Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Khatru on February 11, 2016, 03:17:20 PM
-
So now the government have imposed new contracts on all junior doctors giving them little choice but to take it or leave it.
Seems to me that a failing NHS is just what the government want. Then they can break it down and sell it off cheaply to their Tory pals. A perfectly good public service, defunded, with de-moralised staff and sold at a knock-down price to the Tories old school pals.
Let them run it down and endanger public health while they cream off millions in profits.
When it starts to fall apart they can always appoint an investigatory committee who will report back denying liability and blaming the victims.
Finally, they can always go back to the government asking for public money to bail them out.
-
We had a lot of this before under Thatcher but the NHS survived in spite of her. I worked in the NHS for years and remember how glad everyone was, even those who were not politically inclined, when she went - and the NHS improved drastically in a very short while. Same with home care for sick and disabled people.
I do not understand the Tory attitude towards the NHS, they would all be glad enough to be treated in A&E if necessary.
-
We had a lot of this before under Thatcher but the NHS survived in spite of her. I worked in the NHS for years and remember how glad everyone was, even those who were not politically inclined, when she went - and the NHS improved drastically in a very short while. Same with home care for sick and disabled people.
I think your memory is flawed. Thatcher didn't do anything much to the NHS except increase its funding in real terms every year she was in office.
-
Stunned at Labour being unable to make anything of this, even with the splits in the party this should be easy.
-
So now the government have imposed new contracts on all junior doctors giving them little choice but to take it or leave it.
Seems to me that a failing NHS is just what the government want. Then they can break it down and sell it off cheaply to their Tory pals. A perfectly good public service, defunded, with de-moralised staff and sold at a knock-down price to the Tories old school pals.
Let them run it down and endanger public health while they cream off millions in profits.
When it starts to fall apart they can always appoint an investigatory committee who will report back denying liability and blaming the victims.
Finally, they can always go back to the government asking for public money to bail them out.
So, do you agree with the Tory belief in the necessity for a 7-day, rather than a 5-day service, Khat? Can't say that I've ever heard the idea from Labour and other left-wing parties.
-
Stunned at Labour being unable to make anything of this, even with the splits in the party this should be easy.
They can't make anything of it because thay haven't even caught up with the underlying reason for the new contracts - a 7-day NHS service.
-
So, do you agree with the Tory belief in the necessity for a 7-day, rather than a 5-day service, Khat? Can't say that I've ever heard the idea from Labour and other left-wing parties.
It is a 7 day service. Hunt had either spent a lot of time touting lies about what happens at weekends or been unable to understand stats and the whole issue of cause and effect. It's a smokescreen built on rafts floated in oceans of pish
-
They can't make anything of it because thay haven't even caught up with the underlying reason for the new contracts - a 7-day NHS service.
Which already happens. The new contracts do nothing to change the actual hours worked.
-
I would like a secularist to explain why it is the more secular British society gets, the more we get toward ''Blessed are the rich?''
Also why does the libertarian tendency have a big shoe in in the British Humanist Association? I speak here of the right winger Matt Ridley who often preaches on the BHA website?
-
I would like a secularist to explain why it is the more secular British society gets, the more we get toward ''Blessed are the rich?''
Leaving aside your habitual and seemingly irremediable misunderstanding of secularism, you seem to be forgetting that we have a Tory government and had a Tory-led coalition for years before that.
-
I'm amazed how anyone of working class vould ever vote for a neo-lib party. I just don't get it. Neo-libs work against the interests of the working class.
-
Leaving aside your habitual and seemingly irremediable misunderstanding of secularism, you seem to be forgetting that we have a Tory government and had a Tory-led coalition for years before that.
yes but come on, you all argue that a secular society is better but the more secular we get, the less rights we seem to get, the more insecure we get, the less money we get, the less healthcare we get, etc, etc,
We had Tory governments after the war and it was less as it is.
-
So, do you agree with the Tory belief in the necessity for a 7-day, rather than a 5-day service, Khat? Can't say that I've ever heard the idea from Labour and other left-wing parties.
Actually, it already is a seven-day service.
The Tories just want more for less.
-
I'm amazed how anyone of working class vould ever vote for a neo-lib party. I just don't get it. Neo-libs work against the interests of the working class.
You think rationalism is overrated. :)
-
Dearest me,
What's all the fuss about, the NHS is not the big story the EU is, in or out, in our out, concentrate, no don't look at the NHS, who cares about foodbanks, your eyes are becoming heavy, forget about the NHS, you are feeling sleepy, the country is fine, sleeeeeep, when I snap my fingers you will wake up and forget about NHS, Mr Cameron the master of smoke and mirrors is in charge, he will rescue the country.
Gonnagle.
-
So, do you agree with the Tory belief in the necessity for a 7-day, rather than a 5-day service, Khat?
Have you ever been in a hospital at the weekend? I can assure you that they are very much open for business.
Can't say that I've ever heard the idea from Labour and other left-wing parties.
Because Jeremy Hunt's idea is stupid.
-
Stunned at Labour being unable to make anything of this, even with the splits in the party this should be easy.
Half the Labour party are busy contemplating their navels and planing their nuclear-free fantasy-land, while the rest are covering their heads and wondering when the nightmare will end.
-
So now the government have imposed new contracts on all junior doctors giving them little choice but to take it or leave it.
Seems to me that a failing NHS is just what the government want. Then they can break it down and sell it off cheaply to their Tory pals. A perfectly good public service, defunded, with de-moralised staff and sold at a knock-down price to the Tories old school pals.
Let them run it down and endanger public health while they cream off millions in profits.
When it starts to fall apart they can always appoint an investigatory committee who will report back denying liability and blaming the victims.
Finally, they can always go back to the government asking for public money to bail them out.
Whilst I disagree with the way the Tories have handled this ranting producing hysterical scaremongering nonsense is counter productive.
-
Whilst I disagree with the way the Tories have handled this ranting producing hysterical scaremongering nonsense is counter productive.
Only because the Tories like pissing people off, particularly if they care about something.
-
The Health and Social Care Act was the start of the end of the NHS and TTIP will allow all those American medical firms to pile in. This attack on the junior doctors is just part of all this.
-
So now the government have imposed new contracts on all junior doctors giving them little choice but to take it or leave it.
Seems to me that a failing NHS is just what the government want. Then they can break it down and sell it off cheaply to their Tory pals. A perfectly good public service, defunded, with de-moralised staff and sold at a knock-down price to the Tories old school pals.
Let them run it down and endanger public health while they cream off millions in profits.
When it starts to fall apart they can always appoint an investigatory committee who will report back denying liability and blaming the victims.
Finally, they can always go back to the government asking for public money to bail them out.
My take on the issue is that we are happily allowing people to live longer and longer, suffering from ever more serious, and therefore expensive health conditions, and the Health Service is being transformed from within compared to what it was originally set up as.
-
Only because the Tories like pissing people off, particularly if they care about something.
The Tories like 'pissing people off' so much that they have been taken part in discussions with the various parties involved for over 2 years. There has been dramatic movement from both sides of the discussion, yet the BMA suddenly stop the talks. That seems to me to be a 6 of one, and half a dozen of the other situation.
-
So now the government have imposed new contracts on all junior doctors giving them little choice but to take it or leave it.
Seems to me that a failing NHS is just what the government want. Then they can break it down and sell it off cheaply to their Tory pals. A perfectly good public service, defunded, with de-moralised staff and sold at a knock-down price to the Tories old school pals.
Let them run it down and endanger public health while they cream off millions in profits.
When it starts to fall apart they can always appoint an investigatory committee who will report back denying liability and blaming the victims.
Finally, they can always go back to the government asking for public money to bail them out.
PRIVATISATION
That is what it is all about. Making those who can pay and those who can't afford medical insurance will go without.
