Save the NHS!

I'm not sure you understood. I was talking from the perspective of the tax payer. If health care was fully private, then it would be cheaper as we'd have to pay only for the feckless and work shy instead of everyone.

Don't be so sure, You appear to be advocating the US system, which costs a fortune in both public and private cash.

The 2011/2012 budget is around £106 billion. That's a lot of cash that could be invested in other things.

In our experience, private healthcare has been amazing - far higher standards than the NHS and no waiting times. Not sure what's 'dumb' about that :p

Private healthcare in the UK isn't really an alternative to the NHS, but a complimentary thing. It wouldn't remain the same if it was required to serve everyone.

Different operating models for the provision of Universal healthcare are a totally different discussion to the abolition of universal healthcare.
 
The American system is not very good at all. In all cost comparisons it performs poorly compared to the NHS which seems like madness considering that the US is private healthcare.

The NHS is fantastic but its from another era when there was nowhere near the burden of the current population. It can evolve into a modern healthcare system but it needs to change and it needs to change soon.
 
Don't be so sure, You appear to be advocating the US system, which costs a fortune in both public and private cash.

I'm not really advocating anything Dolph. I'm not well informed enough to understand the different possibilities and the relative pros and cons. I accept that reforming public healthcare would be a gargantuan undertaking, and I've no idea what would be best. My main concern is cost, and how we fund increased budgets in the future.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15436685

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

A groundbreaking £1bn, 10-year deal for a private firm to run a struggling NHS hospital has been confirmed.

Circle, which is part-listed on the London Stock Exchange, is to take over Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, from 1 February 2012.

The deal will see Circle assume the financial risks of making the hospital more efficient and paying off its debts but the hospital will stay in the NHS.

The company must maintain services but unions fear staff numbers could be cut.

Although private sector firms already operate units that treat NHS patients - such as hip replacement centres - the firm will become the first non-state provider to manage a full range of NHS district general hospital services.

Hinchingbrooke hospital is one of about 20 hospitals in England which has faced an uncertain future, and the possibility of closure, because of long-term financial problems.

It is carrying about £40m of debt and its financial status has been given a high risk red rating by the NHS. The franchise deal with Circle was developed after concerns that the hospital had become unviable, and a local campaign to maintain services.

Circle describes itself as a social enterprise because 49.9% is owned by a partnership of employees. Others see it as a private business as the rest is owned by its parent company, Circle Holdings, which is listed on the stock market.

Dr Stephen Dunn, from the NHS in the East of England, says the hospital will continue to be paid at NHS rates for its work while it is being run by Circle. The company was chosen after a competitive tendering process, and has to assume all the financial risk involved.

"It's a hugely original deal - we've managed to avoid the possibility of closing the hospital. We've got a solution to the debt - and have plans that allow us to meet the efficiency challenges the NHS faces."

Any significant changes in services at the hospital will have to be agreed with the local NHS and the public will have to be consulted.

Circle chief executive Ali Parsa accepted the company was taking on a challenge. He said the strength of its approach was in increasing the involvement of doctors and nurses.

"We want to create a John Lewis-style model with everyone who works there in charge of the hospital, letting them own the problems and solve them. We will try everything we can to make this small hospital viable - if we can how fantastic would that be?"

The deal has taken almost a year from the plans being sent to the government for approval, to the contract being given the go ahead. The approval for the tendering process began under the last Labour government.

Circle, like other independent health providers, has experience of providing planned care but not of running a full range of services including emergency and maternity care.
'Patchy record'

Nuffield Trust chief economist Anita Charlesworth is not surprised by the level of scrutiny.

"I think the key question is does this deal provide a framework to resolve a financial problem, or put off the day when there has to be a decision about the hospital," she said.

She says Circle will have to make the hospital significantly more efficient, and is likely to look at areas like staffing levels and length of stay for patients.

Local GPs, now in a group getting ready to plan and buy services for the area, have been pressing for the deal to be signed off. They wrote to the prime minister to express concerns about the delay.

The deal is potentially politically controversial and not all are convinced this is the only solution to keeping Hinchingbrooke open.

Public sector union Unison's head of health, Christina McAnea, said a new management team could have been found without putting a contract out to tender.

"We just don't accept there is no expertise within an organisation the size of the NHS, and to turn to the private sector which has a very patchy record in delivering these kind of services is an accident waiting to happen."
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-15662635

Stafford Hospital's accident and emergency (A&E) unit may be closed at night in the future.

The BBC understands Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust executives will meet later to discuss plans to close A&E from 22:00 until 07:00.

It is believed the move has been proposed in response to a shortage of consultants.

The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust is now making contingency plans to cope with more patients.
'No decision made'

Its chief executive David Loughton said: "Having been actively involved in the discussions, I am aware of the decision [to be] made this week in relation to Stafford Hospital's A&E department.

"Clearly, this will have a direct impact on A&E services here at New Cross Hospital [in Wolverhampton], and we are now planning what this will mean for us."

Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust chief executive Richard Kirby said: "We are aware of the discussions taking place regarding the possible changes to A&E services at Stafford Hospital and that a decision regarding this has not yet been made.

"We will continue to work hard to ensure that any possible changes do not impact on the quality of care that we provide to patients."

From that article it is clear the decision is not driven by what is best for the patient.
 
It is about a 30 minute journey from Stafford Hospital to New Cross Hospital. How does transferring budget combat a possible increase in journey time for patients?
 
It is about a 30 minute journey from Stafford Hospital to New Cross Hospital. How does transferring budget combat a possible increase in journey time for patients?

On its own, it doesn't. However, there are other potential factors, such as care quality, availability and so on that can make the difference. There is evidence basis to support the patient benefits of care centralisation in outcomes.
 
The No Help Service. (nhs)

ONE of problems with socialists healthcare is that because it has the appearance of being free and to a lot of people it is completely free. People will tend to over use it and take advantage of it. You will find the same people go to the doctor all the time and when someone has a real problem they have to wait weeks to see a GP. If people have to pay a small fee like £20 to a see a doctor then they would not go for little to no reason.

The GPS because they are all NHS funded they have limited means and it is unlikely that when you go to the doctor they will be able to help you. They always redirect you to the hospital for the smallest of requests and then you have to wait weeks or even months and travel to the other side of town.

The whole this is a mess, i hope they convert all the GPs to paid private gps and the government just gets the hell out of GPs all together. Why don't they just set up a few walk in clinics or a few completely free GP practices and let all the people who refuse to pay for healthcare go to them. While all the people who don't mind spending £20 to see a doctor can get quality service and not second rate.

I could go on and on.
 
It's life. You get what you pay for.


Just wanted to bump this quote of yoursin case it gets lost amongst the other posts. I won't comment on it because no answer can demonstrate the shallowness of what you said, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody sees it.

Your only excuse would be if you are, like, 11 years old or something. Sadly, I doubt it.
 
On its own, it doesn't. However, there are other potential factors, such as care quality, availability and so on that can make the difference. There is evidence basis to support the patient benefits of care centralisation in outcomes.

Common sense says the quicker you get to hospital the better the likely outcome.
 
Common sense says the quicker you get to hospital the better the likely outcome.

Only if all other aspects of the equation are absolutely identical...

If speed of treatment was the only factor, then lots of small hospitals would be better than fewer larger ones, but the evidence doesn't support this at all (as Maustin demonstrated to me a couple of years back).

It is entirely possible to have better overall outcomes by balancing the risks of increased travel against better facilities/training etc.
 
On its own, it doesn't. However, there are other potential factors, such as care quality, availability and so on that can make the difference. There is evidence basis to support the patient benefits of care centralisation in outcomes.

There is also evidence to show the goldenhour from injury is where medical help is most beneficial. But you are right centralisation is generally a good thing bar in trauma/anything where you need immediate stabilisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_(medicine)
 
Last edited:
The GPS because they are all NHS funded they have limited means and it is unlikely that when you go to the doctor they will be able to help you. They always redirect you to the hospital for the smallest of requests and then you have to wait weeks or even months and travel to the other side of town.

Wait you are:

a) moaning about GPs doing what they are supposed to do and

b) you want the hospital to be transported to your doorstep rather than you go to it

and you moan about lazy stupid socialists :confused:
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/11/andrew-lansley-nhs-private-sector-circle

Interesting article about the private company taking over Hitchingbrooke hospital, Circle. Far from the "John Lewis style" workers co-operative the government was keen to portray them as they are actually led by a former Goldman Sachs banker and backed by Private Equity and Hedge Funds. First item on their agenda, "efficiency savings" by laying off staff - presumably doctors and nurses are included.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/11/andrew-lansley-nhs-private-sector-circle

Interesting article about the private company taking over Hitchingbrooke hospital, Circle. Far from the "John Lewis style" workers co-operative the government was keen to portray them as they are actually led by a former Goldman Sachs banker and backed by Private Equity and Hedge Funds. First item on their agenda, "efficiency savings" by laying off staff - presumably doctors and nurses are included.

Apart from Poisoning the well with irrelevant information, what is your actual objection?

Should a hospital employ people it doesn't need to? Should it be run as a jobs club? Remember, this is a hospital that is already failing, so clearly what is being done there at the moment isn't working.
 
There is also evidence to show the goldenhour from injury is where medical help is most beneficial. But you are right centralisation is generally a good thing bar in trauma/anything where you need immediate stabilisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_(medicine)

But in this case, the alternative facilities are available well within the hour, that's the point.
 
Apart from Poisoning the well with irrelevant information, what is your actual objection?

Should a hospital employ people it doesn't need to? Should it be run as a jobs club? Remember, this is a hospital that is already failing, so clearly what is being done there at the moment isn't working.

I object to the privatisation of the NHS. I object to the privatisation of the NHS while portraying the process of privatisation as being warm and fuzzy and workers co-operative like. I know you won't be happy until access to high quality healthcare is the preserve of the privileged few but I think people should see Lansley's reforms for what they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom