The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Does the general public realise what is happening with the NHS currently under Lansley's revamp? What is your perception of the reorganisation? Just another mix around and a few more managers axed?

I don't think that Joe Public realises how far these reforms are going. This is effectively the privatisation of the NHS. The end of the NHS being publically owned. It will be run by social enterprises and heavily influenced by private businesses. Does that shock you or please you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNiru...layer_embedded

This explains it succinctly...

Any comments?

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I couldn't care less who runs it ,as long as we aren't forced to pay at the door or take out private medical insurance on top of paying through taxes which we aren't so it's a good thing .The NHS as it stands is a bloated,overstaffed(in areas) tax burden that needs trimming down drastically .
GP's will get control of their budget ,can't see how they can complain really ,they will form consortium's ,hire a few accountants to manage the budget and they will be able to focus the budget where it is needed .Who knows maybe i will be able to see a doctor at my surgery when i need to instead of 7 days later when i'm no longer ill .Maybe my wife will be able get the scan on her back in 2 months instead of 18 months .At this time i think anything could be an improvement .
The NHS cannot survive in it's present form ,we need a new model for it

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

So long as it is efficient and free at point of need I don't care who runs it. The implication that having the whole thing under State ownership must necessarily be better is an ideological one and not a position I agree with.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

It isn't going to be "run" by social enterprises. It's going to be run by GPs (whom, by most accounts don't want the hassle). The definition of run is "who signs the cheques" :)

I work for the NHS, and, I don't care if its privately owned, so long as has previously been noted, its still free at point of use, and I don't need private medical insurance a la USA.

It might be a good thing for services (and I might get paid private sector salary *cough* yeah right *cough*). More competition etc, driving the costs down and efficiency up. I agree that most of the NHS is full of Management bloat that needs trimming down.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Fully agree.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

This may help.....

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

*Hat-tip to dizzythinks.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Arthur will never understand that.

You need to start with a box that says " are you Arthur" if yes "blame the Tories" if no then continue to other boxes. :)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Privatisation is the answer.

Water, Gas, Electricity, Buses and Trains prove the point, all are relatively much cheaper for the consumer now.

---takes off my blinkers and climbs back into my straight jacket. :erm:

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Aha, the Oldham Labour Club has arrived :wavey: :D

I don't know what your blinkers are for, but costs and efficiencies at all of the formerly state-controlled utilities and services you mentioned are rather healthier than they were in the 1970s.

Hands up who wants to be told they have to wait three months to get a phone line installed and then be asked to choose from a range of about three 'approved' handsets'?

Or travel by coach at a time of day when the National company tells you you can, and charges you a king's ransom for the privilege?

Thought not.

As for gas and electricity - well I shudder to think how much more we would be paying now, with global energy prices as high as they now are, yet without any competition to restrain prices in the domestic market.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Not sure think we can call it the NHS though in it's new format..

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Why? It will provide health services to the whole nation, free at point of need and paid for out of taxation. Nobody is going to have to make their own private arrangements as a result of this. The health service will be paid for by the nation and provided to the nation. It is, and will remain, a National Health Service.

Bandying the word 'privatisation' about the place is a nonsense. It is political mischief designed to drum up opposition to the reforms based on scare-tactics rather than any sort of engagement with the facts.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Or travel by train at a time of day when the Virgin rail company tells you you can, and charges you a king's ransom for the privilege? Oh wait... They do..

Assuming they aren't operating as a cartel, and are actually competing.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I just looked up & I'm sure I saw the first few cracks in the sky. Its going to come crashing down around our ears ;) Mark my words!

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I think the only way that the NHS could survive in it's present form is to raise taxes by a couple of pence .Such a huge organisation can only be efficient up to a point ,and then it has to change .The problem in my opinion has been that over the past few decades governments have simply tinkered with an existing system instead of trying to change it to a workable organisation within a budget .Private companies do it all the time ,they change business models to suit available markets and trends or they go bust ,if the NHS doesn't change to suit modern times it will go bust (metaphorically speaking)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Not even remotely similar. And, talking of Virgin, they managed to do something BR never did - run 125mph tilting trains on the west coast main line, on a radically different pricing model that allows you to go from the centre of Glasgow to the centre of London in under 4 hours, for less than £30 return.

The National Bus Company faced no competition in its pricing or timetabling. The inevitable consequences of this were timetabling that was at the convenience of the company, and pricing used as a fig leaf for its operating inefficiencies rather than dealing with them.

In the absence of evidence of that sort of criminality, that is a reasonable assumption. ;)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

What time? When I looked up tickets for next Tuesday, returning the same day, the price was £57 each way..

Compare the prices of the various energy suppliers. You'll find they don't vary much between suppliers, and almost never go down when fuel prices drop.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Without wishing to turn this into a general debate over the merits (or otherwise) of privatisation ...

As with airlines, the best intercity rail fares come to those whose travel plans are made in advance and slightly flexible. But even if you don't get the cheapest possible return price for London-Glasgow (which apparently is £25), you are still getting a cheaper, faster and more reliable service than that offered by BR.

As for the power companies, as I said, accusations of 'cartel' are accusations of criminality and require more than an apparent correlation in order to stand up.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

It has been said that Drs and Nurses are to ballot for strike action - there first ever, and about time.

These employee's are the main line people that we all go an see, and it is to show the government that enough is enough, What the coalition is doing, behind our backs is to privatise it, We already have private companies ie BUPA to have healthcare, the NHS is for everyone, trouble is it gets abuse and big time. You get everyone going there even from overseas. When l was knocked off my bike many years ago, l was sent a bill, and as l had an NHS service, it was free.

These people are worth there weight in gold and they take so much aggro, which is totally wrong.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Strange - I am sure nurses threatened to strike in 2006.....

Link

And in 2009

And in 1972

Must be a new definition of "there (sic) first ever, and about time" I hadn't come across before.....

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Drs and Nurses should go on strike, without them, where will you go.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Bupa?

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Rubbish ,who is the government selling it to ?in order to privatise the NHS someone has to buy it ,so who is it

same old rhetoric ,same old rubbish

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

..same old Labour.... :D

Do you think Arthur landed on his head when he fell off his bike? :D

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

i think it's stuck in his head going rusty

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

That's not where he talks out of, though.....;)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

:rofl:

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

If Dr and Nurses go on strike they will lose any sympathy they had. How will they feel when someone dies because of them being out on strike, In fact if they do strike as YOU say and want will you be able to stand tall knowing you supported them. ????

As usual Arthur your spouting bull excreta

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

The ONS have demonstrated that the NHS has progressively lost efficiency. To the tune of over 13% in the last decade. In other words while its funding has been doubled it has lost 26% of that benefit through becoming less efficient. This is ignoring that outside of carefully arranged statistics the evidence for improved patient outcomes is equivocal to say the least despite the huge influx of money.

I couldn't care less about who owns or runs the NHS so long as the outcomes improve.

I couldn't even care less about it being completely free at the point of delivery, many other systems with much better patient outcomes employ selective co-pay.

Being completely honest I couldn't care less about the NHS, I've no nostalgia towards our 'beloved' health service, I only care about people getting the health care they need, when they need it, at a price be it via taxation, insurance or a combination of both which is as low as possible, to the highest feasible quality.

Realistically why should I, or any other citizen, care how our healthcare may be delivered so long as it is delivered. I really don't get the fondness for the NHS, if the system were that great everyone else would be doing it, the only countries to have had similar systems in modern times have been communist ones.

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

In my case Arthur probably here.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Ignitionnet,

At your age there is probably little you care about other than things that affect you directly.

A relative of mine thought the NHS was an expensive waste of money whilst he enjoyed the trappings of a series of managing directorships.

After retirement and with the trappings of BUPA lost and seriously draconian charges for cover which even he as a millionaire twice over couldn't afford, he now has had a road to Damascus revelation and thinks the NHS is wonderful.

