleas for sick people to go somewhere else. Besides, it's winter, they were expecting a 'surge' of cases, isn't that why they rushed out to hire a load of foreign nurses? In another article, 'virtual clinics' at the GWH have apparently saved £500k this year. There's half a million quid that could be used to speed things up a bit in A&E, no? Hmmmf
  • Score: 0

10:47am Fri 14 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ever growing population of the town will mean more people needing A+E care. They work under extreme pressure and I take my hat off to them. Not their fault they are so busy
Ever growing population of the town will mean more people needing A+E care. They work under extreme pressure and I take my hat off to them. Not their fault they are so busy Davey Gravey
  • Score: 5

11:03am Fri 14 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

11:20am Fri 14 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

I hope this can be improved, 4h seems like a long time
I hope this can be improved, 4h seems like a long time A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -3

11:54am Fri 14 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like.... The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

11:57am Fri 14 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
I hope this can be improved, 4h seems like a long time
Difficult to say without delving into the individual cases - if it's a 4h wait for life saving attention then yes I agree with you.

For a sprained ankle or other minor ailment though....
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: I hope this can be improved, 4h seems like a long time[/p][/quote]Difficult to say without delving into the individual cases - if it's a 4h wait for life saving attention then yes I agree with you. For a sprained ankle or other minor ailment though.... The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 6

12:08pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Towns population, rising.
Drink related injuries, rising.
People living longer and requiring A+E treatment, rising.
Abuse of paramedics, rising.
But let's blame the hardworking staff who work hard eh ?
Towns population, rising. Drink related injuries, rising. People living longer and requiring A+E treatment, rising. Abuse of paramedics, rising. But let's blame the hardworking staff who work hard eh ? Davey Gravey
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Fri 14 Feb 14

jfmorty says...

I live in Spain. Spain with 26% unemployment, corrupt politicians and recently bailed out by the EU, a country in deep trouble.....
Our village of 1500 residents, like every village in Spain, has a state health centre, We have a doctor, a nurse, blood tests and injections and routine controls. Appointments made by phone or internet can sometimes make one wait a week to see the doctor, but in an emergency, there is always a period at the end of surgery when the doctor will see those without appointments.
In our area of about 10 villages, there is a 24-hour emergency health centre, which my wife and I have used about five times. On the one occasion we had to wait, we "waited" for 20 minutes.
The city near us has
I live in Spain. Spain with 26% unemployment, corrupt politicians and recently bailed out by the EU, a country in deep trouble..... Our village of 1500 residents, like every village in Spain, has a state health centre, We have a doctor, a nurse, blood tests and injections and routine controls. Appointments made by phone or internet can sometimes make one wait a week to see the doctor, but in an emergency, there is always a period at the end of surgery when the doctor will see those without appointments. In our area of about 10 villages, there is a 24-hour emergency health centre, which my wife and I have used about five times. On the one occasion we had to wait, we "waited" for 20 minutes. The city near us has jfmorty
  • Score: -1

12:32pm Fri 14 Feb 14

jfmorty says...

I live in Spain. Spain with 26% unemployment, corrupt politicians and recently bailed out by the EU, a country in deep trouble.....
Our village of 1500 residents, like every village in Spain, has a state health centre, We have a doctor, a nurse, blood tests and injections and routine controls. Appointments made by phone or internet can sometimes make one wait a week to see the doctor, but in an emergency, there is always a period at the end of surgery when the doctor will see those without appointments.
In our area of about 10 villages, there is a 24-hour emergency health centre, which my wife and I have used about five times. On the one occasion we had to wait, we "waited" for 20 minutes.
The city near us has a hospital with an complete A&E department, which we have also used on various occasions. The last visit, in December, my wife was in and out with her fractured ankle X-rayed and then put into plaster, in about two hours.
The car park is free, but is always full. The staff are friendly and professional, despite the best efforts of the Spanish Government to destroy the state system with massive spending cuts, and waiting lists for operations are getting longer, but basic care is still very good.
I live in Spain. Spain with 26% unemployment, corrupt politicians and recently bailed out by the EU, a country in deep trouble..... Our village of 1500 residents, like every village in Spain, has a state health centre, We have a doctor, a nurse, blood tests and injections and routine controls. Appointments made by phone or internet can sometimes make one wait a week to see the doctor, but in an emergency, there is always a period at the end of surgery when the doctor will see those without appointments. In our area of about 10 villages, there is a 24-hour emergency health centre, which my wife and I have used about five times. On the one occasion we had to wait, we "waited" for 20 minutes. The city near us has a hospital with an complete A&E department, which we have also used on various occasions. The last visit, in December, my wife was in and out with her fractured ankle X-rayed and then put into plaster, in about two hours. The car park is free, but is always full. The staff are friendly and professional, despite the best efforts of the Spanish Government to destroy the state system with massive spending cuts, and waiting lists for operations are getting longer, but basic care is still very good. jfmorty
  • Score: 4

12:40pm Fri 14 Feb 14

swindondad says...

