same old tories

[TF_herbie]

nothing changes does it. take camerons NHS reforms. we give the money to the doctors and they buy the services.

sounds good till you pick the bones. private providers are very keen to do all operations that are quick and easy such as hip ops ect. but long term problems such as cancer ect there not so keen, sooooooooooo they are hard at work convincing doctors to use there facilities for the money making ops and not the costly ones. whats wrong with that you ask. well the NHS has to provide an adequate service for the people regardless of funding restraints so in order to pay for the more costly illnesses they need to make funds doing the less costly ops its called balance, and in some small way works. they unlike the private providers cannot lobby doctors for work neither can they reduce the costs of the ops to compete because government will not allow them to , much like our post services. so at a stroke the tories have privatised the health service using the back door.
so what is going to happen. our NHS/hospitals will find they now have less money so will have to cut services. in 2012 you will be fine if you need a hip operation, but dead if you need costly drugs to keep you alive, however if you,ve invested in private health care you will be quids in, licence to print money kindly donated by cameron. so the winners are ??? yes you,ve got it THE MONEYMEN.

[TF_Gary]

herbie, what did I say about not believing everything you read in the Daily Mirror?!

[TF_Gary]

To flesh out my statement, here are my observations:

1) The NHS budget is a fixed amount, regardless of whether the money is spent in the private or public sector.

2) Like any organisation, the NHS has to decide which services it provides itself and which it buys in.

3) If the NHS can buy services externally for less than it costs to provide them itself, this actually means that there is MORE money left to spend on patient care.

4) Given that the budget is finite and medical / pharmaceutical technology is advancing very rapidly, the allocation of funds is an increasingly difficult ethical problem. Should we be spending more money on expensive drugs and less money on more simple procedures? I don’t know the answer to this. Do you?

5) NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) determines which drugs the NHS should pay for – are you calling in to question the ethics of NICE? It is described as an independent body.

6) To suggest that there is no lobbying internally and that pressure only comes from private companies is at best naive and at worst utterly fallacious.

7) Given that contracts will only be awarded to private companies if they can provide a service more effectively than the government can provide it, why is this a bad thing?

8) Surely the winners are also the public who get more healthcare for their money?

9) Why do so many people go on and on about how they want government to control more of our services when, in the same breath, they complain that they don’t trust the politicians who they are arguing should be left in charge?

10) If you honestly believe what you have written, why don’t you go and invest in a private healthcare company, make piles of money and then give it back to your local hospital? Everyone’s a winner….

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

Well the following comes from the horses mouth no newspaper.

The ‘cuts are being made on the shop floor’ whilst the managers, the ones who make the decisions sit pretty. Does anybody actually think that when asked to make financial saving ‘the bean counters’ are going to make themselves redundant. The equipment we use is tired and dated and the quality of provision we offer is suffering. Targets? A game! The ‘bean counters’ directed all ‘manpower/finance’ towards meeting the Govt Target. Govt targets that covered a fraction of what the NHS offers / provided. If your area of the NHS / Hospital was not a Govt target area you get less staff/money and the service provided suffered.

Somebody once said you cannot play politics with peoples lives when attacking another politicians. Is that not what all politicians of all parties have been doing since 1979?

[TF_Gary]

NWCA, do you agree with top down government targets or not? On the other thread you were saying that it was shocking that the government had scrapped the teenage pregnancy target. Here you seem to be saying that NHS targets are a bad thing.

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

Gary I firmly believe in targets. I work to targets every single day, dynamic multiple targets, 400-500+ in a single day. Those targets are meaningful and achieve something.

I believe in targets from all levels. Government down. The problem is in my personal experience targets become less meaningful the higher up the chain of command you go. Targets can become a game and when they do so they then become far less meaningful.

The NHS? If every area/aspect contributed towards a Government Top Down target then that would be fantastic and IMO far better. Whatsmore targets tend to be shallow and irrelevant if not used/applied correctly. Politicians desire to be able to quote a result/a stat can and does hamper effective target setting.

I firmly believe in target setting from the top to the bottom but those targets have to be used to their optimum and not abused for cheap political games.

One of the saddest parts of my job is I have personal targets that only I know and are somewhat higher than the official targets I allow others to see / use. The personal targets are far more on the edge and some are met whilst others are not. Such targets are not for ‘the target game’ that are used officially. Those ‘safe’ targets whilst showing genuine achievement are in fact a safety net of political correctness safeguarding/playing the target game.

I think the teenage pregnancy target was a genuine one and indeed a brave one because we have still not met it. To abandon a very beneficial target suggests we are going down the political target game. Most things worth striving for are a long term process.

[TF_herbie]

gary my info came directly from the NHS monthly minutes wikileak style thanks to a generous benifactor on this site. i passed this info onto my scource in a doctors surgery ( practice manager) who comfirmed that they get 4+ representations from agency,s acting for private medicine with the usual cherries attached per day as against zero before the election. according to the T.U.C. a body that we owe for our living standards today have through the freedom of info recieved notice that over 50,000 jobs will be cut. these are not the mirrors figures but figures collected from FOI requests to various hospitals.are you suggesting that all these hospitals are lying through there teeth. you realy do have to stop trying to put your spin on your paymasters crooked deals. these cuts in the NHS are by definition a u turn by cameron who has repeatedly said NO CUTS. not once but a hundred times. he like all tories serve only one master. the moneymen. who after there short term in office will give them 6 figure jobs.

[TF_craigo]

We should all be very concerned around the privatisation of the NHS – the government will dress up their ideals without the public understanding or realising that they are having something taken away from them……and their children, grandchildren etc, etc

It’s not just about the impact of the quality of health care we expect to receive but the wider effect on society and the economy as foreign healthcare providers swallow up jobs and leave more and more people unemployed.

I’m not a member of Unite, but I believe the link attached breaks down the true meaning and implications that this devastating change could make. The integration of health and social service provision will become less existent – we need the Tory gov out ASAP. People need to remember that GP’s studied medicine, not business studies and accounting.

This link is Unite’s response to the Government paper entitled ‘Liberating the NHS’ a document relating to business focussed healthcare and GP consortiums.

http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/005-Equity%20and%20Excellence%20response.pdf

[TF_Gary]

herbie, are you now suggesting that lobbying from drug companies has only started since the election? That is even more ridiculous than saying that there is no internal lobbying!!! My Mother worked in the NHS most of her life and freebies from drug companies have been a daily ritual for years!

Why is it ok for doctors to say that there should not be cuts to the NHS, but it is wrong for drug companies to try and promote the use of their products? It just reflects people acting in their own self interest, and as soon as everyone (particularly you and NWCA) realise that people generally tend to act in their own self interest and start trying to think about how to design the system to accommodate this rather than fighting it, the better.

The same applies to figures published by the TUC. Remind me whose interest they are acting in again? Is their objective to get best value for money for taxpayers or to further the narrow interests of their members? Are they liars? Well, they do say that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!

I read the first page and a bit of the Unite paper. If there are recruitment and retention problems, the NHS won’t need to make anybody redundant, will they? And then the government will have to increase pay until it is sufficiently attractive for people to enter the medical profession. That’s how it works in every other part of the economy: why should they NHS be different? We just need to make sure that the systems are in place for the NHS to be sufficiently responsive in terms of designing terms to recruit extra people.

Guys…. please learn to challenge what you read and apply a healthy pinch of scepticism (I used to be an auditor, which makes me a professional sceptic!). Generally, published articles are written to serve the interests of the author and should be read in that context.

[TF_pr@ngler]

One difficulty with contracting out of the NHS for specific services is that the NHS is complex. Not only is there case complexity and attendant cherry-picking as a previous poster has commented, but the NHS also provides training and acts as a safety net.

The NHS contribution to training is immense (for example about £25-£30k/yr for each of the 68000 medical and dental students, which is only a tiny part compared to all of the other classes of health care workers and then the post-qualification and specialist training for them). Likewise the NHS already picks up people who slip out of private care, often with complications arising from that care.

As the NHS is providing these additional services on top of its patient-care, its very difficult to compare like with like in a tender process. Organisations that tender for specified services do not take on these additional roles. Sure, all the costs could be separated out, but the admin cost of that would come out of the budget for patient care.

The government changes to health care are ideology driven. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. But I object to the claim that it is evidence-based, and/or necessary because of the current financial climate.

There is no evidence that purchaser-provide split improves health outcomes (despite what the government claims) and remember that these changes are happening on top of huge efficiency savings to the NHS.

Perhaps some of you are too young to remember the last time we had GP fundholding. It was on a tiny scale compared to the current plans, but was unsustainable and soon ditched. Consortia of general practices are too small to negotiate with large provider trusts. They lack the skills, time or muscle, and on top of that the admin will need to be replicated across many small organisations. I suspect we will soon see coalescence of groups of GPs into larger and larger units, that will begin to look like small PCTs. Until about five years ago PCTs were responsible for commissioning for about 125000 people and they were too small. The last reorganisation built them up to about half a million people.

And don’t even get me going on targetism . . .

[TF_Gary]

Peter, if it is ideologically driven, it is an ideology that has been shared by our governments for the last 30 years, regardless of their party.

[TF_pr@ngler]

Agreed, absolutely. The continuation of purchaser/provider by the labour government was a mistake. Labour playing like Tories. As was the extention of PFI, which will continue to suck revenue from the NHS for decades.

The NHS is far from perfect and like any system it needs continuing improvements and overhauls, but it is bloody good considering what we pay for it.

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

Gary if we all adopt your self interest philosophy then quite frankly we are doomed. I think far more people than you care to admit do care about the collective good of society simply because they understand what the alternative is.

I am an extreme as an Orwellian/Democratic socialist but strewth I am not alone in believing in the idea of being part of a community, a society from local to national to global scale.

Your view is a betrayal of what people including your own family gave their lives for.

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

It took World Wars for Britain to create something far beyond and better than the rest of the world. We should be proud of the NHS and the welfare state. Neither are perfect, one far from it but it is something we should be proud of and never let go.

[TF_caster robParticipant]

@NW Cut Angler wrote:

It took World Wars for Britain to create something far beyond and better than the rest of the world. We should be proud of the NHS and the welfare state. Neither are perfect, one far from it but it is something we should be proud of and never let go.

It was only the reaction to two World Wars coined in the Beveridge Report that saw the Socialists get elected. It wouldn’t have succeeded in any other time/circumstance.

If I had a gleaming new Ferrari I may possibly be proud of it, but that wouldn’t mean I could afford it either, which is why Gordon cleverly kept all his PFI debt of the nations balance sheet.

“Your view is a betrayal of what people including your own family gave their lives for.”

How can you be so presumptious to think that you can possibly know what Gary’s family did,and why, you really are a school-teacher aren’t you?

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

@caster rob wrote:

@NW Cut Angler wrote:

It took World Wars for Britain to create something far beyond and better than the rest of the world. We should be proud of the NHS and the welfare state. Neither are perfect, one far from it but it is something we should be proud of and never let go.

It was only the reaction to two World Wars coined in the Beveridge Report that saw the Socialists get elected. It wouldn’t have succeeded in any other time/circumstance.

If I had a gleaming new Ferrari I may possibly be proud of it, but that wouldn’t mean I could afford it either, which is why Gordon cleverly kept all his PFI debt of the nations balance sheet.

“Your view is a betrayal of what people including your own family gave their lives for.”

How can you be so presumptious to think that you can possibly know what Gary’s family did,and why, you really are a school-teacher aren’t you?

Not really Rob. Good old fashioned common sense. I doubt there are any long established British families whose relatives did not serve and die in battle for the greater good. Imagine how they would feel knowing future generations like yourself and Gary were shouting suckers, selfishness and greed is everything. Who cares about society, Britain, the world blah blah.

