Tories and the Nhs changes.

[GreersElbow]

don't go there.

I will, it depends where you are. Just because you had a bad experience, doesn't make the system inefficient. As I've previously told someone before, when I tore my meniscus I was offered a day surgery there and then on that day. I had to decline because I had to let college and work know I won't be in for a few days. That too, doesn't make it entirely efficient. But the NHS is much more efficient than the U.S system who contact your insurance provider if they can't view, or need to verify your insurance details before your main treatment.

 

[GT49er]

The trouble is that every government feels a burning need to change things - but what never features in their brilliant schemes is the cost of actually making the changes. In Gloucestershire the PCT started making changes as required by Andrew Lansley, only for a retired railwayman to take them to the High Court on the grounds that the changes were illegal. The PCT withdrew the changes, and are now starting again on a plan B - the cost to the NHS of this failure? Between £4 and £8 million.........
Nice one Mr. Lansley - just leave things alone - if it ain't broke, don't try to mend it!

 

[GreersElbow]

The trouble is that every government feels a burning need to change things - but what never features in their brilliant schemes is the cost of actually making the changes. In Gloucestershire the PCT started making changes as required by Andrew Lansley, only for a retired railwayman to take them to the High Court on the grounds that the changes were illegal. The PCT withdrew the changes, and are now starting again on a plan B - the cost to the NHS of this failure? Between £4 and £8 million.........
Nice one Mr. Lansley - just leave things alone - if it ain't broke, don't try to mend it!

There is need for reform though, the NHS has became to some extent a bit too expensive. It's because of the bureaucracy..just Lansley wants to add another layer (through Monitor) to it...

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

I must admit I can't see what the point of Lansley's reforms is. Even part of the Cabinet doesn't want it, and that's not just the Lib Dems. Two things do come to mind for me, though. Firstly, I studied the whole system of social welfare at university as part of my degree. When the NHS was launched, there was a battle between Herbert Morrison and others, who wanted it organised on a local level, with County Councils responsible for day-to-day running, and Nye Bevan and Tony Benn, who insisted it should be national, so that everyone got the same service wherever they lived. The latter won, which might be part of the problem. Nearly every other health service in Europe is organised on a far more local level. In Switzerland, it is the Cantons (barely bigger than an English county) that run public health services. However, the public do not help. Most experts will tell you that specialist services are best provided in a smaller number of big hospitals (presumably more routine services are better provided locally). Yet, if the trusts threaten to close "Jimmy's" or "Tommy's", there is a huge outcry. And yet, if one area can have a particular treatment, but another area can't, people squeal. Perhaps they might look to see if they are partly to blame.

 

[dingodan]

The government is not capable of providing services, only the market is. By trying to provide services the government distorts the economy, taking money out of the pockets of it's citizens and misdirecting those funds while causing mischief in the process.

The effects of taking money from the people is compounded by the fact that government intervention in a given sector tends to have an inflationary affect, in turn causing prices to rise. So the people are hit twice.

Seriously. Lets abolish the NHS.

 

[Jimmy Come Lately]

There is need for reform though, the NHS has became to some extent a bit too expensive. It's because of the bureaucracy..just Lansley wants to add another layer (through Monitor) to it...

I'm not sure it's just one more layer. Here's a handy overview of the new bureaucracy from that noted commie rag The Financial Times.

 

[drew]

The changes are needed and the only reason people within the NHS object is because they are left wing Labour supporters. The country was brain washed under the Labour party.

Either fishing or ignorance of the highest order.

i read the other day that since 2000 the NHS budget has doubled from ~£50Bn to over £100Bn. even accounting for inflation, thats a massive increase, 60-70% in real terms? so wheres all the money been spent if the junior doctors and nurses are still underpaid?

Nurses and junior doctors are not underpaid anywhere near as much as they were before, although compared to similar jobs in the private sector they are. Probably a large proportion of the increase went on the 'New Deal' which raised salaries which for many years had been woefully underpaid.

GP's are very intelligent and talented professionals and generally know what they are talking about. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that they tell you and I what they are really thinking about.

I am an asthmatic, or so I am told, like many others. I have not had an attack for 20 years but I still use inhalers on a daily basis. I have been 'summoned' to my GP's surgery over the last few years for an 'asthma check' every 12 months

In the last 18 months I have been 'summoned' 3 times despite there being no change in the condition I have. When I questioned the latest 'summons' I was told that if I did not attend then my GP may withdraw cover and I would need to find another practice.

Attending these checks means that I either use my holiday allowance or my employer is paying me for nothing, or I work extra hours to cover the time.

Imagine my dismay when I discovered that GP's are given targets for checks upon asthma and the like. The more checks they carry out the more they earn! These people are usually earning in excess of one hundred thousand pounds a year but can insist that I give up mine, or my employers time, for an unneccessarry check that earns them more money.

Meh, f*** 'em! Ignore their protestations, they are only worried about their salary.

