|
By:
we can add 13 billion if we cut paying for foreign space missions, executive cars and pop groups and the rest
|
|
By:
then chuck in a few bob from savings from leaving the eussr
|
|
By:
It all went wrong when the National health service became the International health service. Free to anyone who could get here, for decades too long.
|
|
By:
Anyone who's had an operation and been in hospital for a period of days and weeks you couldn't fail to see the things that are going on it's quite unbelievable and very frightening when you are vulnerable,i know from my own experience.The list of things that went on over a two week period when I was in hospital was as long as your arm and all things that shouldn't have been happening,must be 100s if not 1000s of patients dying unnecessarily from underfunding a complete disgrace..
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
If they didn't get free treatment which is costing the NHS billions , and also the cost in time and the cost to British people not just in money but to their health .
they don't give a fig about that , the countries they come from don't either. Don't treat them and they won't come , if they continue to do so jail them. |
|
By:
The NHS staff don't care where anyone comes from, they are in a business to make money, and their business is patients . That's all they are worried about snd it suits them .
Why do you think there are 1.4 million people working for the NHS? Because we are treating millions of people who are not British The NHS is there to stay in business , they unlike an everyday business need customers but unlike most busisness they don't have to worry about costs They will pretend to, while resisting any attempt to cut costs ...or most especially numbers of staff Because unlike an everyday business they don't need to worry about costs, the greater the costs the better it is for them , they don't have to pay the costs We do. |
|
By:
doesn't matter how much money is chucked at it,it don't work,so my conclusion is we will end up with no NHS in the not too distant future
|
|
By:
Visited friend in 'rehab' unit (physical not drugs!) last night. People with breaks etc. They send patients here to get them off the wards prior to sending them home.
Full of old people. Not one under 70. |
|
By:
The vast majority of people in hospital at any given time are not old.
|
|
By:
They should be , that is why we have hospitals.
|
|
By:
Source = NHS
Your source? Hospital admissions hit record high as population ages 9 November 2016: Hospital admissions in England rose to record levels last year, with 16.2 million admissions during 2015-16 - up from 12.7 million ten years ago. Regional level data are available within this report Patients aged 65 to 69 - so called "baby boomers" - made up the single largest group of patientsa, with some 1.3 million admissions in 2015-16, according to figures released today by NHS Digital. The report "Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity 2015-16" shows that the average age of hospital patients has been rising steadily for many yearsb. Between 2005-06and 2015-16,the number of admissions for patients aged 44 and under increased by less than 9 per cent (from 5.8 million to 6.3 million), whilst for patients aged 45 and over it increased by nearly 44 per cent (from 6.9 million to 9.9 million). Over the same time period, the population has also grown, although at a much lower rate than hospital admissions - around 8 per cent (50.6 million to 54.8 million) - compared with an overall growth of nearly 30 per cent for hospital admissions (12.7 million to 16.2 million). While the total number of admissions with procedures and interventions has increased by 56 per cent since 2005-06 (6.8 million to 10.6 million), the average length of a hospital admission c reduced from 6.6 days in 2005-06 to 4.9 days in 2015-16. Admissions with procedures and interventions involving the lower digestive tract (including the colon) have nearly doubled (an increase of 94 per cent from 521,000 to 1.0 million), whilst those involving the upper digestive tract (including the stomach) and respiratory tract have also increased, with a rise of 81 per cent (431,000 to 782,000) and 74 per cent (181,000 to 315,000) respectively over the same time periodd. Responsible statistician at NHS Digital, Jane Winter, said: "The number of admissions to hospital has been rising steadily for over a decade now. Admissions in 2015-16 were the highest on record, and over the last ten years have risen at a faster rate than the population increase. For example, the number of 65 to 69 year olds has increased by 34 per cente in the past ten years, with corresponding hospital admissions growing by 57 per cent." |
|
By:
Maybe the way to go is convalescent homes. Get people who are on the mend out of the hospitals and what would THAT cost? Yeah, I know.
|
|
By:
admissions have risen at a faster rate than the population increase.
This is because there has been a great increase in the population , and the numbers who are not part of the population but outside the population. That is the only reason for an increase in hospital admissions. Ok they may be getting treatment now at 70, instead of 55 if you believe that nonsense But then if course in theory that's a good thing, because in theory the 70 year old would have been able to work healthily until 65 and contributed Whereas in theory the 55 year old may get the same disease, ir a different one costing as much or more .. but if course wouldn't have been fit to work and pay tax at a much younger age. Then again I suppose the ideal thing is if millions of people work until they are 65 , paying into the NHS and national insurance and every other tax and then drop dead a week after retirement , it's possible It happens. |
|
By:
It doesn't look good does it.
|
|
By:
If the number of 65 to to 69 year olds has risen by 34% as claimed by this statistician it is complete nonsense .
that if true , and I doubt it, is because of an increase in population , nothing else People in Britain have been living to that age on average or rather older in fact for at least 150 years |
|
By:
The was a man from India a very nice man, on deal or no deal not so long ago
He was about 70, and had family in the UK although he lived in India He came to Britain to have treatment for a heart condition , and appear on deal or no deal. |
|
By:
Now he would be included in this statisticians figures , but she wouldn't have included him as part of the population
Do you see how she might have got her figures muddled? |
|
By:
@lfc the rising number of 65-69yos would be mainly due to the baby boomer population bulge, not longevity or immigration ie 10 years ago there would have been a bulge in 55-59yos.
|
|
By:
I read an eye opening statement the other day.
