Turn on thread page Beta

The failings of private healthcare: Hinchingbrooke Hospital watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No more of a conspiracy than "they got the contract coz Tory donors".
    I know right. It all came out at the same time as a huge terrorist attack too.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's hardly a conspiracy that there was massive opposition coz stupid slippery slope arguments.
    It's hardly a conspiracy that they were under intense scrutiny as a consequence.
    It's hardly a conspiracy that, since they didn't instantly balance the books, nor did they instantly reach A&E targets, people, as demonstrated in this thread, saw it as evidence that private operation the NHS sucks.
    It's hardly a conspiracy that people wanted it back under state control private control.
    It's hardly a conspiracy that they were under pressure to be "sacked" or pull out.
    A couple of small changes and you could have been talking about the NHS.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So why is it a massive conspiracy when, while already under pressure to give up, a damning report is published and they pull out?
    I dunno, you came up with it, not me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by n00)
    I know right. It all came out at the same time as a huge terrorist attack too.



    A couple of small changes and you could have been talking about the NHS.


    I dunno, you came up with it, not me.
    You're the one that declared it a conspiracy, not me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The OP's criticism would only really make sense if the state hospitals were making profits while private hospitals were not. The reality is that many hospitals are loss making (if you can call taxpayer funded hospitals profitable at all) and that averages are a much better way of assessing this.
    The criticism still makes perfect sense. The opposition to privatisation of things like the NHS is based on the argument that profits would end up coming first and good healthcare could end up not being available to everyone. That's why a lot of people feel it should remain a public service where people and healthcare comes first, rather than run by private businesses where profit would come first.

    I don't know what your exact opinion on privatisation is, but a lot of the (admittedly small) pro-privatisation crowd like to pretend that privatisation would improve care and that the concerns about it are unfounded - this story certainly casts doubt on that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The criticism still makes perfect sense. The opposition to privatisation of things like the NHS is based on the argument that profits would end up coming first and good healthcare could end up not being available to everyone. That's why a lot of people feel it should remain a public service where people and healthcare comes first, rather than run by private businesses where profit would come first.

    I don't know what your exact opinion on privatisation is, but a lot of the (admittedly small) pro-privatisation crowd like to pretend that privatisation would improve care and that the concerns about it are unfounded - this story certainly casts doubt on that.
    But it also fails to neglect the increase in patient satisfaction and improvement in care, at least in some areas. As for the fear that it would lead to profits coming first, that's why you keep the standards there, if you look into the Hinchingbrooke case you will see there were a lot of fines for failing to meet targets, if a company running the hospital consistently offers a poor service to increase their profits, well, it won't increase their profits because they won't reach the standard of care expected and will be fined heavily. For example, being charged up to £200,000 PER MONTH for not hitting the 95% 4 hour target, even though they were pretty high up nationally for A&E 4 hour turnarounds and there's only, what, 6 hospitals in the country that actually achieve it?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The criticism still makes perfect sense. The opposition to privatisation of things like the NHS is based on the argument that profits would end up coming first and good healthcare could end up not being available to everyone. That's why a lot of people feel it should remain a public service where people and healthcare comes first, rather than run by private businesses where profit would come first.

    I don't know what your exact opinion on privatisation is, but a lot of the (admittedly small) pro-privatisation crowd like to pretend that privatisation would improve care and that the concerns about it are unfounded - this story certainly casts doubt on that.
    Jammy's has given the same response essentially as i was going to below.

    My own view in addition to that which i posted in this thread about contracting is that i want an NHS but a much leaner one because my primary objection is the spiraling cost and blank cheques written. I don't believe that non-essential things like cultural operations, adult transgender surgeries and the like should be covered by the NHS and so i would review which services are offered by the NHS. Additionally, i also feel that many outpatient services and relatively simple but necessary things (broken arms that just need a pot ect..) should not be covered by the NHS for those with the means to pay. So for those in employment i would have them require outpatient private insurance (very cheap) and probably come to some kind of agreement with an employer whereby they stump up half the cost and the employee the other (part time workers would have the state cover the employees half). The money saved would be reinvested into the things they want the budget increases for (cancer, heart ect..) and children and pensioners are still fine as are major surgeries and the like. This would prevent massive central government funding increases.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The criticism still makes perfect sense. The opposition to privatisation of things like the NHS is based on the argument that profits would end up coming first and good healthcare could end up not being available to everyone. That's why a lot of people feel it should remain a public service where people and healthcare comes first, rather than run by private businesses where profit would come first.

    I don't know what your exact opinion on privatisation is, but a lot of the (admittedly small) pro-privatisation crowd like to pretend that privatisation would improve care and that the concerns about it are unfounded - this story certainly casts doubt on that.
    The criticisms against privatisation tend to be made by trade unions representing their members who fear they may have to be more productive.

    Similar arguments against privatisation have been made continually and never really materialised.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Private companies don't belong anywhere near the NHS.
    Motives should not be profit driven, various tests and experiments have shown that increasing the reward actually leads to a DECREASE in performance, not an increase. And before anyone starts getting all anti-lefty, the investigation was carried out by the real left wing, socialist Federal Bank of the US.

    Good service should be the only priority. Not making money out of people's health.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Private companies don't belong anywhere near the NHS.
    Motives should not be profit driven, various tests and experiments have shown that increasing the reward actually leads to a DECREASE in performance, not an increase. And before anyone starts getting all anti-lefty, the investigation was carried out by the real left wing, socialist Federal Bank of the US.

    Good service should be the only priority. Not making money out of people's health.
    Could you provide some of these tests and experiments?


    Nationalisation screwed over the telecommunications, steel, ship building, car, rail and aerospace industries in the UK to name a few.

    Why have most european nations got a better health service for their public than the UK but use a joint public/private finance model that still manages to offer universal healthcare for all.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: January 12, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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