If your views are generated by your current circumstances it is as well to have a plan B because hero to zero is not a phenomenon purely located in the USA. Everything in life is taken for granted until it is suddenly gone and for many health can vanish quickly. I have seen far too many high flyers or purportedly high flyers crash and burn to give much longevity to their views. If you had a few million in the bank your views would be warranted but to base views on pay check to pay check is delusion especially without tangible assets.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Traduk,

No idea of your age, and unsure of the relevance of my age, I'm more than old enough and have more than enough life experience to have lost the egocentrism of youth but perhaps you'd care to re-read my post? I'll quote the relevant bits and highlight them for you.

Not caring about the NHS and not caring about public healthcare are not synonymous. Quite frankly they are quite the opposite now, clinging on to the NHS like some long lost friend is precisely what will hold healthcare back.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Twice your age + 1.

What you fail to take into account is that this country is based on elements within society being totally free at point of delivery. We do not have the structure which allows for co-pay or full pay for the services that are inherent within the system and have been since the initiation of the welfare state.

Your views generally are very right wing but as a generality talent is not rewarded in a manner that facilitates pay as you go. An example would be a surgeon on about the money you appear to earn who has left these shores for foreign parts for 2.5X UK salary. Even at highish tax rates he can co-pay for whatever is needed albeit it takes a move half way round the world to change the economic scenery.

I have used private dentistry for decades and without doubt I get the best that money can buy but it costs thousands for almost anything restorative. My choice forced by an absence of NHS facilities or even if available restricted to the bear minimum for oral health. That part of the NHS is already co-pay and beyond the basics of drill it, fill it or pull it, it costs. It is a basic and IMO poor service. It is one that I wouldn't want to see medicine follow but suspect that it will.

I latched on to your post because there was an element of "I'm alright Jack" within it as there is with a lot of your posts. What you fail to recognise over and over is that somebody has to pay and trying to ameliorate your suggestions with wishing for the best treatment at the lowest cost cannot mathematically square with any change to what exists currently on a cost basis.

Your comments which you kindly highlighted for me advocate co-pay. The government is pursuing policies in other areas (universities) on where co-pay goes. It starts low to get the ideology accepted and then to save costs on the public purse the burden falls more heavily on the user. That is in action at this time.

If the same principle gets into health everybody's future looks dire because invariably the time of greatest expense on and for an individual is when they are least able to afford it. My reference to your age is not personal but at your age insurances whether life or health are relatively low cost. As with both of those types of insurance as years progress and they become most needed they are priced according to risk and are prohibitively expensive, even for people with substantial financial backing.

I read your posts and frequently see a lack of differentiation from where this country has been to where it appears to be going. Private pensions have always been historically linked to state provision with supplementation taking place one to the other. With the movement of retirement age that model is now bent moving on towards broken. Total self provision will not occur with historic co-pay (employer\employee) relationships. Both need to be doubled with pot\s being filled at around 33% of salary per annum over a working lifetime.

In retirement it is necessary to be fairly wealthy in untouchable money in order not to be poor. Heaven help us if this lot throws medical costs into the equation.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I entirely take it into account and disregard it. It doesn't work anymore and needs to be disregarded. When it comes to my and my family's future I couldn't care less what the country is built on, I care where it is going I couldn't give a jot for nostalgia I want whatever works and offers the best prospects.

I am somewhat disconcerted that my views are apparently 'very right wing'. I entirely disagree that they are 'very right wing', I am considerably to the left of the right wing in the United States for example. If I am 'very right wing' it shows how far to the left this country has swung, and we can all see how well that's worked out for us.

I disagree that there will be an inevitable co-pay element to medical care. I would however have no problem at all with there being a co-pay element for those who are capable of paying, on condition that there is an element of give in return, my specific thoughts being a tax incentive for having private healthcare rather than the current system of regarding it as a taxable benefit if provided by an employer.

I would draw your attention to what I specifically said:

Caveats 'as possible' and 'highest feasible'. It will always be a balancing act, I'm not naive enough to think good medical care is cheap.

What is wrong with the costs of using a service being in part borne by the user? Even super socialist France operates co-pay, I don't see riots over it there?

I'm not advocating mandatory private insurance. Single payer insurance where risk is entirely socialised across all age groups needn't be inordinately expensive for the more elderly within society and, of course, I would hope no-one expects those who have reached the state retirement age to pay.

I draw your attention to this:

I apologise if I was not clear but by 'selective' I was referring to selecting subsets who are capable of paying rather than expecting those on the bread line, those who have retired and those who are unemployed to pay.

I do not understand that statement. If it means what I think it means that is because I couldn't care less where this country has been as far as social services and health care go beyond avoiding the mistakes of the past and care only about where it is going.

I cannot say this makes much more sense. Increasing the retirement age is absolutely required to offset increased life expectancy and ensure that schemes remain viable.

No-one apart from those who are genuinely on the right wing in a big way would even contemplate making retirees pay for health care. Even in the United States Medicare is present to look after them.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Only if said retiree is ill for less than 100 days...

The maximum length of stay that Medicare Part A will cover in a skilled nursing facility per ailment is 100 days. The first 20 days would be paid for in full by Medicare with the remaining 80 days requiring a co-payment (as of 2011, $141.50 per day). Many insurance companies have a provision for skilled nursing care in the policies they sell.

If a beneficiary uses some portion of their Part A benefit and then goes at least 60 days without receiving facility-based skilled services, the 100-day clock is reset and the person qualifies for a new 100-day benefit period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States

A work mates father in law is due to be kicked out of a nursing home any day...

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Just as well I wouldn't, for one moment, advocate moving to the US system.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Ignitionnet,

I have read through all your points and can see that we have the much to be expected totally different perceptions of the way forward. We are and will remain on opposing sides of the generational battles which were always going to rage between the Boomers generation and the cohorts coming through. I have forgotten the generational archetypes names but if I recall correctly your lot was never destined to be a good one:).

Had the coalition reigned in the exuberance of Cameron and co. they might have started to move the country towards the end objective of self reliance but too fast too soon will be their downfall.

The changes planned for the NHS have the potential to be devastating with potentially entire hospitals operating at the mercy of GP groups. Thousands controlled by dozens never works especially with the private sector looking for tasty pickings. What will stop the unwanted progress.... The remaining bastions of union power lie within the nerve centres of every part of government and strongly within the NHS. The TUC turnout was a pointer of what is to come because if fear can get so many up to London wait to see what real pain does.

If you had lived through the 70's\80's you would see the writing on the walls. This debacle (recession) is shaping up to be potentially much worse than back then but thanks to the too fast too soon coalition the heat under the pressure cooker is turned up high already. After the May 5 elections with the Liberals possibly reeling from a mauling, expect the beginnings of the noises that lead to action.

This lot do not have a hope of going full term nor I expect will the lot who follow them. I think that we will go through years of musical chairs in Westminster until somebody emerges with problem solving skills rather than an ideological agenda. Even Thatcher at her most powerful over stepped the mark but this lot have gone where no other politician dared to tread right from the get go. They have no chance.

If I was your age and without older family commitments I would be seriously looking to bid farewell to my country of birth. Sadly I cannot see a way forward so unless someone with vision and the ability to sell back to the owners what they already own like Thatcher did I would say that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place ad infinitum. As you point out frequently we have not lived within our means for decades but when you look hard at what that truly means it doesn't give much of a life to anybody.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I don't actually have any comment to make on that post. While we disagree on many points, and many specifics which we could talk back and forth over for a while, we fundamentally have the exact same concerns longer term so I'll leave your eloquent, articulate and sincere post undiscussed and thank you for a very pleasant and informative discussion.

EDIT: Post 7,777 and it was a polite one, cool.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Thank you.

You are correct about us both having similar basic concerns but with a variation on application and timing. Fortunately for both of us there is an element of quantum theory in life where from a wrong place, eventually self organising chaos finds the correct path;).

We could type on indefinitely but the same ground would just be covered in different ways. It is hard to formulate an argument against change when I know it is needed but with a preference for slower phased rate of change.

I like thought provoking discussion with a nice bit of lateral projection. I think my tendency to be too blunt came through and I might have been too personal. Apologies for that and thanks.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

in all honesty giving GP's control scares the hell out of me.