From a man who said he was one of a couple that you don't see many of these days. Both over the age of 65 and neither of them were taking drugs for anything. The NHS is in the grip of the pharmaceutical industry, who don't mind a growing population at all. The more patents the NHS treats, the more drugs they need and the larger the profits for the drugs industry. No wonder treatments that don't involve drugs get short shrift from NHS doctors. The pharmaceuticals see to that, by having a big say in who frames policy within the NHS. |
|
By:
no I don't agree in relation to the NHS, for this reason
If you have a population a certain percentage will need to use the NHS at any time , that's a given It may be 5% or whatever I don't know it doesn't matter However if you have a number of people , and we don't know how many because the NHS and government refuses to tell us , then that number is 100% 100% if those people who come to use the NHS are using the NHS This 100% skews the statistics in the same way as infant mortality did so 150 years ago. |
|
By:
* don't agree with the statisticians.
|
|
By:
lfc,
I think you are missing the point. The more people we have over 65 the more treatments they will need. Maybe a hip replacement, then a heart unblock, then a little bit of cancer treatment. Some of these things would kill people in the past. Now they dont. They can patch you up and keep you going. Are you denying there are more people over 65 now then before? |
|
By:
The question must ultimately be, do you want to be patched up? Do you WANT to keep going? The flip-side being that I'm in my 60s, have never been unemployed in my life, and I've paid my dues. But the state got their sums wrong. Promised that which they couldn't possibly hope to deliver and here we are. When is the electorate going to get real? There no free lunches in life. Those that are are only borrowed. Always there is a price to pay.With interest.
|
|
By:
there are not more people over 65 in Britain than there were 150 years ago ,
That us what the records show regarding the age that people died then and now . What we have now is more people so of course there will be more people over 65, so what? Let's look st something like a hip replacement 150 years ago this couldn't be done ,in the past it may have meant that the person could no longer work, would lose his job and be able to contribute taxes in that way. Nowthe person may return to work , work and pay taxes for a further 20 years , or longer . Perhaps a person might need heart treatment? Maybe a stent or something like that fitted Ok that again can be very successful and add 20 more years again to a persons working life Ah you say but that person may get this done when he is retired and thus increases costs But does it, because that person will have, in theory by the very fact of his age , worked for 40 or 50 years and paid into the system, And the younger people who might need a stent fitted ? someone in their 40s or 50s, whatever . That means they can then continue to work and fulfill a good 50 years of work. Cancer? people don't tend to survive that unfortunatedly , it can be costly I am sure to provide treatment , perhaps . But then again this is much the same as it ever was. |
|
By:
The important thing is that people get to the age of 65, and then it is not in the least bit important that they live to 75 or 80.look at it this way
How does it help the NHS if someone dies when they are 50, or 40, or younger No there is a need to work and live for on average , for the system to work , at least 40 years That is why older people are so important, because they have put in the years. |
|
By:
If a system cannot work after the citizens of a country have completed their working life , then the system is too expensive and costs must come down
That's life. |
|
By:
there are not more people over 65 in Britain than there were 150 years ago ,
That us what the records show regarding the age that people died then and now That isn't correct. The babyboom bulge has increased the proportion of over 65s. There has also in the last two decades been a raising of the modal age of death. |
|
By:
Yes Dave that may be true, I did say there are more people over 65, but that's because there are more people
The question is have those 65 year olds been working for 40 or 50 years |
|
By:
We are talking about the NHS, a countries health system and its costs must be driven by the people from within that country and over time
That is the only way the costs can be true to the people bearing those costs |
|
By:
Would it help if older people retired later, worked longer?
No, that could make things worse Young people need to be in employment , as early as possible There has to be room and oppprtunity for them That is much more important to the economy and the NHS |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I did say there are more people over 65
There are not more people over 65 in Britain than there were 150 years ago , That us what the records show regarding the age that people died then and now There are a higher proportion of over 65s than there has ever been due to babyboomers. That is a fact. Stop disputing it. In addition to that there has recently been a marked increase in longevity. Look at the graph I referred you to in an earlier post. The most common age of death is significantly higher now that two or three decades ago. Now to the point about taxpayers etc. What you should say is "productive" as many over 65s pay tax and some under 65 workers don't. Theoretically a business of the future could employ almost no workers due to automation. The ever decreasing productive workforce is the issue that will have to be addressed and the increasing cost of the NHS (and elderly care) is merely part of that debate. |
|
By:
dave the proportion of over 65s to the population in Britain today is the same as it was 150 years ago
It appeared to be different 150 years ago because of large families, but many if those families the children would die at an early age, before starting work . That is why there is no difference then between the proportion of over 65s and today in relation to work and tax to fund the ngs |
|
By:
NHS* how do you think the NHS is funded ?
It is by the 65 year olds , well some of them who have worked many years It is no good saying the NHS is funded by young people, its not. |
|
By:
That is nonsense. The babyboom has increased the proportion. Stop repeating your "150 years ago" mantra which in any case is now incorrect due to a substantial increase in longevity over the last two decades.
|
|
By:
ah, the baby boom has not increased the proportion of 65 year olds in relation to people from the age of 18
Which is the important thing in relation to funding of the nhs |
|
By:
The proportion hasn't changed in that level for 150 years , is it changing now ?
no, we are not living longer. |
|
By:
There are more over 65s but that is what happens when the population increases.
There will be more still in a few years time if present trends continue. |
|
By:
NHS* how do you think the NHS is funded ?
It is by the 65 year olds , well some of them who have worked many years It is no good saying the NHS is funded by young people, its not. The NHS is funded by everyone who is a net contributor of tax (including corporations). Some young people are net beneficiaries of tax, some 70 year olds are net contributors. Depends on circumstances. |