Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

NHS "Privatisation"

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Evidence
    Like I said, just because I can't be bothered to scour through the whole bill, doesn't mean it isn't true.

    The Tories, with no elected mandate, are privatising 49% of the NHS. They know the people hate this idea, and I damn well hope they get voted out at the next election - it'll prove to future governments that the people of the UK value the NHS more than any other institution - with our economic and military might gone, the Empire gone - it is one of our last crowning achievements.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    Nope. The commissioner is still there, it's role has simply been watered down.

    The fact of the matter is, all NHS resources will now be 49% private.

    We have waiting times getting worse under the Conservatives already - giving away half the beds and surgery time will make this so much worse!

    This will lose the Conservatives the next election. Nobody wants this mass sell-off of the NHS.
    The Royal marsden gets about 30% of its income privately and is one of top hospitals in the country.
    http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/diagn...xcellence.aspx
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    Like I said, just because I can't be bothered to scour through the whole bill, doesn't mean it isn't true.

    The Tories, with no elected mandate, are privatising 49% of the NHS. They know the people hate this idea, and I damn well hope they get voted out at the next election - it'll prove to future governments that the people of the UK value the NHS more than any other institution - with our economic and military might gone, the Empire gone - it is one of our last crowning achievements.
    I provided evidence to disprove what you are claiming and all you can say is I can't be bothered to back up my case?
    Your opposition is ideological and not based on any substance.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    The Royal marsden gets about 30% of its income privately and is one of top hospitals in the country.
    http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/diagn...xcellence.aspx
    So? Private hospitals are the BEST hospitals in the country. And no doubt, the private sections of the NHS will be great for those that can afford it. That's how private healthcare works.

    49% is ridiculous. A majority of the population, who cannot afford private healthcare, will be shepherded into the remaining 51% - potentially making the NHS nearly twice as crowded as it already is.

    And what will the Tories do when the NHS becomes that crowded? It'll be 'oh, we need to put the cap higher, so that the NHS can afford to survive!'

    Make no mistake, this will end in a private National Health Service.

    The Tories were elected on the promise that they wouldn't do this. It's disgusting, and I sincerely hope it will be David Cameron's Poll Tax.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I provided evidence to disprove what you are claiming and all you can say is I can't be bothered to back up my case?
    Your opposition is ideological and not based on any substance.
    My opposition is based on the fact that I do not want 49% of the NHS to be privatised.

    You claim it's not privatisation... but it clearly is - half privatisation, anyway.

    Again, the Tory Party should be voted out at the next election because of it - they certainly can't be trusted to govern alone, when they've proved themselves so dedicated to the cause of privatising the NHS.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    So? Private hospitals are the BEST hospitals in the country. And no doubt, the private sections of the NHS will be great for those that can afford it. That's how private healthcare works.

    49% is ridiculous. A majority of the population, who cannot afford private healthcare, will be shepherded into the remaining 51% - potentially making the NHS nearly twice as crowded as it already is.

    And what will the Tories do when the NHS becomes that crowded? It'll be 'oh, we need to put the cap higher, so that the NHS can afford to survive!'

    Make no mistake, this will end in a private National Health Service.

    The Tories were elected on the promise that they wouldn't do this. It's disgusting, and I sincerely hope it will be David Cameron's Poll Tax.
    The Royal Marsden is a public hospital.
    Resources will not however, remain at a standstill for the 51%. The NHS will generate income from this measure, they are not doing it out of the kindness of their heart.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Whatever the public wants, if you agree or disagree on whether this should happen is largely irrelevant, you can sign as many petitions as you'd like but it will not change the facts, the NHS is going down a route to ensure it's long term survival, with it's exponential cost to the taxpayer the inevitable seems to be as the government intend, Tony Blair saw this with his reforms. The problem is that with Blair many of the reforms were not thought out or prepared as we have seen. Hospitals have to be bailed out because of these PFI's. You can control such "privatisation" with good solid contracts with the 'private finance'. That is the most important lesson to be learnt, and if I am honest, having read it, it seems the Lib Dem intervention will prevent such extreme exploitation as we have seen from the Blair reforms. Competition cannot be entirely controlled, but private companies will always vie for public contracts. They are the most reliable.

    Lansley has been working on these reforms since Blair's reforms, that investment in order to make sure they're right cannot be ignored and must be at the very least acknowledged. Just like in everything else this government has tried to do, they have consistently failed to sell any of it to the British public. We are not stupid!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)

    And what will the Tories do when the NHS becomes that crowded? It'll be 'oh, we need to put the cap higher, so that the NHS can afford to survive!'

    Make no mistake, this will end in a private National Health Service.
    .
    I know hardly anything about the bill if I'm honest, but could you explain to me another way we can keep the NHS sustainable? We all recognise that the NHS is unsustainable as its costs are beyond astronomical. Are you suggesting big tax rises to pay for it or a reduced service from the NHS.

    I love the NHS as much as anyone, but I can't sadly see how it's manageable without privatisation.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    My opposition is based on the fact that I do not want 49% of the NHS to be privatised.

    You claim it's not privatisation... but it clearly is - half privatisation, anyway.

    Again, the Tory Party should be voted out at the next election because of it - they certainly can't be trusted to govern alone, when they've proved themselves so dedicated to the cause of privatising the NHS.
    While I can see where you're coming from, surely it's not as bad as you're making it out to be?

    If hospitals get more money from private funding and make a profit there surely they can use this money to ensure that the standard of care for the public improves overall?

    Even though up to 49% of resources CAN be used by private companies, in reality, are 49% of the public going to go private?

    I'm sitting on the fence with this issue because whilst the NHS is one of the last of our crowning achievements it has become a bit of a bloated mess and something needs to be done about it.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Phelps)
    I know hardly anything about the bill if I'm honest, but could you explain to me another way we can keep the NHS sustainable? We all recognise that the NHS is unsustainable as its costs are beyond astronomical. Are you suggesting big tax rises to pay for it or a reduced service from the NHS.

    I love the NHS as much as anyone, but I can't sadly see how it's manageable without privatisation.
    I disagree. Mass privatisation is NOT the answer - and the problem is not that bad.

    The US, the private system we seem to be trying to emulate, spends twice as much as a percentage of GDP as we do, and gets far worse care. Evidence shows private systems cost more in the long run.

    That said, reports recently have shown that the NHS costing a lot is fiction, and that it is becoming more efficient. The welfare bill is far bigger, and far less sustainable.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wibletg)
    While I can see where you're coming from, surely it's not as bad as you're making it out to be?

    If hospitals get more money from private funding and make a profit there surely they can use this money to ensure that the standard of care for the public improves overall?

    Even though up to 49% of resources CAN be used by private companies, in reality, are 49% of the public going to go private?

    I'm sitting on the fence with this issue because whilst the NHS is one of the last of our crowning achievements it has become a bit of a bloated mess and something needs to be done about it.
    49% will go to private probably, yes. If there's anything tuition fees has taught us, it's that institutions will go pretty much to the top of caps. Basically, the government will cut funding so that they have to.

    And no, the money probably won't improve services significantly - it'll just replace taxpayers money going into it (which is a positive to be fair, but I don't think it'll be worth it).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What people seem to be missing is that this is aimed at cutting the NHS budget. Despite in the build up to the 2010 election, Cameron promising to 'cut the defecit, not the NHS.'

    I also worry about the effects on patient care, particularly with regards to GP's. Doctors have enough to do and are under enough pressure without having the strain of regulating their own finances. They are medical experts, not businessmen and not all can employ or afford to employ someone to do this for them. Therefore, less attention itself will go on to the patient and more will be focused on their surgery as a 'business.'
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chris22)
    What people seem to be missing is that this is aimed at cutting the NHS budget. Despite in the build up to the 2010 election, Cameron promising to 'cut the defecit, not the NHS.'

    I also worry about the effects on patient care, particularly with regards to GP's. Doctors have enough to do and are under enough pressure without having the strain of regulating their own finances. They are medical experts, not businessmen and not all can employ or afford to employ someone to do this for them. Therefore, less attention itself will go on to the patient and more will be focused on their surgery as a 'business.'
    Labour back GP-led comissioning
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    My experience of the NHS is crap, i.e I've been in 9 months of extreme pain, they didn't put me on the waiting list when they said they would for investigative surgery. Should have gotten my op this month, had to fight with them in order that I wouldn't have to wait another two months for the op and I'm finally getting my op the middle of march. The only reason they conceded was because I threatened to go private (on borrowed money) and then give them hell for their incompetence.

