If it does show significant risks (as long as the reasons are not down to intransigent staff causing the problems) I'll happily revise my view of the reforms.
Will you commit to doing the same if it does not?
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
If it does show significant risks (as long as the reasons are not down to intransigent staff causing the problems) I'll happily revise my view of the reforms.
Will you commit to doing the same if it does not?
I don't think you are qualified to know what does and what does not require immediate or specialist treatment.
No, but neither are most people on this forum. However, we're not involved in the decision making process either
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Portsmouth
Well, that's the question, but to assume that Job losses = bad is to take a position on something that you cannot know. It could be that the hospital is employing large amounts of unnecessary staff doing circular work, and the job losses would have zero impact on care quality. I doubt that's the case, but I'm almost certain, if it's run like every other NHS hospital, there is plenty of fat that can be cut and greater efficiency in delivery of care to be had.
As for which is the bigger issue, if you're actually any good at business, you'd understand that Quality of service is important to your profit margin
Erm, how can you be almost certain of this? Where's your proof?
The job losses that come with these reforms....have they already been quantified? A lot of nurses face job losses if the reforms go through....I wouldn't call these "unnecessary staff"....in fact, quite the opposite.
Erm, how can you be almost certain of this? Where's your proof?
The job losses that come with these reforms....have they already been quantified? A lot of nurses face job losses if the reforms go through....I wouldn't call these "unnecessary staff"....in fact, quite the opposite.
Quantifiable drops in productivity, measured by the ONS over the last 14 years would be a start...
I'd also point out that, like any nationalised monopoly, that hiring and redundancy decisions are made for political and economic means because the structural pressures are all wrong. Hiring management when more money is available, and cutting nurses when cuts are needed, is the best way to get a bigger budget settlement by still providing poor care. This is a big part of the reason why complete structural reform is needed to put the funding in the control of the patients, so the structural pressure is on satisfying patients, not leaving them unhappy, as a means of increasing income.
No, but neither are most people on this forum. However, we're not involved in the decision making process either
Then why are you arguing from a position of no knowledge on something by your own admission you know very little about.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Portsmouth
"Quantifiable drops in productivity"....doesn't mean that there is plenty of fat to be cut from every other NHS hospital.
Because there is enough public information and research available to make the arguments via reference?
Incidentally, does your argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy apply to all sides in the debate?
And why do you equate qualification (which was what you asked about) with knowledge (which you didn't) in misrepresenting my answer?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Portsmouth
Still doesn't mean that there is plenty of fat to be cut from every other NHS hospital.
So putting that all aside let me ask you Dolph. What have you personally done to better the NHS? Have you ever worked there to make it better? Are you a politician or health manager driving innovation and change? If you think it is so important that it does change for the better what have you done to facilitate that. Held a dying persons hand and comforted then in their darkest hour, discovered a wonder drug, or just posted on a computer forum?
you still can't deny Dolph that every single professional body linked to the NHS outside of the private healthcare lobbyist, think these reforms are a bad idea, every academic, doctor and union think the tory plans are madness, yet they still press ahead, talk about not listening to the people that day to day run the NHS, its clearly driven by party donations and jobs for the private sector brigade
What do you say to this admission Dolph? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/12/care-private-company-nhs-hospital
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/13/circle-health-social-enterprise-hedge-fund-manager
Some more information on the sort of people who are going to be running our future US-style healthcare system.
The "John Lewis style" partnership comes from a Virgin Islands registered company which the staff will have shares in (but no actual say in how it is run). So if Dave's plans for the NHS to be transformed into a world class business come to fruition, the UK government will see little or no tax by way of receipt from these world class businesses as they'll all be based in tax havens
Some more information on the sort of people who are going to be running our future US-style healthcare system.
The "John Lewis style" partnership comes from a Virgin Islands registered company which the staff will have shares in (but no actual say in how it is run). So if Dave's plans for the NHS to be transformed into a world class business come to fruition, the UK government will see little or no tax by way of receipt from these world class businesses as they'll all be based in tax havens
Bit early isn't it, they've only been in the job a few days? However since Circle themselves admit that care will probably suffer (see Xordium's post) I think most reasonable minded people can see which way the wind is blowing.
are we taking the leaked memo in context of circle's very high current levels of patient care or against the poor standard of the nhs as a whole?
By "leaked memo" do you mean published share prospectus? If they're trying to sell their company's plans by saying quality of care will drop but you'll get shareholder value will go up what does that say for Lansley's wretched reforms?
The standards that:
a) are so shockingly poor that you have apathetically stood by and personally done nothing to address them;
b) are not that poor and quite good actually for the money invested but you conveniently skirt around the issue when this evidence is presented to you as it does not fit with your anti-NHS dogma.
the standards that cause approx 11000 unnecessay deaths per year compared to European systems and didn't really improve when funding was massively increased perhaps?
Last edited: