Save the NHS!

Freakbro said:
Pretty damning report from the Kings Fund on the Tories (coalitions) NHS restructuring....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145600
Click to expand...

Yep, and like I said from the beginning; what has been done cannot be undone:

In a warning ahead of the election campaign the report said: "If there is one clear message from the experience of the past five years, it is that politicians of all parties should be wary of ever again embarking on top-down restructuring of the NHS.
Click to expand...

I just imagine David Cameron sitting back, relaxing, saying to himeself, "scorched earth policy complete"
 
OldCoals said:
If the use of private companies can improve patient outcomes what is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Because they can only do that by charging more money for healthcare, if we want to spend more money on healthcare we can do so more effectively by increasing spending on the NHS.
 
scorza said:
Because they can only do that by charging more money for healthcare, if we want to spend more money on healthcare we can do so more effectively by increasing spending on the NHS.
Click to expand...

Did you feel the same when Labour did it in order to reduce waiting times?
 
scorza said:
Because they can only do that by charging more money for healthcare, if we want to spend more money on healthcare we can do so more effectively by increasing spending on the NHS.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe the NHS is 100% efficient and could change nothing.

If the NHS is only 80% efficient, then the private sector could offer 90% of the cost and still make a profit through improved operational efficiency...
 
scorza said:
No organisation is 100% efficient and the NHS is no exception, however the one thing you can't criticise the NHS for is being inefficient http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
Click to expand...

Fine, change the example numbers if it makes you feel better. The point is, to undercut the NHS, all a private company has to do is the same job with an efficiency increase greater than the desired profit.

So unless you believe there is no efficiency improvements available to the NHS, it is feasible that the private sector could do the job for less if they can find some.

Let's not mention the avoidable death rates in the NHS compared to other countries though, eh?
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Fine, change the example numbers if it makes you feel better. The point is, to undercut the NHS, all a private company has to do is the same job with an efficiency increase greater than the desired profit.

So unless you believe there is no efficiency improvements available to the NHS, it is feasible that the private sector could do the job for less if they can find some.
Click to expand...

It's important to realise what "efficiency increase" could mean in this context, e.g. a private company could do say, knee operations more efficiently if there was less risk of complications, to ensure the lower risk they could say we'll only take patients who are young and healthy to begin with, the overall result being that the NHS is left with an increased risk and therefore increased costs for the knee operations they carry out. This is the problem with the Conservative's top-down reorganisation of the NHS, as it sets that traction point.

When the private sector takes on all the liabilities of running a public health system then they simply cannot compete with the NHS on price, as was neatly demonstrated by the disastrous takeover of Hitchingbrooke Hospital by Circle Health.
 
OldCoals said:
Phew, the relatives of the dead will take great solace.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about the wrong solutions being implemented either - trying to make the NHS even more efficient will do sod all to prevent another Stafford. A different problem that requires a different solution.
 
Funny the usual suspects failed to mention this gem from the Kings fund report

There was also criticism of Labour, who, the King's Fund says, is "crying wolf" with "ill-founded" claims about the NHS being privatised.
Click to expand...
 
scorza said:
It's important to realise what "efficiency increase" could mean in this context, e.g. a private company could do say, knee operations more efficiently if there was less risk of complications, to ensure the lower risk they could say we'll only take patients who are young and healthy to begin with, the overall result being that the NHS is left with an increased risk and therefore increased costs for the knee operations they carry out. This is the problem with the Conservative's top-down reorganisation of the NHS, as it sets that traction point.

When the private sector takes on all the liabilities of running a public health system then they simply cannot compete with the NHS on price, as was neatly demonstrated by the disastrous takeover of Hitchingbrooke Hospital by Circle Health.
Click to expand...

Your point is somewhat flawed by the fact that hitchingbrooke is still in a better position now than it was in NHS hands, and I am guessing you have no interest in the criticims of the report or the influence of vested interests in the cqc?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...men-in-furious-rows-over-Hinchingbrookes.html
 
RDM said:
Aren't all GPs practices effectively privately owned companies that do NHS work?
Click to expand...

I have no idea to be honest.

I just want the debate about the NHS to move away from the political football that is privatisation and focus on patient outcomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom