Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

NHS bill is passed! Are you happy?

Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Are you happy with the passing of the bill?
    Yes, very
    17
    7.23%
    Somewhat positive
    21
    8.94%
    Not particularly
    16
    6.81%
    No, not at all
    154
    65.53%
    Indifferent
    27
    11.49%

    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    I have three main issues with it.

    The first two are directly related to GP's being in charge of budgets.
    1 - The fact that they will have to manage the budgets will obviously take time from when they would otherwise be practicing medicine.
    2 - There is a clear conflict of interest. If the GP doesn't have to worry about the budget, then they can prescribe whatever treatment is best for the patient. If they do have to worry about money, then they may end up making decisions based on money rather than what treatment the patient actually needs.

    And the third is simply the greater involvement of private companies and the worries that have already been mentioned about cherry picking and such.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Actually I would love to know how many MPs and Lords have links to the private care industry and how many invested in it before this bill was passed..
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No offence meant, but England suffers enough already, unlike Wales and Scotland who already get FREE prescriptions

    Secondly, we need a system more like Switzerland, so then people won't get angry when the egoistic conservative party try and take the remaining things that the working class have left. We need to vote and give our opinion on every law change. Only then will we be living in a true democracy

    I for one cannot wait for Ed Milliband to get into power in 2015.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I have three main issues with it.

    The first two are directly related to GP's being in charge of budgets.
    1 - The fact that they will have to manage the budgets will obviously take time from when they would otherwise be practicing medicine.
    2 - There is a clear conflict of interest. If the GP doesn't have to worry about the budget, then they can prescribe whatever treatment is best for the patient. If they do have to worry about money, then they may end up making decisions based on money rather than what treatment the patient actually needs.

    And the third is simply the greater involvement of private companies and the worries that have already been mentioned about cherry picking and such.
    this is potentially a huge problem..could lead to a GP recommending treatment for a patient that is cheaper but not necessary better for them....
    Of course the packages the private firms will offer will be profit driven and thats it
    Its shocking really..

    Im just surprised that the LD supported it!..Also considering that the Coalition was accusing Labour of wanting to do some top-down reorganization when they first formed and how they wouldnt do such a thing..they have basically lied to us in our faces..
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    And with the budget coming up tomorrow, I'd say it'll be totally forgotten about in 12 hours or so. Well played politicians :congrats:
    This will be interesting. Do you know what time things will be announced??
    • 64 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    This will be interesting. Do you know what time things will be announced??
    The budget? After PMQs AFAIK.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    True :sad:

    I guess we really aren't a democracy any more
    We are, it is just the public are ignorant and apathetic, which is exactly why they are dicked on by our rulers. If people went out onto the streets and protested, or if ten million people wrote letters to their MP's then this bill would have not have passed. Unfortunately people care more about the X Factor. If this was somewhere like France then the people would be protesting.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Actually I would love to know how many MPs and Lords have links to the private care industry and how many invested in it before this bill was passed..
    Not sure if you've seen this:
    http://socialinvestigations.blogspot...on-of.html?m=1

    Only given it a skim so far - not sure of the exact details.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm satisfied with this reform, it is a step in the right direction as long term UK has to deal with an increasingly obese and ageing population, this healthcare bill is going to spiral out of control if some brakes are not applied now.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Actually I would love to know how many MPs and Lords have links to the private care industry and how many invested in it before this bill was passed..
    The Health Secretary himself is/was sponsored by, coincidentally, by one of the groups most likely to benefit from these reforms.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Not only that it wasnt in their manifesto...

    (Original post by KCosmo)
    I admit, I know not the intricacies of said bill!

    But the fact that so many physician's royal college's, nursing union's, hospital workers unions, radiologists etc. pretty much every official body that deals with patients is against it, means that I hold the bill in at best, mild suspicion.

    Also, it wasn't in the tories manifesto
    As someone who read the whole document, you'll find it on page 46.
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    No, I'm not really.

    Giving doctors control of their own budgets can only mean more bureaucracy, which I’m pretty sure the Tories said they would remove; but if they were pulled up on that then they would just use the “But we’re in a coalition so we have to make compromises!” argument and effectively place some of the blame on the Lib Dems.

    The fact that the private sector will be able to get a foot in the door makes me very worried because it moves us closer to an American-style system. But, still, I believe that the Tories have shot themselves in the foot because all Labour have to do come election time is claim to change the NHS back to where it was before.

    You can mess with a lot of things in Britain. But what you absolutely should not mess with is the NHS.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    As it stands atm, the NHS will still be free at the point of care. The way it is being reorganised means that GPs will give patients a choice of where they would like to go for their treatment, i.e. a private or NHS hospital. Say you choose private company, the NHS will then pay for that work to be done by the private company.

