Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[thebigfella]

I think 30-45 minutes is reasonable to have to travel tbh.

That's nonsense, you've just pulled an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Population density is not equal across the north, so you can't guarantee everyone is 45 mins away from a service. By making that a requirement you end up with services that are under/over utilised per catchment area. Marty is right, where health is concerned (rational) people are more than willing to accept a bit of travel for a higher class of treatment.

This is why politician in the north will never do anything radical because of these sort of unrealistic expectations from voters. They'll alway role in behind populist nonsense.

[RedHand88]

Larne used to have TWO hospitals. There was a old caller on Talkback one day giving off that he has to drive to Antrim (20 mile) now.

[armaghniac]

I think 30-45 minutes is reasonable to have to travel tbh.

That's nonsense, you've just pulled an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Population density is not equal across the north, so you can't guarantee everyone is 45 mins away from a service. By making that a requirement you end up with services that are under/over utilised per catchment area. Marty is right, where health is concerned (rational) people are more than willing to accept a bit of travel for a higher class of treatment.

This is why politician in the north will never do anything radical because of these sort of unrealistic expectations from voters. They'll alway role in behind populist nonsense.

Yes, but they need to ensure that there is public transport to reach the location and that patients are not given appointments at 08:30 that they cannot reach. This type of joined up thinking does not exist.

[thebigfella]

I think 30-45 minutes is reasonable to have to travel tbh.

That's nonsense, you've just pulled an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Population density is not equal across the north, so you can't guarantee everyone is 45 mins away from a service. By making that a requirement you end up with services that are under/over utilised per catchment area. Marty is right, where health is concerned (rational) people are more than willing to accept a bit of travel for a higher class of treatment.

This is why politician in the north will never do anything radical because of these sort of unrealistic expectations from voters. They'll alway role in behind populist nonsense.

Yes, but they need to ensure that there is public transport to reach the location and that patients are not given appointments at 08:30 that they cannot reach. This type of joined up thinking does not exist.

It would cost less to provide a car to collect and drop off every patient than build/operate a hospital just because public transport is non existent.

Yes it does need joined up thinking and proper logistics planning but now you're into the realms of building out "some unsustainable public transport routes" just in case people may need to access a service. By your logic they still need to be with 30-45mins door to door, which is just not realistic on public transport.

Also trying to predict suitable appointment times based upon their location, transport requirements and service they are availing would be a logistical nightmare. It's unlikely you could easily build interconnected systems to do it due to data privacy/security concerns.

The big problem I see is trying to solve logistics problem equally for everyone at the expense of the health service quality. The person who has a bus route outside their front door which drops off at the hospital 10 mins away is different than the person with no public transport routes (or private transport option) living 1 hour away. Yet if you offer a driver service for the person that requires it, the person who is 10 mins away will expect the same regardless of their circumstances. Blah blah, I pay national insurance ect.... You can't win.

[trailer]

I think 30-45 minutes is reasonable to have to travel tbh.

That's nonsense, you've just pulled an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Population density is not equal across the north, so you can't guarantee everyone is 45 mins away from a service. By making that a requirement you end up with services that are under/over utilised per catchment area. Marty is right, where health is concerned (rational) people are more than willing to accept a bit of travel for a higher class of treatment.

This is why politician in the north will never do anything radical because of these sort of unrealistic expectations from voters. They'll alway role in behind populist nonsense.

Yes, but they need to ensure that there is public transport to reach the location and that patients are not given appointments at 08:30 that they cannot reach. This type of joined up thinking does not exist.

It would cost less to provide a car to collect and drop off every patient than build/operate a hospital just because public transport is non existent.

Yes it does need joined up thinking and proper logistics planning but now you're into the realms of building out "some unsustainable public transport routes" just in case people may need to access a service. By your logic they still need to be with 30-45mins door to door, which is just not realistic on public transport.

Also trying to predict suitable appointment times based upon their location, transport requirements and service they are availing would be a logistical nightmare. It's unlikely you could easily build interconnected systems to do it due to data privacy/security concerns.

The big problem I see is trying to solve logistics problem equally for everyone at the expense of the health service quality. The person who has a bus route outside their front door which drops off at the hospital 10 mins away is different than the person with no public transport routes (or private transport option) living 1 hour away. Yet if you offer a driver service for the person that requires it, the person who is 10 mins away will expect the same regardless of their circumstances. Blah blah, I pay national insurance ect.... You can't win.

Reality is no one is going on public transport to get chemo or a heart bypass.
If you were sick enough you wouldn't complain how far you had to go for a top class service. Thinking that the best surgeons in the UK or Ireland want to live in Enniskillen (or Craigavon heaven forbid) to provide you a top class service then you are deluded.

[armaghniac]

I think 30-45 minutes is reasonable to have to travel tbh.

That's nonsense, you've just pulled an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Population density is not equal across the north, so you can't guarantee everyone is 45 mins away from a service. By making that a requirement you end up with services that are under/over utilised per catchment area. Marty is right, where health is concerned (rational) people are more than willing to accept a bit of travel for a higher class of treatment.

This is why politician in the north will never do anything radical because of these sort of unrealistic expectations from voters. They'll alway role in behind populist nonsense.

Yes, but they need to ensure that there is public transport to reach the location and that patients are not given appointments at 08:30 that they cannot reach. This type of joined up thinking does not exist.

It would cost less to provide a car to collect and drop off every patient than build/operate a hospital just because public transport is non existent.

Yes it does need joined up thinking and proper logistics planning but now you're into the realms of building out "some unsustainable public transport routes" just in case people may need to access a service. By your logic they still need to be with 30-45mins door to door, which is just not realistic on public transport.

Also trying to predict suitable appointment times based upon their location, transport requirements and service they are availing would be a logistical nightmare. It's unlikely you could easily build interconnected systems to do it due to data privacy/security concerns.

The big problem I see is trying to solve logistics problem equally for everyone at the expense of the health service quality. The person who has a bus route outside their front door which drops off at the hospital 10 mins away is different than the person with no public transport routes (or private transport option) living 1 hour away. Yet if you offer a driver service for the person that requires it, the person who is 10 mins away will expect the same regardless of their circumstances. Blah blah, I pay national insurance ect.... You can't win.

I didn't make any statement about 40 mins etc, I merely said that you have to cater for all people in a feasible way, if that means providing them with taxis then that is an intrinsic cost and not an extra that you can cut off when it suits. At present these are seen as independent things.

As for appointment times, there is no reason why people living near the hospital and those far away could not be given different appointments, there is no data privacy involved, the hospital has your medical records and your address. That this is not done is laziness, not GDPR.

[StephenC]

Reality is no one is going on public transport to get chemo or a heart bypass.
If you were sick enough you wouldn't complain how far you had to go for a top class service. Thinking that the best surgeons in the UK or Ireland want to live in Enniskillen (or Craigavon heaven forbid) to provide you a top class service then you are deluded.

How do you think that people from Donegal get to Galway for Chemo? Someone drives them, they use public transport or they take the cancer bus.
The 'if you were sick enough ...' line is pretty crass.

[Tony Baloney]

Surely it's relatively simple for one of their many expensive computer systems to lookup the address, distance from hospital and then perform at least some rough allocation of appointments. Although that would probably take £3 billion and 15 years to configure.

[Sportacus]

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

[mrdeeds]

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

[Low and Hard]

Really clear confident public speaker now, fair play! We are getting closer in the north.

[burdizzo]

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

Thought the same. Dodged a lot of questions. I'd like to see a united Ireland, but one led by Sinn Fein? No thanks.

[mrdeeds]

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

If ever a post described itself, it is this.

Could you put a bit more meat on the bones of what you mean?

The housing for immigrants issue for one. Went way of on a tangent. Then said we'll hear what people say and decide. They're meant to put up a position and face the electorate based on that.

[trueblue1234]

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

If ever a post described itself, it is this.

Could you put a bit more meat on the bones of what you mean?

The housing for immigrants issue for one. Went way of on a tangent. Then said we'll hear what people say and decide. They're meant to put up a position and face the electorate based on that.

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

If ever a post described itself, it is this.

Could you put a bit more meat on the bones of what you mean?

The housing for immigrants issue for one. Went way of on a tangent. Then said we'll hear what people say and decide. They're meant to put up a position and face the electorate based on that.

What party doesn't take on board public opinion to some extent?

[Tubberman]

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

If ever a post described itself, it is this.

Could you put a bit more meat on the bones of what you mean?

The housing for immigrants issue for one. Went way of on a tangent. Then said we'll hear what people say and decide. They're meant to put up a position and face the electorate based on that.

Michelle on the Late Late.  When Adams and McGuinness picked her as the heir, they saw the potential. Very impressive and self assured tonight.

I like Michelle but a lot of soundbites and cliches. And usual Sinn Fein thing of sitting on fence on issues.

If ever a post described itself, it is this.

Could you put a bit more meat on the bones of what you mean?

The housing for immigrants issue for one. Went way of on a tangent. Then said we'll hear what people say and decide. They're meant to put up a position and face the electorate based on that.

What party doesn't take on board public opinion to some extent?

Surely to God the party has a position on the matter though? And surely Michelle O'Neill knows what that position is?
Kielty let her off very easily on that.