Re: General Election campaign : Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:10 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

You, once again are talking rubbish.
If a young person threatens suicide, it takes THREE MONTHS before they are referred. If you break your leg, you are seen within hours and a leg break isn't life threatening.
Of course, if that young person starts to bleed out, they will be seen immediately, if they are lucky.

You really dont know what you are talking about and it may be better if you STFU

You really are an idiot - this seems far too personal for you to have kind of rational discussion - perhaps its you that needs to take the emotion out of it and STFU

There are plenty of examples of young people in emotional distress that have received treatment within 3 months including sanctioning.

Re: General Election campaign : Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:44 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You really are an idiot - this seems far too personal for you to have kind of rational discussion - perhaps its you that needs to take the emotion out of it and STFU

There are plenty of examples of young people in emotional distress that have received treatment within 3 months including sanctioning.

Oh really. !
Once again you appear to be on the wind up as you are just wrong.
Take a look at how CHAMS works and then take a look at the effect of treatment on someone moving from being a minor to becoming an adult and then come back.
As I stated previously, you dont know what you are talking about.
I actually wish that I didn't know either but, unfortunately I do.

Re: General Election campaign : Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:12 pm  

I suspect Sal's knowledge of mental healthcare is as good as his understanding of the coordinated international action to address the ozone layer or his grasp of international trade agreements. Ten minutes reading the Daily Mail comments section would leave you better informed

Re: General Election campaign : Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:11 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

You, once again are talking rubbish.
If a young person threatens suicide, it takes THREE MONTHS before they are referred. If you break your leg, you are seen within hours and a leg break isn't life threatening.
Of course, if that young person starts to bleed out, they will be seen immediately, if they are lucky.

You really dont know what you are talking about and it may be better if you STFU

I get the point you were trying to make, but saying a leg break isn't life threatening is wrong. Leg breaks can be life threatening for several reasons.

Re: General Election campaign : Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:16 am  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

I suspect Sal's knowledge of mental healthcare is as good as his understanding of the coordinated international action to address the ozone layer or his grasp of international trade agreements. Ten minutes reading the Daily Mail comments section would leave you better informed

Strange, I assumed that's where he got all his information from. If he ever gets beyond page 1.

Re: General Election campaign : Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:25 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You really are an idiot - this seems far too personal for you to have kind of rational discussion - perhaps its you that needs to take the emotion out of it and STFU

There are plenty of examples of young people in emotional distress that have received treatment within 3 months including sanctioning.

I assume you mean sectioning? And it's interesting, and perhaps telling, that you consider being detained under the Mental Health Act as part of an effective treatment for someone who is in distress. On that basis, I can safely assume that you have never seen the inside of a secure hospital and have no knowledge of what the conditions are like inside them?

As someone very much on the inside of this system, I can tell you with absolute certainty that MH services in the country are entirely and fundamentally broken, with massive shortages of staff, resources and appropriate treatment options - and that's right across the spectrum, from early intervention services, through GP's, hospitals and community treatment options. My best advice is that you wish very hard that no one you cares about ever has any kind of mental health problem - because you will quickly see for yourself that they become a hostage to fortune, sloshing around a system that can't provide anything like what they need.

Sorry - but you couldn't be more wrong on this one.

Re: General Election campaign : Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:30 am  

bren2k wrote:

I assume you mean sectioning? And it's interesting, and perhaps telling, that you consider being detained under the Mental Health Act as part of an effective treatment for someone who is in distress. On that basis, I can safely assume that you have never seen the inside of a secure hospital and have no knowledge of what the conditions are like inside them?

As someone very much on the inside of this system, I can tell you with absolute certainty that MH services in the country are entirely and fundamentally broken, with massive shortages of staff, resources and appropriate treatment options - and that's right across the spectrum, from early intervention services, through GP's, hospitals and community treatment options. My best advice is that you wish very hard that no one you cares about ever has any kind of mental health problem - because you will quickly see for yourself that they become a hostage to fortune, sloshing around a system that can't provide anything like what they need.

Sorry - but you couldn't be more wrong on this one.

All fair points - the point I have always been trying to make is this: There is a finite amount of money in the NHS, demand through new clinical practises and population increase means compromises have to be made. Simply pumping more money in like Labour did will not work unless the funds are directed away from just giving existing staff large increases as Labour did. Extra monies need to be ring fenced to ensure investment is put into training of the additional personnel required to cope with the extra demands put on the NHS. In my experience in an emergency scenario the NHS is superb and we have some of the finest technical clinicians in the world working within it.

