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

The Health and Social Care Act - What does it actually do?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I need to assess some of the Coalition's policies for an assignment. Can someone tell me, in clear terms, what the Act actually does?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Act is a VERY large document but in essence It takes the bulk of the NHS budget and gives it to groups of GPs (called Clinical Commissioning Groups or CCGs) and tells them to buy healthcare for their patients with the money.

    It also allows 'Any qualified provider' to supply healthcare (at the moment all hospitals are owned by the people via the NHS), allowing private suppliers to provide healthcare.

    Finally it forces all hospitals to become 'Foundation Trusts'. This forces the hospitals to act like businesses. They can borrow money, they have to make a profit and they can go bankrupt.

    These are the main points of the act but to understand what's happening you have to know a few other things. The government is intending over the next 10 years to cut the NHS budget by between 40-50%. Actually because private medicine is more expensive that its public equivalent, costs will be increased by 20%, so the real cut will be more like 70%.

    This will in effect be the end of the NHS and medicine paid for out of taxation. You will be expected to pay for medicine by taking out very expensive private insurance if you can afford it and the private insurers will use the 'any qualified providers' who will have burgeoned in the intervening years.

    What happens if you can't aford insurance? You die. Something like 45,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to access healtcare. 25% are either under insured (so if they get the wrong illness they still aren't covered) or not insured at all.

    Why would the government take one of the best systems in the world and replace it with one that will not meet the needs of most people in this country? Because they and their friends stand to make a lot of money from this.

    If you don't believe me then go on the web and check it out. Try www.actionforthenhs.org.uk and read the articles. Each fact is fully sourced.

    Once you've realised that this is the truth, get active (and get your friends active too). Together we can stop the biggest injustice perpetrated in this country since 1948.
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgydosser)
    The Act is a VERY large document but in essence It takes the bulk of the NHS budget and gives it to groups of GPs (called Clinical Commissioning Groups or CCGs) and tells them to buy healthcare for their patients with the money.

    It also allows 'Any qualified provider' to supply healthcare (at the moment all hospitals are owned by the people via the NHS), allowing private suppliers to provide healthcare.

    Finally it forces all hospitals to become 'Foundation Trusts'. This forces the hospitals to act like businesses. They can borrow money, they have to make a profit and they can go bankrupt.

    These are the main points of the act but to understand what's happening you have to know a few other things. The government is intending over the next 10 years to cut the NHS budget by between 40-50%. Actually because private medicine is more expensive that its public equivalent, costs will be increased by 20%, so the real cut will be more like 70%.

    This will in effect be the end of the NHS and medicine paid for out of taxation. You will be expected to pay for medicine by taking out very expensive private insurance if you can afford it and the private insurers will use the 'any qualified providers' who will have burgeoned in the intervening years.

    What happens if you can't aford insurance? You die. Something like 45,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to access healtcare. 25% are either under insured (so if they get the wrong illness they still aren't covered) or not insured at all.

    Why would the government take one of the best systems in the world and replace it with one that will not meet the needs of most people in this country? Because they and their friends stand to make a lot of money from this.

    If you don't believe me then go on the web and check it out. Try www.actionforthenhs.org.uk and read the articles. Each fact is fully sourced.

    Once you've realised that this is the truth, get active (and get your friends active too). Together we can stop the biggest injustice perpetrated in this country since 1948.
    Very unbiased :rolleyes:
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Very unbiased :rolleyes:
    So tell us the good points of the Act?
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    So tell us the good points of the Act?
    I don't know enough to make a comment, but I'm sure the 'You die' bit (along with many others) is way over the top.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgydosser)
    The Act is a VERY large document but in essence It takes the bulk of the NHS budget and gives it to groups of GPs (called Clinical Commissioning Groups or CCGs) and tells them to buy healthcare for their patients with the money.

    It also allows 'Any qualified provider' to supply healthcare (at the moment all hospitals are owned by the people via the NHS), allowing private suppliers to provide healthcare.

    Finally it forces all hospitals to become 'Foundation Trusts'. This forces the hospitals to act like businesses. They can borrow money, they have to make a profit and they can go bankrupt.

    These are the main points of the act but to understand what's happening you have to know a few other things. The government is intending over the next 10 years to cut the NHS budget by between 40-50%. Actually because private medicine is more expensive that its public equivalent, costs will be increased by 20%, so the real cut will be more like 70%.

