Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

NHS largest privitisation move ever. Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    If you knew how to read you would have seen that 3 of those companies that won the contracts do not offer a better service and in fact those companies were criticised previously for poor quality of care and attention and poor management.
    How jolly dare you.

    And, the fact is that private NHS services can offer a better service. Not all private services are somehow divinely destined to be evil failures.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    SO everything you know about it, even if limited, comes from national and social media? Just the likes of The Mirror and Guardian? Bit of BBC thrown in too?
    I didn't know that the Guardian was now considered Social media xD.
    Is there reason to doubt the BBC and others reporting that these 3 companies were criticised for poor qualitity of care?
    Plus multiple news sites have reported that Clinicenta and others have recieved complaints.
    I don't quite understand your line of argument. Do i need to experience ISIS in Iraq first hand to know that ISIS is a problem in Iraq? am i missing something lol?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    How jolly dare you.

    And, the fact is that private NHS services can offer a better service. Not all private services are somehow divinely destined to be evil failures.
    Oh i don't doubt that they can but the fact is that many of them don't as evidenced in the article. Wherever there is a profit motive and poor regulation, corners will be cut in order to make that extra buck, thats just human nature.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    I didn't know that the Guardian was now considered Social media xD.
    Is there reason to doubt the BBC and others reporting that these 3 companies were criticised for poor qualitity of care?
    Plus multiple news sites have reported that Clinicenta and others have recieved complaints.
    I don't quite understand your line of argument. Do i need to experience ISIS in Iraq first hand to know that ISIS is a problem in Iraq? am i missing something lol?
    Guardian is national media last I checked
    When sticking to the national media you miss quite a lot, not least because there are not insignificant agendas there, particularly if you're going to restrict yourself to a limited number of sources (which I must admit I am often guilty of). If your only sources are going to be the likes of the mirror and the guardian you're only going to hear the "privatisation is evil" side of things, only hear that the CQC wrote a negative report, that it wasn't hitting the 95% A&E target, that a deficit was being run (and of course that it was under a Tory government that it actually happened, even if commissioned by Labour). What they miss out are the things that come from the right wing press (which I have the joys of reading), but more so from the local press (which while I don't read personally, my family does), and stuff that isn't really publicised by the media at all. Let's dive into it:
    • Newsnight programme about the hospital showing "reactive, motivated staff treat patients better; happy, well-fed patients heal better."
    • NAO report suggests that while a deficit was being run, by the end of the 10 year tenure it should be well into surplus and the economic impact is impossible to determine so early into the tenure, but also puts much of this failure down to NHS East of England.
    • Significantly improved patient satisfaction
    • Significantly reduced waiting times (some of the best A&E times in the country)
    • Improvements in facilities
    • Giving the doctors more power, cutting bureaucracy
    • "statistically significant low mortality rate"



    Then there are accusations of foul play being made of the CQC that wrote the damning report, and not just by Circle and the right wing media:
    • Several of the people writing the report have close ties to Labour and the unions
    • Shortly before the inspection the local Clinical Commissioning Group slashed the hospital's funding and started imposing arbitrary fines, guess what, heavy labour influence
    • The lead inspector is staunchly anti-"privatisation"
    • As was one of the second inspectors
    • It's believed that the local Labour PPC influenced the report's criticism of the children's service, and is a paedriatric consultant at the hospital


    No doubt now it's back under public operation it will go back to the way it was before, and that includes everything that Circle were criticised of as well as undoing most of the good Circle did. Even beyond that, it's been a learning experience, from it we learnt the flaws in the original bidding process and can make it so next time we're sensible enough to try private operation things should go much better. Also worth noting that for Hinchingbrooke the alternative was closure.

    TL;DR: look at both sides before passing judgement, Circle did a very good job given what they had to deal with.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Guardian is national media last I checked
    When sticking to the national media you miss quite a lot, not least because there are not insignificant agendas there, particularly if you're going to restrict yourself to a limited number of sources (which I must admit I am often guilty of). If your only sources are going to be the likes of the mirror and the guardian you're only going to hear the "privatisation is evil" side of things, only hear that the CQC wrote a negative report, that it wasn't hitting the 95% A&E target, that a deficit was being run (and of course that it was under a Tory government that it actually happened, even if commissioned by Labour). What they miss out are the things that come from the right wing press (which I have the joys of reading), but more so from the local press (which while I don't read personally, my family does), and stuff that isn't really publicised by the media at all. Let's dive into it:
    • Newsnight programme about the hospital showing "reactive, motivated staff treat patients better; happy, well-fed patients heal better."
    • NAO report suggests that while a deficit was being run, by the end of the 10 year tenure it should be well into surplus and the economic impact is impossible to determine so early into the tenure, but also puts much of this failure down to NHS East of England.
    • Significantly improved patient satisfaction
    • Significantly reduced waiting times
    • Improvements in facilities
    • Giving the doctors more power, cutting bureaucracy


    Then there are accusations of foul play being made of the CQC that wrote the damning report, and not just by Circle and the right wing media:
    • Several of the people writing the report have close ties to Labour and the unions
    • Shortly before the inspection the local Clinical Commissioning Group slashed the hospital's funding and started imposing arbitrary fines, guess what, heavy labour influence
    • The lead inspector is staunchly anti-"privatisation"
    • As was one of the second inspectors
    • It's believed that the local Labour PPC influenced the report's criticism of the children's service, and is a paedriatric consultant at the hospital


    No doubt now it's back under public operation it will go back to the way it was before, and that includes everything that Circle were criticised of as well as undoing most of the good Circle did. Even beyond that, it's been a learning experience, from it we learnt the flaws in the original bidding process and can make it so next time we're sensible enough to try private operation things should go much better.

