So because media would spin stuff to sell more copies and because some people are not smart enough to differentiate between something being likely to happen and extremely rare you think that the information should be withheld and the people who are to vote on this issue should do so blind. That sounds rather like a rather misinformed democratic process. To then selectively involve only agreeing parties and railroad something through against public opinion then moves the whole process into the realms of dictatorship.
Petition to save the NHS
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
So because media would spin stuff to sell more copies and because some people are not smart enough to differentiate between something being likely to happen and extremely rare you think that the information should be withheld and the people who are to vote on this issue should do so blind. That sounds rather like a rather misinformed democratic process. To then selectively involve only agreeing parties and railroad something through against public opinion then moves the whole process into the realms of dictatorship.
No, risk management is about the impact of an event and its probability. It won't specify every conceivable risk, just the ones that are worth managing. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/CO_NationalRiskRegister_2012_acc.pdf
If Lansley is refusing to publish the risk assessment associated with his bill then the suspicion is that he knows there's a greater likelihood of an adverse impact.
www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/23/outperforming-nhs-reform-study-concludes
so the nhs performs well apart from in clincal outcomes, and especially deaths amenable to healthcare (the metric used to calculate unnecessary deaths as quoted earlier)
Exactly how can a system that leads to a large number of unnecessary deaths that haven't been improved during a tripling of spending be considered acceptable?
so the nhs performs well apart from in clincal outcomes, and especially deaths amenable to healthcare (the metric used to calculate unnecessary deaths as quoted earlier)
Exactly how can a system that leads to a large number of unnecessary deaths that haven't been improved during a tripling of spending be considered acceptable?
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,890
- Location
- On the road
Are there any short of numbers and correlations of these against other countries? It is hard to put this into perspective otherwise, e.g. number of deaths estimated in the US for not having insurance a year is around 45000.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Maybe you should ask the author of this report, Professor David Ingleby of Utrecht University?
You can be damned sure that Cameron & Co will not be speaking to him.
If it weren't for your very personal bitter vendetta against the NHS which demands that you portray it as some sort of Murder Inc., you would have quoted some of the other findings of this report. Since you chose not to do so, I will:
And here in full is the bit from which you chose to fabricate your damning sound-bite:
So, in summary, the NHS "outperforms other high income countries on many measures, despite spending less than most of them", isn't perfect but "it does not need to undergo the radical transformation planned by the coalition" and "Improvements are needed, but continuation and expansion of the measures already set in motion – more of the same – seems to be a better formula than totally rebuilding a system that, by international standards, already works remarkably well.".
Incidentally, those other high income countries are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
Needless to say, Lolph is sticking to his specious assertion that the NHS willfully causes a large number of unnecessary deaths each year and that this slaughter can only be prevented by having private companies selflessly turn illness into wealth
ps - I will get access to the full report over the weekend.
As someone very close to and very familar with these reforms, I'm broadly against them - in fact, no one I've met is in favour of them anymore - and thats including a large number of people who stand to financially gain from the Bill.
While it *does* have a number of initiatives within it that could improve the NHS and the general health of the country (see Public Health sections, mental health provisions, abolition of PCTs), it's a complete mess in other areas. It's also been amended so much, so often that's it's virtually incomprehensible now. It's a bad Bill, just about as bad as one gets - and if it passes, the next few years will be a complete mess for every organisation set up under the Bill as we all try and work out exactly what the Bill means - right now, no one really knows.
As for those arguing here in favour of competition, there is one significant part of this weeks report you skipped over - cherry picking and the limited services offered by private sector providers in this country.
At the moment, plenty of work I'm directly involved in is commissioned from private providers. And generally they're great. Good quality, good value for money. But the services they provide are very limited - we're talking minor surgery (mole removal, glaucoma treatment etc) or community based (transport services, wheelchair provision, hearing aids etc). It's the high volume, lost cost stuff thats cherry picked to turn a profit. Don't get me wrong - this is probably good for the NHS, as we can concentrate on the more complicated procedures and longer stays and the volume is pushed off elsewhere.
But it does mean any comparison of competition and cost is fundamentally flawed. You're comparing mole removals to long term fracture treatments. And even comparing like for like is flawed these days (since private providers are long established now) - an NHS nurse doing a mole removal will cost more, since they're also trained and actively providing a wider bredth of care for more conditions beyond that minor surgery. A private provider doesn't need that experience - they only deal with moles.
While it *does* have a number of initiatives within it that could improve the NHS and the general health of the country (see Public Health sections, mental health provisions, abolition of PCTs), it's a complete mess in other areas. It's also been amended so much, so often that's it's virtually incomprehensible now. It's a bad Bill, just about as bad as one gets - and if it passes, the next few years will be a complete mess for every organisation set up under the Bill as we all try and work out exactly what the Bill means - right now, no one really knows.
As for those arguing here in favour of competition, there is one significant part of this weeks report you skipped over - cherry picking and the limited services offered by private sector providers in this country.
At the moment, plenty of work I'm directly involved in is commissioned from private providers. And generally they're great. Good quality, good value for money. But the services they provide are very limited - we're talking minor surgery (mole removal, glaucoma treatment etc) or community based (transport services, wheelchair provision, hearing aids etc). It's the high volume, lost cost stuff thats cherry picked to turn a profit. Don't get me wrong - this is probably good for the NHS, as we can concentrate on the more complicated procedures and longer stays and the volume is pushed off elsewhere.
But it does mean any comparison of competition and cost is fundamentally flawed. You're comparing mole removals to long term fracture treatments. And even comparing like for like is flawed these days (since private providers are long established now) - an NHS nurse doing a mole removal will cost more, since they're also trained and actively providing a wider bredth of care for more conditions beyond that minor surgery. A private provider doesn't need that experience - they only deal with moles.
Well whilst that's a nice post it aint anything above what we raise in every thread of this type and it gets completely ignored.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There is one thing that people frequently overlook in there utter opposition of all things cuts.
That is what ultimately it is leading too. Other countries spend more on their health service, that is irrelevant..... we CAN'T AFFORD the NHS we have, there is nothing else to this argument.
When you personally have a 8k limit on one card, and keep getting cards, and maxing their limits and you can't pay any of it back..... eventually people simply stop giving you any money.
The world economy is still complete crap, theres every possibility of another huge recession people are ONLY looking at the NHS reforms as a "will it make it better" situation, when that isn't largely what its about. There IS a ******* HUGE amount of waste in the NHS. It's NOT about better or worse, its about trying to start to cut out huge parts of ridiculous waste, and its not going to be entirely successful, but its a start.
This is what makes me so angry about the daft people in this country. We have a massive deficit, in a world economy that is sucking, with several European countries in massive trouble, potentially a massive world recession incoming in the next several years that will make 2008-2010 look like a god damned holiday. But people can't accept the NHS is an incredibly poorly run wasteful organisation, it NEEDS massive reforms, a doctor talking about medical benefits of reform is missing the entire god damned reason for the reforms in the first place.
We could EASILY make the NHS the best health service in the world, just spend another 800billion a year and bring in every best doctor that graduates from every university in the world for the next decade, build 50 new hospitals, etc, etc. This is the point, what we can get for the money spent, is poor, what we get now can be provided MUCH cheaper, we can't afford CURRENT levels of spending, we can't come close to affording current levels of spending, there is nothing else to the argument.
An NHS that doesn't cause the country to go bankrupt, with worse healthcare(but not signifcantly to now) is far preferable to a massive decade long recession where 50% of our hospitals close and millions go hungry when unemployed.
This country needs massive spending cuts to get to a almost "acceptable" level of deficit, arguably we need an actual positive cashflow and to pay off our debt but that is entirely unrealistic(unless the UK cracks cold fusion or, something else equally epic).
People in this country are simply unwilling to accept that some services will get worse with cuts, but, without them they will eventually disappear entirely. I don't live in a mansion because I can't afford one, this country can't afford the NHS as it is, that is simply fact, there is no question about it, therefore the NHS as well as everything else needs spending reduced.
That is what ultimately it is leading too. Other countries spend more on their health service, that is irrelevant..... we CAN'T AFFORD the NHS we have, there is nothing else to this argument.
When you personally have a 8k limit on one card, and keep getting cards, and maxing their limits and you can't pay any of it back..... eventually people simply stop giving you any money.
The world economy is still complete crap, theres every possibility of another huge recession people are ONLY looking at the NHS reforms as a "will it make it better" situation, when that isn't largely what its about. There IS a ******* HUGE amount of waste in the NHS. It's NOT about better or worse, its about trying to start to cut out huge parts of ridiculous waste, and its not going to be entirely successful, but its a start.
This is what makes me so angry about the daft people in this country. We have a massive deficit, in a world economy that is sucking, with several European countries in massive trouble, potentially a massive world recession incoming in the next several years that will make 2008-2010 look like a god damned holiday. But people can't accept the NHS is an incredibly poorly run wasteful organisation, it NEEDS massive reforms, a doctor talking about medical benefits of reform is missing the entire god damned reason for the reforms in the first place.
We could EASILY make the NHS the best health service in the world, just spend another 800billion a year and bring in every best doctor that graduates from every university in the world for the next decade, build 50 new hospitals, etc, etc. This is the point, what we can get for the money spent, is poor, what we get now can be provided MUCH cheaper, we can't afford CURRENT levels of spending, we can't come close to affording current levels of spending, there is nothing else to the argument.
An NHS that doesn't cause the country to go bankrupt, with worse healthcare(but not signifcantly to now) is far preferable to a massive decade long recession where 50% of our hospitals close and millions go hungry when unemployed.
This country needs massive spending cuts to get to a almost "acceptable" level of deficit, arguably we need an actual positive cashflow and to pay off our debt but that is entirely unrealistic(unless the UK cracks cold fusion or, something else equally epic).
People in this country are simply unwilling to accept that some services will get worse with cuts, but, without them they will eventually disappear entirely. I don't live in a mansion because I can't afford one, this country can't afford the NHS as it is, that is simply fact, there is no question about it, therefore the NHS as well as everything else needs spending reduced.
Alternatively we just re-adjust our priorities.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
We CAN'T AFFORD a two-tier wealth creating health service.
Most GPs to whom I have spoken would agree that there are things wrong with the NHS and they would like to see it improved. Eliminating vast amounts of the bureaucracy introduced by New Labour would be a start. Not perpetuating the lie that patients can have unlimited free choice would also be a good idea.
Costs are going to increase because of improved (more expensive) treatments and an ageing population; this will inevitably necessitate greater efficiency, reducing waste and managing people's expectations - i.e rationing healthcare.
However, the proposals being put forward by the Tories don't address either of these issues; they simply change the bureaucracy, increase the illusions about choice and bring about a two-tier healthcare system where the disabled, the unemployed and the elderly will get worse treatment than they do now unless they happen to be rich. What the Tories want to do is allow private (mostly American) providers and their shareholders to get their hands on the vast sums currently spent on the NHS.
Frankly most of your post is an incomprehensible rant, apparently about debt, the deficit and the economy. I have retained the one comment that seems relevant.
Most GPs to whom I have spoken would agree that there are things wrong with the NHS and they would like to see it improved. Eliminating vast amounts of the bureaucracy introduced by New Labour would be a start. Not perpetuating the lie that patients can have unlimited free choice would also be a good idea.
Costs are going to increase because of improved (more expensive) treatments and an ageing population; this will inevitably necessitate greater efficiency, reducing waste and managing people's expectations - i.e rationing healthcare.
However, the proposals being put forward by the Tories don't address either of these issues; they simply change the bureaucracy, increase the illusions about choice and bring about a two-tier healthcare system where the disabled, the unemployed and the elderly will get worse treatment than they do now unless they happen to be rich. What the Tories want to do is allow private (mostly American) providers and their shareholders to get their hands on the vast sums currently spent on the NHS.