They think we cannot see it. Some are so fogged up with the cost of health blaming the paying insurance public and not the bad management by the government.
The truth is in closing the first hospital A&E of the first NHS hospital then shutting it down permanently they think they get rid
of the health care for all. Then then introduce the insurance scam like USA. The benefits system already reflected.
The truth is that God will allow them to go far with oppressing the poor then there will be the Almighty crash when it falls down around their ears. The first action was to stop the working class in the pubs where believe it or not a lot of politics amongst working class were thrashed out. Now they want to make Britain about forking out for medical insurance to receive treatment and make it so families have to live on the street without any help. They removed the blanket if hope and support.
They have put financial hardship on the poor. Tossed out mentally ill people on the street and so closed down the way forward to look after them. BUT God will only allow it to go far before he quoshes it... GB is island is does not have over 50 states.
We are better equipped to bring our government down and it's oppression against the poor.
God helps those who caused it...
-
Hi Sass,
as long as there is a commitment for NHS treatment free at the point of delivery why would it matter who does the treatment as long as they are competent?
I might be having an operation in the near future and I couldn't give a damn whether a private company is involved or not. My greater concern is striking *doctors!
*Rude words omitted as they might need to be censored.
-
Only because the Tories like pissing people off, particularly if they care about something.
I cant debate with children sorry.
-
My take on the issue is that we are happily allowing people to live longer and longer, suffering from ever more serious, and therefore expensive health conditions, and the Health Service is being transformed from within compared to what it was originally set up as.
Everyone who has ever lived, has or will, have a fatal disease or injury, this is not going to change, its not 'more serious'. Did you mean more complex?
If so I agree, the reality is that we need to spend more and it needs to be more efficient. Also it needs to be depolitisised, currently its used as a political football by too many. The primitive childish tribalism in this thread is evidence of that.
-
PRIVATISATION
That is what it is all about. Making those who can pay and those who can't afford medical insurance will go without.
They think we cannot see it. Some are so fogged up with the cost of health blaming the paying insurance public and not the bad management by the government.
The truth is in closing the first hospital A&E of the first NHS hospital then shutting it down permanently they think they get rid
of the health care for all. Then then introduce the insurance scam like USA. The benefits system already reflected.
The truth is that God will allow them to go far with oppressing the poor then there will be the Almighty crash when it falls down around their ears. The first action was to stop the working class in the pubs where believe it or not a lot of politics amongst working class were thrashed out. Now they want to make Britain about forking out for medical insurance to receive treatment and make it so families have to live on the street without any help. They removed the blanket if hope and support.
They have put financial hardship on the poor. Tossed out mentally ill people on the street and so closed down the way forward to look after them. BUT God will only allow it to go far before he quoshes it... GB is island is does not have over 50 states.
We are better equipped to bring our government down and it's oppression against the poor.
God helps those who caused it...
Sometimes I realise why our so many of our politicians suck when we people like this in the electorate.
-
If we are to believe the news reports, all the safety issues have been resolved in the negotiations and the only stumbling block is the question of payments for Saturday working. Basically the junior doctors felt that 12% was not enough to compensate them for the loss of payments for weekend working.
In other words, the union can no longer claim that the issue is patient safety, it is just about cash for their members. Any public good-will towards the doctors is likely to run rather thin if they cause any more disruption.
-
Hi Sass,
as long as there is a commitment for NHS treatment free at the point of delivery why would it matter who does the treatment as long as they are competent?
I might be having an operation in the near future and I couldn't give a damn whether a private company is involved or not. My greater concern is striking *doctors!
*Rude words omitted as they might need to be censored.
No free treatment that was my point...
-
No free treatment that was my point...
As far as I'm aware, there are no proposals for NHS treatment fees.
-
As far as I'm aware, there are no proposals for NHS treatment fees.
Wait till there isn't an NHS and all have to pay. It is on it's way will be too late when it happens to change.
No one listens...
Look at the benefit system that has had the blanket for protection removed.
