Totally agree that fundamental change is needed.
It’s totally crazy the amount that gets wasted. I have said before on here that I used to be very pro-NHS, but after working in/around it for a couple of years I am now staunchly of the opinion that it can’t be saved. It’s just not fit for purpose in its current form, and it’s a national disgrace the way the staff are treated.
The last point that you touched on regarding old people is a total minefield of a conversation.
in theory old people have paid the most tax, so why shouldn’t they be justified to healthcare if they want/need it? Plus why stop the conversation at 90 year olds. Surely obese people, smokers, addicts, non-taxpayers also should have limited access if you choose to go down that route.
I'm still very pro NHS as I believe in the general principles. However I have zero faith in the organisation/s to be well run and deliver gold value for money based on working in two separate trusts and a friend who works in a third - all 3 have exactly the same problems which are a drain on public resources.
There's a reason I chose to make myself unemployed during a cost of living crisis and had to spunk a load of savings on paying rent. And it's not because I fancied a few months off but because there's only so much timr you can spend trying to improve things and being cut off by senior management before you get sick of it.
The whole culture is ****ed to the point where there's a total lack of willingness to deal with poor performance (let's just recruit instead) and you see situations where people have a 30% absence rate for 3 consecutive years and not receive any warnings (cos we can't risk upsetting them). These things, among others of course, is why the percentage of admin staff has increased dramatically in recent times.
And yeah agree it's a total minefield but it's a conversation thar needs to happen without the hyperbole on each side imo.
The thing is we've made some incredible advances in medicine in recent times. Truly mind boggling some of the treatments that are available but a lot of it is extremely expensive and it's simply not affordable long term.
Way I see it is if you've got an 87 year old who's beaten cancer 3 times, has had strokes and has heart disease and/or dementia. If that person then gets cancer again should we really be spending a few hundred grand to maybe keep that person alive another 6 months, 3 of which they'll spend in hospital anyway?
And for me the answer there is no we shouldn't because it's not sustainable and they've had a fantastic life. I admit I'm biased here of course though as I don't ever wanna get that old and become a burden to my Son - as long as I reach 60 then I'll be happy and death can take me whenever it likes.