So you are still ignoring the pro-figures. And you talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
So you are still ignoring the pro-figures. And you talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
I'm yet to see any actual figures on outcomes posted from pro research... remember they need to have comparison of outcomes compared to the European countries that use the a system similar to that being implemented here.
the other part of your argument is fallacious, specifically a tu quoque fallacy, hence can be disregarded as a pointless attempt at distraction.
You ignore evidence presented by the other side of the argument again and again and again.
You ignore the fact that all parties who have a stake in this process bar the Tories and those who will directly profit are against this process.
You ignore the fact that circle admit in their own words that there is the possibility that care quality will decrease from its current levels.
You castigate the efforts of people who do make a genuine effort to make a difference.
You do not make any personal attempt to make a difference yourself.
You resort to fallacy based arguments when something does not fit with your dogmatic views.
A doubling of funding in real terms....
Sounds great when you put it like that, except we still spend less as a % of GDP than most European countries, and far less per person than in the touted French or German system.
What evidence has been presented around outcomes by the other side? There's been a lot of information presented, but none of it around outcomes.
I'm yet to see a reason why we should sacrifice lives for jobs.
From their current levels, which are substantially above the NHS average. Not from the current level of care provided from the NHS.
I thought that was the people objecting to reform?
Tu Quoque, this is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Calling someone on their fallacy is not a fallacy based argument, it's an attempt to prevent the other side being misleading.
If funding was the problem, then we would have seen improvement in overall outcomes from the increased spending. But we haven't, and hence this argument is thoroughly neutralised.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/20/nhs-hospitals-cuts-college-nursing
Whose right? The Royal College of Nursing expects 56,000 doctors, nurses, midwives and other NHS staff to lose their job as a result of the government's NHS savings. The government says they are wrong because they'll save all this money through efficiency savings - doesn't efficiency savings essentially mean doing more with less though? so it's natural to expect fewer jobs after the efficiency savings are completed. Personally I'm more inclined to believe the RCN - this level of job losses fits in with the putative government scorched earth policy to all public services.
Whose right? The Royal College of Nursing expects 56,000 doctors, nurses, midwives and other NHS staff to lose their job as a result of the government's NHS savings. The government says they are wrong because they'll save all this money through efficiency savings - doesn't efficiency savings essentially mean doing more with less though? so it's natural to expect fewer jobs after the efficiency savings are completed. Personally I'm more inclined to believe the RCN - this level of job losses fits in with the putative government scorched earth policy to all public services.
You still haven't answered why the NHS should be run as a jobs club.
If the NHS is employing too many people, or employing them inefficiently (eg employing multiple part time staff at increased expense compared to less full time staff), and changing it will have no appreciable impact on patient care, then it should be changed.
I notice the RCN are entirely concerned about the staff and not the patients in their statements apart from a random and unsubstantiated supposition...
That's because only in your mind is the NHS run as a jobs club. You know, waiting times are already too high in the NHS, our population is growing in both numbers and waistlines, and yet you honestly think that having fewer doctors and nurses operating on the front line will improve the NHS? It frankly beggars belief. I know you've had a bad experience with the NHS but wholesale privatisation and deregulation of the NHS is not the answer - take the blinkers off.
I'd rather be pulled up on a fallacy and actually have made a difference than just moaned on the internet and done absolutely diddly squat to have made any difference myself. Like I said if you care do something about it - if you don't then have the decency to well you know ... When you have you might understand what the hell you are on about - the amount of government documents you must have read by now you could have finished med school and be doing some good for some people one step at a time rather than spouting this dogma.
Just one point I would like to make,a lot of people are unable to take out private health insurance due to having chronic illness, ie diabetes which will exclude about 2 million people in the UK, there would also be a lot other people with all sorts of illness which would also exclude them from private health insurance. Don't forget the insurance company is in the game to make money.
He does. Quite evident. Does his company not pay for his private healthcare or something?
http://www.channel4.com/news/proof-government-plans-to-privatise-nhs
GPs are kicking off today about what they see as the privatisation of the NHS.
So far from the GPs consortia commissioning healthcare services, it will be the usual big businesses who will be making decisions on our health with their profits in mind.
GPs are kicking off today about what they see as the privatisation of the NHS.
So far from the GPs consortia commissioning healthcare services, it will be the usual big businesses who will be making decisions on our health with their profits in mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/19/credit-rating-agencies-hospital-finances
Under Lansley's plan all NHS service providers would be subject to credit checks by the big three CRAs - organisations that were key enablers of the credit crunch. Tells you something about who are going to be the big winners in all of this, big business and the global financial services cartels.
Under Lansley's plan all NHS service providers would be subject to credit checks by the big three CRAs - organisations that were key enablers of the credit crunch. Tells you something about who are going to be the big winners in all of this, big business and the global financial services cartels.
more tory fail, more tax payers money to the financial sector
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/24/nhs-reforms-lansley-defends-shake-up
This wretched bill isn't even law yet and it's still causing major disruption to the NHS. It's no surprise that waiting times are ballooning
Time to ditch your health secretary and his bill Dave.
This wretched bill isn't even law yet and it's still causing major disruption to the NHS. It's no surprise that waiting times are ballooning
Time to ditch your health secretary and his bill Dave.
Health secretary Andrew Lansley has formally announced details of the government-owned firm that will take over ownership and management of much of the NHS estate.
In a written statement laid before Parliament this morning, Mr Lansley revealed that the company, which had previously been referred by the generic name “PropCo”, is called NHS Property Services Limited.
Mr Lansley’s statement said: “The arrangements for it will be finalised in the coming months, however its objectives will be to:
-hold property for use by community and primary care services, including for use by social enterprises;
-delivery value for money property services;
-cut costs of administering the estate by consolidating the management of over 150 estates;
-deliver and develop cost-essextive property solutions for community health services; and
-dispose of property surplus to NHS requirements.
thoughts?
edit: there is more but it's published on HSJ so is copyrighted.
In a written statement laid before Parliament this morning, Mr Lansley revealed that the company, which had previously been referred by the generic name “PropCo”, is called NHS Property Services Limited.
Mr Lansley’s statement said: “The arrangements for it will be finalised in the coming months, however its objectives will be to:
-hold property for use by community and primary care services, including for use by social enterprises;
-delivery value for money property services;
-cut costs of administering the estate by consolidating the management of over 150 estates;
-deliver and develop cost-essextive property solutions for community health services; and
-dispose of property surplus to NHS requirements.
thoughts?
edit: there is more but it's published on HSJ so is copyrighted.
British Medical Association response to the decision by the Royal College of GPs to call for withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill
The BMA welcomes the decision by the Royal College of GPs (RCGP) to call for withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill.
Chairman of BMA Council, Dr Hamish Meldrum said: "The RCGP statement seeking withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill surely scotches, once and for all, the Government's claims that there is professional support for this deeply flawed, damaging and unnecessary legislation.
“Whilst GPs and other clinicians support the concept of clinically-led commissioning, they do not believe that this expensive upheaval of the health service is needed to achieve that. If the Prime Minister really wants to put clinicians in control he should listen to what they are saying - louder and louder each day - and put this increasingly confused legislation out of its misery."
The BMA welcomes the decision by the Royal College of GPs (RCGP) to call for withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill.
Chairman of BMA Council, Dr Hamish Meldrum said: "The RCGP statement seeking withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill surely scotches, once and for all, the Government's claims that there is professional support for this deeply flawed, damaging and unnecessary legislation.
“Whilst GPs and other clinicians support the concept of clinically-led commissioning, they do not believe that this expensive upheaval of the health service is needed to achieve that. If the Prime Minister really wants to put clinicians in control he should listen to what they are saying - louder and louder each day - and put this increasingly confused legislation out of its misery."
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
The Department of Health appeared before the Information Tribunal today, arguing that it was entitled not to releases details of the risks associated with the ConDem's planned changes to the NHS despite being told to do so by the Information Commissioner.
If the Government loses, they will take the case to the High Court - by which time the legislation will have been forced through Parliament without MPs and the public understanding the huge risks involved.
If the Government had a shred of integrity, they would release this report immediately
If the Government loses, they will take the case to the High Court - by which time the legislation will have been forced through Parliament without MPs and the public understanding the huge risks involved.
If the Government had a shred of integrity, they would release this report immediately
The Department of Health appeared before the Information Tribunal today, arguing that it was entitled not to releases details of the risks associated with the ConDem's planned changes to the NHS despite being told to do so by the Information Commissioner.
If the Government loses, they will take the case to the High Court - by which time the legislation will have been forced through Parliament without MPs and the public understanding the huge risks involved.
If the Government had a shred of integrity, they would release this report immediately
So if they publish it, will the information be used properly or will it be used to produce more misleading crap like this article in the guardian? (or worse, any of the utter bilge published by groups such as 38 degrees)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/04/nhs-health-bill-child-protection-risks
Risk assessments are always highly negative documents, that's the purpose of them, but when the only reason some quarters what them published is so they can misrepresent them, it's not surprising there is resistance...