Keep our NHS public

[ROSM]

As has been said on here, it is difficult for most people to say with certainty that they agree or otherwise with the proposals because (just like the Big Society) the Government havbe made a god awful mess of explaining it.

However from my viewpoint and from what my local MP (a tory) has explained to me, I am fervently against a service that allows the GP to 'choose' (based on undefined criteria) where and how the non GP stage of treatment is delivered. In my experience, the only issues I have really had with the NHS have been where the GP has failed in their duties to the point that the emergency element (hospitals, paramedics etc) have had to step in and recover the situation. To give further powers and choice to this group would in my view be an unmitigated disaster.

Where I have seen improvements in the quality of GPs it is in the generation who entered medical school in say the last 15 years. Clearly the people now drawn (or the quality of their training)has improved from those that went immediately before. But as I understand it, it is this generation of GPs who are most against the proposals.

 

[ROSM]

i should have put a "new" in front of that, i mean the PFI/PPP of buildings and new kit is provisioned by private healthcare services already in hospitals. so say your local hospital has a new MRI scanner, it was probably paid for and run by BUPA or similar.

I would replace 'probably' with 'possibly'

I believe the PFI programme was a failure, but following a generation of no investment in the NHS fabric, I understand why something needed to be done.

 

[gazingdown]

I suspect that unless you work in the medical services, that you are unlikely to know what the implications of these plans are. Even if most people read them, they are unlikely to understand what the consequences are. Even the professional bodies seem to be in great disagreement about the merits of the changes - although there seem to be more "antis" lately (or maybe they're just louder).

I don't think the government have explained it to the public at all have they ?

Much of what you say is very true. It IS a complicated issue that is only trivialised by the media (and some politicians) point scoring over it. I don't pretend to understand it and nor should I without some thought put into it. I don't think the politicians should be trying to explain it via soundbites and the like. Most of us don't have the understanding r in-depth knowledge on the topic such that they could "explain" it to us (not to say they shouldn't try of course!).

Arguments for and against should be about WHY aspects are good/bad and NOT using conjecture/politicising the issue etc. The latest is that "all" the medical profession are *against* it yet the sample size is tiny size of the medical profession and is NOT necessarily representative. It's that type of political bullshit that needs removing from discussions on the topic.

I suspect that most of the medical profession have not made their minds up, much less decided they are against/for it. For people like that labour politician-lite on QT last week to say "all" of them are against it is, frankly, despicable given the importance of the matter.

On issues such as this, one has to trust the politicians to discuss with the medical profession (which they have done) to establish the best plans (which the medical profession may or may not like I might add!) and move forward on that. We'll know if it was right or wrong when we see the outcome in how our treatment, as patients, evolves.

 

[drew]

I fear you have completely misinterpreted the new plans.

It's exactly people in your situation where safeguards have been put in place. What exactly is it about the plans that makes you think you'll be adversely affected?

That aside, has ANYONE here read ANY of the new plans? Or is everyone making their minds up based on scaremongering left wing media?

I'm no tory apologist however I know quite a few people in the medical profession (my wife for one, my uncle, cousin are all doctors, as are a few friends) who have mixed opinions but are broadly in favour of it. Regardless, this is something that needs a good ol' debate and not left-wing propaganda and conjecture crap like that Labour woman on QT last week (who was well and truly shot down). It's an important issue that needs to do away with partisan views and silly political point scoring and prejudice.

The problem is, people get all hot and bothered about the "P" word (which, incidentally, is not what these plans are all about.). Anyway, did you all know YOUR GP is effectively privatised? (privatised under LABOUR no less......)

What on earth makes you think it isn't to do with privatisation. The point is that hospitals have to open up 49% of the their capacity to the private sector when it is currently 2% ( I believe). That means for those that can't afford private healthcare, there is 47% less capacity which will reflect in waiting times. Most of the people I know in the health service, inc my wife, are seriously concerned about the implications. GPs who are to all intents and purposes jack of all trades are now supposed to make funding decisions relating to complex operations and their subsequent aftercare. Do you honestly think that the cost isn't going to be the overriding factor when considering where to direct their patients. At the moment GPs already run numerous 'clinics', not because it is for the benefit of patients but because they get extra money into their business for doing so. There has been anecdotal evidence of people being threatened with expulsion from a practice if they don't attend 6 monthly asthma clinics, a totally pointless exercise if your asthma is under control! Nothing to do with the funding they get.

The existing system isn't perfect but does not need wholesale reorganisation 'from the top down'. There are inefficiencies but these can be addressed. If you run a business but it is not wholly efficient although it is productive, you don't close it down and start afresh somewhere else, you address the issues.

The changes are about increasing the influence of the private sector and are driven by ideology rather than necessity.

The changes are costing billings to implement, there is no evidence as yet that they will generate massive savings and more importantly, no evidence that the standard of care and treatment will improve.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

On issues such as this, one has to trust the politicians to discuss with the medical profession (which they have done) to establish the best plans (which the medical profession may or may not like I might add!) and move forward on that. We'll know if it was right or wrong when we see the outcome in how our treatment, as patients, evolves.

The thing that gets me about this one, if I was the minister for health, I would have come up with a plan and agreed it with most of the professional bodies as early as possible to get them all onside, instead of fighting it out in the media - as I said, whether it's right or wrong, it just seems like a huge bun-fight. In the meantime it's taken me 8 months to do all the tests just to get me on the waiting list for a new kidney.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

What ever they say I do think one day we will be paying for our health care. It's crap, but I just cannot see how the NHS can afford to give everyone free healthcare in the future, when everyone is living longer and more people are coming to live and work in the UK.

We just need to get rid of the pricks that are running our country, and the other pricks who are trying to get back in power. One spends all the money, and the other takes all the money back, and we all suffer because of it.

I don't trust anyone from this current government, and I don't trust anyone from Labour. They are all bloody useless. They just come out with bullshit all the time.

 

[catfish]

I fear you have completely misinterpreted the new plans.

It's exactly people in your situation where safeguards have been put in place. What exactly is it about the plans that makes you think you'll be adversely affected?

That aside, has ANYONE here read ANY of the new plans? Or is everyone making their minds up based on scaremongering left wing media?

I'm no tory apologist however I know quite a few people in the medical profession (my wife for one, my uncle, cousin are all doctors, as are a few friends) who have mixed opinions but are broadly in favour of it. Regardless, this is something that needs a good ol' debate and not left-wing propaganda and conjecture crap like that Labour woman on QT last week (who was well and truly shot down). It's an important issue that needs to do away with partisan views and silly political point scoring and prejudice.

The problem is, people get all hot and bothered about the "P" word (which, incidentally, is not what these plans are all about.). Anyway, did you all know YOUR GP is effectively privatised? (privatised under LABOUR no less......)

I'm certainly not influenced by any left ing scaremongering or people who try & score political points. I'm also aware the the NHS was already heading down this road under Blair & Brown. I guess we'll just have to wait & see how it pans out.

 

[gazingdown]

What on earth makes you think it isn't to do with privatisation. The point is that hospitals have to open up 49% of the their capacity to the private sector when it is currently 2% ( I believe). That means for those that can't afford private healthcare, there is 47% less capacity which will reflect in waiting times. Most of the people I know in the health service, inc my wife, are seriously concerned about the implications. GPs who are to all intents and purposes jack of all trades are now supposed to make funding decisions relating to complex operations and their subsequent aftercare. Do you honestly think that the cost isn't going to be the overriding factor when considering where to direct their patients. At the moment GPs already run numerous 'clinics', not because it is for the benefit of patients but because they get extra money into their business for doing so. There has been anecdotal evidence of people being threatened with expulsion from a practice if they don't attend 6 monthly asthma clinics, a totally pointless exercise if your asthma is under control! Nothing to do with the funding they get.

The existing system isn't perfect but does not need wholesale reorganisation 'from the top down'. There are inefficiencies but these can be addressed. If you run a business but it is not wholly efficient although it is productive, you don't close it down and start afresh somewhere else, you address the issues.

The changes are about increasing the influence of the private sector and are driven by ideology rather than necessity.

The changes are costing billings to implement, there is no evidence as yet that they will generate massive savings and more importantly, no evidence that the standard of care and treatment will improve.

As I understand it, they can open UP TO 49%, not 49% is straight allocated to the private sector. Are these private sector people doing NHS work in the hospitals or purely private work?

Regardless, I didn't say it didn't involve privatisation but it wasn't all about privatisation. It about making the NHS perform better, whether it uses private industry or not. Besides, there's LOADS of private sector involvement in the NHS already (they make much of the equipment, cleaning, medication/drugs and so on).

This is NOT a wholesale top down reorg - note even close to imo. Believe me, if it was, we'd REALLY know about it!

What was the stat, that the last govt. employed THREE times as many "managers" than nurses. This all had stupid "targets" in mind to micro manage everything.

Of course the profession and the public are "concerned", changes (good and bad) always breed "concern". I'm concerned we don't get things right. It causes a great deal of concern to carry on as it is now! I don't proclaim the govt. have got it right but I do know it's NOT right now.

Anyway, these plans are not the "solution" as nothing ever will be, they will simply be the next stage/evolution of the NHS. It has to continuously evolve which will always entail more reorganisation of some form. What may work now may not work 5/10 years down the line etc.

 

[ALBION28]

This legislation will effect us all. At some time in your life you will require medical care. The most deadly element for me is not as to whether a health authority or a GP controls funding it is the 49%. That is the figure that hospitals will be allowed to privatise i.e currently only 2% now will change to 49%. Effect = only 51% of beds available free. Danger of waiting lists growing as we have less capacity or you will have to pay. Now some GPs will allocate funds for you to go to the private bit but you will need to hope a)they like you or b) they still have enough in their budget. This is dangerous and I feel that no matter who you normally vote for this is far more important to stop whatever its source.
On an aside I am fortunate enough to live in an area where the NHS service is superb the one downer is that Rotherham hospital , a great example in my opinion, is being financially cut to ribbons....a real shame.

 

[Flex Your Head]

Or is everyone making their minds up based on scaremongering left wing media?

I'm no tory apologist however I know quite a few people in the medical profession (my wife for one, my uncle, cousin are all doctors, as are a few friends) who have mixed opinions but are broadly in favour of it. Regardless, this is something that needs a good ol' debate and not left-wing propaganda and conjecture crap like that Labour woman on QT last week (who was well and truly shot down). It's an important issue that needs to do away with partisan views and silly political point scoring and prejudice.

The problem is, people get all hot and bothered about the "P" word (which, incidentally, is not what these plans are all about.). Anyway, did you all know YOUR GP is effectively privatised? (privatised under LABOUR no less......)

Sorry, but what is this left wing media you refer to? Serious question.

The Labour woman on QT gave her opinions as did the Tory panellist. Why is hers considered 'left wing propaganda' but their's not 'right wing propaganda'?

My other half, my sister, my brother in law and his Mum, and my best mate all work for the NHS and they are all seriously concerned by these proposals. Have a look at all the professional bodies, unions, associations and individual doctors and consultants who have come out against these changes; are they all wrong? Are they all left-wing agitators?

Private companies exist for one reason and one reason alone; to make a profit. This fact alone should prevent them from ever having a stake in the NHS.

For someone who states "I'm no tory apologist" you sound remarkably like one.

 

[Albumen]

Keep Our NHS Public

just do it

There are far too many Tories on here hell bent on supporting the idiots that are selling off everything for their own personal profits, but I like your efforts.

 

[gazingdown]

Sorry, but what is this left wing media you refer to? Serious question.

The Labour woman on QT gave her opinions as did the Tory panellist. Why is hers considered 'left wing propaganda' but their's not 'right wing propaganda'?

My other half, my sister, my brother in law and his Mum, and my best mate all work for the NHS and they are all seriously concerned by these proposals. Have a look at all the professional bodies, unions, associations and individual doctors and consultants who have come out against these changes; are they all wrong? Are they all left-wing agitators?

Private companies exist for one reason and one reason alone; to make a profit. This fact alone should prevent them from ever having a stake in the NHS.

For someone who states "I'm no tory apologist" you sound remarkably like one.

Certain newspapers, the BBC(!) and politicians like that woman on QT.

Of course there is right wing "propaganda" but I don't see that on this issue (actually it could be argued that the lack of it is poor propaganda/PR!). You could see it on QT last week, the coalition pair were (to an extent) just spelling out what they proposed (even if weakly) but the labour woman (who has always been a lightweight to be fair) was just coming up with these "all" conjectured statements and when Dimbleby pointed out the facts she when had to about turn and then went on about people "she" has spoken to. Redwood had also spoken to people and the response was far more mixed so WHO she was speaking to that they "all" were against it, I don't know. Probably just likes to surround herself with only those she agrees with rather than a more representative view (either that or she was making it up!)

Whether someone sounds like an apologist depends on which side of the fence one sits. I say if lefties say I'm right wing and right wingers say I'm left wing, I know I'm in the correct place Anyway, I'm neither tory or labour, I just go along with whatever policies I agree with. Of course, I probably agree with more that the Tories (actually, coalition!) than Labour come out with as their policies fit my opinions better, NOT the other way round like some party apologists (politicians are the worse for this!). I agreed with some stuff Labour did over the years but there's also lot I disagree with, mainly their handling of the finances rather than their social policies (which I'm neither here-nor-there with TBH). When it comes to the NHS, I take a pragmatist approach, whatever works best I'll go along with.

Of course, as per my other posts, people should be concerned, it's what drives further debate and so on. My point is, they need to discuss the in's and out's of the proposals and not just come out for/against based on conjecture. As I say, I don't have that much of an opinion for or against it but I do want those involved to have a proper discussion about it. The rest of us will wait and see what happens.

You say that private companies should not have any stake in the NHS. Does this include GPs (including yours I might add), who are all effectively private...

Anyway, I've not said whether I support the proposals or not, I just want a proper discussion about it (I don't mean between us lot but the politicians/medical profession/QT etc.) as they are those in a position to do something about it.

 

[gazingdown]

There are far too many Tories on here hell bent on supporting the idiots that are selling off everything for their own personal profits, but I like your efforts.

Can you tell me exactly WHAT is being sold off? i.e. some examples from the proposals of things being sold off etc.? In an effort to know a little more about he proposals, I'm curious to know.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

yeah in hindsight my support for the NHS is foolish, healthcare should only be available for people who can pay for it, if the poor die off it will reduce the tax burden on the rich

It is the defenders of the present arrangements (does that make them "conservatives"?) who tend to see things in black and white like this. As far as I know, there is no proposal to force people to pay for healthcare. I assume you would extend your rant to cover such disgusting examples of private provision as, for example, hospices.

 

[GreersElbow]

Anyone to believe private provision is anymore cheaper or at all more efficient should do their homework.

 

[drew]

The thing that gets me about this one, if I was the minister for health, I would have come up with a plan and agreed it with most of the professional bodies as early as possible to get them all onside, instead of fighting it out in the media - as I said, whether it's right or wrong, it just seems like a huge bun-fight. In the meantime it's taken me 8 months to do all the tests just to get me on the waiting list for a new kidney.

That's the strange thing. If you are going to reorganize and industry that is the biggest employer in the country you would have thought you would have consulted as many people as you could in the sector to see what works and what doesn't. Instead, just after winning an election in which they had campaigned on the basis there would be no top down reorganization, they almost instantly announce plans to do exactly that!!!! At the moment, the only people that are likely to benefit are the private sector suppliers of services (and lets not forget GPs are in effect the private sector and they are getting to control spending of 80% of the budget).

As I understand it, they can open UP TO 49%, not 49% is straight allocated to the private sector. Are these private sector people doing NHS work in the hospitals or purely private work?That's exacatly what I said. However most hospitals trusts are being coerced to attain Foundation Status which gives them more autonomy about how they raise money. Let me just ask you this, where do you think they are going to raise more money, from trying to move much closer to the 49% or perhaps running more clinics for the poor, the terminally ill or those with chronic conditions etc. The CEO of hospital trust are rarely from a medical background and more likely accountants. Which way do you think they will go?

Regardless, I didn't say it didn't involve privatisation but it wasn't all about privatisation. It about making the NHS perform better, whether it uses private industry or not. Besides, there's LOADS of private sector involvement in the NHS already (they make much of the equipment, cleaning, medication/drugs and so on).

This is NOT a wholesale top down reorg - note even close to imo. Believe me, if it was, we'd REALLY know about it!And you said you weren't a tory apologist! The SHOs and PCTs that oversee the provision of primary care and secondary care in an area are being removed. How is that not top down?

What was the stat, that the last govt. employed THREE times as many "managers" than nurses. This all had stupid "targets" in mind to micro manage everything.

Of course the profession and the public are "concerned", changes (good and bad) always breed "concern". I'm concerned we don't get things right. It causes a great deal of concern to carry on as it is now! I don't proclaim the govt. have got it right but I do know it's NOT right now.

Anyway, these plans are not the "solution" as nothing ever will be, they will simply be the next stage/evolution of the NHS. It has to continuously evolve which will always entail more reorganisation of some form. What may work now may not work 5/10 years down the line etc.

What a worrying thought, to what figure to you think the 49% cut-off will eventually evolve?

 

[Pevenseagull]

Private companies exist for one reason and one reason alone; to make a profit. This fact alone should prevent them from ever having a stake in the NHS.

principle

 

[1234andcounting]

I have never seen proposals for the NHS, or health care provision in general, from governments of either party, which address the fundamental issues. Health provision, in the sense of treatment, is, like every other good, rationed to some degree or another; there is not an infinite supply of treatment, although there is to all intents and purposes an infinite demand for treatment. When the NHS was set up in 1948, most people popped their clogs at around 65. Now we have the "burden" (not meant seriously, before anyone leaps on that word) of people living into their 80s and beyond, who are not "productive" (see comments on burden) but do consume ridiculous amounts of health provision (as I intend to do, hopefully). Equally, diseases that were killers half a century or more ago (and indeed more recently, eg HIV) are no longer so. Which means that we are keeping a lot of people alive who otherwise would be dead. Now, I happen to think this is a good thing, but it all adds to the "burden". Then you have the diseases of affluence (obesity, cancers etc). And, of course, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical industry, are as addicted to hi-tech flash answers. What is needed is an understanding of how we can provide a health infrastructure which will meet the needs of the majority in the most cost-effective manner, whilst being humane and patient focused. (Much easier to type that sentence than say what the answer is.)

None of that will be done by buggering around with the structure of the NHS (yet again) or introducing "competition" (sic) and inviting money grabbing private companies who, after all, have been so effective in providing, for example, utilities (joke).

 

[beorhthelm]

This legislation will effect us all. At some time in your life you will require medical care. The most deadly element for me is not as to whether a health authority or a GP controls funding it is the 49%. That is the figure that hospitals will be allowed to privatise i.e currently only 2% now will change to 49%. Effect = only 51% of beds available free. Danger of waiting lists growing as we have less capacity or you will have to pay. Now some GPs will allocate funds for you to go to the private bit but you will need to hope a)they like you or b) they still have enough in their budget.

interesting assumptions in there, first that hopsitals will become 49% private and second that the private part will be more expensive. you do understand that the current NHS costs, that budgets exist and funds are allocated and spent? i think this is half the fear, the talk of budgets and such expose the machinery that people arent otherwise aware of. the rationale of privatisation is that the service can be provided cheaper by clefting buracracy and focusing funds on service. personally, i have reservation about this (utilities for example still seem to be bureaucratic monsters) and dont know why you cant attempt to do that culling of managment within the public sector (putting unions aside. literally.)

anyway, i dont know how its going to work out and elected to stop trying to follow it as it just seems to complex and changes too much, and media version, online interprations, reality of plans and reality of execution will all differ greatly. what i do know is the insight of a chap at work who's job it is to understand health legislation and how it will impact the company. he reckons that, with exceptions better and worse, the vast majority we wouldnt know any difference, its about back end processes, budget allocations, management. front line service should continue pretty much as normal, the fear of change is going to cause a perception of change.

 

[Dandyman]

interesting assumptions in there, first that hopsitals will become 49% private and second that the private part will be more expensive. you do understand that the current NHS costs, that budgets exist and funds are allocated and spent? i think this is half the fear, the talk of budgets and such expose the machinery that people arent otherwise aware of. the rationale of privatisation is that the service can be provided cheaper by clefting buracracy and focusing funds on service. personally, i have reservation about this (utilities for example still seem to be bureaucratic monsters) and dont know why you cant attempt to do that culling of managment within the public sector (putting unions aside. literally.)

anyway, i dont know how its going to work out and elected to stop trying to follow it as it just seems to complex and changes too much, and media version, online interprations, reality of plans and reality of execution will all differ greatly. what i do know is the insight of a chap at work who's job it is to understand health legislation and how it will impact the company. he reckons that, with exceptions better and worse, the vast majority we wouldnt know any difference, its about back end processes, budget allocations, management. front line service should continue pretty much as normal, the fear of change is going to cause a perception of change.

It's about the long term aim of hiving off those parts of the NHS than can produce profits and letting the rest go to rot. There was a time when even (One Nation) Tories accepted the principle of the NHS.