NHS - Not Feasible

It's a tough call JaHa.

It has got worse. Since Harold Shipman, doctors are more wary than ever about giving mild overdoses of painkillers that might ease the suffering or even passing of terminally ill patients.

Prolonging someone's death is not the same as prolonging their life -- except now it is.

Every one is looking over their shoulder. How about giving the poor s od on the trolley a say.

If someone wants to end their life let them end it.  Extend liberty and freedom of choice to that basic right and stop living in the dark ages.  We did it with gay rights. 

Life expectancy in the UK

1960 71.1
1970 72.0
1980 74.0
1990 75.9
2000 77.7
2010 80.4
2015 81.6

I totally agree 29.

The year on year cuts to beds, hospitals and actual medical staff for the last 40 years have ruined the NHS.

They do their best.

Liverpool care pathway

Like I said, it's a tough call but let people be eh?

NHS was set up to get people who become ill, better.

Now, the majority of the demand on it comes as a result of people's lifestyle choices.  Either directly (eg, pi$$ed up people clogging A&E), or more frequently indirectly (eg, mobility problems and pains, or organ malfunction due to a lifetime of poor diet, no exercise, drinking, smoking etc).

Until the onus is shifted as much onto the patient to take some responsibility for their own health, as it is on the NHS to make people better, then nothing will improve.  People's sense of entitlement when it comes to the NHS is quite breathtaking.

Absolutely Danno.
Not to mention the violent abuse that A&Es  have to put up with.

STUDYFORM
08 Nov 17 11:10
Joined: 26 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 17,357 | Blogger: STUDYFORM's blog
The year on year cuts to beds, hospitals and actual medical staff for the last 40 years have ruined the NHS.

More money than ever is going into the NHS.

I see it as doing a great job.

In terms of expenditure as a percentage of GDP the UK gets good value for money.

The only big problem area is GPs getting clogged up.

Population has gone up massively, everyone goes to the GP more often, because its free people miss appointments.

don't believe those life expectancy figures 1960-71 etc
150 years ago life expectancy in Britain was 74-76

I think people spent longer in hospital in the 60s than now also .

Now there are 1.4milion people employed in the health service, isn't that incredible,
for our population, last time I looked most people were not in hospital
What are these 1.4 million people doing ?

In 1950 there were 150, 000 people employed in the health service , now it's 1.4 million.

I don't think the solution is for the NHS to start killing people.

Take a look around, the vast majority of British people are perfectly healthy, there are millions of us who do not go near a hospital or doctor for years .
There are millions of healthy people, and 1.4 million working in the health service.

The NHS was about getting people better.  Now it is about keeping them alive.

Well they are not very successful in that.

these are the facts, in Britain in middle of the 19th century about 150 years ago,the average life exectency was about 74 for a man and a little more for a woman.

source?

Jack,

Somethings you can not be made better from.

e.g. being HIV or having a heart condition.

However the NHS can keep people alive from those conditions more now than a few years ago. Those people can live relatively normal lives now without ever being cured.

What are you suggesting happens to those people?

Of course, some people go onto have a good life.

The cases I described don't/didn't, but my point was that it is not a feasible model, financially, so something will have to be change.

lfc,

I dont think your numbers are right.

Residents in England and Wales over the age of 85 has risen from just over 1 million in 2001 to 1.25 million in 2011 and is growing fast.

I read about it many years ago, it surprised me.,
But it is because the usual figures are skewed by children dying very young then
A family of 5 and 2 or more children could die , and if was not uncommon for mothers to die in childbirth
So this brought the average down which is misleading
Then once someone reached the age of 18 and worked in an average industrial or farming or clerical job they could expect to live to pretty much the same age as people today.

The tourism isn't helping imo.

