I've only just read this, of course, because last year I'd never even heard of Substack, let alone Mr O'Malley. And how mad would you have been then if you had known what they were actually spending the money on! Did you ever write your piece about private v public within the NHS? It amuses me that the general public never understands that most GPs are private providers!
I can sense them now. I can taste the fresh Tears of the Twitterati and bask in the deep red glow of the faces of irate gammons on Facebook who accuse me of 'disrespecting' the old trooper.
I can hear the shrill gasping of the clap-fascists and their Two Minutes Hate for anyone who dares not bow down to mindless local community obedience, as well as the future notes rustling through the hands of sulking skinflints on their way to the doctors and nurses bank accounts.
It is important that these things are clearly spoken about. I’m in Australia and last year we had disastrous bush fires with approx 3100 houses burned to the ground. A very famous comedian did the right thing and started a “Go Fund Me” to raise money for “those who lost everything”, but mistakenly nominated the Bush Fire Brigade (a quasi government department) run by volunteers as the organisation which would receive/manage these funds. They raised $51 million for the poor people who had lost everything. Sounds like a good thing to give money to the government funded volunteer organisation, but their legal status prevented them from giving the money to the people whose houses had burnt down and the government effectively kept it to further fund the organisation, not passing it on to the victims.
There is a fundamental error in thinking in this. The NHS is not a bottomless pit for spending. It is possible to choose a standard of care, such as how long we want waiting lists to be a for a given size of population, how many staff and facilities we need to do that, and to work out how much that would cost, including an amount for contingencies. Then we could choose either to pay that amount or not. Yes we could always spend more on something extra, but there is no need if we decide the standard of care that we want.
I briefly dated an NHS manager who looked after the budget for HIV services in a large region of England. She said she knew exactly how much money she would need to operate a world class service for her client population.
The bottomless pit concept could apply to anything. For some reason we don't feel the fire fighting service, or road maintenance, or the postal service, or schools and universities are bottomless pits. We might spend more on those things, but that's a matter of choice.
I know that over £1m was used to buy 'gifts' for mental health workers.. these gifts included bottles tagged with 'NHS hero', RRP was £14 each on bulk purchase. Nobody wanted them, it was touted as 'a gift from captain tom'.
The only point you make is so obvious it hurts. Nothing here is interesting. How is 'comfortable break areas, tablets and devices to help staff and patients stay in touch with their families, and bereavement support. ' non-essential? Stuff that anyone as equally qualified as a doctor or a nurse would get in a private workplace? You haven't even done the bare minimum of research. You'd see that charities like NHS Charities Together do provide funding for even more essential things, like in November providing 12m of urgent funding to overwhelmed hospitals to be spent on simple things like making sure staff working long hours have food and a place to rest.
The crux of your argument is that charity *has* to exist for the NHS. That if it weren't these so-called 'non-essential' things it would be for a nice box of chocolates or whatever. Working in the NHS should be a *good job* by default, i.e. made so by government funding. It shouldn't require charity to give staff psychological support, or appropriate break spaces (many hospitals have break areas that are honestly the absolute fucking worst. Everyone hates being in there and they do not contribute to good mental or physical health with drab design and bad seating).
Within the moronic confines of capitalism, your point might be correct. In the real world where the government could give a lot more money to the NHS if it wanted to, your point is useless.
I think despite the fact that you've clearly written this article in a way to raise hackles (and probably clicks) that the points you make are valid and hard to contest. Or at least hard for me to contest, which may of course be a different thing.
I think your point about healthcare spending being a black hole is valid. There's not really an upper limit on healthcare spending. It represents a societal and economic quandary.
I suspect your message will be lost in a backlash because you've labelled support for staff and patients as 'non-essential'. In the interest of keeping this reply short, I'll merely say that staff satisfaction and patient perception of care impact on healthcare outcomes.
I've only just read this, of course, because last year I'd never even heard of Substack, let alone Mr O'Malley. And how mad would you have been then if you had known what they were actually spending the money on! Did you ever write your piece about private v public within the NHS? It amuses me that the general public never understands that most GPs are private providers!
This is deliciously brutal.
I can sense them now. I can taste the fresh Tears of the Twitterati and bask in the deep red glow of the faces of irate gammons on Facebook who accuse me of 'disrespecting' the old trooper.
I can hear the shrill gasping of the clap-fascists and their Two Minutes Hate for anyone who dares not bow down to mindless local community obedience, as well as the future notes rustling through the hands of sulking skinflints on their way to the doctors and nurses bank accounts.
And it is glorious.
It is important that these things are clearly spoken about. I’m in Australia and last year we had disastrous bush fires with approx 3100 houses burned to the ground. A very famous comedian did the right thing and started a “Go Fund Me” to raise money for “those who lost everything”, but mistakenly nominated the Bush Fire Brigade (a quasi government department) run by volunteers as the organisation which would receive/manage these funds. They raised $51 million for the poor people who had lost everything. Sounds like a good thing to give money to the government funded volunteer organisation, but their legal status prevented them from giving the money to the people whose houses had burnt down and the government effectively kept it to further fund the organisation, not passing it on to the victims.
There is a fundamental error in thinking in this. The NHS is not a bottomless pit for spending. It is possible to choose a standard of care, such as how long we want waiting lists to be a for a given size of population, how many staff and facilities we need to do that, and to work out how much that would cost, including an amount for contingencies. Then we could choose either to pay that amount or not. Yes we could always spend more on something extra, but there is no need if we decide the standard of care that we want.
I briefly dated an NHS manager who looked after the budget for HIV services in a large region of England. She said she knew exactly how much money she would need to operate a world class service for her client population.
The bottomless pit concept could apply to anything. For some reason we don't feel the fire fighting service, or road maintenance, or the postal service, or schools and universities are bottomless pits. We might spend more on those things, but that's a matter of choice.
Is trying to help and succeeding a little bit better than not trying at all and just complaining...?
I know that over £1m was used to buy 'gifts' for mental health workers.. these gifts included bottles tagged with 'NHS hero', RRP was £14 each on bulk purchase. Nobody wanted them, it was touted as 'a gift from captain tom'.
The only point you make is so obvious it hurts. Nothing here is interesting. How is 'comfortable break areas, tablets and devices to help staff and patients stay in touch with their families, and bereavement support. ' non-essential? Stuff that anyone as equally qualified as a doctor or a nurse would get in a private workplace? You haven't even done the bare minimum of research. You'd see that charities like NHS Charities Together do provide funding for even more essential things, like in November providing 12m of urgent funding to overwhelmed hospitals to be spent on simple things like making sure staff working long hours have food and a place to rest.
The crux of your argument is that charity *has* to exist for the NHS. That if it weren't these so-called 'non-essential' things it would be for a nice box of chocolates or whatever. Working in the NHS should be a *good job* by default, i.e. made so by government funding. It shouldn't require charity to give staff psychological support, or appropriate break spaces (many hospitals have break areas that are honestly the absolute fucking worst. Everyone hates being in there and they do not contribute to good mental or physical health with drab design and bad seating).
Within the moronic confines of capitalism, your point might be correct. In the real world where the government could give a lot more money to the NHS if it wanted to, your point is useless.
I think despite the fact that you've clearly written this article in a way to raise hackles (and probably clicks) that the points you make are valid and hard to contest. Or at least hard for me to contest, which may of course be a different thing.
And yet you've no issue with privatisation thieving huge amounts of NHS money.
I think your point about healthcare spending being a black hole is valid. There's not really an upper limit on healthcare spending. It represents a societal and economic quandary.
I suspect your message will be lost in a backlash because you've labelled support for staff and patients as 'non-essential'. In the interest of keeping this reply short, I'll merely say that staff satisfaction and patient perception of care impact on healthcare outcomes.
Brilliant James.