Charity fundraising for the NHS

[Opti]

Excuse me for being a curmudgeonly f.cker ... but this 99 year old, tory-voting, old c.nt is boiling my piss. A f.cking Knighthood? The c.nt should be organising a petition for the gubmint to properly fund the NHS. It's not a f.cking charity, it's socialised medicine. People shouldn't have the choice to put their hands in their pockets to hand out loose change (with their name attached, so they can show how generous they are), it should be taken at source, by a progressive tax regime with no loopholes.

Sorry if anybody takes offence. Sorry, not sorry.

[Stranger Mouse]

Excuse me for being a curmudgeonly f.cker ... but this 99 year old, tory-voting, old c.nt is boiling my piss. A f.cking Knighthood? The c.nt should be organising a petition for the gubmint to properly fund the NHS. It's not a f.cking charity, it's socialised medicine. People shouldn't have the choice to put their hands in their pockets to hand out loose change (with their name attached, so they can show how generous they are), it should be taken at source, by a progressive tax regime with no loopholes.

Sorry if anybody takes offence. Sorry, not sorry.

Did he vote Tory? How do you know?

[Opti]

Dunno, read it somewhere, prolly the Express or summat. But it stuck. Not that important to the narrative tbh.

[lpm]

The amount he raised was utterly pathetic.




Compared to the £150 billion the NHS needs every year, but it was spectacular compared to the amount needed by the local Age UK social club

[dyqik]

The amount he raised was utterly pathetic.




Compared to the £150 billion the NHS needs every year, but it was spectacular compared to the amount needed by the local Age UK social club

About 3* hours of Vodaphone's or Amazon's unpaid taxes.

*Wild guess

[sTeamTraen]

Healthcare funding is morally quite difficult, though. Yes, the UK should be spending a lot more than it does on the NHS, but at the risk of sounding like Toby Young: You could spend 100% of GDP on the health service and people would still want it to do more (and would still want to help it to do so).

Tom Moore is raising money for "NHS Charities Together", which AIUI is an umbrella organisation of lots of local charities who provide services on the periphery of hospitals. For example, there are people who volunteer (independently of the current crisis) to visit people who are in hospital who wouldn't otherwise get a visit, and the charity might pay for these people's petrol money. Should the hospital's budget do that? Should the volunteers be entitled to a free lunch, or just tea and biscuits, and who in the hospital trust will administer their expense claims? In fact, shouldn't the volunteers be paid at least the national minimum wage? Or should that money go to buy another CT scanner?

And what's the alternative? Making it illegal for trusts to accept volunteers, or donations from people who have clubbed together to buy some wheelchairs, on the basis of "The government will provide all that is needed, and only the government can provide [except they won't]"? Is NHS Charities Together really just a front for the Koch brothers?

People love the NHS and want to be helpful, and it's possible to want to improve things without that constituting a libertarian attack on the whole idea of collective provision. That kind of suggestion really turns ordinary people off (enjoy your 80-seat Tory majority).

[Opti]

If that is the case, 'ordinary people' need to wake the f.ck up. Healthcare 'free at the point of delivery' should be non-negotiable. It appears we're drifting away from that.

[Trinucleus]

Excuse me for being a curmudgeonly f.cker ... but this 99 year old, tory-voting, old c.nt is boiling my piss. A f.cking Knighthood? The c.nt should be organising a petition for the gubmint to properly fund the NHS. It's not a f.cking charity, it's socialised medicine. People shouldn't have the choice to put their hands in their pockets to hand out loose change (with their name attached, so they can show how generous they are), it should be taken at source, by a progressive tax regime with no loopholes.

Sorry if anybody takes offence. Sorry, not sorry.

Agree. People are desperate to demonstrate their support for the NHS, and he's happened to catch the mood.

People said that the Lottery should give their £300m committment to the NHS, but that would be one day's budget, whereas 30,000 £10k grants to community groups can do a huge amount more good

[sTeamTraen]

If that is the case, 'ordinary people' need to wake the f.ck up. Healthcare 'free at the point of delivery' should be non-negotiable. It appears we're drifting away from that.

Yebbut then you're back to the definition of "healthcare". I don't think it's quite like that US judge's definition of p.rnography ("I know it when I see it"), and I was completely appalled to see that in some NHS hospitals now you apparently have to pay to have cataracts fixed in any sort of reasonable time, but you can always do more.

For example, in France you can get something called "Thalassotherapie". The medical system pays for what is basically a long weekend in a spa resort, because of the somewhat shakily-specified benefits of sitting in mineral-rich water for a couple of hours a day. Some people go for this every year. It's a total racket, but to a first approximation for any given punter "someone else is paying", so why not?

The WHO's definition of health is "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". That's going to be quite a challenge if people are allowed to define their own criteria, but I'm not sure we would want the government to be the ones who determine that we are currently doing just fine on our social well-being either.

[discovolante]

If that is the case, 'ordinary people' need to wake the f.ck up. Healthcare 'free at the point of delivery' should be non-negotiable. It appears we're drifting away from that.

Yebbut then you're back to the definition of "healthcare". I don't think it's quite like that US judge's definition of p.rnography ("I know it when I see it"), and I was completely appalled to see that in some NHS hospitals now you apparently have to pay to have cataracts fixed in any sort of reasonable time, but you can always do more.

For example, in France you can get something called "Thalassotherapie". The medical system pays for what is basically a long weekend in a spa resort, because of the somewhat shakily-specified benefits of sitting in mineral-rich water for a couple of hours a day. Some people go for this every year. It's a total racket, but to a first approximation for any given punter "someone else is paying", so why not?

The WHO's definition of health is "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". That's going to be quite a challenge if people are allowed to define their own criteria, but I'm not sure we would want the government to be the ones who determine that we are currently doing just fine on our social well-being either.

You're making some interesting philosophical points but they seem to be at the expense of not seeing the wood for the trees. The story is that money is being raised 'for the NHS'. Public opinion seems to be a bit divided but the media narrative is that this is a lovely heartwarming thing, without questioning whether that narrative is constructive in the long run.

Moving on a bit from that, if you ignore that then your starting point becomes 'what parts of the healthcare system should taxes pay for and what should be paid for by individuals?' rather than a baseline philosophy/vision/target/whatever of free at the point of use universal healthcare and working from there.

The above two paragraphs are two slightly separate points...

[lpm]

We've already mostly lost dentistry to private
We've already mostly lost eye tests to private
We've already mostly lost mental health to private

This old chap's fundraising has got £18,315,066.41 from 903,140 donations, as of now. Which is only £20.28 on average (and includes some corporate big money donations). This gives a general idea of the the amount people are prepared to donate to a charity-run healthcare system. Sadly, this is rather deficient compared to the amount a nation's health service actually needs - which is more like £2,028 per person a year.

Indicates that charity can deliver 1% of healthcare, somebody else needs to fund 99%.

[sTeamTraen]

You're making some interesting philosophical points but they seem to be at the expense of not seeing the wood for the trees. The story is that money is being raised 'for the NHS'. Public opinion seems to be a bit divided but the media narrative is that this is a lovely heartwarming thing, without questioning whether that narrative is constructive in the long run.

I don't expect the media to get that sort of thing right, but I would hope that we could manage that level of nuance in here. The money that this guy is raising is not going to be used to pay for nurses' overtime or PPE (and wouldn't even if he raised, say, £350 million).

I think it's possible for all of these to be true:
1. What he is doing is genuinely a lovely idea.
2. The money he raises will do some good for people.
3. Parts of the media will use this for all it's worth to distract from the huge issues of funding of the NHS.
4. Telling large swathes of people that they are dupes for considering 1 and 2 without shouting more about 3 is not necessarily going to fix 3.

[discovolante]

You're making some interesting philosophical points but they seem to be at the expense of not seeing the wood for the trees. The story is that money is being raised 'for the NHS'. Public opinion seems to be a bit divided but the media narrative is that this is a lovely heartwarming thing, without questioning whether that narrative is constructive in the long run.

I don't expect the media to get that sort of thing right, but I would hope that we could manage that level of nuance in here. The money that this guy is raising is not going to be used to pay for nurses' overtime or PPE (and wouldn't even if he raised, say, £350 million).

I think it's possible for all of these to be true:
1. What he is doing is genuinely a lovely idea.
2. The money he raises will do some good for people.
3. Parts of the media will use this for all it's worth to distract from the huge issues of funding of the NHS.
4. Telling large swathes of people that they are dupes for considering 1 and 2 without shouting more about 3 is not necessarily going to fix 3.

You've been disputing what taxation should or shouldn't pay for, though, when what appears to be happening is glossing over the point that the concept of raising charity money 'for the NHS' is a dangerous path to go down (although I'm not claiming to speak for Opti here of course). But OK. How do we fix 3?

[sTeamTraen]

You've been disputing what taxation should or shouldn't pay for, though, when what appears to be happening is glossing over the point that the concept of raising charity money 'for the NHS' is a dangerous path to go down (although I'm not claiming to speak for Opti here of course). But OK. How do we fix 3?

Well, having a Labour leader whom people will listen to would seem to be a good starting point. Having a big chunk of the Labour party not undermine that leader from day one might be useful too. I don't personally have a simple solution to the UK population's propensity to believe any old bollocks if there's a picture of an actress in a bikini on the right-hand side of the page.

[Opti]

You're making some interesting philosophical points but they seem to be at the expense of not seeing the wood for the trees. The story is that money is being raised 'for the NHS'. Public opinion seems to be a bit divided but the media narrative is that this is a lovely heartwarming thing, without questioning whether that narrative is constructive in the long run.