/expects to disagree with Stockhausen
/reads Stockhausen's post
/thinks his preconception was drastically wrong
+1
The sad thing is we can afford it. I mean we really can, I know there's no point in telling anyone because, there all under the same orthodox religion which got us into this mess. We could even afford it within the realms of the current orthodox, just take more taxes in the higher up areas, the hoarded profits.
The way their going we wont have a future at all. Five years down the line it'll be even more over budget and have to be cut again. We cant afford our pensions into the future. Its idiocy and madness.
I'm guessing everything will have to be completely destroyed, before people start using their brains.
Last edited:
And guess who will be given nice "consultancy" positions on the providers boards......
Care will "appear" to be improved, because the middle class symptoms and the worried well will get a better level of service with the private providers, since they usually have simple problems to begin with.
The main problem is that the NHS will be left with the complex, the elderly and the infirm. They will get a much worse level of care due to resources(and good doctors) being siphoned off to the private providers. But these lot dont usually make much political noise, write to newspapers or vote much. They usually are found curled up in a nursing home or left in a corner somewhere.
Until the middle classes and worried well becomes these elderly, they will wish things didnt change in 2012. By then it would be too late.
What parts of the bill will cause this?
Can anyone explain the additional "choice" Cameron keeps banging on about? The only problem I see with this is that GPs can already refer patients to anywhere they like, anywhere in the country as close to home or at the other side of the country should they wish - so where's this extra choice? He never elaborates on it.
I do like the NHS in England being used as a test for this though, it means Scotland can cherry pick the best parts for it's reform, which no doubt will happen after the next election. What troubles me most though is that all political parties do this at each election - so the NHS is never in a stable state, which never helps when you're trying to improve systems etc (I'm speaking from an I.T. Perspective).
I do like the NHS in England being used as a test for this though, it means Scotland can cherry pick the best parts for it's reform, which no doubt will happen after the next election. What troubles me most though is that all political parties do this at each election - so the NHS is never in a stable state, which never helps when you're trying to improve systems etc (I'm speaking from an I.T. Perspective).
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
cf Education.
Actually there is far less choice now than either New Labour or the Tories would have you believe. The public is told that they have choice; GPs are told to do everything possible to persuade patients to go to pre-determined hospitals and accept lower-cost (generic) medication. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
You don't know how true this is; both New Labour and the Tories view the NHS as some sort of glorified prototyping toy, they simply can't stop fiddling with it.
This is almost certainly due to the fact that there are problems in the NHS, it is horrendously expensive to run and getting more expensive by the day, is valued by the bulk of the electorate and either incompetent, dishonest political group can gain brownie points by pretending to "improve" and make the NHS more answerable to patients.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
@stockhausen
Generic medicine has the same efficacy in the desired active component so its use is desirable for cost savings. It only make sense to use a more expensive "named" variety when there are parts to the medicine in the none active part eg try getting a 6 month with fever to take anything other than Calpol and they'll spit it out as that is what they are used to which will cost you far more than you save and a whole lot of screaming you don't need. So the use of generic medicine is not "bad".
Generic medicine has the same efficacy in the desired active component so its use is desirable for cost savings. It only make sense to use a more expensive "named" variety when there are parts to the medicine in the none active part eg try getting a 6 month with fever to take anything other than Calpol and they'll spit it out as that is what they are used to which will cost you far more than you save and a whole lot of screaming you don't need. So the use of generic medicine is not "bad".
Last edited:
That really isn't an answer as the sectors are radically different in structure. You said that the bill would make healthcare worse for the unemployed, disabled and elderly, in what way? What parts of the bill will specifically change the NHS for those people?
I am assuming as you are so vehemently opposed to this bill you have researched it enough to actually comment on what parts are so destructive for those groups?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Absolutely, I wouldn't argue with any of that.
If only the Government (both New Labour & the Tories) put out that message rather than bleating on endlessly about "choice"
the Tories want to privatise large parts of the NHS and feel that the rich are quite entitled to a superior (two-tier) service . . . a lot like Education really.