IMHO one of the biggest pressures on A&E department’s country wide is the ever increasing number of people who go there for "minor" or “non urgent” problems.
Things that could be sorted out with a basic first aid kit.
There seems to be a culture of "just in case" and "cover my back" that sees A&E waiting areas filled with scrapped knee's and twisted ankles.
And as for the “Friday night drunks” please do not get me started.
IMHO one of the biggest pressures on A&E department’s country wide is the ever increasing number of people who go there for "minor" or “non urgent” problems. Things that could be sorted out with a basic first aid kit. There seems to be a culture of "just in case" and "cover my back" that sees A&E waiting areas filled with scrapped knee's and twisted ankles. And as for the “Friday night drunks” please do not get me started. swindondad
  • Score: 5

12:57pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
But let's blame the hardworking staff who work hard eh ?

I can't see anyone in the comments above 'blaming' A&E staff. Administrators yes, but medics, no. Or was your remark a suggestion you want us all to adopt?
Let's not forget that the GWH Trust has a strategic plan which allegedly takes into account population growth (and ispo facto rising demand for its services) and has done since the hospital was built. It's not as if they weren't expecting it.
Adver 29th Nov 2013 wrote:
A TOTAL of £4.4 million has been invested in optimising health care in Swindon to reduce patients waiting times and free up much-needed hospital beds as the town braces itself for one of most relentless winters the NHS has experienced.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: But let's blame the hardworking staff who work hard eh ?[/quote] I can't see anyone in the comments above 'blaming' A&E staff. Administrators yes, but medics, no. Or was your remark a suggestion you want us all to adopt? Let's not forget that the GWH Trust has a strategic plan which allegedly takes into account population growth (and ispo facto rising demand for its services) and has done since the hospital was built. It's not as if they weren't expecting it. [quote][p][bold]Adver 29th Nov 2013[/bold] wrote: A TOTAL of £4.4 million has been invested in optimising health care in Swindon to reduce patients waiting times and free up much-needed hospital beds as the town braces itself for one of most relentless winters the NHS has experienced. [/quote] Hmmmf
  • Score: 5

1:11pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not.

Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try.

"Best in the world"

It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....[/p][/quote]OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not. Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try. "Best in the world" It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close. ChannelX
  • Score: -1

1:28pm Fri 14 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not.

Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try.

"Best in the world"

It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.
Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover?

Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it.

I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....[/p][/quote]OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not. Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try. "Best in the world" It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.[/p][/quote]Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover? Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it. I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

swindondad wrote:
IMHO one of the biggest pressures on A&E department’s country wide is the ever increasing number of people who go there for "minor" or “non urgent” problems.
Things that could be sorted out with a basic first aid kit.
There seems to be a culture of "just in case" and "cover my back" that sees A&E waiting areas filled with scrapped knee's and twisted ankles.
And as for the “Friday night drunks” please do not get me started.
Do you have some facts to lend weight to your opinion, because as I mentioned before, I'd be very interested to see official figures for 'the ever increasing number of people who go there for minor or non urgent problems.' Frankly I think you're just repeating the kind of anecdotal nonsense that all the NHS's Cherry Joneses come out with whenever a hospital fails to meet standards set for it, or wants more money.

I wont 'get you started' on Friday night drunks because they've always been around, since long before the NHS was formed. They're expected, and, like a growing and ageing population, planned for well in advance.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: IMHO one of the biggest pressures on A&E department’s country wide is the ever increasing number of people who go there for "minor" or “non urgent” problems. Things that could be sorted out with a basic first aid kit. There seems to be a culture of "just in case" and "cover my back" that sees A&E waiting areas filled with scrapped knee's and twisted ankles. And as for the “Friday night drunks” please do not get me started.[/p][/quote]Do you have some facts to lend weight to your opinion, because as I mentioned before, I'd be very interested to see official figures for 'the ever increasing number of people who go there for minor or non urgent problems.' Frankly I think you're just repeating the kind of anecdotal nonsense that all the NHS's Cherry Joneses come out with whenever a hospital fails to meet standards set for it, or wants more money. I wont 'get you started' on Friday night drunks because they've always been around, since long before the NHS was formed. They're expected, and, like a growing and ageing population, planned for well in advance. Hmmmf
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not.

Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try.

"Best in the world"

It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.
Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover?

Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it.

I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.
Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice.

However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....[/p][/quote]OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not. Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try. "Best in the world" It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.[/p][/quote]Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover? Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it. I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.[/p][/quote]Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice. However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare. The NHS is an expensive joke. ChannelX
  • Score: -1

3:41pm Fri 14 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not.

Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try.

"Best in the world"

It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.
Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover?

Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it.

I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.
Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice.

However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
I'd wager a very large number of people will require A&E, have pre-existing conditions, or will get old.
The only reason the NHS has a "monopoly" in those areas is because no private health care company will touch them - they're too expensive and unprofitable to provide.

And you repeating ad nauseum "The NHS is an expensive joke" doesn't make it any more true either.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....[/p][/quote]OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not. Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try. "Best in the world" It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.[/p][/quote]Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover? Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it. I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.[/p][/quote]Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice. However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]I'd wager a very large number of people will require A&E, have pre-existing conditions, or will get old. The only reason the NHS has a "monopoly" in those areas is because no private health care company will touch them - they're too expensive and unprofitable to provide. And you repeating ad nauseum "The NHS is an expensive joke" doesn't make it any more true either. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -1

3:54pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not.

Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try.

"Best in the world"

It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.
Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover?

Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it.

I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.
Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice.

However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
I'd wager a very large number of people will require A&E, have pre-existing conditions, or will get old.
The only reason the NHS has a "monopoly" in those areas is because no private health care company will touch them - they're too expensive and unprofitable to provide.

And you repeating ad nauseum "The NHS is an expensive joke" doesn't make it any more true either.
2 Million employees
£130 BILLION per year
£2000 per person alive in the UK today

And yet some people still have a 12 hour wait in A&E?

If that's not an expensive joke, I'm not sure what would actually qualify.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....[/p][/quote]OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not. Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try. "Best in the world" It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.[/p][/quote]Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover? Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it. I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.[/p][/quote]Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice. However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]I'd wager a very large number of people will require A&E, have pre-existing conditions, or will get old. The only reason the NHS has a "monopoly" in those areas is because no private health care company will touch them - they're too expensive and unprofitable to provide. And you repeating ad nauseum "The NHS is an expensive joke" doesn't make it any more true either.[/p][/quote]2 Million employees £130 BILLION per year £2000 per person alive in the UK today And yet some people still have a 12 hour wait in A&E? If that's not an expensive joke, I'm not sure what would actually qualify. ChannelX
  • Score: -1

4:14pm Fri 14 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014.

That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose.

So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care.

Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
Does that private health care cover A&E then?
Or pre-existing conditions?
Or age related degeneration?

If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....
OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not.

Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try.

"Best in the world"

It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.
Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover?

Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it.

I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.
Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice.

However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare.

The NHS is an expensive joke.
I'd wager a very large number of people will require A&E, have pre-existing conditions, or will get old.
The only reason the NHS has a "monopoly" in those areas is because no private health care company will touch them - they're too expensive and unprofitable to provide.

And you repeating ad nauseum "The NHS is an expensive joke" doesn't make it any more true either.
2 Million employees
£130 BILLION per year
£2000 per person alive in the UK today

And yet some people still have a 12 hour wait in A&E?