Sent from Pippa Middleton's lingerie drawer.

You need to make up your mind. You seem to criticise GPs for their asthma clinics and making money but because they protest too much about the reforms you think they should go ahead which in effect means you are handing 80% of the health budget to the very same GPs!!!!

The government is not capable of providing services, only the market is. By trying to provide services the government distorts the economy, taking money out of the pockets of it's citizens and misdirecting those funds while causing mischief in the process.

The effects of taking money from the people is compounded by the fact that government intervention in a given sector tends to have an inflationary affect, in turn causing prices to rise. So the people are hit twice.

Seriously. Lets abolish the NHS.

So, you think there should be no government. Marvellous, that's all we need on this site, another bloody anarchist!!!!

As for blaming Thatcher. She may well have been 30 years ago but a little titbit of statistics. When she came into power in 79 there were 75,000 nurses in training in the UK. When the Tories left power in 1997 there were only 25,000. That's why there have been many overseas recruitment drives by hospitals and why so many foreign nurses now work there.

 

[catfish]

I find the creeping privatisation of the NHS very worrying. As a patient with a lifelong disease I am currently recieving excellent treatment but it is expensive. If any providers are allowed to cherry-pick the profitable areas of treatment people like me
are going to find their long term treatment at risk.

 

[dingodan]

Either fishing or ignorance of the highest order.



Nurses and junior doctors are not underpaid anywhere near as much as they were before, although compared to similar jobs in the private sector they are. Probably a large proportion of the increase went on the 'New Deal' which raised salaries which for many years had been woefully underpaid.



You need to make up your mind. You seem to criticise GPs for their asthma clinics and making money but because they protest too much about the reforms you think they should go ahead which in effect means you are handing 80% of the health budget to the very same GPs!!!!



So, you think there should be no government. Marvellous, that's all we need on this site, another bloody anarchist!!!!

As for blaming Thatcher. She may well have been 30 years ago but a little titbit of statistics. When she came into power in 79 there were 75,000 nurses in training in the UK. When the Tories left power in 1997 there were only 25,000. That's why there have been many overseas recruitment drives by hospitals and why so many foreign nurses now work there.

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION]

So, you think there should be no government. Marvellous, that's all we need on this site, another bloody anarchist!!!!

I did not say there should be no government.

I said there should be no government involvement in medicine.

You should make an effort to be more cordial in your contributions to the discussion. I'm not sure we need less anarchists on this site, a few less rude people would be nice though.

 

[drew]

The government is not capable of providing services, only the market is. By trying to provide services the government distorts the economy, taking money out of the pockets of it's citizens and misdirecting those funds while causing mischief in the process.

The effects of taking money from the people is compounded by the fact that government intervention in a given sector tends to have an inflationary affect, in turn causing prices to rise. So the people are hit twice.

Seriously. Lets abolish the NHS.

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION]




I did not say there should be no government.

I said there should be no government involvement in medicine.

You should make an effort to be more cordial in your contributions to the discussion. I'm not sure we need less anarchists on this site, a few less rude people would be nice though.

The quote I refered to seemed to be very general about the role of Government and not specific to medical services hence my comment.

 

[GT49er]

There is need for reform though, the NHS has became to some extent a bit too expensive. It's because of the bureaucracy..just Lansley wants to add another layer (through Monitor) to it...

Yes, but all proposed changes should be reqired to include the cost of the changes in the proposal. Estimated savings of, say, £10 million a year sounds great - but if the proposed changes are going to cost £500 million to implement? All to often this is the (unpublicised) bottom line.

 

[dingodan]

The quote I refered to seemed to be very general about the role of Government and not specific to medical services hence my comment.

I was referring to medicine, but yes the government should not be involved in providing any services. But that does not mean "no government".

 

[glasfryn]

Yes, damn those god damn health-care professionals who actually work within the system. Damn them to hell, because they're left wing.


Let me guess, you're the type to think Labour's actually socialist, right?

Oh, damn the British Medical Association, who once argued for a U.S Style private health insurance system now are against the said proposals. Do you even understand the proposals? You want more bureaucracy?

the NEW labour party was the least socialist party we had ............reason for my leaving the party

That's the comment of someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about and you'll actually find that the swathe of main changes to the NHS and it's bearocracy was made in 2004 under the Labour government although Thatcher kicked it off in 83 in the Griffith report.

The history of all this is unfortunate because what this will ultimately mean with Lansley's proposals is that certain aspects of the healthcare system will be part funded by private companies whose sole aim will be to make money and this will mean that grassroots health care, will be cut back and damaged.

So, if you're happy with underpaid & under qualified junior doctors and staff running your local hospitals then thats what you're going to get...

pretty good shake that, for one who now uses the NHS more than I have ever done and seen the pressure nurses and Doctors work under and yes,yes I know they are well paid but nevertheless I feel they will this time not bother to stay .....for the resons above

 

[beorhthelm]

The government is not capable of providing services, only the market is. ...