They can leave people without food, money and accommodation. Even with young children walking the street. The same in America. So what makes you think they won't leave them without medical attention. They have deliberately shut down hospitals in poorer areas so they die before they can reach medical attention. These triage nurses and medical centres are no different from those used in America for years. Shut your eyes like everyone else. Then open them when it has happened.
-
Wait till there isn't an NHS and all have to pay. It is on it's way will be too late when it happens to change.
No one listens...
Look at the benefit system that has had the blanket for protection removed.
They can leave people without food, money and accommodation. Even with young children walking the street. The same in America. So what makes you think they won't leave them without medical attention. They have deliberately shut down hospitals in poorer areas so they die before they can reach medical attention. These triage nurses and medical centres are no different from those used in America for years. Shut your eyes like everyone else. Then open them when it has happened.
Personally, I think that the greatest threat to the NHS is that costs could spiral out of control to a point where it is totally unsustainable, and if that happened it really would be the end of the NHS as we know it.
-
Hi Sass,
as long as there is a commitment for NHS treatment free at the point of delivery why would it matter who does the treatment as long as they are competent?
I might be having an operation in the near future and I couldn't give a damn whether a private company is involved or not. My greater concern is striking *doctors!
*Rude words omitted as they might need to be censored.
A big IF in there. And that's the thing there is no guarantees of this free at the point of delivery in the long run....and as for competency, companies are about making profits not providing good health cover and so it will decline over time; and then there will be 2nd class and 3rd class services and then those who can't afford the premiums and so left off the radar. Not in our time but will be for generations to come.
-
A big IF in there. And that's the thing there is no guarantees of this free at the point of delivery in the long run....and as for competency, companies are about making profits not providing good health cover and so it will decline over time; and then there will be 2nd class and 3rd class services and then those who can't afford the premiums and so left off the radar. Not in our time but will be for generations to come.
Couldn't agree more.
For anyone still advocating privatisation of the NHS the facts are simple.
Give the NHS a pound to spend and that's a pound spent on the NHS.
Give a company a pound to spend on Health care and some of that has to be kept as profit.
It's a no brainer.
-
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16
For info. worth a read for anybody who thinks our health system isn't cost effective.
-
Personally, I think that the greatest threat to the NHS is that costs could spiral out of control to a point where it is totally unsustainable, and if that happened it really would be the end of the NHS as we know it.
COSTS... well isn't that why so many immigrants are being allowed in? The very excuse to say the NHS is overwhelmed.
Then what happens? Do you not think the Government gets enough of the persons hard earned pound.
Add it up. Income tax at source of earnings. Tax on food and everything that you purchase. How much does the Government get of every pound you earn.
-
Couldn't agree more.
For anyone still advocating privatisation of the NHS the facts are simple.
Give the NHS a pound to spend and that's a pound spent on the NHS.
Give a company a pound to spend on Health care and some of that has to be kept as profit.
It's a no brainer.
Who is advocating privatising the NHS?
-
Who is advocating privatising the NHS?
Like everything else services are contracted out.
-
Like everything else services are contracted out.
A process that was strongly encouraged by Blair's Tory Party - oh, sorry, Blair was Labour, wasn't he ;)
-
A process that was strongly encouraged by Blair's Tory Party - oh, sorry, Blair was Labour, wasn't he ;)
No - he masqueraded as Labour. You were right the first time.
-
Like everything else services are contracted out.
So you want nationalise GPs, opticians, dentists, some cleaners?
I'd prefer to have the free at point of use service provided by the most efficient method and base that decision on evidence.
-
No - he masqueraded as Labour. You were right the first time.
Don't tell him and the rest of the electorate who supported him by voting Labour, that ;) Mind you, I think that Cameron could be regarded as doing the equivalent, in the way that he has taken up many traditionally Labour social stances.
-
So you want nationalise GPs, opticians, dentists, some cleaners?
I'd prefer to have the free at point of use service provided by the most efficient method and base that decision on evidence.