    As you can probably tell, they aren't in my good books. If privatisation means they wouldn't f*** up massively like they have with me, then I'm for it!

    Oh and P.S They don't even know what is wrong with me, it could potentially be cancer as it is very hard to diagnose it. If it turns out that is what it is, I'm suing the NHS big time.

    I understand this is only one instance, and if privatisation wouldn't solve this issue then I don't really care either way, and clearly my opinion has been coloured by my sh**ty experience!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Labour back GP-led comissioning
    I'm not criticising the Conservatives, i'm criticsing the policy as a whole.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15450552[

    This has already been amended.
    Why does there need to be competition between hospitals? Lol, I love the fact that you're talking about something about that you haven't the foggiest about how it runs. I'm a 5th year medical student, and I've spent the last 6 years traipsing around NHS hospitals doing various jobs, etc and I'm still not completely in the know how the problems in the NHS, but what I can say is this, whilst the privatisation of hospital trusts isn't necessarily a bad thing, the privatisation of services that hospitals rely on, is completely absurd.

    The main bulk of the problem is these consortiums, which are GP-led, will not have the expertise to deal with this. The old Strategic Health Authority had contracted or permanent employees, who were health economists or clinical staff who had subsequently trained in economic policy and finance. GPs have non of these qualifications, as by default they are trained to treat people.

    Now some GPs, think that they are up to the task (namely because they stand to get extra money from it), and bear in mind that most GPs in the country are private registered UK practices who are given a budget from NHS pot by the government and whatever is left at the end of the year is kept by them. Others feel that they won't cope with juggling finance with seeing patients and so the option given to them is that they palm it off to a private company who puts in a bid for a tender to then charge/give hospitals a sum of money depending on how many people are referred/discharged from hospital, how the are referred/discharged and what they are referred/discharged for. Now, because it's a private company that dictates this, the onus is on them to make a profit, therefore the worry that even less money is put back into hospitals and more is kept by these private companies, thereby jeopardising the ability to provide healthcare to those that need it.

    Doctors are against it because of the above and that even if it were to happen, it should be the NHS hospital trusts that decide, how the money is spent as they have the greater specialist expertise clinically and financially to deal with it.

    Within the NHS atm, part of the reason why the situation is the way it is, is that non-clinical (at an executive and non-executive) level come in and broker deals with some company, that will sell them products at grossly marked up prices. I once worked with an Operating Theatre Manager who told me the price of 4 standard ink cartridges that you and I would at max spend (£20 per cartridge, so £80) were being sold to them for just short of £700 because the were tied into some tender with a certain office suppliers and the printers that had an RRP of ~£100 were being sold for £1000+. You have millions of pounds being given to several IT developers by each trust to develop a electronic database, but because non-of them liaise with one another you have huge inefficiencies, resulting in a computer system that doesn't work, even though they've this money, so in the last decade it's estimated that £12bn nationally has been wasted on this one failure, which is a lot considering for London maybe £2-3bn/year is spent on its healthcare, and this isn't taking into account other failures.

    It's full of so many inefficiencies, and even at this point the NHS still has to pay for drugs, the cost of care and surgery. With the part-privatisation of the NHS, the danger is that it becomes a money pot for other companies. If such wasteful expenditures were addressed, I don't think we'd be in such a desperate situation.

    The fact of the matter is clinicians and health professionals are really worried at Lansley's proposals to the point, now that they are unanimously rejecting it, and Lansley's, who is a lawyer by trade (turned politician) and has no experience of health economics or NHS affairs, should be listening to those who work within the NHS and run it, as opposed to coming in with some bulldozer and gung ho mentality.

    This NHS system which is losing money and acquiring debts is analogous to an inefficient run down house losing heat. To fix that house, it is invariably cheaper to install double-glazing and fill in the cavity walls with insulation instead of bulldozing a house and building a new one.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by medic_armadillo7)
    Why does there need to be competition between hospitals? Lol, I love the fact that you're talking about something about that you haven't the foggiest about how it runs. I'm a 5th year medical student, and I've spent the last 6 years traipsing around NHS hospitals doing various jobs, etc and I'm still not completely in the know how the problems in the NHS, but what I can say is this, whilst the privatisation of hospital trusts isn't necessarily a bad thing, the privatisation of services that hospitals rely on, is completely absurd.