If that's not an expensive joke, I'm not sure what would actually qualify.
I also would like to add that whilst most people do not use the NHS, yet pay for it via increasing taxation, most of the care provided by the NHS is delivered to a minority of people paying little or no taxes at all, fair?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Of course, what they seem to overlook when blaming a growing population is that more people equals more tax and NI payments. It's not as if they money is already lavished on the NHS as it stands, £130 BILLION for 2014. That's £2000 per person per year in the UK, and it's still unfit for purpose. So, for a family of four, it costs £667 per month for their NHS contributions for health care. Superior private health care cover for a family of four under Bupa costs... just £200.58 per month - well over two-thirds LESS. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]Does that private health care cover A&E then? Or pre-existing conditions? Or age related degeneration? If you're going to make sweeping comparisons at least compare like with like....[/p][/quote]OK, let's double the amount payable for family coverage to Bupa to include A&E costs (which many people NEVER actually use in any case) and it's STILL a third less expensive than what we're *forced* to pay towards the NHS, whether we want to or not and whether we use it or not. Defending it is farcical... and impossible to do on any kind of sensible level. Still, it's a testament to propaganda and misguided political ideology that some people still try. "Best in the world" It should be, given what we're forced to pay for it, but sadly it's nowhere near even close.[/p][/quote]Again, selectively missing out the expensive costs. So what about the pre-existing conditions that no private health care provider will cover, and what about the age related degeneration that also very few private providers will cover? Those with pre-existing conditions do not choose to require healthcare. Those that have age related conditions do not choose to live long enough to get them. If BUPA et al were forced to cover these other conditions they would have to increase their fees significantly to cover it. I don't deny that there probably is lots of waste in the health service but you're doing exactly what you continually accuse others of. Spouting political propaganda. Even worse, that propaganda is based on a flawed an largely incorrect assumption on where the expense lies. Anti-NHS propaganda based on a non-comparable comparison. *That's* what's farcical.[/p][/quote]Of course, you know it's impossible to compare 'like for like' precisely because the NHS has a monopoly on certain areas of healthcare and, obviously, people are forced to fund it and can therefore not afford to pay for private healthcare of their choice. However, for the *average* person (who requires neither A&E, pre-existing nor old age related healthcare - possibly for several decades) the cost of their contributions is THREE times higher for the inferior service of the NHS than it would be if they were able to be able to choose to only pay for their own private healthcare. The NHS is an expensive joke.[/p][/quote]I'd wager a very large number of people will require A&E, have pre-existing conditions, or will get old. The only reason the NHS has a "monopoly" in those areas is because no private health care company will touch them - they're too expensive and unprofitable to provide. And you repeating ad nauseum "The NHS is an expensive joke" doesn't make it any more true either.[/p][/quote]2 Million employees £130 BILLION per year £2000 per person alive in the UK today And yet some people still have a 12 hour wait in A&E? If that's not an expensive joke, I'm not sure what would actually qualify.[/p][/quote]I also would like to add that whilst most people do not use the NHS, yet pay for it via increasing taxation, most of the care provided by the NHS is delivered to a minority of people paying little or no taxes at all, fair? A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 3

4:34pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

A.B-C wrote:
most of the care provided by the NHS is delivered to a minority of people paying little or no taxes at all, fair?

I don't think so, but of course I'd stand corrected if you can provide evidence for the claim.
[quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: most of the care provided by the NHS is delivered to a minority of people paying little or no taxes at all, fair?[/quote] I don't think so, but of course I'd stand corrected if you can provide evidence for the claim. Hmmmf
  • Score: 1

4:46pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
most of the care provided by the NHS is delivered to a minority of people paying little or no taxes at all, fair?

I don't think so, but of course I'd stand corrected if you can provide evidence for the claim.
It's absolutely true, especially given that most of the NHS' resources are taken up by the very young, elderly, the poor and immigrants.

The majority of people in this country don't earn enough to pay the average £2000 per year in National Insurance that the NHS costs the nation per person.

And if you factor that out to only those above working age and those who have not retired, no chance.

It's something else this nation has to face up to: the nation's tax revenues would come nowhere close to being able to sustain the country if it were only the majority of taxpayers who kept paying tax.

1% of the population contributes 30% of ALL income tax and NI revenue.

That's why it does make me chuckle when the unemployed and low earner/contributors constantly slag off 'the rich'. Without the rich, things would get very, very interesting indeed in this country...
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: most of the care provided by the NHS is delivered to a minority of people paying little or no taxes at all, fair?[/quote] I don't think so, but of course I'd stand corrected if you can provide evidence for the claim.[/p][/quote]It's absolutely true, especially given that most of the NHS' resources are taken up by the very young, elderly, the poor and immigrants. The majority of people in this country don't earn enough to pay the average £2000 per year in National Insurance that the NHS costs the nation per person. And if you factor that out to only those above working age and those who have not retired, no chance. It's something else this nation has to face up to: the nation's tax revenues would come nowhere close to being able to sustain the country if it were only the majority of taxpayers who kept paying tax. 1% of the population contributes 30% of ALL income tax and NI revenue. That's why it does make me chuckle when the unemployed and low earner/contributors constantly slag off 'the rich'. Without the rich, things would get very, very interesting indeed in this country... ChannelX
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree