Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I suppose you should get awarded half a point for at least attempting to apply economic theory. Yes, companies have exclusive patents, and rightly so for innovation, however there’s a balancing act and at present it’s clearly too far biased towards big pharma which is where the collective purchasing power of the NHS is useful to offset this.
The competition you describe isn’t going to meaningfully change this for those at the bottom of the supply chain (service users). Indeed, all that would happen is cherry picking.
For the disastrous consequences on the whole check the partial privatisation of the jobcentre role to the work programme providers. Private sector companies focused on the low hanging fruit, leaving those furthest from employment aside for the public sector to pick up once the two years were up. Absolutely disastrous and the subject of a Panorama and Dispatches in the past.
|
You can't be in favour of competition and against what is referred to as "privatisation"
Link
Quote:
Spending on non-NHS providers is not a new development. Both the Blair and Brown governments used private providers to increase patient choice and competition as part of their reform programme, and additional capacity provided by the private sector played a role in improving patients’ access to hospital treatment.
...
In many cases the use of private providers to treat NHS patients reflects operational challenges within NHS providers and is a continuation of longstanding practices. Provided that patients receive care that it is timely and free at the point of use, our view is that the provider of a service is less important than the quality and efficiency of the care they deliver. The NHS can also benefit from partnerships and joint ventures with the private sector to deliver some clinical and non-clinical services.
|
You do realise there was a massive increase in NHS "privatisation" under Labour.