    The main bulk of the problem is these consortiums, which are GP-led, will not have the expertise to deal with this. The old Strategic Health Authority had contracted or permanent employees, who were health economists or clinical staff who had subsequently trained in economic policy and finance. GPs have non of these qualifications, as by default they are trained to treat people.

    Now some GPs, think that they are up to the task (namely because they stand to get extra money from it), and bear in mind that most GPs in the country are private registered UK practices who are given a budget from NHS pot by the government and whatever is left at the end of the year is kept by them. Others feel that they won't cope with juggling finance with seeing patients and so the option given to them is that they palm it off to a private company who puts in a bid for a tender to then charge/give hospitals a sum of money depending on how many people are referred/discharged from hospital, how the are referred/discharged and what they are referred/discharged for. Now, because it's a private company that dictates this, the onus is on them to make a profit, therefore the worry that even less money is put back into hospitals and more is kept by these private companies, thereby jeopardising the ability to provide healthcare to those that need it.

    Doctors are against it because of the above and that even if it were to happen, it should be the NHS hospital trusts that decide, how the money is spent as they have the greater specialist expertise clinically and financially to deal with it.

    Within the NHS atm, part of the reason why the situation is the way it is, is that non-clinical (at an executive and non-executive) level come in and broker deals with some company, that will sell them products at grossly marked up prices. I once worked with an Operating Theatre Manager who told me the price of 4 standard ink cartridges that you and I would at max spend (£20 per cartridge, so £80) were being sold to them for just short of £700 because the were tied into some tender with a certain office suppliers and the printers that had an RRP of ~£100 were being sold for £1000+. You have millions of pounds being given to several IT developers by each trust to develop a electronic database, but because non-of them liaise with one another you have huge inefficiencies, resulting in a computer system that doesn't work, even though they've this money, so in the last decade it's estimated that £12bn nationally has been wasted on this one failure, which is a lot considering for London maybe £2-3bn/year is spent on its healthcare, and this isn't taking into account other failures.

    It's full of so many inefficiencies, and even at this point the NHS still has to pay for drugs, the cost of care and surgery. With the part-privatisation of the NHS, the danger is that it becomes a money pot for other companies. If such wasteful expenditures were addressed, I don't think we'd be in such a desperate situation.

    The fact of the matter is clinicians and health professionals are really worried at Lansley's proposals to the point, now that they are unanimously rejecting it, and Lansley's, who is a lawyer by trade (turned politician) and has no experience of health economics or NHS affairs, should be listening to those who work within the NHS and run it, as opposed to coming in with some bulldozer and gung ho mentality.

    This NHS system which is losing money and acquiring debts is analogous to an inefficient run down house losing heat. To fix that house, it is invariably cheaper to install double-glazing and fill in the cavity walls with insulation instead of bulldozing a house and building a new one.
    Agreed. The NHS need to have a massive input into any reform on how they are run. Health professionals are the one who know how the most effective way to run the NHS. It seems that their opinions are dismissed by very stubborn politicias. They are ignoring legitimate concerns of those who it will directly effect.

    In addition, these reforms appear to be hugely unpopular, and won't do the Conservatives any good at the next election.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    you seem to be ignoring quite a big issue, which is the fact that due to the proposals many local health services will be forced to close due to the competition element. i think this is pretty bloody important.
    also, the fact that the government is trying to institute these radical policies at a time when they are also demanding huge cuts. i think that whatever your political view point you can see this is pretty ridiculous.
    finally, i think the level of anger coming from the medical profession should show you what these reforms are going to do. 90% of GP's are against this, as are huge swathes of Nurses, Doctors etc. the only group in the medical profession who largely support the reforms are surgeons, who are also the group who would make the most money out of them
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Don't be taking in by posturing politicians
    You said it
    Don't be taken in by politicians.

    Listen to the NHS workers, the doctors and nurses.

    Don't back the bill
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So I think we're all agreed here - Doctors good, Conservatives bad.

    NHS good, private bad.

    Sign the petition - drop the bill!

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 28, 2012
New on TSR

Join the Welcome Squad

Become a part of the TSR team!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.