I have already seen the affect on GP's been run privately.

Examples.

0845 number to ring them up.
Extremely hard to get home visits, almost impossible in fact.
Massive variation of GP quality between different GP's my parents GP has no problem doing phone consultation, mine refuses to do it.
Some GP's dont even have permenant GP staff, they just always use temps as cheaper.
A reluctance to reffer people as it costs money.
Are we going to see GP's refuse to take patients (previously the nhs trust forced them to). So end up like the dentist situation where millions of people dont have a dentist.
Finally the tendancy to make patients see a nurse or someone else who isnt a fully trained doctor instead of a GP as not enough GP's to see all patients.

Also what parts of the NHS do people consider overstaffed? and how have they came to that conclusion. for what its worth I do feel the NHS has excessive nurses but a severe shortage of doctors.

Everytime the tories are in power they privatise something and then a few people get very rich out of it.

Ultimately once something is privatised freedom of information act requests cant be done either and they can hide behind commercial confidentiality.

My thoughts are and always will be that anything that affects someones welfare should not be run for profit or privatised.

---------- Post added at 05:36 ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 ----------

you lost me, gas is certianly not much cheaper it is much more expensive.

However people have the wrong atittude if they think cost is king for healthcare, which would you prefer.

a 85% efficient helathcare system that can succesfully treat 10million people year.
or a 60% efficient more expensive healthcare system that can treat 12 million a year.

to me its the latter very time and how do you decide if its efficient?

Some of the things labour did for the nhs are good like the waiting list times and nhs trusts, where they went wrong was giving out huge wage increases without real justification which ended up chewing up significant parts of the extra funding as well as giving away too much to GP's who incidently now do less patient care for more money.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I just can't see how healthcare could ever be profitable. There's a bottomless pit of demand for healthcare services, which is why we have waiting lists. If there's 'profit' being made then that, by definition means that someone somewhere went without treatment or insufficient treatment.

Profit and Healthcare are just incompatible. I'd rather have spending accountable to the ballot box than some distant anonymous bank manager.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Actually i think the opposite is true.Healthcare is a money spinner ,from the drug companies ,insurance companies,suppliers of machinery,everything a hospital needs to operate is a cashcow for those involved .A private hospital will always make a healthy profit ,it's the NHS hospitals that lose out because they operate within a tight budget whilst having to cope with price rises from their suppliers

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I'd rather have spending accountable to those who are paying, and an independent non-political body such as, hmm, an Office of Budgetary Responsibility say, to ensure that unrealistic amounts aren't being spend as bribes at the ballot box to the detriment of both public finances and efficiency of healthcare provision.

Not that this ever happens of course ;)

I disagree that profit and healthcare are completely incompatible. At the front line I would agree that it's a precarious relationship and healthcare will never be super profitable however profit and quality are not always on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Certainly there is profit to be made from support services. Doing things well reduces their cost to provide, splitting the difference on that saving between the health service and the provider of support means government saves and profit is made.

The ideal is, of course, that the NHS can handle everything itself as well or better than if it were reduced in size via segmentation or private companies involved. This is also not the case, the bigger the NHS gets in terms of staff and spending the less and less value it provides for that money.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

If a state-controlled system can treat 6 out of 10 terminal cancer patients for a given amount of money, and a private system can treat 9 out of 10, with the same money, but then also financially reward the people who made that efficiency possible, under which system are more people going without treatment?

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

it can be profitable quite easy. examples.

1 - pay a company you own for supplies or services and deliberatly overpay.
2 - reduce quality of service, eg. 12 hour waiting in a&e by cutting staff, stop prescribing drugs to people who get free prescriptions, drop refferal rates, sell of equipment, rent out parts of hospitals for premium use.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

You forgot one:

3 - Look after resources more carefully, understanding that your ability to make a living is directly tied to your ability to work efficiently.

The public sector is wasteful because it knows there's nobody else to do the job It doesn't have to raise its game, and it knows it. Simples. ;)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Well given NHS efficiency and value for money has dropped by 13% in the past 10 years simply restoring that not particularly spectacular level of efficiency would allow for 8% more productive use of money and 5% profit for the provider for example.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

State controlled of course.

I'm not sure how this applies to the real world. I've never heard of a health service that only treats terminal cancer patients. The NHS has fantastic efficacy compared to private healthcare providers. The USA spends about $2tn on health insurance per year whereas the uk spends about £120bn on the NHS. Calculating exchange rate and adjusting for population the Americans spend over twice the amount per person and don't get nearly as much coverage as we do here in the UK.

£4£ you can have profit, or treatment, not both. Sorry.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

If the NHS can find a way to have everyone treated for anything they need without there being a waiting time AND the need for investment in new equipment becomes redundant, I'll think it's time for profit to be made from healthcare. But then, surely it would just be better to either reduce taxation or lower spending.

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

A private hospital makes a profit because it doesn't have to provide for those who can't pay to anywhere near the extent that NHS hospitals do.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Just a point re BUPA and WPA, two of the biggest of the UK's Private Health Providers

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Looking at current private halthcare is not a meaningful comparison, as they only have a small amount of patients who can afford to pay whatever market prices they want to charge.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

What about all the corporates who provide health insurance to their employees?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupa

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

My reply was in the context of the profit motive re private hospitals.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

so healthcare can be profitable ,if your original statement about "healthcare cannot be profitable" was directed at the NHS ,then i'm sure your aware that it's not meant to make a profit ,just operate within a budget .Hospitals in the USA are mostly paid through medical insurance but even their they have a version of our NHS for those who have no insurance or cannot afford it ,that is way i think we will go .I think we will end up with a means tested NHS ,those who can afford insurance will have to take it to cover some illnesses ,possibly things like cancer, heart disease could still be covered by the NHS but lesser illness ,broken limbs or non life threatening illness could be covered by insurance .Thats just a thought not sure if it is workable or not :)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Traduk, you have been speaking from the heart, and its what l have been trying to say.

The NHS, was form to care for the sick in this country and free of charge to everyone, but over the years it has been the biggest question for every government thats been in power.

The service is in great need of a change, but it needs much of the red tape taken out of it, with all the pen pushers given the elbow, we are in great need of doctors and nurses, BUT under Tory government this is the first service that gets hit, with hospitals being shut, and patients suffering more and more.

When my poor mother was dying, she was placed in a side corridor to end her days, on a trolley as there was no beds, this is digraceful.

ALL governments that have been in power since my life began are as much to blame as each other, BUT the Tories are ripping it to bits, with its cuts.

Privatisation, will make money for only one group, The tory party, as the people who were destined to do this were Tory financial supporters, and this was actual fact in the media.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Where is this fact in the media Mr Gray?

It would be a pretty explosive revelation indeed, especially given that the changes so far mooted do not include wholesale privatisation of the NHS.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

While funding has increased Some hospitals and even Heath Authorities in some areas have had to close specific areas of health.

I was chatting to a guy at the hospital who was saying that the Hospital there no longer has a Dermatology Department and he suffers like me from Psoriasis and now he has to Travel once every 3 Months to Swansea which thats where they shipped a lot of patients to see a Dermatologist thats just unacceptable.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

When this debate was brought up, it was stated in The Mirror (it wouldn't be in The Sun as that is a Tory paper).

That there are FOUR millionaires that financially support the party, one of these millionaire happens to run a health care company - who plans to bid.

Check it out, it was there in balck and white.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

"balck and white" - about as accurate as your normal rantings.

OK, Arthur, does that mean that Labour were going to privatise everything when they accepted donations from
Richard Caring, a restaurant and night club tycoon
Roy Aldridge, former chairman of Capita
JK Rowling, the author
Lord Sainsbury (of the eponymous supermarket chain)

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

First Arthur if what a Labour supporting paper prints is true i am sure it would have been all over the press


NO

You should do what every other poster on this forum does.

find your evidence

Post a LINK to the evidence

This Arthur is called producing the EVIDENCE to backup your claim. If you are not willing to do that then how are people to know if your are spouting bull excreta or not.

And to show you how it works look at this.

I say "Japan nuclear crisis 'over in nine months"

I then LINK to the EVIDENCE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13107846

Arthur posting links to evidence is so simple a child could do it. Go on give it a try

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

There are going to be way more than four millionaires who financially support the party, just as there were way more than that that supported Labour before they deserted the sinking ship.

Where's the evidence? What do you think this health care company is bidding on? If it's NHS contracts why is this such a surprise, they are after all a health care company? Do you realise that these internal markets within the NHS were brought in by Labour? Who really gives two hoots how it's done so long as services improve and those who can't afford to pay continue to receive them for free at point of delivery?

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

If your last sentence where to become reality it opens the spectre of means testing which as far as I am aware is the way of determining ability to pay. Affordability against income\resources can easily become moving goalposts where the old "asset rich, cash poor argument is raised" .


A factor that concerns me deeply is GP's are already showing a strong tendency towards part time working and the supposed idea of job sharing females with children is obviously not the reason. Private healthcare is where many spend a lot of their time earning supplementary income that dwarfs NHS pay on a pro rata basis.

As a doctor friend told me some time ago, GP practices are turning into businesses as opposed to services with the old relationships denigrated to 10 minutes of responsibility as opposed to a lifelong commitments.

A question that needs thinking through after discounting political spin is why switch funding control from bureaucrats to GP's. Strong links already exist between the NHS and private health with many within the NHS working in both sectors. For government there could be no better place to initiate change and as the objective is save money someone pays and the GP is best placed to offer options which could involve co-pay.

In theory hospitals will have to compete for services which has the possibility of cost efficiency and improved outcomes for patients. In practice it may well be that GP's select what is in their best interests and hospitals that do not conform to the almighty budget holders go to the wall.

Hospitals are grossly inefficient simply because they are so large and have a deeply ingrained culture which defies efficiency. Many will not see their hundreds of millions of needed income materialise from GP's. The net result is likely to be the end of the NHS as we know it with what were hospitals converted into housing estates.

The era of the old Victorian mega hospitals has gone and I believe we are at the threshold of changes which herald the end of everything the Welfare state was created for. Whether it will happen depends on how long it takes the public to wake up to reality but to take a mandate to save money and morph it into the destruction of what is held as a given within society is miles from the initial brief.

As an aside... A conservative door knocking councillor told me that the Liberals are not fielding many candidates in the May elections. If true they are hiding to avoid a hiding. Indeed a clever ploy to avoid decimation but I wonder how many were happy to fall on their own sword:).

Arthur,

I do passionately believe in the NHS but have seen the folly in supporting it in the manner that is rapidly becoming the past. I am involved in the administration of a trust fund where the eventual recipient will be a hospital. Having seen the bull dozing of so many hospitals with wards, equipment etc donated in memory of XXX, I intend to, given the opportunity to invoke a clause in the trust which alters the destiny of the funds. If the well intentioned relative was still alive, he would be appalled and wouldn't want his legacy ending up in a skip along with the NHS he knew.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I really wish Arthur would join a debate instead of just popping up with unsubstantiated claims that amount to nothing more than the rantings of lunatic.

@Arthur ,if you are going to make claims on a subject then at least have the decency to back them up and argue your point .The whole point of a debate is to hear different viewpoints ,for people to defend theirs and rebut others ,not to insert a unsubstantiated claim and then bugger off leaving people wondering what the hell you are talking about

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Well said :clap:

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

I'm having genuine difficulty deciding whether you completely missed the point or are deliberately refusing to engage with it. Let's have another go.

If one model treats 60% of those that need it, and the other treats 90%, with money left to financially reward those that made it so efficient, do you seriously contend that the system that fails to treat 40% of those in need is better than the one that fails 10%, simply because in the former system there is no profit incentive?

This is the only way I can rationalize the position you're apparently wedded to. It's not one we're ever going to agree on as you appear to want to put your ideology ahead of making a pragmatic choice to work more efficiently.

Nice try re: the straw bogeyman of the US health system by the way; I never mentioned, nor advocated that system as being one to import into the UK, therefore in the context of this discussion there's little point in you wasting your time constructing arguments against it.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

obviously treating more for less cost is better, the problem is that its all theory.

What would put me at ease is 2 things.

1 - if this was trialled first, dont do it nationwide but pick a few areas first to try it out.
2 - if there was a way out if it doesnt work out, usually if something is sold off aka privatised there is no easy way back as then someone legally has took ownership, this is about offloading the management of the nhs to GP's who in turn are likely to outsouce a degree of stuff to private companies as well as the fact typically GP's themselves are part of private business already. If this can be reversed if it doesnt work then thats not so bad either.
also of course accountability, how accountable will this new setup be eg. will FOI requests still work.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Never understood how the NHS is so inefficient as far as money goes, but, having worked in a fairly large hospital in the I.T department, I saw massive waste on a day to day basis, so it didn't surprise me, but it did anger me.

There was never any real care about money being wasted, nor any real effort to save money.

Example being, all computing related purchases had to go through the I.T department

They would put in an order for a computer or peripheral through us, we'd order it, it'd arrive, then we'd install it

We'd never query why they'd need a computer with a dvd/cd rom, or sound card (all extras at that time), or if they needed a colour printer, we'd just order it

If they had an old computer that they wanted replacing, we'd take said computer away, install the new one and keep the old one (even if it was fully operational) in a store room.

Those computers would then stay in the store room and never be reissued, if a department needed another computer, we would tell them no, we don't carry any spares (Despite the fact the store room had over 250 computers) and they'd have to order a new one.

Taking into account the two sites i worked at, had probably excess of 1500 computer users, you can imagine just how much waste took place.

Another bizarre example is the ordering process for supplies, if a department ran out, or was running low, on say.....pens, they'd raise an order (called an SD7), which would cost the department/taxpayer £20, then whatever they wanted on top.

So a large pack of pens might only cost £5, but then you'd add that to the order cost, so it ended up costing the department £25.

Never understood that

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

The NHS is inefficient compared to what ? ... Americans spend over twice that of the British on healthcare and still have less access to treatment than we do.

I think there comes a point where people have to stop obeying the rules and just do what makes sense. The bureaucracy needed to be material resource efficient would be prohibitively complex. The law of diminished returns applies to regulation as much as anything else.


---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:45 ----------

I'm being ideological? ... I'm not the one making 'if' arguments. Why hand out financial rewards when there's still 10% that need treatment? my referencing the US healthcare system isn't a strawman at all, you're advocating a for profit healthcare system so I referred to one that actually exists, not the one you created in your 'if' fantasy, you know, the one where you considered the last 10% of untreated patients less important than a cash reward.

---------- Post added 21-04-2011 at 00:02 ---------- Previous post was 20-04-2011 at 23:47 ----------

Yes, healthcare can be profitable if it refuses to treat those in need. If you're referring to Medicaid in the USA it only covers immediate need treatments and a hospital is only allowed to spend a limited amount. Once their limit is reached, they literally dump patients on the street. They also charge at the same rate that they charge insurance companies so treatment still has lower fiscal efficacy. Obama almost had his arse ripped out over his attempts to improve the healthcare situation in the USA.

---------- Post added at 00:13 ---------- Previous post was at 00:02 ----------

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

And yet in your world you would support a system that would allow 40% to go untreated. I find that shocking and very worrying.

Re: The end of the NHS - Privatisation
 

Some parts of the nhs need more spent on it.

There is evidence that the service feels budget squeezed by the level of care been offered.

eg. GP's refusing to come out to patients, obviously if a GP comes out to see patients then he/she cannot see so many in a given space of time so that obviously is cheaper for patients to go to the GP.

When I last was in hospital and had drops put in my eye, ideally the nurse should have put one drop in one eye first, given me 10 minutes or so to see how I reacted and then do the other eye, instead both eyes were done right after the other in a rush, even tho I was in agony right after the first eye and I was then lumped back into the waiting room whilst still in agony. That is a nurse possibly working under pressure (or just been lazy). A lack of personal attention/time given to me by medical staff. Defenitly district nurses the ones who come out to people are under financial constraints and need more help.