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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    how does this deal with NHS scotland, NHS walse and the HSC

    we going to have a case where like fees we have to pay for our own healthcare in england, while scotland remains free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    how does this deal with NHS scotland, NHS walse and the HSC

    we going to have a case where like fees we have to pay for our own healthcare in england, while scotland remains free
    I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming since the bill sells all assets of the NHS - this would push the new system into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    (Original post by simontinsley)
    QFA
    Just to confirm/correct the above?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming since the bill sells all assets of the NHS - this would push the new system into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


    Just to confirm/correct the above?
    i think Northern Ireland comes under the health department anyway

    responsibility for NHS Wales was passed to the Welsh Assembly and Executive under devolution in 1999

    they would treat emergency care, but wouldn't be become a case i would need travel insurance to go to scotland
    Healthcare policy and funding is the responsibility of the Scottish Government's Health and Wellbeing Directorate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Perhaps you should, to 1.4.iii, which would address those concerns.
    4.iii doesn't address those concerns at all.

    Please tell me how;

    (iii) Minimise disruption from the transition of provision of health services to private individuals and companies.

    address:

    1. the NHS will be sold to the highest bidder and not the best equipped.
    2. separate hospitals owned by different organisations may offer drastically different services.

    Because quite frankly, if it does, it's one of the most vague forms of protection in a bill I have read on here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    4.iii doesn't address those concerns at all.

    Please tell me how;

    (iii) Minimise disruption from the transition of provision of health services to private individuals and companies.

    address:

    1. the NHS will be sold to the highest bidder and not the best equipped.
    2. separate hospitals owned by different organisations may offer drastically different services.

    Because quite frankly, if it does, it's one of the most vague forms of protection in a bill I have read on here.
    Enabling competition between providers is what will push standards up. If a company bids highly for a service and then does not provide a good service they will not make a profit. There's no need for government to be trying to judge the suitability of products for consumers when the whole point of this Bill is to give consumers choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teh User)
    No, no, no. This stinks of the disgraceful US system and it reminds me of the poll tax, super regressive. What about those who can't afford mandatory catastrophe health insurance? It just turns us into a little America. The bill at present would have them in a continual prosecution/acquittal ring as poverty bites but they haven't followed the law.
    I refer you to 3.6. The money to buy catastrophe health insurance is given in the PAA.

    If this was the German, French or Italian system, I'd maybe like it. However, it's just a veiled US system with a government fist holding onto it.
    It's nothing like the US system, indeed it's much more similar to the German/French model, just with individual savings accounts rather than social insurance.

    Edit: I've just realised. This is the third reading. Shows where I've been recently. Still, after reading the act several times, this just ruins every bit of healthcare I get at the moment and would continually criminalise myself as I would be unable to purchase insurance.
    I once again refer you to 3.6. Read the Act several times?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No.
    Elaborate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Enabling competition between providers is what will push standards up. If a company bids highly for a service and then does not provide a good service they will not make a profit. There's no need for government to be trying to judge the suitability of products for consumers when the whole point of this Bill is to give consumers choice.
    Not many people (especially the poor) have the luxury of choosing which hospital they wish to be ill in unfortunately. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Adding to Cardozo's point people won't have the luxury of choosing which hospital to go to in emergencies either when they're rushed away in an ambulance...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    Not many people (especially the poor) have the luxury of choosing which hospital they wish to be ill in unfortunately. :rolleyes:
    However, this Bill will give people that choice, that is the whole point. Currently only the rich can, this means everyone can. Sigh.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Adding to Cardozo's point people won't have the luxury of choosing which hospital to go to in emergencies either when they're rushed away in an ambulance...
    Correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm fairly sure you can't choose which hospital you go to if you're in an ambulance. I'm sure they have to take you to the closest one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm fairly sure you can't choose which hospital you go to if you're in an ambulance. I'm sure they have to take you to the closest one.
    Yes, but as Cardozo has pointed out the issue with this Bill is that it will create huge differences in the quality of the service received at different hospitals. Granted, this happens to some degree in the NHS currently, but this Bill will exacerbate the situation much further.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Yes, but as Cardozo has pointed out the issue with this Bill is that it will create huge differences in the quality of the service received at different hospitals. Granted, this happens to some degree in the NHS currently, but this Bill will exacerbate the situation much further.
    I'd like to see how you come to this conclusion.