Jak
Explain to me how giving a public sector person a pound to spend on the NHS is less efficient than first taking some of that pound to find someone to spend what's left and when that someone is found they have to take some out for a bit of profit.
-
Don't tell him and the rest of the electorate who supported him by voting Labour, that ;)
Pretty sure he knows and knew long ago.
-
A big IF in there. And that's the thing there is no guarantees of this free at the point of delivery in the long run....and as for competency, companies are about making profits not providing good health cover and so it will decline over time; and then there will be 2nd class and 3rd class services and then those who can't afford the premiums and so left off the radar. Not in our time but will be for generations to come.
I would say that the first government to suggest ending treatment free at the point of delivery would face massive opposition from across the political spectrum.
Private companies are quite capable of delivering all kinds of services at good value and still make a profit. There is absolutely no reason why private companies should be excluded from NHS work on dogmatic grounds. Obviously some companies are better than others and contracts need careful management, but there is also exceedingly bad practice within the NHS itself that needs 'weeding out'.
A few years ago a friend of mine did some part-time work at the local hospital to top-up his pension. Having run his own company in the past he was appalled by what he saw. Operations were being cancelled because no one had autoclaved the instruments or cleaned the theatres properly!
-
Jak
Explain to me how giving a public sector person a pound to spend on the NHS is less efficient than first taking some of that pound to find someone to spend what's left and when that someone is found they have to take some out for a bit of profit.
Efficiency, my sister works for the NHS and some parts of it are grossly inefficient due to it being run by the government.
Could you answer my question please.
-
I would say that the first government to suggest ending treatment free at the point of delivery would face massive opposition from across the political spectrum.
Private companies are quite capable of delivering all kinds of services at good value and still make a profit. There is absolutely no reason why private companies should be excluded from NHS work on dogmatic grounds. Obviously some companies are better than others and contracts need careful management, but there is also exceedingly bad practice within the NHS itself that needs 'weeding out'.
A few years ago a friend of mine did some part-time work at the local hospital to top-up his pension. Having run his own company in the past he was appalled by what he saw. Operations were being cancelled because no one had autoclaved the instruments or cleaned the theatres properly!
But hang on contracting out of services requires careful management of those who will then have to carefully. How can two tiers of careful management be more efficient than one?
-
I would say that the first government to suggest ending treatment free at the point of delivery would face massive opposition from across the political spectrum.
Private companies are quite capable of delivering all kinds of services at good value and still make a profit. There is absolutely no reason why private companies should be excluded from NHS work on dogmatic grounds. Obviously some companies are better than others and contracts need careful management, but there is also exceedingly bad practice within the NHS itself that needs 'weeding out'.
A few years ago a friend of mine did some part-time work at the local hospital to top-up his pension. Having run his own company in the past he was appalled by what he saw. Operations were being cancelled because no one had autoclaved the instruments or cleaned the theatres properly!
Let's look at education...the model for everything these days.
Overriding everything at the moment is the fact that there is a teacher shortage in a sector which has little or no incentive for people to come into it. A quarter of those trained do not stay in the profession for more than a few years. It is a sector where experience does not count due to government regularly ripping up the rule book and making it very easy to get rid of Old dogs who can't or refuse to learn new tricks.
Worse is internal competition between LEA and academy chains and between academy chains, a post code lottery in education and after 25 years of a sacred inspection system failure is still or more rife than in 1990.
Academy chains are becoming more like local authorities but without the ability for joined up planning with other services making a mockery of local management.
The big problem is that it has the worst of all worlds.
The unneccesity of contracting out.
Public servants giving out money to private contractors.
Your dilemma is this. If public servants cannot doctrinally be trusted to manage services why can they be trusted to contract them out?
It seems to me that private health had it's shout last century up to 1945 and never made a very good fist of it. Why should it work now?
-
But hang on contracting out of services requires careful management of those who will then have to carefully. How can two tiers of careful management be more efficient than one?
Hello can you answer my question please?
So you want nationalise GPs, opticians, dentists, some cleaners?
-
Hello can you answer my question please?
So you want nationalise GPs, opticians, dentists, some cleaners?
I think in times of austerity standardisation and nationalisation as you refer to it make more sense.
-
But hang on contracting out of services requires careful management of those who will then have to carefully. How can two tiers of careful management be more efficient than one?
I don't quite see your point Hugh. Obviously if you are giving contracts to companies you need the legal people to see that the contracts are fair and you need a monitoring process to see that the contractors are meeting their commitments, but if you employ your own workforce you need a HR team and an extra layer of management to do much the same for your own labour force.
-
Let's look at education...the model for everything these days.
Overriding everything at the moment is the fact that there is a teacher shortage in a sector which has little or no incentive for people to come into it. A quarter of those trained do not stay in the profession for more than a few years. It is a sector where experience does not count due to government regularly ripping up the rule book and making it very easy to get rid of Old dogs who can't or refuse to learn new tricks.
Worse is internal competition between LEA and academy chains and between academy chains, a post code lottery in education and after 25 years of a sacred inspection system failure is still or more rife than in 1990.
Academy chains are becoming more like local authorities but without the ability for joined up planning with other services making a mockery of local management.
The big problem is that it has the worst of all worlds.
The unneccesity of contracting out.
Public servants giving out money to private contractors.
Your dilemma is this. If public servants cannot doctrinally be trusted to manage services why can they be trusted to contract them out?
It seems to me that private health had it's shout last century up to 1945 and never made a very good fist of it. Why should it work now?
Most of the problems you describe are in the state education sector, which as far as I'm aware does not contracts services to any large extent.
I'd agree that in the past public servants have shown that they cannot be trusted to manage services properly. Maybe this is the area that we really ought to be focusing on!
-
Efficiency, my sister works for the NHS and some parts of it are grossly inefficient due to it being run by the government.
Here in South Wales, the local Health Board recently moved its main offices from one block of offices to another (neither being within the context of a health provision centre - hospital,clinic, etc.)Whilst they were only moving 2 and a bit miles, all the office equipment was discarded and new brought into the new offices. There were office chairs, office desks, packs of paper and other equipment - still in their original wrappings simply being skipped.
Are we suggesting that this was a result of government - be that Westminster or Cardiff Bay?
-
I don't quite see your point Hugh. Obviously if you are giving contracts to companies you need the legal people to see that the contracts are fair and you need a monitoring process to see that the contractors are meeting their commitments, but if you employ your own workforce you need a HR team and an extra layer of management to do much the same for your own labour force.
Hang on
privatisation involves costs in.
Selection of contract,
selection of legal team,
monitoring of contract,
monitoring of legal team,
profits for legal team,
profits for contractor.
Nationalised industry involves
monitoring of workforce,
workforce.
In terms of nationalised service there are 2 problems as far as I can see. Loss through
careless procurement and productivity. But these are also issues for big private organisations.
-
Here in South Wales, the local Health Board recently moved its main offices from one block of offices to another (neither being within the context of a health provision centre - hospital,clinic, etc.)Whilst they were only moving 2 and a bit miles, all the office equipment was discarded and new brought into the new offices. There were office chairs, office desks, packs of paper and other equipment - still in their original wrappings simply being skipped.
Are we suggesting that this was a result of government - be that Westminster or Cardiff Bay?
Heads should roll.
-
Here in South Wales, the local Health Board recently moved its main offices from one block of offices to another (neither being within the context of a health provision centre - hospital,clinic, etc.)Whilst they were only moving 2 and a bit miles, all the office equipment was discarded and new brought into the new offices. There were office chairs, office desks, packs of paper and other equipment - still in their original wrappings simply being skipped.
Are we suggesting that this was a result of government - be that Westminster or Cardiff Bay?
Would this have happened if property management operated across the public sector so that a desk can be put in a hospital or school or fire station.
