Should the NHS change

[fallen-archie]

Don't know about others but on the odd occasion I have needed to go to my local hospital I have been astonished by how busy it is. In recent years demands placed on the NHS seem to have mushroomed leaving us with a service which is failing in many areas.
I admire those who founded the concept but can we save it for future generations or is it time to return to a system where only the successful can afford treatment?

[bookhunter2007]

---

@bhgardeners wrote:

So you tell me how my son could have avoided diabetes?.  Be born to different parents?  Pity there is absolutely no history in either family of either type 1 or 2 diabetes.  

---

I have no idea of the specifics of your son. However, as a general rule for the rest of the population I think it's fair to say 3 of the 4 main causes of type 2 diabetes are avoidable, and the risk of developing it can be reduced:

The rapid rise in the number of adults developing type 2 diabetes is due to:

• increasing levels of obesity
• a lack of exercise
• increase in unhealthy diets
• an ageing population

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Diabetes-type2/Pages/Introduction.aspx

[upthecreekyetagain]

How much of the "increase" in type 2 diabetes is due to screening and better diagnosis?

[bookhunter2007]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

How much of the "increase" in type 2 diabetes is due to screening and better diagnosis?

---

No idea. But figures suggest there's still a way to go - On that last link, apparently 850,000 people in England have diabetes, but haven't been diagnosed as yet.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

How much of the "increase" in type 2 diabetes is due to screening and better diagnosis?

---

No idea. But figures suggest there's still a way to go - On that last link, apparently 850,000 people in England have diabetes, but haven't been diagnosed as yet.

---

If those 850,000 were diagnosed tomorrow then no doubt the headlines would state that the incidence of type 2 diabetes had dramatically risen and estimates of the number undiagnosed would leap based on the numbers that had been diagnosed!

[bookhunter2007]

Possibly, but there would need to be a stimulus (publicity drive, national screening campaign, diabetic Big Brother housemate) for those to get diagnosed to get a more accurate picture.  AFAIK the publicity surrounding Jade Goody's Cervical Cancer prompted many young women to be tested, and thus some cancers were detected early, raising the actual prevalence rate. I don't think this had any bearing by spiking the estimate of undiagnosed cases.

[fallen-archie]

Just watched a debate on the NHS, as another poster said the figures involved are frightening. Screening programmes increase the numbers going through the system as do GPs who now routinely demand blood and urine tests. I sense a real fear among people to advocate change despite the costs involved, but more importantly despite unnecessary treatments given to people when they have been irresponsible. I think the only way you can address those who take the service for granted is to raise NI contributions but to discount those who look after their health by living a more healthy lifestyle. The sight of fat forty something's riding mobility scooters, not because arthritis or some other medical condition has inflicted this but because they have pursued a wantonly rubbish lifestyle is becoming more commonplace.
And finally do GPs monitor properly the drugs they hand out to our ageing population or are we doomed to carrying a suitcase of tablets wherever we go in our final years?

[bankhaunter]

I think the only way you can address those who take the service for granted is to raise NI contributions but to discount those who look after their health by living a more healthy lifestyle

That would be back to the deserving and undeserving.

Who would be judging if any one person is looking after their health suffciently, what criteria would they use?

[evoman3957]

Well it certainly isn't coping at the moment and as demand increases, the problem is only going to get worse. Unless it is run on a much more sensible and logical basis, it will not survive; throwing money at it is not the answer, it would be like a sponge and will absorb any money thrown at it and still need more. Things run by the State, never seem to thrive and make money IMHO; that's why so much has been privatised over the Years and now makes a profit. For most of those, they have become "Pay as you go" when their services are required. If we want a National Health Service that's free to all, at source, then we are going to have to be prepared to fund it and run it properly......................and that would be better achieved by People who know what they are doing.......NOT Politicians.

[fallen-archie]

#43 I fear that unless there are some guidelines the situation will never be controlled. Sadly in such circumstances there will be winners and losers.
Watching a recent documentary which featured a converted car ferry used by a charity to provide hospital and other important basic healthcare provision. It's arrival in the west African state of Togo meant that the population of five million suddenly had a third medical facility! People queued patiently to be seen each of them showing signs of serious disability or illness. As one by one they were offered life saving treatment each came away displaying huge appreciation for the services provided by a group of essentially volunteers.
These days in the uk we often here stories of children with rare conditions whose parents understandably launch into a PR campaign to seek help, I believe they should get it, we have abolished many previously dangerous diseases and can perform fantastic feats of surgery but I still cannot get my head round the needs ALL A&E departments have to employ security guards, or why someone drunk as a skunk or drugged up should be entitled to a taxi home.