| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Political deception and the NHS | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 6 2015, 11:16 AM (2,171 Views) | |
| krugerman | Jan 6 2015, 11:16 AM Post #1 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
FIrst of all, the very phrase "National Health Service" has always conjoured up the idea of "National" joined up, connected, interlocking service, and one which has served the vast majority of us very well over several generations since its conception almost 70 years ago. The "Health & Social Care Act 2012" has changed everything, the future of the NHS is now one of many different providors, many of them private companies, the future is no longer as a single, connected, joined up "National" service. Deception number 1 - that the NHS will be better after the Tory reforms and mass privatization, how on earth can a splintered, fragmented NHS be better than a truly "National" health service. When the data for Winter waiting times are released for A&E departments across the country, they will show the worst performance since such records began in 2004. The lame excuses will start to come out, it is because of increased demand, it is because of unprecedented illness, its because of an aeging population, its the fault of immigrants, its because of the man in the moon, bad weather, leaves on the line. The real reason, and there is only One reason, is because of a lack of funds, or to put it in other ways, a lack of resources, cuts, not enough money. The real reason why this Winters A&E figures will be the worst on record, is because (1) people cannot get to see their GP, waiting times to see a doctor have risen, thousands of worried people dont want to wait 10 days or a fortnight to visit a GP, instead they go to A&E; (2) Doctors are under unprecedented strain, their workloads have reached breaking point, they are been asked to do more with less, treat more patients in less time for less money, more and more doctors are leaving for Australia and America. Reason number (3) the cuts elsewhere are having a knock-on effect, in particular the cuts to social care is resulting in beds been blocked because frail or vulnerable patients cannot be released, as there is no one to care for them, or insufficient care. Deception number 2 - I will cut the deficit, not the NHS The current funding of the NHS was laid out in the Spending Review of October 2010, in which the NHS was given a promised increase, or at least thats how it looked on paper, and a real terms increase is what the government want you to believe happened. So the actual real terms increase amounted to a staggering and monumental sum of 0.1%, it is an increase, but only just, and about the lowest figure that the government could get away with. But wauit a minute, lets look at the small print of the Spending Review of October 2010, the NHS Budget will contribute to the "Social Care" budget by handing over £1 Billion each year, oh dear, there goes the 0.1% increase, and as Professor John Appleby, chief economist of the King's Fund think-tank said at the time "I think this is a case of double counting". In the final years and months of the last Tory government we saw the annual "Winter Bed Crisis", with patients lying on trolleys in corridors, unacceptable waiting times - and rising, the term "Deja Vu" comes to mind, here we are again. The Health and Social Care Bill 2012 has been a broken promise, the promise of "no top down reorganisation of the NHS", it is deeply unpopular, it was unwanted by every professional body within the NHS, the general public are overwhelmingly opposed to the splintering and privatization of the NHS. Worst of all - the massive reorganisation has cost billions of pounds, money that should have gone into the front line services, into easing the presures of A&E departments which are in crisis through lack of sufficient resources. We must save the NHS - we must get rid of the Tories |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| krugerman | Jan 8 2015, 01:55 PM Post #81 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Foreign workers in the NHS is not, and has never been a short term measure We have had a sizeable proportion of foreign doctors in the NHS for 50 years, and there is no evidence, anywhere that this is going to change. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Jan 8 2015, 02:59 PM Post #82 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There's a distinct difference between a "short-term measure" (designed to act as a temporary fix to a problem) and a "short-termist measure" (designed to fix a problem as quickly as possible, with no thought of the long-term implications thereof). All The Best |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 8 2015, 03:00 PM Post #83 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes but isn't that the classic addiction behaviour? Keep taking the short term measures in ever increasing amounts? Sooner of later it all comes unravelled. if we all agree more money is needed to be spent on the NHS then where is that to come from. Hollande's disastrous make France like Cuba without the sun policy shows you cannot get much more out of the rich. Maybe we can do what those other countries do and get people to buy more of their own healthcare - and I have already suggested give incentives for that. But I come back to the only way we can get more state money of note into the NHS is to cut something else. The elephant in the room is state pensions that have long been only fractionally paid for by the contributions. Going to be a hard sell to cut the old age pension but questions like that need to be asked. Soaking the rich is not going to remotely solve the issue. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 8 2015, 04:04 PM Post #84 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Correct, though the term 'Rich' does require a more thorough definition. As I have previously remarked the amount business (from profits) contribute to the UK Treasury has dwindled to about 7% when a Century ago it was closer to 97%. Targeting the rich (wealth) should mean targeting gains wherever those gains are made ....... and not just individuals. A consequence of lower corporation taxes is that business does not see increasing its wage bill as a means of reducing its tax liabilities ....... there are more lucrative evasive (and avoidance) methods available to them. imo Insurance schemes are not cost effective. How can they be when these start from the premise that a profit must be made? One reason why the NHS has been regarded as most efficient is because those it is compared to do have a larger reliance on Private Insurance participation. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 9 2015, 12:32 AM Post #85 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tax business profits more and the business investment and the businesses themselves will go elsewhere along with the jobs Affa. Net profits after tax are already very thin in the UK. You'd do better to tax turnover and that's what VAT does, so bump it up. Still won't bail out the NHS enough to keep anything like everyone happy |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 9 2015, 12:55 AM Post #86 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9274753/Up-to-1000-new-doctors-could-face-unemployment.html It would seem, that as per usual, the playing field is not level. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 9 2015, 11:20 AM Post #87 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know the propaganda, know that the entire Conservative ethic is based on it, and it is BS. Cutting Corporation taxes has not led to a boost in new business, and past increases didn't cause an exodus - business is here because here is where the Market is. The Tories are full of these business friendly ideas - like lower taxes produce more tax revenue. I give you credit for more sense. The declared profits are of course the audited account, the ones presented by expensive accountants skilled in reducing such tax liabilities. In any case, profit is determined by many factors, not least pricing, and I must remind that taxes cannot prevent profits - no profit = no tax, and the amount of tax is proportional to profits = currently 20p in the £ of profit. Clearly a business is not going to forego 80% gains simply because the taxman took 20% The wide(ing) wealth gap tells us that the Rich are taking more of the wealth produced - if profits were genuinely sp low, if business wasn't skilled in reducing its tax liabilities, this would not be the case - tax the wealth by closing the loopholes, and not just in the UK. The G20, G8 were able to agree curbs on bankers. Do the same for business corruption. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 12:27 PM Post #88 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Affa: I know the propaganda, know that the entire Conservative ethic is based on it, and it is BS. Of course it and that allows you to ignore all the evidence. Affa: Cutting Corporation taxes has not led to a boost in new business, and past increases didn't cause an exodus - business is here because here is where the Market is. The Tories are full of these business friendly ideas - like lower taxes produce more tax revenue. I give you credit for more sense. You obviously do not follow changes in levels of investment. Affa: The declared profits are of course the audited account, the ones presented by expensive accountants skilled in reducing such tax liabilities. In any case, profit is determined by many factors, not least pricing, and I must remind that taxes cannot prevent profits - no profit = no tax, and the amount of tax is proportional to profits = currently 20p in the £ of profit. Clearly a business is not going to forego 80% gains simply because the taxman took 20% You do not appear to understand that corporation taxes end up as price increases. You also fail to understand that industry and commerce is a lot more mobile than hitherto. Do you really believe that Investors would chose the UK over other countries because the quality of labour is attractive? Affa: The wide(ing) wealth gap tells us that the Rich are taking more of the wealth produced - if profits were genuinely sp low, if business wasn't skilled in reducing its tax liabilities, this would not be the case - tax the wealth by closing the loopholes, and not just in the UK. The G20, G8 were able to agree curbs on bankers. Do the same for business corruption. Again another lefty that does not understand why their is a growing wealth disparity, one not restricted to the UK or the USA or Germany or France or India or China or etc. You need to ask yourself why is it that investment in assets has done so well over the last 40 years? Why are so many people from all quarters of the globe looking to but property in London, Berlin, NY etc? Why is it that Coupons on credit worthy States so thin these days? Why is it that those with education and skills managed to improve their lot, but those without have found their plight worsened? Just a tip the answer is nothing to do with marginally lower taxes. Another tip during the Greenspan/Brown era the phenomena accelerated, why? If you think that ramping up income taxes to >70% for those you dislike is the solution then you are going to get a big surprise. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 12:45 PM Post #89 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
WARNING Elderly right wing retards obsessed with Thatcherism should look away now. Earlier on today Circle Health a US based "health provider" signalled it's intentions to the STOCK EXCHANGE, not the government or the NHS that is would be dumping it's contract at Hitchingbrook Hospital, anyone familiar with a certain satirical magazine will be well aware of the serial incompetence of this private firm that puts profits before people. The company which became the first private business to run an NHS hospital sited FUNDING CUTS, and an inability to turn a decent profit as a couple of reasons for it's imminent exit, I suspect morale in the hospital is on the opposite trajectory to Circle Health's share price............. And a quick search reveals it is also rather bad at running certain US hospitals. Edited by Tigger, Jan 9 2015, 01:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 12:51 PM Post #90 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just a wild guess here but is it anything to do with the fact that the taxpayer saved the arses of the feckless fuckwits in the City and used public funds to prop up asset prices? Note. The IMF has stated on more than one occasion (which you continue to ignore) that growing wealth inequality is actually bad for the long term prospects of the country. Note 2. China has on average lifted 40 million people out of poverty every year since 2009. Feel free to waffle utter bilge in response. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 01:14 PM Post #91 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Did you not even bother to determine the causes? Why did you not highlight the reductions in running costs made by Circle? I know you are not really interested in the nuts and bolts just waving a big ignorant stick. I did not see your claim that the rest of the NHS run by the Public Sector must therefore be performing better than Hitchingbrook or was that an implied assumption? Clearly sane management when identifying that demand costs exceeds funding where they do not have a free hand to make charges claim situation is untenable. However, even you must understand that this does not mean that the Management have failed. The only warning I could issue is to beware of shallow minded lefties who hate details. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 01:16 PM Post #92 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Instead of the short term myopia just reflect on the length of time this has been going on. Ask yourself a few questions. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 01:25 PM Post #93 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Predictable twattery. The bottom line is if a private company cannot do it's job propery and make a hefty profit it will simply walk away! You cannot act in this manner when peoples health and indeed lives are at risk, and yes I have followed this companies antics in the pages of you know where, after getting millions of the government to turn this hospital around (and of course pocketing much of it) it ultimately buggered it up. Oh, and the apparently independent Care Quality Commission (CQC) has just audited this hospital and while the public are not yet privy to the conclusion Circle Health will be, the report is expected to be damning. File under a lobotomy at Hinchingbrook. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 01:28 PM Post #94 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Biddy blather. And you ask the questions and I'll give you some answers you won't find palatable. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 9 2015, 02:12 PM Post #95 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Todays news is a stark reminder that if a profit cannot be made out of essential public services, then no private company will want to run any essential public services. Basically this means one word for the privatization of the running of hospitals - "failure" The Tory policy of private companies taking over the running of an essential public service is now in tatters, we all knew it was wrong, we knew it could not possibly improve the service, and this news confirms what we all knew. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that a private company cannot succeed where the public sector struggles through lack of funds and resources, the very simplistic maths say so - a public owned and run health service is not interested in profit, a private company is, therefore if a non-profit organisation struggles, how can a profit making venture improve anything, its totaly ilogical. The only people who want the privatization of hospitals and health services are the Conservative Party, they should know that this is a vote loser, I am perplexed as to why they risked their political life by going ahead with this, and todays news will only ram home the blunt truth, that Tory policy on the NHS is a disaster. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 03:08 PM Post #96 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Again you demonstrate your complete ignorance. What profits? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 03:10 PM Post #97 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So private plus insufficient funding = failure, but public plus additional funding = success. How shallow you Lefties are. Check details as that is always where the Devil lives, prior to making such claims. |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Jan 9 2015, 03:53 PM Post #98 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Krug: Todays news is a stark reminder that if a profit cannot be made out of essential public services, then no private company will want to run any essential public services. ME: errr that’s how capitalism works Basically this means one word for the privatization of the running of hospitals - "failure" ME: because of one. Now there’s a scientific approach for you KRUG: The Tory policy of private companies taking over the running of an essential public service is now in tatters, we all knew it was wrong, we knew it could not possibly improve the service, and this news confirms what we all knew. ME: Because of one? In Tatters? We all knew? KRUG: It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that a private company cannot succeed where the public sector struggles through lack of funds and resources, the very simplistic maths say so - a public owned and run health service is not interested in profit, a private company is, therefore if a non-profit organisation struggles, how can a profit making venture improve anything, its totally illogical. ME: Beyond a shadow of a doubt? KRUG: The only people who want the privatization of hospitals and health services are the Conservative Party, they should know that this is a vote loser, I am perplexed as to why they risked their political life by going ahead with this, and todays news will only ram home the blunt truth, that Tory policy on the NHS is a disaster. ME: Now here at least you may have something other than opinion, a point maybe. Once again, I don’t care who runs what as long as its efficient. I am not an ideologue and drawing expansive conclusions from one example is poor practice indeed. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 9 2015, 04:36 PM Post #99 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Capitalism and profit making is fine and dandy, there s nowt wrong with enterprise, but it is very wrong when it comes tou essential public services that we all depend on. There is always a potential conflict of interest between safe, dependable services, and the aim of making a profit, and that potential conflict of interest can, and has jepordised public services, and this is not acceptable. Many Conservatives actually believe that the emergency services can be at the very least partially privatized, many feel that the ambulance services can be fully privatized, this is very wrong, adding in the ingredient of "profit" into such vital services cannot be justified either on business grounds, on grounds of providing a better service, or on moral grounds, they are been implemented from a political ideological point of view. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 06:45 PM Post #100 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Exactly! Hence the departure, or are you now going to take the piss and tell me that Circle Health were not a company in it for the money but were actually kind hearted capitalists doing their bit for the common people of Britain? Perhaps you could book yourself into a local A&E to get your damaged backside looked at after this severe arse kicking you've just suffered.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 06:50 PM Post #101 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here is some more detail, the hospital is going to be put into special measures despite the extra money it initially got after being made a flagship for Conservative plans to make this a shining example of what could be achieved, but I bet this one will get quietly swept under the carpet marked political dogma...... |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 9 2015, 07:40 PM Post #102 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I tell you that the disparity problem needs sorting out at G20, G8, level, that it is a product of Globalisation, and you reply to tell me that it not a problem confined to the UK. It's not the first time you have presented a précis of my comments as a sort of pathetic and futile contradiction. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 10 2015, 12:08 AM Post #103 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well lets test that Do you think the NHS should only buy medicines from nationalised companies? I doubt it Do you think the NHS should only buy fuel from their ambulances from nationalised companies? I doubt it Do you think the computers, radios and telephones the NHS uses must only come from nationalised companies? Of course not I'm not being obtuse, the principle clearly is not absolute and some times (actually most times) private companies can be significantly more efficient that nationalised constructs because they are more agile, more able to innovate, more able to accept new ideas and more able to get economies of scale by identifying common needs with other work. Yes a privately owned company will need to pay dividends, they are paid out of the net profits of the company which when you look are rarely over 5% after tax. So if (and I accept it is an IF) they are 20% more efficient then people get a net 15% more. What's not to like? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 10 2015, 01:07 AM Post #104 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The if should also include 'less efficient', a real possibility as the requirement to earn a profit can lead to a) higher unit costs being charged for services, b) cherry picked services where the profit is maximised, and c) lower standards. There is also the real possibility that that the NHS charter gets lost .......... scenario being that after say a decade of an heavily privatised health service reliant on Government funding and a tight purse string these services call for freedom to seek funding elsewhere ...... a slippery slope that can only lead to a two tier system. The final outcome being a US style system where the quality of access is entirely reliant on the ability to pay. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 11 2015, 11:19 AM Post #105 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What IS a major contributor to the current crisis is the huge cuts to social care, something that everyone acknowledges, except the government, the bed blocking caused by the inability to discharge elderly, vulnerable or frail patients home, means there is nowhere else for them to go. The problems are now stacking up, rather like the domino effect, already this winter 12,500 planned operations have been called off at short notice, a rise of one third as compared to last winter. Clare Marx, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: “The continued rise in the number of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons remains of deep concern. “Telling a patient that they cannot have the operation they have waited and planned for can cause considerable distress to the individual and their family. As surgeons we are doing our best to manage our patients’ conditions and to make sure they can have the surgery at a time when they need it.” |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 11:44 AM Post #106 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Again you demonstrate that your thinking stopped as soon as the word profit was introduced. You have absolutely no idea why this company withdrew. For you profit is a dirty word, for me if it is extracted by greater efficiencies and improved services to customers it is to be praised. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 11:53 AM Post #107 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You know K that there is more than one single stimulus that contributes to current problems, but a major one of these was the change in GP contracts. When GP's services are regularly abused by high levels of no-shows and patients demanding time for issues which are not related to health then I sympathise with their desire not to work unsocial hours. When around a third of those turning up at A&E should have gone to their GPs I understand Hospital Doctors frustrations. When around £3b PA is spent on procedures that are not considered beneficial and ~£1b PA is wasted by stupid purchasing habits then, clearly, there is much that can be done to improve the performance of the NHS. Not to mention the Millstone of PFI costs, engineered by the last lot, that constrain running cost budgets. Telling us that the private sector cannot run Hospitals is BS, best go tell the French, the Germans and the Americans. All we are seeing from you is the vested interests that fear competition for jobs and that puts your interests with your job and the interests of patients, customers and clients, call them what you will, I prefer Taxpayers, as secondary. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 11 2015, 11:54 AM Post #108 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Profit is not a dirty word, and there is nothing wrong with enterprise or business, but there is a line which must be drawn in the sand, and that line must be essential public services, where no private operator should operate. The police, ambulance service, fire and rescue, the armed forces and our NHS should operate for the purpose for which they exist, and under the day to day direct control of elected representative s of the British public. There is a very real danger of conflict of interest between "profit" or the interests of the company and shareholders and the service which they are supposed to provide, therefore we take away that risk of conflict of interests by keeping certain essential institutions state or public run. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 12:38 PM Post #109 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is your opinion. My point is that other countries manage very well with a different one, therefore, I find your warnings of imminent disaster without foundation. In fact I think such competition would generally be good for Patients, however, inconvenient for Employees. I view the matter from the position of a Taxpayer, a Patient and not as a vested interest Employee. I find your use of the Armed Forces as an analogy as lazy and only linked logically in your mind. The reason for having our Armed Forces under State control are not the same. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 12:54 PM Post #110 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I ask again. Are you saying the NHS should only buy its drugs, fuel, telephones, computers, medical instruments etc from nationalised companies? |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 11 2015, 01:04 PM Post #111 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let us look at the very first wave of private intervention in our hospitals, lets think about cleaning, the people at the bottom of the hierarchy ladder, the humble cleaners, but who do such a vital and important job. We all know that the forced privatization of hospital cleaning led to some appalling standards of hospital cleanliness, and the reason was simple - the need to do the same job as directly employed labour but with a profit, led to (1) staff been asked to do the same work for less money (2) staff been told to do more work in the same allocated time, or less, for the same or less money. We all know what happened, corners were cut in order to make a vital public service profitable, and in most people s eyes, this is and was immoral and unjustified. You continue to feel that introducing the private sector ( the profit seekers ) into a vital public service, would somehow make it better, or make it more efficient, but you fail to understand that the sum of money available to provide that service is the same no matter who does it, therefore would it not be better if a proportion of that available money DID NOT go into the pockets of directors or shareholders, and instead was used to provide for a better service. ? If you have £100 to spend on a particular service, you either provide that service yourself, or you get someone else to do it, pay them £10 for doing it, leaving just £90.00 to spend on the service, its called logic. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 11 2015, 01:14 PM Post #112 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is a quite silly question which bares no relevance to the argument The police where I live fill up their fuel tanks at Sainsburys, the British NHS has helped to fuel the British pharmaceutical industry, making it the second largest in the world after the United States. There is nothing wrong in the NHS or the police or fire service buying services and goods from BT, Sainsburys or NPower or any private company, they buy these services in order to provide health care, or to provide policing, these are the tasks for which they were created, they are public or state providers of essential, vital services, which must always remain public and state run, because they are far too important not to be. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 01:29 PM Post #113 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is a flaw in your logic as the services are not just labour, in fact without the drugs, instruments, beds etc. such labour has little or no value. You are prepared to accept that competition in those sectors providing no labour services, such as medicines, is to the benefit of patients, but you wish us to accept on your say so that such competition when it includes labour at the deliver end does not. I think it only fair if you provide some proof of this so I can show this to our counterparts in France and Germany. You never know such evidence might even produce a Swiss referendum that calls for the exchange of their current system based on private insurance and private provision for the adoption of a State controlled NHS Soviet. K you must have something more than a gut feel on this? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 11 2015, 02:04 PM Post #114 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The argument of the NHS using private business suppliers is being used here falsely. The NHS provides a SERVICE, the Private Sector supply PRODUCTS. The two are completely different. A product is a finite thing, an item, its value in its capacity to fulfil its purpose. A Service is less tangible, the quality of which and access to is not measured by cost, but by customer satisfaction. The wrongness I see is in when SERVICES are privatised ....... with the result that there is less customer satisfaction, a failure of provision, and very often there are no savings in tax payer costs. The Internal Market did not reduce overall NHS spending! It did however provide private business advisors/marketeers/consultants with an handsome opportunity to make money where none previously existed. Edited by Affa, Jan 11 2015, 02:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 02:19 PM Post #115 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well it clearly wasn't a silly question as it finally got you to admit that private business does have a key part to play in the delivery chain. If you think about it the pharmacy in Sainsbury's handing out drugs made by Bayer is for many as much the point of health service delivery as the GP or a Hospital. You also infer that no government owned hospital was ever unclean and that every private run hospital was always unclean. Frankly that's ridiculous, corners get cut in all forms if management doesn't realise what it is there to deliver, what factors lead to that delivery and how they can best manage those. I challenge anyone to write down a definition of what a hospital is there to deliver without missing some key point. It is a very complex position and that's an issue in going private owned. A private company will give you exactly what you asked for and not exactly what you later realise you originally wanted. Rather sadly a public owned organisation will too often give you neither. So I have no issue with private owned hospitals delivering under the NHS but only if they are properly tasked and monitored. Political dogma should play no part in solving this issue of getting our health services right. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 02:21 PM Post #116 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So the private ambulance tasked by the NHS that got my mother to A&E on time wasn't delivering a service then? |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 11 2015, 02:32 PM Post #117 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Read what was said ......... If we are to disagree here, then the terms for it will be - Does privatising public services (funded from taxes) have a record of improved customer satisfaction (ie fit for purpose). We could include relative costs as well, but to me it should be about 'fit for purpose' and not much else. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 02:43 PM Post #118 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's to assume that there is a bottomless pit of resources, there isn't and so affordability comes into the equation. I guess the general public don't want to know that for so many of them they pay not a penny for the NHS, that demands on the NHS have escalated horrendously and yet their life expectancy and quality of life have increased. In short they just want to moan and demand someone else pays for it to be better. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 11 2015, 02:52 PM Post #119 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't the problem that too much of the wealth is tied up in too few people and those people are not producing the growth in the economy it was claimed their build up of wealth would do? |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Jan 11 2015, 03:04 PM Post #120 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There was a bottomless pit of freshly printed money available to bail-out the banks. i suggest that a majority of the population would rather such money were made available to the NHS than to banks. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:34 PM Jul 11