    Sounds great on the face of it, but when you delve deeper you see why the bill could potentially be harmful. The fear is that private hospitals will pick and choose the cheaper, more lucrative procedures and leave the expensive ones to the NHS. Lansley says this won't happen and I can assure you it will- here is why:

    I'll use 3 different vascular (veins and arteries) procedures as an example. We have varicose veins removal, angioplasty and anyeurism repair. Now Lansley says that companies cannot pick and choose what procedures they do, but they can beat the system. Open Abdominal Aortic Anyuerism repair is a massive operation, so much so that a space in an intensive care bed MUST be available post-operatively otherwise the procedure cannot take place. Depending on the success, the patient may stay in hospital for weeks after the surgery recovering. This will involve a number of staff to aid the patient's recovery, including physios, occupational therapists, nurses, dieticians and obviously an experienced surgical team; all very expensive.

    Now as a private company, you wouldn't want to do such a costly operation and you can avoid doing it by simply not having an intensive care unit in their hospital. They can however, still do varicose vein removal and placing stents into blocked arteries, procedures that take little time and can even seen patients in and out of hospital within the day; thus costing less money, meaning NHS hospitals will foot a greater bill for larger surgeries.

    This is the big issue. NHS hospitals make money from elective operations such as varicose vein removal or hip replacements. The Primary Care Trust overseeing the budget for the hospital will give x amount of money for each elective procedure they do. NHS hospitals take this profit and use it to fund the emergency, more expensive work. Elective work makes profit, emergency work makes a loss (as you'd expect, if you were ill in hospital you'd want every test under the sun to find out what was wrong). Now if the private companies are doing more of the elective work, this leaves a shortfall in an NHS hospital's budget, meaning that the money for emergency work could potentially be a lot less, straining resources and putting patients at risk. If the loss becomes too great, a private company will bail the debt ridden hospital out and the NHS will lose a hospital.

    This is one of many reasons I oppose the bill.
    But your whole argument seems to rotate around the fact that you believe that private hospitals/doctors will charge less than the NHS. In reality the reason why most people go to private hospitals rather than state funded hospitals is because they tend to offer better staff, medicine, care and equipment. Thus the private hospitals tend to charge more.

    From what I've read and understood is that these changes are SUPPOSED TO save five billion British pounds by 2015 while keeping the quality of the services high. Though I'm wondering if the government claims are true since expanding the bureaucracy does't seem as a very cost-efficient move nor will it greatly improve the services. Rather the government seems to be relying on a certain percentage of people to opt out for the private sector rather than the NHS which obviously would save the government money.

    On the whole I feel neutral about the changes since we have yet to see what will happen and its important to note that the British government is running a massive budget deficit, so any reductions to it would be welcome.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As a service user and a future nurse, it makes me want to immigrate. :sigh:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heeck)
    But your whole argument seems to rotate around the fact that you believe that private hospitals/doctors will charge less than the NHS. In reality the reason why most people go to private hospitals rather than state funded hospitals is because they tend to offer better staff, medicine, care and equipment. Thus the private hospitals tend to charge more.

    From what I've read and understood is that these changes are SUPPOSED TO save five billion British pounds by 2015 while keeping the quality of the services high. Though I'm wondering if the government claims are true since expanding the bureaucracy does't seem as a very cost-efficient move nor will it greatly improve the services. Rather the government seems to be relying on a certain percentage of people to opt out for the private sector rather than the NHS which obviously would save the government money.

    On the whole I feel neutral about the changes since we have yet to see what will happen and its important to note that the British government is running a massive budget deficit, so any reductions to it would be welcome.
    But that's not his argument. He's arguing that private companies will avoid the long term expensive procedures by not providing the resources for these procedures and so leaving these to the NHS.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roar558)
    But that's not his argument. He's arguing that private companies will avoid the long term expensive procedures by not providing the resources for these procedures and so leaving these to the NHS.
    But what I'm trying to say is that private companies will take upon all operations my reason being, surprise, surprise, they will charge more(Thus covering the costs and making profit).
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heeck)
    But what I'm trying to say is that private companies will take upon all operations my reason being, surprise, surprise, they will charge more(Thus covering the costs and making profit).
    They could do so which would cause a large rise in cost of services however that just gives more reason to be against the bill.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roar558)
    They could do so which would cause a large rise in cost of services however that just gives more reason to be against the bill.
    As I stated earlier, the whole point of these reforms is that they are an attempt to reduce the massive budget that Britain running at the moment. Anyway you'd still be able to choose the cheaper NHS.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heeck)
    In reality the reason why most people go to private hospitals rather than state funded hospitals is because they tend to offer better staff, medicine, care and equipment.
    Those things aren't even true. People often go private to circumvent NHS waiting times.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    As someone who read the whole document, you'll find it on page 46.
    what did it say?..and wouldnt be at odds with what they said?..

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?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  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 the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 21, 2012
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

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