Betrayal Rob

Whomever is in charge of this country since 1979 it has been the same old same old. You cannot turn it into a part political argument because each successive prime minister has had less than their predecessor but continued to use / abuse our national wealth draining and wasting every ounce of wealth. We sat back and let them.

Betrayal by us all, mot of us.

[TF_Doc]

No matter which side of the political divide you occupy, no matter what your thoughts are on the public service or the bankers, surely we can all agree that there are some “public” services that should be properly funded, even if only as an insurance policy we would all hope never to use.

The brave men and women of our armed services, whether or not they should have been sent to the likes of the Falklands, Iraq or Afghanistan may be a topic for a separate debate, the fact is we send them to act on our behalf, and they should be properly equipped and funded.

God forbid, your house goes on fire, those members of the fire service who put their lives at risk to save yours should be properly equipped and funded.

The police service, love them or loathe them, the fact that they are legally prevented from going on strike must speak volumes, the chaos that resulted when they didnt have sufficient resources to react to the first student protest will still be fresh in everybodys mind, and i think we would all anticipate more of the same, they should be properly equipped and funded.

We would all hope to live a long and healthy life, and never need the services of our NHS, but the chances are that you or a loved one will at some stage need the NHS, probably as a result of cancer or heart disease, and when that day comes you will be praying that they are properly equipped and funded.

None of these bodies will ever make a profit, and in a perfect world we would not want to make use of any of them, but we dont live in a perfect world and so we will. Those who are asked to will put their lives at risk to save your life and liberty, so please dont demean them by coming away with some snide comment about them making career choices, accept that they are there as an insurance policy, and pay your premium to make sure if the day comes where you or your family need them then they are there for you.

[TF_herbie]

gary your spinning once again. you seem to invent an arguement because you have no answer to what has been said. where did i mention drug company,s~think not once have i or anyone else mantioned drug company,s. the lobbing i am now talking about is agency,s contracted by private practice to cherry pick the operations doctors will now have to purchase.
let me give you and example.
A. hip op. private practice says yes please.
b. heart bypass private practice say no thanks.

so the NHS loses the easy ops and is left with the expensive long term care ops.
good buisness if you can get it eh gary. surely as a banker you can see the bottom line of private medicine improving no end, and as long as you can afford private care you bankers are ok. sod the rest of us. its no wonder your now seen by me and others as the scum of the earth.
you and your fellow shysters would do well to study german history 1930-1945.take note of what happened to the part of german society that had all the wealth.

[TF_pr@ngler]

Play nice children

[TF_Gary]

I give up. You can’t educate pork.

[TF_herbie]

like i said lowest form of life without an answer~sick ~sick ~sick

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

@Gary wrote:

I give up. You can’t educate pork.

Gary my own personal belief is that nobody should be paid ridiculous wages whether they are a banker, a footballer or whatever, to pay one man £8 million in bonuses and another man £2 million in bonuses on top of silly money beggars belief. I could run a school of a 1000 students with that money. I do not buy into the notion that banks would go to the wall because employees would go elsewhere. Sorry but there are only so many jobs out there and guess what just like any other sector there are people elsewhere and in our own country who would do the job just as well but for a fraction of the ludicrous amounts being paid to people who made monumental blunders.

Nobody IMO should be paid 1 million pounds plus per annum.

[TF_lloydy1970]

How people can have great big bonuses out of a company that has made a loss is beyond me. British gas has just announced record profits yet again but prices going up. I think if a banker can earn his company enough money to get am 8 million bonus then the bank charges are too high in first place. It is all about greed but how many would turn it down, only greed makes us have a go on lottery or enter fishomania

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

You are right Lloydy. My local Spar says people go crazy on lottery rollover weeks. Greed/desparation who knows which. I think we would be far better off if lots of people won 10-20K each week than big single winners but I daresay that is not going to ever happen.

[Author]

Posts