Seriously. Lets abolish the NHS.

funny, government seems to provide an awful lot of services which before they did weren't available widely. waste collection, public roads, education, local libraries, police and fire protection. its in desperate need of change (though this happens too often, to too little effect), but getting rid of the NHS is not an option. you want the US system? its third world, no developed nation should send people home from life saving surgery because they dont have insurance.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

They certainly have been guilty of not explaining the changes to the public, and even when they give you the gist, as a non-health worker it is very difficult to understand what is meant or what the real-world consequences are.

I can kinda see that my GP might be in a position to choose what is best for me, as someone who knows me and my history - but he's no accountant, so presumably he or his practice, or a local group of practices are egoing to have to organise this together. And, how do we know what his motives are - I have a friend who believes his GP didn't refer him to a specialist for a serious back problem, because his GP didn't want to use his money in tht way - I don't know if that's true, or possible, but you do wonder whoever is looking after the bottom line, what is their motivation at the end of the day.

I use the NHS a lot at the mo - I'm just about to be put on the kidney transplant list, so I am interested in it, but I would think that the level of care for me in my condition is not going to change.

 

[janee]

I think the Tories do see healthcare as a business opportunity for their supporters as well as a rolling back of the state. Under the reforms i think top up fees will become a part of "choice" with little choice if you cannot afford them.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Under the reforms i think top up fees will become a part of "choice" with little choice if you cannot afford them.

i think this is the root of the problem, arcoss health and education, and applied to the previous Labour governments: the obsession with providing choice. i dont want to choose my hospital or childs school, i want the nearest one to be decent. end of. they seem to have misguidedly believed that competition will make everything better, because thats what commercial business tells us. but commercial products can be cheap and shit, or expensive and shit, people choose based on loyalty or convienence as much as quality and price. just ask a Blackburn fan. the lessons to learn from business are in how to manage and plan effectivly and efficiently, to maxmise budgets not spend for the sake of spending.

 

[dingodan]

funny, government seems to provide an awful lot of services which before they did weren't available widely. waste collection, public roads, education, local libraries, police and fire protection. its in desperate need of change (though this happens too often, to too little effect), but getting rid of the NHS is not an option. you want the US system? its third world, no developed nation should send people home from life saving surgery because they dont have insurance.

The US has had government managed medicine for 40 years. Today in the UK, with the government involved in medicine, care is denied to people on the basis of cost.

You seem to be wrongly making the assumption that because I object to something being done by government, that I object to it being done at all.

The free market is the only true humanitarian system, that will ensure the best services, at the lowest cost, and with the best distribution. To imply that I don't care about people or want to see less people with less healthcare is just silly. We both care about people, we disagree on what will best deliver services to people. I say the market. Apparently you say government.

I kind of think my point about the failure of government and a managed economy is being proven with every passing day though Tbh.

 

[drew]

I was referring to medicine, but yes the government should not be involved in providing any services. But that does not mean "no government".

So what is the role of Government then. Everything it does is about providing the state with services, whether that be healthcare or defence.

The US has had government managed medicine for 40 years. Today in the UK, with the government involved in medicine, care is denied to people on the basis of cost.

You seem to be wrongly making the assumption that because I object to something being done by government, that I object to it being done at all.

The free market is the only true humanitarian system, that will ensure the best services, at the lowest cost, and with the best distribution. To imply that I don't care about people or want to see less people with less healthcare is just silly. We both care about people, we disagree on what will best deliver services to people. I say the market. Apparently you say government.

I kind of think my point about the failure of government and a managed economy is being proven with every passing day though Tbh.

How can a free market system be humanitarian? Where are your arguments to back up this? If you took out the state medicare and medicaid the states and left if for a free for all (for those that can afford insurance) then you will have the poor dying where they fall. A free market does not guarantee the best service, that's just a blinkered Conservative ideology. Take the banks, your argument would be to completely remove regulations as that would be a true free market yet the current global financial position has been created because banks weren't regulated enough. No regulation would mean no protection for people's savings so you could lose everything because a bank has gambled and lost.

Another example against your argument is the way cleaning of hospitals was outsourced to private companies. Standards went down and there was a massive increase in hospial acquired infections such as MRSA and C.diff. It is only in recent years that they have had to improve the cleaning and therefore reduce these infections.

The only thing an unregulated free market does is to lower standards to the detriment of the consumer and raise profit for the so called entrepreneu.

 

[APACHE]

All those that say get rid of the NHS should reseach what was there before Labour after WW2 created it. The Tories never wanted it, Churchill spoke against it, you bascially only got treatment if you paid and most couldn't afford major treatment. Going back a little further, doctors only became more avaiable to the working class because the Goverment and the factory owners found that the health of the workers was so bad that the army and factories had trouble finding fit people. Like most things under the Tories it's a race to the bottom, pensions, wages, housing, etc. If you've got the money you'll ok, if not hard luck.