    As you've said yourself, services at different NHS hospitals are up to different standards. If an NHS hospital starts failing at the moment, it will be shut down. If a privately run hospital under the proposed system starts failing - two things will happen:
    1) people will choose not to go to that hospital, and the hospital will shut down because of a lack of funding.
    2) it will be shut down by DoH inspectors as they are now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    However, this Bill will give people that choice, that is the whole point. Currently only the rich can, this means everyone can. Sigh.
    How does this give them the choice of which hospital to be ill in? If you’re going to be a **** at least make an effort to reply with something worthy of acting as if I’m tiring you out there eh?

    Not everyone lives in the city and has a variety of Hospitals to pick from if their local private one offers a substandard service or has made cuts to certain treatments or equipment to save costs. Something the NHS does its best to avoid making it run at a loss – this certainly will be avoided by a profit making organisation.

    I’m sick of hearing you’ll have all this choice when in actual fact you’ll have 1 choice, go for the local private hospital that’s substandard and afford it [for the poor] or pay for the luxury of the private hospital many miles away which offers the treatment you need [available to the rich].

    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    1) people will choose not to go to that hospital, and the hospital will shut down because of a lack of funding.
    If only it was that easy for some people eh.

    In the words of Jacques Barzun, “A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can be safely called a liberal as opposed to the conservative, who has both feet firmly planted in his mouth.”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To add to Cardozo's point - is there enough demand to allow as many hospitals to exist as to create competition? For example, a town currently has one NHS hospital; there are not enough people falling ill to justify two. If this is privatised there will still only be one hospital, and therefore still no competition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    To add to Cardozo's point - is there enough demand to allow as many hospitals to exist as to create competition? For example, a town currently has one NHS hospital; there are not enough people falling ill to justify two. If this is privatised there will still only be one hospital, and therefore still no competition.
    Another very valid point from my colleague.

    If there's only one hospital they'll be able to provide whatever service they like and people will be forced to use it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I'd like to see how you come to this conclusion.
    1) people will choose not to go to that hospital, and the hospital will shut down because of a lack of funding.
    2) it will be shut down by DoH inspectors as they are now.
    1) As has been pointed out, choice is great for those that have it.

    2) I wasn't necessarily referring to extreme cases where the hospital needs to be shut down, but it still might not be as good service that's being received in a hospital in the next town.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    1) As has been pointed out, choice is great for those that have it.

    2) I wasn't necessarily referring to extreme cases where the hospital needs to be shut down, but it still might not be as good service that's being received in a hospital in the next town.
    1) The majority of people will have a choice. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're having an outpatient (or inpatient, I think) procedure, you can elect where you'd like to have it done at the moment. It's only in the emergency cases where the paramedics have to take you to the nearest A&E department.

    2) The same could be said now. The nearest big hospital to me (back home) has a fairly poor reputation, but if I spend 10-20 minutes more going to Newcastle I could get to a hospital which doesn't have a bad reputation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    1) The majority of people will have a choice. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're having an outpatient (or inpatient, I think) procedure, you can elect where you'd like to have it done at the moment. It's only in the emergency cases where the paramedics have to take you to the nearest A&E department.

    2) The same could be said now. The nearest big hospital to me (back home) has a fairly poor reputation, but if I spend 10-20 minutes more going to Newcastle I could get to a hospital which doesn't have a bad reputation.
    So, you're actually agreeing; to an extent with my concerns.

    You may not see that the minority of people having no option as a big problem but I see it as a huge issue as I believe it is the Government's responsibility to serve the interests of all of it's population. The minority also will be the most vulnerable, the poor, elderly and ill.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    So, you're actually agreeing; to an extent with my concerns.

    You may not see that the minority of people having no option as a big problem but I see it as a huge issue as I believe it is the Government's responsibility to serve the interests of all of it's population. The minority also will be the most vulnerable, the poor, elderly and ill.
    I'm agreeing that what your concerns are with this bill exist with the NHS already - privately run hospitals will be no different. The situation is open to be improved, not at the expense of the taxpayer, under this bill as well as the private companies who purchased stakes in the NHS assets will be able to build or extend hospitals in areas of genuine need. It would be an incentive (for profit) for the private companies to expand some hospitals in central towns to incorporate a full A&E department, especially in some parts of rural counties like Northumberland.

    The minority will not explicitly be the groups you stated; they will be the people who live in the middle of nowhere - where the nearest town has only a MIU.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 7, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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