I'm somewhat disappointed Maustin, I had hoped for a good, evidence based response, but instead we seem to have a more emotive response lacking in significant content.
So you see no problem with GPs inappropriate referring against best practice guidelines to services that they directly profit from. Of course not because you support the Government paid McKinsey lot (who have no real experience when it comes to the NHS bar advising the last administration to make changes that you disagree with) who will then sell their services on to GPs. There is a massive conflict of interest here from the top to the bottom and the patient will be worse off.
You're moving the goalposts here and creating a strawman. At no point did I suggest, nor did you mention, inappropriate referring. The question was specifically around whether GPs making a profit at all was a bad thing, not about whether some GPs would proceed to misuse the system to maximise their profits.
I support an expansion of the market approach for GP services, I support the breaking of the current monopoly on healthcare that leads to poor standards and poor patient care. I wouldn't support GPs abusing the market any more than, for example, independent financial advisors abusing the market, and it is highly disingenuous of you to imply otherwise.
It quite clearly removes accountability and is just bringing in the private sector by the back door.
Citation needed. I gave you the specific sections of the bill (which have been amended again to make them even more explicit), you can't just say no it doesn't without some form of citation or evidence, ideally independent.
You really should be a manager in the NHS if you believe this - you are more concerned with meeting the measurement of success or achievement than the truth of what will be provided.
Actually, in this case, I'm more concerned with the ability of the contractor to cope with financial shock and not suddenly disappear, which was the purpose of the surety. It's essentially the equivalent of putting a large amount of cash in a specific bank account without direct access just in case.
Right Dolph and that's what they said about the IT projects ... and you are presuming the staff will go over a very hefty presumption.
Erm, it has nothing to do with IT, and TUPE largely ensures that the staff will go over.
No it does not but good initiatives (Cameron's words not mine) should not be directly penalised because corporate funding outbids them.
They weren't outbid, CHS failed to meet one of the criteria set out in the procurement process. Now as I said, I'd be happy to see more support around these initiatives to prevent re-occurrence, and this may include reviewing the procurement criteria to ensure that they are necessary and relevant, but we must not start creating different rules for enterprises based on their operating structure.
To add more bloat for no benefit is wrong plain and simple. Especially when that money is given to people who will directly profit from the advice they give and also when they have expertise (I use this term very very loosely) in private healthcare markets not models like ours.
You wouldn't sacrifice a short term bloat to address long term, structural bloating and inefficiency?
Let's be honest about what happens when healthcare fails - people die ... they can be the vanguard though for a better privatised future though can't they - except actually the NHS is very cost effective and good at what it does.
There are plenty of failures from a patient point of view that don't end in death, or certainly not in immediate death. Unnecessary stress, short and long term life quality issues, Physical or mental impairment, or potential reduction of lifespan all can result from care failures long before you reach the point of death. These are the types of failures that choice and competition can reduce.
And I have never said that but the general public can not make rationale choices about often new experiences or subjective experiences. It takes years of experience to know what modality some people need to go down that can not be picked up from a quick google and many people are too daft to see how harmful some decisions will be as many threads on here demonstrate.
And choice doesn't (or shouldn't) just be about the medical treatment administered...
Yes it does it will greatly restrict what is available free and further increase the postcode lottery in healthcare.
Again, citation needed. Also the postcode lottery is a natural result of choice, and sometimes a requirement of differing demographics between areas meaning different priorities. The difference is that under the new system, accountability towards patients is enhanced compared to the current system of PCTs, where there is no link whatsoever between patients and those making decisions.
So in summary: despite having a good recent experience of the NHS (in midwifery one of the most failing services in many peoples eyes) you still wish to change a system for ideological reasons and at the same time castigate Labour when it is quite clear that the NHS got better in their time and not only that they did better than an awful lot of other countries with less financial outlay.
No, in summary we were lucky. We had also had to make a complaint previously due to a terrible registrar who gave appalling information, lied on the notes and then didn't sign them, causing massive unnecessary stress in the final weeks of my wife's pregnancy. With a bit more reflection, there were some things about the hospital stay that could have done to be changed, but these were the fault of the system, not the staff, who did everything they could. Some other patients there when we were had not been so lucky with the quality of their care, so it's far from consistent.
I wish to change the system to make it better for patients, with better outcomes and a shift in focus to ensure the patient is at the centre of everything the NHS does, however it does it. The status quo certainly doesn't achieve this with anything like consistency, and this is despite massive increases in funding and ever greater regulation without addressing the structural issues of a monopoly.
The New NHS Modern and Dependable Efficient and Effective: they delivered it the Tories will destroy it. What's next on the hitlist - Haliburton to advise the MOD on improving logistics for overseas operations ... I wonder what their suggestions will be.
Perhaps a little less cynicism and a little more understanding and engagement would help? Perhaps if the NHS remembered its purpose more often less change would be needed?
And I'll do my standard new dad post - don't forget to get 2 of their favorite comforter for when the one is in the wash! Congratulations again I always joke that I was better off in the army - more sleep, less crawling around and generally got shouted at less! But there aint anything better.