Insider trader it doesn't matter what age people live to , they work until they are 65 and pay into the health service
The important thing is that they might start work at 16 and work and pay tax or not as the case is more likely to be now .'
This is the vital period of time , this is when the money is paid into the health service

Now a person is going to have to get ill and die at some age , if it is 80 or 75?is meaningless
However if someone dies at a younger age , say 50, and hasnt left college and started work until they are almost 30
or may be unemployed
Then you have a problem
That is the problem, not people living longer.

And too many time-wasters.

65 is the important age , and what happens up and until that age.after that age it doesn't matter what age we live to

If course if we have milions if people who have not paid into the health service , that's something else again
Is it millions of people? yes.

@lfc

An article about the issue

Life span is usually measured by life expectancy at birth, which is highly influenced by deaths at young ages, so recently ONS has been investigating other measures of average life span. For example, the late modal age at death is solely influenced by adult mortality and consequently much more sensitive to improvements in mortality among the older population. Modal age at death has emerged as a particularly useful measure for analysing mortality at older ages and alongside life expectancy at birth and possibly median age at death, can help us to understand the ageing that is characteristic of the population of England and Wales.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity
/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityinenglandandwales/2012-12-17

This table (from the link above) somewhat supports your theory (up to the last century) ie the most common age to die stayed much the same, but the high infant/child mortality reduced the population. 

Figure 5: Number of Deaths by Age from the Period Life Tables for England and Wales, Males

But there has clearly been a substantial increase in longevity in the last couple of decades if modal age of death is the measure used.

ah yes thanks dave , it's a surprising thing.

A relative of mine was on a total of 5 different wards in 2 hospitals. She's old. Now there used to be a geriatric ward in hospitals. Doesn't seem to be the case now.

Why? Cos nearly everyone on those 5 wards was old. And as I wandered thru the hospitals I was amazed how few young people were there. It's obvious of course but as Jack says the NHS is keeping people alive rather than curing them.

The cost to prolong peoples' lives in hospital beds and nursing homes must be billions. The overrall NHS budget is about £110Bn. I reckon a large portion of that goes to the over 60s.

Quite a dilemma and not sure what the answer is. I think we need to pay more and certainly OAPs who are still tax payers should pay for prescriptions etc.

A big factor in shortening the life span of people was industrial disease.

We haven't got those industries killing people any more.

Matthew Syed comparing the health care industry to the aviation industry. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVCYqs3mko

The population of the UK  since 2000 has increased by approx 5% that was not planned
for,that must have had an impact on the NHS.

Sica,

How can you say that when without workers from overseas the NHS would collapse.

we can add 13 billion if we cut paying for foreign space missions, executive cars and pop groups and the rest

then chuck in a few bob from savings from leaving the eussr

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.

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..

Nov 8, 2017 -- 3:34PM, saddo wrote:

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.

It certainly hasn't helped but how do you turn desperate people away? Okay! I know. Screw them etc. But when you're on the front line it's maybe not so easy to do that.

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.

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.

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

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.

The vast majority of people in hospital at any given time are not old.

They should be , that is why we have hospitals.

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."

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.

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.

It doesn't look good does it.

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

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.

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?

@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.

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.

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.

* don't agree with the statisticians.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Nov 9, 2017 -- 8:23AM, lfc1971 wrote:

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 wayHow 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.

And paid their national insurance contributions but for what?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

The proportion hasn't changed in that level for 150 years , is it changing now ?
no, we are not living longer.

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.

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.

Yes but that's a different thing entirely Foinavon , that's part of the mess we are in .
We don't know what or taxes go to, or who they go to , or why.

lfc,

Far more of the population is over 65 now than 150 years ago.

There are far more medical treatments now than even 10 years to keep people alive.

Survival rates for heart failure and cancer (the two top killers) are improving all the time.

Is that so? Why are we not living longer.

Are there things and diseases and illnesses that the health system had to treat 100 years ago that we no longer have
TB was a massive killer, people had to spend large amounts of time in hospitals the as well , what's changed ?
Nothing's changed .

we are living longer here in the Uk a lot to do with pills of course,but in America its stood still for the last few years

There were a lot more car accidents , hospitals were not empty back in 1930

@lfc

Look at this graph from the link below

Figure 5: Number of Deaths by Age from the Period Life Tables for England and Wales, Males

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity
/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityinenglandandwales/2012-12-17



The most common age to die was 74 in 1850*, 75 in 1975, 82 in 2000 and 85 in 2010


*graph is a bit oddly shaped but don't think it detracts from the point.

hmmm that's interesting , if correct
74 in 1850, , 75 in 1975
and now 85
So if someone died in 1850 at age 74
and had a period of illness before death of say 2 years after 50 years work

And at 75 in 1975 after a period of illness 2 years after 50 years work

And now someone dies at 85 after a period of illness 2 years after 50 years work

Why should that cost the health service any more than it did in 1975 or 1865 ?
I don't know.

Of course you may say that dying at 85 the person may have had s longer period of illness than in 1975
or 1865,
Possibly , possibly not .
I think the differences in the ages are too similar to draw the conclusion that the 85 year old has been kept alive while Ill for 10 years
And only for 2 years did they require treatment in 1975 , or 1850

If we are saying that people are living a little longer now , then that dies not necessarily mean that they are costing the NHS more,
How could it , is it not more likely that someone dying at 75 or even 55 will have cost the NHS at least as much , or more , or perhaps a little less
But it is quite likely it could cost the NHS more if someone dies at 45.

you see the age thing is irrelevant
there will be the same costs to the nhs for someone who dies at 75
as at 85

and for the same length of time,
only the  person who dies at 75 will need treatment earlier.

if this was not the case why is someone dying at 75 and someone else dying at 85?

I don't know.

We have half of Eastern Europe here. Mainly young, many with families. They were all on full access as soon as they arrived, without ever contributing a penny. The old folk left in corridors on trolleys will have paid in for half a century.

not a fan of the doctors just now. everything they propose seems to cause pain.
unless it involves antibiotics or surgery i'd go elsewhere?
My GP has cancer and she's the only one in the practice that is good. the other
doctors come to her to get a second opinion.
the whole of the NHS is underfunded deliberately. to make it fail. then sell it off bit by bit.
9 percent in the UK, 12 percent in Germany.

it's classic strangle the business and sell it off to your friends, when it fails.

hi zorro,what do you know about hillsong?

Why do so many people continue to suffer with common ailments that simply get worse over time while they are under the doctor?
Because GPs treat the symptoms of a disease and not the disease itself.

There is no profit for doctors or the pharmaceutical industry in curing people.
Take these tablets for the rest of your life is the common treatment that a doctor gives to a patient.
And we're in a situation where the drugs can do you more harm than the disease.

Take statins.
The NHS website claims that taking statins might prevent 1 in 50 people from a suffering a major heart event. That includes the extreme cases and those high-risk patients that have already had a stroke or a heart attack.

Which raises the question.  What are the other 49 people taking them for?

There can be serious side effects from taking statins including diabetes and muscle problems.
Yet doctors are trying to get more and more people on them all the time.

Hillsong? church?

i was looking to go back to church, but i started looking at what denomination?
i was confused till i read what Blaise Pascal said about Church.
the gist was that it was a leftover from the Jewish paradigm?
the temple, the sabbath, the daily sacrifices, all the Jewish laws... all
redundant now because of Jesus(yeshua).
the pharisees even tried to condemn Jesus for working on a sabbath.
I lean towards being mindful of Christ every day.
Jesus said - "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

every person that believes in Christ is the church, you can go along to a baptist or a Methodist
hall for fellowship? but they are all married to the world. they are organizations.
the people are saved, but i wonder about the hypocrisy of the institutions. rules and
regulations with nothing to do with Christ's teachings.

If you seek Christ, you have found him. you are saved. paying club dues means very little.
you love Christ and he loves you. We are the bride of Christ. the body of Christ.

hillsong church yes,beware of false prophet they say,well beware of these devils I say