    TL;DR: look at both sides before passing judgement, Circle did a very good job given what they had to deal with.
    I'm sorry theres no way i'm reading all of that xD. I've got other **** to do
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    I'm sorry theres no way i'm reading all of that xD. I've got other **** to do
    Summarised:
    With the case of circle, most of the media neglected to mention the improvements in the hospital under Circle, nor the mess it was in beforehand.
    Additionally, most of the media, particularly on the left, neglected to mention the potential foul play that lead to circle pulling out and being kicked out.

    Do some deeper research before immediately condemning these companies because the publications you choose to read tell you to.

    Might also want to take a look at Circle's other ventures, some of which is operation of NHS facilites.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Summarised:
    With the case of circle, most of the media neglected to mention the improvements in the hospital under Circle, nor the mess it was in beforehand.
    Additionally, most of the media, particularly on the left, neglected to mention the potential foul play that lead to circle pulling out and being kicked out.

    Do some deeper research before immediately condemning these companies because the publications you choose to read tell you to.

    Might also want to take a look at Circle's other ventures, some of which is operation of NHS facilites.
    Thank you.
    The hospital was failing because of budget cuts. Of course it was in a right mess without the correct resources. It wouldn't have needed the help from a private company if it had the needed funding. I don't inherently disagree with private companies running services but i do believe that the profit motive should not have a role in healthcare... or education...or defence...or transport...:chaplin:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    Thank you.
    The hospital was failing because of budget cuts. Of course it was in a right mess without the correct resources. It wouldn't have needed the help from a private company if it had the needed funding. I don't inherently disagree with private companies running services but i do believe that the profit motive should not have a role in healthcare... or education...or defence...or transport...:chaplin:
    It really was not failing because of budget cuts. I shall entertain the notion that there were [signifncant] cuts under the last government, still doesn't explain it, it was put up for tenure under Labour because of its difficulties. Next I shall entertain the notion that under the last couple of years of the government before there were [significant] budget cuts, again, doesn't explain it, there were problems since before the financial crisis. I cannot entertain the notion that there were cuts before then (nor will I do anything more than entertain the notion for the time since for the sake of argument), so it's not a problem with cuts, there have been financial issues at that hospital for well over a decade now.

    And what's wrong with a profit motive? When you're running, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly there is no real incentive to improve. Introduction of the private sector introduces a profit motive, a carrot to encourage you to improve service, there is also the stick of sanctions or losing contracts if you fail too badly, and there is the competition element too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It really was not failing because of budget cuts. I shall entertain the notion that there were [signifncant] cuts under the last government, still doesn't explain it, it was put up for tenure under Labour because of its difficulties. Next I shall entertain the notion that under the last couple of years of the government before there were [significant] budget cuts, again, doesn't explain it, there were problems since before the financial crisis. I cannot entertain the notion that there were cuts before then (nor will I do anything more than entertain the notion for the time since for the sake of argument), so it's not a problem with cuts, there have been financial issues at that hospital for well over a decade now.

    And what's wrong with a profit motive? When you're running, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly there is no real incentive to improve. Introduction of the private sector introduces a profit motive, a carrot to encourage you to improve service, there is also the stick of sanctions or losing contracts if you fail too badly, and there is the competition element too.
    So why was the hospital failing in your opinion?
    Like i explained earlier: Wherever there is a profit motive and poor regulation, corners will be cut in order to make that extra buck, thats just human nature.
    The Welfare of the population is no longer a priority, making money is, and i disagree that there are no incentives to improve if you're not making a profit, you can look at countless human endevours where there was no profit motive and yet people continued to innovate and improve.
    State owned welfare isn't a monopoly in the same way the Russian government was selling Vodka was a monopoly in the 20th century lol (weird example i know)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    So why was the hospital failing in your opinion?
    Like i explained earlier: Wherever there is a profit motive and poor regulation, corners will be cut in order to make that extra buck, thats just human nature.
    The Welfare of the population is no longer a priority, making money is, and i disagree that there are no incentives to improve if you're not making a profit, you can look at countless human endevours where there was no profit motive and yet people continued to innovate and improve.
    State owned welfare isn't a monopoly in the same way the Russian government was selling Vodka was a monopoly in the 20th century lol (weird example i know)
    I can't say I have anything more than a simple and obvious thought as to why. Either they had been underfunded for a very long time, they were just trying to sirens more than they could or there was inherent inefficiency that somehow was maintained for over a decade. You still have to wonder though how with the health budget booming they remained running a deficit unless they were being pushed hard and then how, under private enterprise, it was, at least during some years, pushing a surplus and expected to be at least balancing the books by the time they were done.

    The NHS is practically a monopoly though, there are private options but they're only widely open to the richest because of the obscene fees if you aren't insured and the not exactly low premiums if you are, particularly if there's a lot wrong with you.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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