After all surely that is the meaning of austerity isn't it.
-
Hang on
privatisation involves costs in.
Selection of contract,
selection of legal team,
monitoring of contract,
monitoring of legal team,
profits for legal team,
profits for contractor.
Nationalised industry involves
monitoring of workforce,
workforce.
In terms of nationalised service there are 2 problems as far as I can see. Loss through
careless procurement and productivity. But these are also issues for big private organisations.
I'm sorry I don't buy that at all Hugh. You seem to be arguing that public servants can't be trusted to organise contractors but they can be trusted to run the entire show themselves :)
There are a whole lot of problems inherent to nationalised industries, not least the tendency for politicians (of all shades) to stick their oar in.
-
Efficiency, my sister works for the NHS and some parts of it are grossly inefficient due to it being run by the government.
The problem is that a private company could make the NHS very efficient simply by giving everybody a box of ibuprofen and sending them home. A service that is run by a for profit company is always under financial pressure. In many areas, I would argue that is a good thing, but when one's family and friends' health is on the line, I'm not so sure.
-
I think in times of austerity standardisation and nationalisation as you refer to it make more sense.
As far as I'm aware no major political party advocates for this position so until you get more mainstream support for your ideas we don't need to seriously consider this.
-
The problem is that a private company could make the NHS very efficient simply by giving everybody a box of ibuprofen and sending them home. A service that is run by a for profit company is always under financial pressure. In many areas, I would argue that is a good thing, but when one's family and friends' health is on the line, I'm not so sure.
Any service that you offer is limited by the resources at its disposable and the demand the service is faced with.
I'm not suggesting that all NHS services should be privatised just that they should be considered.
In fact last figure I heard was that 40% of current NHS services are provided by the private sector anyway.
-
Any service that you offer is limited by the resources at its disposable and the demand the service is faced with.
With a private company, there is a third limiting factor: profit. A private company's first duty is to its shareholders. One would like to think that the NHS's first priority is to its patients.
I'm not suggesting that all NHS services should be privatised just that they should be considered.
I agree. I would not advocate a blanket ideological policy for the NHS. There are plenty of areas where private enterprise can help e.g. in many of the ancillary services.
-
I think one problem with selling various services to Virgin Care, and so on, is that the Cinderella services, such as geriatrics, mental health, long-term illness, are probably too complex to make a profit from. So the private companies will want quick and easy treatments, from which they can make money.
This would be OK, if the other difficult stuff got equal amounts of money. Well, it might, but there is the suspicion that they will be neglected more and more.
So you end up with a 3-tier system - private health; private, within the NHS; and pure NHS, the latter being the equivalent of slum houses.
-
I think one problem with selling various services to Virgin Care, and so on, is that the Cinderella services, such as geriatrics, mental health, long-term illness, are probably too complex to make a profit from. So the private companies will want quick and easy treatments, from which they can make money.
This would be OK, if the other difficult stuff got equal amounts of money. Well, it might, but there is the suspicion that they will be neglected more and more.
So you end up with a 3-tier system - private health; private, within the NHS; and pure NHS, the latter being the equivalent of slum houses.
Well you could turn that argument round. Why not let private companies clear the straightforward cases. That takes an enormous burden off the NHS allowing the in-house teams to concentrate on the more difficult cases.
-
With a private company, there is a third limiting factor: profit. A private company's first duty is to its shareholders. One would like to think that the NHS's first priority is to its patients.
The politicians sign the cheques and the NHS is used a political football.
I agree. I would not advocate a blanket ideological policy for the NHS. There are plenty of areas where private enterprise can help e.g. in many of the ancillary services.
As I said last time I heard that 40% of front line services are provided by the private sector. GPs, Chemists, Dentists, Opticians are all largely in the private sector.
-
So you end up with a 3-tier system - private health; private, within the NHS; and pure NHS, the latter being the equivalent of slum houses.
That is what we have now and the pure NHS isn't 'the equivalent of slum houses', you are refuted.
I do wish people would not try to score political points at the expense of effective healthcare.
-
That is what we have now and the pure NHS isn't 'the equivalent of slum houses', you are refuted.
I do wish people would not try to score political points at the expense of effective healthcare.
Well, geriatrics, mental health and long-term illnesses are becoming the Cinderellas of the NHS. For example, the report today shows that most people with mental health problems receive very little treatment. Of course, Cameron will use plenty of rhetoric about changing this, but I doubt it. And Virgin Care are probably not interested, no profit.
-
The Priory Group do very nicely out of MH care, including out of the NHS - they provide beds for patients who need admitting and for whom no NHS bed can be found.
-
The Priory Group do very nicely out of MH care, including out of the NHS - they provide beds for patients who need admitting and for whom no NHS bed can be found.
There was a guy on TV whose son was very depressed, and he was given a strip of tablets and a couple of web-sites, at a surgery. He went off and killed himself. But I think all governments have neglected mental health, plus other areas of health. Blair actually began the process of selling services to private firms.
-
The Priory Group do very nicely out of MH care, including out of the NHS - they provide beds for patients who need admitting and for whom no NHS bed can be found.
They can do that only because the NHS has failed to provide those beds but it does give an indication of the problem. The NHS is an unmanageable monster. There are some areas that give world-class treatment and others that give third-world treatment. It's not surprising that successive governments have attempted major reorganisations because the overall structure is a mess and simply throwing money at the problem will not make things better.
Private companies are one way of taking some of the burden off the system and IF managed properly, could potentially shorten waiting times and reduce costs
-
Well, geriatrics, mental health and long-term illnesses are becoming the Cinderellas of the NHS. For example, the report today shows that most people with mental health problems receive very little treatment. Of course, Cameron will use plenty of rhetoric about changing this, but I doubt it. And Virgin Care are probably not interested, no profit.
I agree mental health has been neglected, don't see how that supports your claim.
The vast majority of NHS care I have consumed over the last ten years has been provided by the private sector, Boots the Chemist, Specsavers, my local GP & Dentist.
You think these would be more effective nationalised?
-
There was a guy on TV whose son was very depressed, and he was given a strip of tablets and a couple of web-sites, at a surgery. He went off and killed himself. But I think all governments have neglected mental health, plus other areas of health. Blair actually began the process of selling services to private firms.
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Not enough GPs are experienced or qualified enough in MH generally to be left to decide who needs acute care and who doesn't.
-
I agree mental health has been neglected, don't see how that supports your claim.
The vast majority of NHS care I have consumed over the last ten years has been provided by the private sector, Boots the Chemist, Specsavers, my local GP & Dentist.
You think these would be more effective nationalised?
My wife used to work in mental health and she does not believe that the problem is purely money. While patient support groups were being cut, management was increasing and doing very nicely for themselves. (these were caring NHS staff not the evil private sector)
-
I agree mental health has been neglected, don't see how that supports your claim.
The vast majority of NHS care I have consumed over the last ten years has been provided by the private sector, Boots the Chemist, Specsavers, my local GP & Dentist.
You think these would be more effective nationalised?
Well, I'm saying that health is divided into easy stuff, done by private firms, and difficult stuff, e.g. geriatrics, mental health, which private firms will usually not touch (no profit). This would be fine if money was allocated to each area equally, but in practice, the Cinderella areas are neglected, and you end up with crummy places, with low-paid staff, for old people, and mad people, and long term care. Or in fact, no places at all.
-
Well, I'm saying that health is divided into easy stuff, done by private firms, and difficult stuff, e.g. geriatrics, mental health, which private firms will usually not touch (no profit). This would be fine if money was allocated to each area equally, but in practice, the Cinderella areas are neglected, and you end up with crummy places, with low-paid staff, for old people, and mad people, and long term care. Or in fact, no places at all.
Im sure all Chemist, GPS, etc think they do easy stuff.