Junior doctors in England are escalating strike action next month to include a walkout of emergency care. It will be the first time ever doctors have refused to provide cover in areas such as A&E and intensive care - the strikes so far have hit routine care. The British Medical Association said it had been left with "no choice" in its fight against the government's plan to impose a new contract. The all-out stoppages will take place from 08:00 to 17:00 on 26 and 27 April. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35884239
Blimey. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/suzanne-evans-ukip-court-farage_uk_56f2bf2ee4b08af01bea0124
So they are willing for people's lives to be put at risk? Hopefully an agreement can be reached but if not, both sides (doctors and government) should take a long hard look at themselves if this goes ahead. Both sides need to compromise before this gets out of hand.
A mistake I think. Placing just one life at risk will let the Hunt grab the high moral ground. Best to keep providing emergency services and retain public sympathy.
How sad that the Junior Doctors are driven to this.. Hospital services in the NHS have by and large always provided a full 5 day a week service and a skeleton service at W/Es and B/Hs with the exception of emergency services. Mr Hunt wants to introduce a 7 day a week service without extra resources, based on very debatable research. You don't have to a mathematician to work out this will produce extra work for all clinical staff and support staff. The Junior Doctors are pushed to the brink. Be assured there is not a single group of clinicians that have any confidence in Mr Hunt. How can he continue to be Health Secretary when he is universally disliked and mistrusted by those who provide the service? From a junior doctor perspective, as Mr Dylan put it, in terms of negotiation and the imposition of a new contract, 'when you ain't got nothing you've got nothing to lose'. I'm not against full 7 day hospital services but they have to properly resourced. What's the point of being admitted on a Friday evening and as part of your assessment and diagnosis you have a blood test that isn't analysed until Monday morning? What's needed are decent 7 day a week community services designed to keep people safe and as far as possible out of hospital, but of course that would involve joined up thinking between Primary Care, Community Health Services, Social Services and Voluntary Sector Services, thus taking the pressure off hospital services. It is not beyond the wit and wisdom of those currently working in services to come up with models that could be piloted locally, pump primed, and researched independently then best practice implemented. When I left the NHS in 2006 it cost in the region of £250 pounds a day for an acute bed. I've no idea what it costs now, but with an ageing population and unhealthy life styles making ever greater demands treating potential patients without admitting them to hospital should be the priority. IT SHOULD BE MR HUNT'S PRIORITY, but of course he would rather square up to junior doctors... I despair..
Ok fair dinkum, but the thought crosses your mind surely if they didn't need the money in the first place why apply for it? At local level they are given a pot of money which is passed down through various departments who then allocate it into even smaller pots. Any money they don't use should be put back into the local pot. Those decisions are made at grass roots level. Another word for this level I believe we used to call them the quangoes. In my brother in laws case I knew they had the money available for his care. They just didn't want to spend it in case they had to start using the emergency fund if they had a sudden spurt of needy people. (To my knowledge they have only used this fund twice in twenty five years. Possibly three but no more) While I understand the dilemma that does not help the people that should be living at home and not living in a loony bin or wherever. Just because they were not told correctly what their options where or given the choice. The budget system works if people use it properly. As you correctly said it should not be that if one department has an excess of funds it should not be forced to spend funds for fear of losing them the next year. This is decision making at local level not at government level.....it is a crazy world we live in! Edit........hopefully I have not upset anyone with my statement or indeed made them angry. That is not my intention. It's just that believe it or not my wife and I are still reeling from the battles we had with various departments over the years. Not the NHS by the way we always found them helpful. So much so they actually made the social services do their job properly towards the end. While our determination won the day it did take its toll.
We do have national healthcare, in a way. It's just kind of a piecemeal, poorly organized mess. Obamacare doesn't actually help in this regard, because it was supposed to somewhat replace other programs but we can't get rid of those other programs. So it's just another system placed on top of already existing systems. But anyway, the interesting thing about US healthcare is that it really isn't the have vs the have-nots. I mean it, there's always that angle to it just like there is in every program in every country. But the resistance to Obamacare really comes down to a lot of people who do not have healthcare or at least not universal, government healthcare who insist it is their right to not have healthcare. ie. It's have-nots insisting on their right to remain have-nots. The other odd twist in the story is that the resistance to universal healthcare is a somewhat recent thing. Eight years ago, the majority of Americans were in favor of it. It was a major part of both McCain and Obama's platforms. They had different plans, but both wanted to address the issue and they had to, because it was a big deal. It wasn't until Obama was elected that the conservatives became virulently anti-healthcare. And within the space of mere months. Even the moderate Republicans who were not opposed to the plan rapidly jumped ship and turned against (and then were largely voted out for having dared delay a couple months to do so) Obamacare is actually similar to what Mitt Romney tried to do in Massachusetts when he was governor. Except that then when Romney ran for President, he opposed Obamacare. And his opposition wasn't strong enough for conservatives, which is why he lost. He tried to cater to the far right, but they didn't trust him and then he lost his support from the middle for flip-flopping.
I've just seen Lord Owen commenting on today's news. I was shocked how old he looked and then thought it had been a very long time since I've seen him In the public eye.
Land Registry to be privatised two years after the Liberal Democrats blocked it while in coalition. http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ry-faces-privatisation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Bit of local politics. Plans for a solent city metropolis with an elected mayor look to be taking a step forward and plans for a tram/light railway network are being touted again as a part of the reorganisation in local government. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/tra...tram_line_between_Southampton_and_Portsmouth/ Personally I think something has to be done about transport in Southampton and the surrounding areas. Seeing an empty rail track inches from St Marys is a particular frustration.
