Save the NHS!

scorza · 30 Aug 2011 at 20:35

Some of you may remember that earlier in the year the government had to postpone its hated plans to reform the NHS amid GP concern, large scale protests, and even a rap record criticising the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. The government agreed to a postponement as part of a "listening exercise" and now that exercise has been completed and in one week our MPs will be voting on a massive change to the NHS. I signed a petition against the reforms and today I got an email from the slacktivism site 38 degrees stating the following:

In just one week, your MP has to vote on massive changes to our NHS. But 38 Degrees members now have something our MPs don’t – thorough, independent legal advice about what these changes really mean.

Our expert legal advice is sobering. Despite the “listening exercise”, the government’s changes to the NHS plans could still pave the way for a shift towards a US-style health system, where private companies profit at the expense of patient care.

Conservative MPs like yours are being told by their bosses these changes fit with party ideology. But many would be horrified to know that the NHS would be subject to European competition laws and front-line services could be held up with procurement red tape. Let’s work together to show them the evidence right now!

If enough of us email now, it could tip the balance:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/email-your-conservative-mp

Our independent lawyers identified two major problems in the new legislation:

- The Secretary of State’s legal duty to provide a health service will be scrapped. On top of that, a new “hands-off clause” removes the government's powers to oversee local consortia and guarantee the level of service wherever we live. We can expect increases in postcode lotteries – and less ways to hold the government to account if the service deteriorates.

- The NHS will almost certainly be subject to UK and EU competition law and the reach of procurement law rules will extend across all NHS commissioners. Private health companies will be able to take new NHS commissioning groups to court if they don’t win contracts. Scarce public money could be tied up in legal wrangles instead of hospital beds. Meanwhile, the legislation lifts the cap on NHS hospitals filling beds with private patients.
So who are MPs going to listen to when casting their vote – you, or lobbyists from private health companies? This is our NHS, and it’s up to us to defend it. Email your MP now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/email-your-conservative-mp

It’s pretty extraordinary what we’ve managed to achieve together already. Nearly half a million of us have signed the petition to save the NHS. And after Andrew Lansley announced the last round of changes, thousands of 38 Degrees members immediately chipped in to get top independent legal advice on the new plans.

Barrister Rebecca Haynes found that the government's plans could pave the way for private healthcare companies and their lawyers to benefit most from changes, not patients. Another barrister, Stephen Cragg, found that we were right to be worried that Andrew Lansley was planning to remove his duty to provide our NHS.

This is the conclusion of a top legal team paid to have no other interest at heart but yours.

MPs vote in just seven days. Seven days to not only get the evidence, but be convinced there’s way too much public concern to ignore it. The good news is, with over 800,000 of us now armed with expert legal advice, we are just the people to speak up. Our message is clear: we have the facts, so politicians can’t hide behind spin. Let’s give MPs from all parties the mandate they need to think again and vote against these changes to the NHS.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/email-your-conservative-mp

Thanks,

Here's the legal advice in more detail: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/content/NHS-legal-advice/

I urge everyone who doesn't agree with these changes to contact their MP using the links above (I think it can be used even if you don't have a Conservative MP).

Destination · 30 Aug 2011 at 20:39

Aye see theres the problem right there.
We have legal advice on a medical issue.
Too many mps are law based, too many focus groups are the same.

Our system isnt functional at current wastage levels, i dont think the new plans will help much, but the nhs certainly do need reform.

Dolph · 30 Aug 2011 at 20:40

So are we actually going to get any evidence based reasons why the 18th best health service in the world needs no reform, even though the better performing countries use completely different systems that don't involve national monopolies and massive central control, instead focusing on patients choice and any willing provider?

[TW]Fox · 30 Aug 2011 at 20:43

Dolph said:
any willing provider?

Any qualified provider, surely.

The_Abyss · 30 Aug 2011 at 20:44

The NHS is a cash-guzzling disaster saved from utter failure only by throwing ever-increasing sums of money at it.

Hatter The Mad · 30 Aug 2011 at 20:47

If anyone had any sense or balls, they'd have carved up the NHS two decades ago and adopted the German system. Private provision of healthcare regulated and licensed by the government, universal health insurance paid for by the government.

No1newts · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:07

The_Abyss said:
The NHS is a cash-guzzling disaster saved from utter failure only by throwing ever-increasing sums of money at it.

Bingo

Dave M · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:09

- The NHS will almost certainly be subject to UK and EU competition law and the reach of procurement law rules will extend across all NHS commissioners. Private health companies will be able to take new NHS commissioning groups to court if they don’t win contracts. Scarce public money could be tied up in legal wrangles instead of hospital beds. Meanwhile, the legislation lifts the cap on NHS hospitals filling beds with private patients.

Does this mean private companies could bid for services and if they are the best option win (and take legal action if the established NHS organisations refused to work with private companies or follow a fair and equal procurement process)?

How is the best care for the least cost a bad thing? Government money isn't infinite, and if we can get more or better treatment for the same money it has to benefit the patients (i.e. me and you).

Who cares if some shareholders in a private company benefit too, you'd have to be stark raving mad to wish a worse service on you and your family just to stop some strangers making a few quid.

Another barrister, Stephen Cragg, found that we were right to be worried that Andrew Lansley was planning to remove his duty to provide our NHS.

This is the conclusion of a top legal team paid to have no other interest at heart but yours.

How does somebody find that we are right to worry? Does he have evidence that the government are planning to remove the NHS or is it simply hyperbole and spin?

And the idea that we can trust barristers to have our interests at heart because we pay them is simply laughable, they'd tell you your mother was your father if they got paid.

I'm sorry but while I have no great interest in the NHS or the myriad ways in which it is both a jewel in our crown and a disgrace to a rich western country if this is the best argument you have you will lose.

scorza · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:17

Telescopi said:
Does this mean private companies could bid for services and if they are the best option win (and take legal action if the established NHS organisations refused to work with private companies or follow a fair and equal procurement process)?

No it means that private companies will win if they're the cheapest option, so they'll take the cheap, easy work as that's where the profit is - and leave the NHS with the expensive, difficult work.

Dolph · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:18

scorza said:
No it means that private companies will win if they're the cheapest option, so they'll take the cheap, easy work as that's where the profit is - and leave the NHS with the expensive, difficult work.

Independent citation, with examples where the same thing has occurred and quality has suffered, needed.

Danthus · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:21

Dolph said:
So are we actually going to get any evidence based reasons why the 18th best health service in the world needs no reform, even though the better performing countries use completely different systems that don't involve national monopolies and massive central control, instead focusing on patients choice and any willing provider?

Is there anything you do not know the answer too?

scorza · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:22

Dolph said:
Independent citation, with examples where the same thing has occurred and quality has suffered, needed.

Royal Mail. Private companies take the easy, profitable work i.e. mail pickup from city centres, leave the difficult bit, delivering to anywhere in the country, to the Royal Mail. Privatisation means privatise the profits, leave the liabilities socialised.

No1newts · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:23

I just had a really long post halfway typed to lambast the NHS and their waste but its pointless. There are clearly NHS backed pressure groups in place to keep up the status quo not because its best for "us" but it is easier for them.

I do not doubt the status quo will continue in a similar vein to the countries benefit system, i.e. until it falls to bits and we are left with a explosive mess to deal with (ala financial crisis) rather than tidying it up in reasonable time.

At that point expect the politicians (scum) to actually give a toss about the NHS.

Dave M · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:23

scorza said:
No it means that private companies will win if they're the cheapest option, so they'll take the cheap, easy work as that's where the profit is - and leave the NHS with the expensive, difficult work.

That simply isn't true is it? The procurement process should lay out requirements and standards - if somebody else can do that at a lower cost and there's no reason to believe they will fail to deliver then there's no reason why they should not be given a chance.

Can you explain why private companies would do the easy work and leave the public sector with the hard work and why if this were the case it would be a bad thing? The requirements and standards would be the same whoever did it so surely if private companies are doing one thing more cheaply it would leave the public sector with more money to do what they do?