I don't expect the media to get that sort of thing right, but I would hope that we could manage that level of nuance in here. The money that this guy is raising is not going to be used to pay for nurses' overtime or PPE (and wouldn't even if he raised, say, £350 million).

I think it's possible for all of these to be true:
1. What he is doing is genuinely a lovely idea.
2. The money he raises will do some good for people.
3. Parts of the media will use this for all it's worth to distract from the huge issues of funding of the NHS.
4. Telling large swathes of people that they are dupes for considering 1 and 2 without shouting more about 3 is not necessarily going to fix 3.

You've been disputing what taxation should or shouldn't pay for, though, when what appears to be happening is glossing over the point that the concept of raising charity money 'for the NHS' is a dangerous path to go down (although I'm not claiming to speak for Opti here of course). But OK. How do we fix 3?

Spoken very eloquently for me disco.

My name is Opti, and I endorse this message.

[murmur]

This other curmudgeonly old f.cker is with Opti on this one.

I've been doing a lot of wondering how all this money being raised (for charideeeeeeee!) for the NHS was actually going to reach frontline services, knowing a thing or 2 about NHS budgets'n'that and the restrictions on charitable money going to those services.

I've also been wondering about how all these volunteers are being managed without detracting or distracting from usual delivery of clinical services. One of our managers got a bee in their bonnet about having volunteers, as it would look good on their CV. A loooooooong discussion started about their possible role, bearing in mind the legal restrictions under which many services operate, the need for supervision by appropriate qualified staff (my clinical time went down by around 20% every time I had a student to supervise), the increasingly specialised and technical aspects of healthcare which require properly trained and qualified professionals, record keeping issues, legal problems various and...and...

It was just not worth our while in terms of any benefits for the service.

What is needed is properly trained, qualified, experienced professionals in the proper numbers with access to all the necessary equipment in suitable amounts at the right time. All else is publicity seeking window dressing and deceives the public.

[headshot]

Yup:

[murmur]

Taken from the relevant JustGiving page for NHS Charities Together:

"Funds generated will be granted to member NHS Charities supporting the health and emotional wellbeing of those at the frontline of the NHS, so they can deliver the best care possible to coronavirus patients.

The grants will cover above and beyond what the NHS alone can provide, such as wellbeing packs, accommodation, travel, parking and volunteer expenses. Supporter the longer term mental and rehabilitation of NHS staff, volunteers, patients and carers after the pandemic is over. Supporting NHS patients to leave hospital quickly and safely and to remain or stay out of hospital."

How many folk contributing to the various fund raising efforts through this have actually read the above and how many think they are actually doing something directly for frontline services? Like sorting out some new staff? Like sorting out some more PPE? Like sorting out testing? Wellbeing packs, FFS!

[headshot]

I actually prefer the money to be used in this way.

That’s more of a charitable cause than the frontline of the NHS, which should be fully funded by the Govt.

[Cardinal Fang]

Knowing how stressed and under the cosh flatmate who works on the COVID ward at our hospital actually is, I don't begrudge if they got a wellbeing pack. She almost broke down last weekend because I gave her an easter egg. And how about wellbeing packs for patients stuck in hospital who are lonely because visitors have been banned?

Hopefully as things settle down, charitable funds will help provide counselling, because I suspect a lot of the staff working in HDU, ITU, COVID wards etc are going to end up with PTSD

CF

[lpm]

Counselling is essential - but again, this isn't for a charity to provide. This is for the employer to provide. People are doing the jobs their employer demands, in the unsafe conditions their employer has left them in, with overwork worsened by their employer. Charities and charity fundraising should never be used to let sh.t employers off the hook.

[Opti]

Counselling is essential - but again, this isn't for a charity to provide. This is for the employer to provide. People are doing the jobs their employer demands, in the unsafe conditions their employer has left them in, with overwork worsened by their employer. Charities and charity fundraising should never be used to let sh.t employers off the hook.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This. And again, this.

We need to keep our eye on the ball.

f.ck me, agreeing with lpm again

[Trinucleus]

If you want to offer a bit of sympathy he's been given the freedom of Keighley

[TAFKAsoveda]

We've already mostly lost dentistry to private
We've already mostly lost eye tests to private
We've already mostly lost mental health to private

I can see the dentistry and eye tests thing but where do you get the losing mental health to “private” from?

[Iron Magpie]

Counselling is essential - but again, this isn't for a charity to provide. This is for the employer to provide. People are doing the jobs their employer demands, in the unsafe conditions their employer has left them in, with overwork worsened by their employer. Charities and charity fundraising should never be used to let sh.t employers off the hook.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This. And again, this.

We need to keep our eye on the ball.

f.ck me, agreeing with lpm again

I think an alien has taken over LPMs account