    This will in effect be the end of the NHS and medicine paid for out of taxation. You will be expected to pay for medicine by taking out very expensive private insurance if you can afford it and the private insurers will use the 'any qualified providers' who will have burgeoned in the intervening years.

    What happens if you can't aford insurance? You die. Something like 45,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to access healtcare. 25% are either under insured (so if they get the wrong illness they still aren't covered) or not insured at all.

    Why would the government take one of the best systems in the world and replace it with one that will not meet the needs of most people in this country? Because they and their friends stand to make a lot of money from this.

    If you don't believe me then go on the web and check it out. Try www.actionforthenhs.org.uk and read the articles. Each fact is fully sourced.

    Once you've realised that this is the truth, get active (and get your friends active too). Together we can stop the biggest injustice perpetrated in this country since 1948.
    Congratulations, you win the prize for the worst post on TSR 2012. For a chance to redeem those 2 hours of your life you spent writing that ****, provide evidence for your claims.
    • 56 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely nothing.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgydosser)
    Finally it forces all hospitals to become 'Foundation Trusts'. This forces the hospitals to act like businesses. They can borrow money, they have to make a profit and they can go bankrupt.
    Nonsense. How on earth do you think an ordinary public hospital would 'make a profit'? As for behaving like a business - I expect public bodies to be even better than businesses when it comes to financial propriety and spending within their means.

    These are the main points of the act but to understand what's happening you have to know a few other things. The government is intending over the next 10 years to cut the NHS budget by between 40-50%.
    Something which you've just made up. Or, as they call it in politics, a blatant lie.

    What happens if you can't aford insurance? You die. Something like 45,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to access healtcare. 25% are either under insured (so if they get the wrong illness they still aren't covered) or not insured at all.
    The American model is far from the only model of semi-privatised health care provision.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In reply to my critics if make the following remarks:

    Meenu89 states
    very unbiased
    The evidence is there (but you have to look for it) that the NHS is about to be destroyed. I consider this to be a crime against humanity, so I’m not going to give a dispassionate account.

    If a friend of yours was about to have his throat cut, would you stand there and consider such points as ‘well my friend can be annoying and the attacker is using a sharp knife so it won’t hurt that much…..’ ? No. You would (I hope) jump to your friend’s aid.

    What I have not done, Lib’s remarks notwithstanding, (Lib you should, before you confidently expose your ignorance, do some research) is mislead anyone in anyway. Everything I have said is evidence based.

    Sdiff’s request that I provide evidence is, in fact, dealt with about four lines above his comment, where I direct you to a fully sourced article.

    It would take too long to reproduce all the links that go with an article, but let me deal with at least one of Lib’s objections. He claims that my claim of a 40%-50% cut in the NHS budget is
    a blatant lie
    I suggest you google ’20 billion cuts NHS’ and read any of the three million odd articles. The cuts are supposed to be ‘efficiency savings’ but talk to anyone who works in the NHS and they’ll tell you that services are being cut. If you follow this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...s-nhs-services you’ll find the following quote:

    Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: "Andrew Lansley promised the NHS cuts to save the £20bn would be in bureaucracy and waste and would not come at the expense of the frontline. But the evidence we are getting on a daily basis is that the impact is on the patient and frontline services."
    However I said cuts would be between 40%-50% and 20 billion is only 20% so where is the rest of it? This article from the FT explains government thinking for after the next election:
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94115a5e-7...#axzz1yGWVokQP

    So there you go Lib it seems that just about every newspaper in the land and the Financial Times are (you obviously know better) lying!

    Lib’s further comment that the US system is not the only alternative is true. The European model is, however much more expensive and is not what we’re going to get.

    This reply is already too long but you can email office@actionforthenhs.org.uk and receive a full answer to any other queries.

    Please be warned. If you don’t fight to save it, you are going to lose the NHS!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgydosser)
    In reply to my critics if make the following remarks:

    The evidence is there (but you have to look for it) that the NHS is about to be destroyed. I consider this to be a crime against humanity, so I’m not going to give a dispassionate account.
    While I think most of us would agree that the NHS should be kept, calling any system which has a private element a crime against humanity is quite frankly ridiculous, unless you think the governments of half of Europe should be in the Hague.

    I suggest you google ’20 billion cuts NHS’ and read any of the three million odd articles. The cuts are supposed to be ‘efficiency savings’ but talk to anyone who works in the NHS and they’ll tell you that services are being cut. If you follow this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...s-nhs-services you’ll find the following quote:
    Calling it a 'cut' isn't quite right, because that implies that you are spending £20 billion less on the NHS. Actual spending will not decrease, the 'cut' is relative to previously projected rises in spending or projected rises in costs. If you look at a plot of projected funding:



    then it is relatively flat in real terms. Obviously you can argue that it should be rising (I would tend to agree) or that health inflation is greater than general inflation (I would also agree), or even general inflation will be higher than projected (also possible) but nevertheless, calling it a 'cut' is a clear attempt to mislead people.

    However I said cuts would be between 40%-50% and 20 billion is only 20% so where is the rest of it? This article from the FT explains government thinking for after the next election:
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94115a5e-7...#axzz1yGWVokQP
    Ok, but we need to apply the same caveats as before (they are not 'cuts' in the way they are normally defined), and also note that this is speculation, and not policy. We do not know if the Conservatives will even be in power then, or what the state of the economy will be.

    It is also totally unrelated to the Health and Social Care Bill.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Mbob states:
    they are not 'cuts' in the way they are normally defined
    . Actually I think this is how 'cuts' are normally defined. Most 'cuts' are in fact a stop on increases in spending.

    I agree that the term is slightly misleading but it is normal usage and I didn't want to complicate matters further by bringing up this subject. However as you have.....

    They really are 'cuts' because we are not getting the same level of service. Waiting times are increasing and available procedures are being reduced. If the government carries out its plans there will be only a rump of public medicine.

    Here is an article from Medical Xpress quoting the highly respected British Medical Journal that both vindicates my claims regarding the extent of the cuts and uses the word 'cuts'

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-0...le-expert.html


    Mbob:
    calling any system which has a private element a crime against humanity is quite frankly ridiculous, unless you think the governments of half of Europe should be in the Hague.
    Meenu89:
    but I'm sure the 'You die' bit .... is way over the top
    If all that was happening to the NHS was the introduction of a bit of private medicine, then I would not be happy personally, but it would not, you are correct, be a 'crime against humanity'.

    What is happening, is that we are moving from a low cost, highly efficient system paid out of progressive taxation, that is available to all, to a system that will cost more and where those that can afford it will have to take out private insurance and those who can't will not have access to medical care.

    As I stated before, it is not hyperbole to say that people will die. In the USA 25% of Americans either don't have cover or are inadequately covered. Half of all personal bankruptcies are people who can't pay for medical care anymore and 45,000 Americans DIE every year because they can afford to access healthcare.

    I think taking us from the system we have now to one that will not meet people's needs in order to make your mates rich is a crime against humanity. I stand by what I said.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Mbob states:
    they are not 'cuts' in the way they are normally defined
    . Actually I think this is how 'cuts' are normally defined. Most 'cuts' are in fact a stop on increases in spending.

    I agree that the term is slightly misleading but it is normal usage and I didn't want to complicate matters further by bringing up this subject. However as you have.....

    They really are 'cuts' because we are not getting the same level of service. Waiting times are increasing and available procedures are being reduced. If the government carries out its plans there will be only a rump of public medicine.

    Here is an article from Medical Xpress quoting the highly respected British Medical Journal that both vindicates my claims regarding the extent of the cuts and uses the word 'cuts'

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-0...le-expert.html


    Mbob:
    calling any system which has a private element a crime against humanity is quite frankly ridiculous, unless you think the governments of half of Europe should be in the Hague.
    Meenu89:
    but I'm sure the 'You die' bit .... is way over the top
    If all that was happening to the NHS was the introduction of a bit of private medicine, then I would not be happy personally, but it would not, you are correct, be a 'crime against humanity'.

    What is happening, is that we are moving from a low cost, highly efficient system paid out of progressive taxation, that is available to all, to a system that will cost more and where those that can afford it will have to take out private insurance and those who can't will not have access to medical care.

    As I stated before, it is not hyperbole to say that people will die. In the USA 25% of Americans either don't have cover or are inadequately covered. Half of all personal bankruptcies are people who can't pay for medical care anymore and 45,000 Americans DIE every year because they can afford to access healthcare.

    I think taking us from the system we have now to one that will not meet people's needs in order to make your mates rich is a crime against humanity. I stand by what I said.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm probably talking to myself by now but just for the record, the editor of the Lancet (who probably knows even more than Sdiff about these things) has written that 'people will die' as a result of the legislation.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...p-chaos-lancet

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: June 24, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

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.