Again, I don't care if somebody is making a profit if I'm getting the same service or better and the government saves money to pay for more important things.

woodpigeon4 · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:23

*yawn* If I had a penny for the amount of times people told me the NHS was going to be destroyed I'd have enough money to pay for it.

drunkenmaster · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:24

Meh, private companies have every chance to screw people out of money, they also have every chance to provide better health care for less cost.

The NHS works for many millions of people, it fails many millions more completely and utterly. There will be no perfect system, people will fall through the cracks, at the moment being a public health system with a complete monopoly and used as a political tool more than a health service, its cracks are hidden and more money thrown at it, its insanely wasteful and is incredibly poorly run. For every dedicated public servant working himself to death in the NHS, theres 3 people sitting at desks while on facebook on their phones, or calling in sick and being almost impossible to fire.

When you have the UK's biggest employer, a massive wage bill, and rising unemployment and health care being the biggest political tool around, you end up with our current NHS, overburdened by unneeded staff with completely worthless paperwork added to create the need for more jobs, which is all slowly strangling it completely.

Its reform now at cost y, or reform in 15 years at cost y x y, with another couple trillion in government debt to deal with aswell.

The NHS is a steaming pile of crap, just because its a working steaming pile of crap, doesn't mean it can't work insanely better for vastly cheaper.

I really don't know if the conservatives plan is any good at all, I know a lot of people who say it isn't(who work in the NHS) and some who say it could work, the one thing they all agree on is the current system is in no way working.

Its better to try, and fail, and try again and again till it works, than throw more money at it every year as it gets worse. Conversatives.... at least trying. Labour, same solution as everything, borrow and spend, borrow and spend, which doesn't work for........ anything.

No1newts · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:26

scorza said:
No it means that private companies will win if they're the cheapest option, so they'll take the cheap, easy work as that's where the profit is - and leave the NHS with the expensive, difficult work.

lol.

You get that straight from the Daily Mail?

The cheapest option will generally win yes, in every other aspect of society we are pushing competition for people to produce better products at cheaper costs. God forbid we should introduce this into healthcare as well and actually make the system cost effective and efficent :eek:

scorza · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:26

The_Abyss said:
The NHS is a cash-guzzling disaster saved from utter failure only by throwing ever-increasing sums of money at it.

Same as every healthcare system then. Healthcare costs have increased dramatically across the world over the last few decades, why should the NHS be immune from that? Part of the problem with the NHS is that between 1980 and 2000 we didn't throw enough money at it, we've been playing catch up ever since until now when we've started going backwards again.

sigma · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:26

The NHS is never going to continue working in its current state (the opinion of people who work in the NHS).

I'm guessing Labour would have saved the day? Thread needs more lolhausen.

drunkenmaster · 30 Aug 2011 at 21:28

Telescopi said:
That simply isn't true is it? The procurement process should lay out requirements and standards - if somebody else can do that at a lower cost and there's no reason to believe they will fail to deliver then there's no reason why they should not be given a chance.

Can you explain why private companies would do the easy work and leave the public sector with the hard work and why if this were the case it would be a bad thing? The requirements and standards would be the same whoever did it so surely if private companies are doing one thing more cheaply it would leave the public sector with more money to do what they do?

Again, I don't care if somebody is making a profit if I'm getting the same service or better and the government saves money to pay for more important things.

Well essentially at this point, if you look at the NHS now, and a brand new health company offering the exact same quality of service but essentially everything out back, all the paper work, all the funding, all the IT all from scratch it would be FAR more efficient, cheaper and with a lot less people and a lot more spent on frontline staff.

The thing with the NHS is, at some point reforming every part of the NHS, over, and over, and over, and over is just expensive and a mess, with old departments dealing with new departments, new paper work mixing with old systems.

What you need is a "new" NHS that gets started from the ground up without any of the needless paperwork, with better filling systems, working IT, better designed buildings all from the start and simply turn off life support on the old system.

Unfortunately that would put 100k's of people out of work and without jobs to go into, onto benefits. Theres really no clean way out of the mess that is the NHS.