This is a debate as to how much you wish to put into the NHS and how you fund it - Labour increased by NI by 1% - which I agreed with but then gave 50% of it away in salary increases - little was done IIRC about the infrastructure issues. Tory austerity has compounded an already challenging position.

The Government has already taken 3% off people for auto-enrolment taking another 1% in NI is a stretch but if invested properly should be seen by most as a positive.

Re: General Election campaign : Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:41 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

All fair points - the point I have always been trying to make is this: There is a finite amount of money in the NHS, demand through new clinical practises and population increase means compromises have to be made. Simply pumping more money in like Labour did will not work unless the funds are directed away from just giving existing staff large increases as Labour did. Extra monies need to be ring fenced to ensure investment is put into training of the additional personnel required to cope with the extra demands put on the NHS. In my experience in an emergency scenario the NHS is superb and we have some of the finest technical clinicians in the world working within it.

This is a debate as to how much you wish to put into the NHS and how you fund it - Labour increased by NI by 1% - which I agreed with but then gave 50% of it away in salary increases - little was done IIRC about the infrastructure issues. Tory austerity has compounded an already challenging position.

The Government has already taken 3% off people for auto-enrolment taking another 1% in NI is a stretch but if invested properly should be seen by most as a positive.

All very well, if you look at the health of the nation in isolation, as an absolute cost; but in reality, investment in health and wellbeing has a much larger impact on the economy - healthy people work more, cost less and are generally more productive members of society, yes?

And with regard to pay increases vs training and infrastructure - I think it's entirely reasonable to reverse years of real terms pay drops by increasing the wages of staff who are already trained and expert at what they do; there is a giant and alarming recruitment and retention issue in the NHS, so trying to keep hold of your existing resource is actually more cost-effective than training new ones, particularly if new people aren't joining, or can't because your government has removed the training bursary.

There is a finite amount of money for the NHS - but it has been systematically defunded by the Tories for almost a decade; so that finite amount can actually be much higher than it is now. That can't go on - I'm on the inside, and I'm telling you as a matter of fact that it's way worse than news stories and reality TV shows are telling you. *Much* worse.

Re: General Election campaign : Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:00 am  

bren2k wrote:

All very well, if you look at the health of the nation in isolation, as an absolute cost; but in reality, investment in health and wellbeing has a much larger impact on the economy - healthy people work more, cost less and are generally more productive members of society, yes?

And with regard to pay increases vs training and infrastructure - I think it's entirely reasonable to reverse years of real terms pay drops by increasing the wages of staff who are already trained and expert at what they do; there is a giant and alarming recruitment and retention issue in the NHS, so trying to keep hold of your existing resource is actually more cost-effective than training new ones, particularly if new people aren't joining, or can't because your government has removed the training bursary.

There is a finite amount of money for the NHS - but it has been systematically defunded by the Tories for almost a decade; so that finite amount can actually be much higher than it is now. That can't go on - I'm on the inside, and I'm telling you as a matter of fact that it's way worse than news stories and reality TV shows are telling you. *Much* worse.

I don't disagree with you but simply increasing funding and simply increasing the salaries of existing personnel will not solve the problem of dealing with a 16 year that threatens to kill themselves. What is difficult for people in the private sector who have also not had increases is for them to pay in more from a static salary to allow others to see their remuneration increase significantly?

The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe and any organisation of that size with have inefficiencies so streamlining is possible but as part of the funding debate. What do you want the NHS to provide - all things to all people when they want it? If so then you better double the amount that goes in and more. You would need significant increase in IT which would create issues of working people not being able to repay their mortgages.

I agree staff turnover is very expensive but as the population grows, demands increase existing personnel retire more professionals are required greater infrastructure is also required. Just increasing salaries is not the only solution surely?

Re: General Election campaign : Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:54 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

All fair points - the point I have always been trying to make is this: There is a finite amount of money in the NHS, demand through new clinical practises and population increase means compromises have to be made. Simply pumping more money in like Labour did will not work unless the funds are directed away from just giving existing staff large increases as Labour did.

Where is your evidence that all the Labour investment went on increasing existing wages? Why should only bankers be paid top wages ‘to attract the best staff’? Labour’s commitment was to reduce waiting times, especially for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer & cervical smears, which it did. You cannot do that without investing in people, equipment & buildings.

Extra monies need to be ring fenced to ensure investment is put into training of the additional personnel required to cope with the extra demands put on the NHS.

If 200,000 nurses have left the NHS since 2010 how are they going to be attracted?