Save the NHS!

[Dolph]

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.

I'd prefer to have access to high quality care with world leading outcomes for all. The trouble is the NHS doesn't provide that, while plenty of other countries, who use alternative systems such as that being implemented, do.

You may be happy to sacrifice people's lives and health for your ideology by continuing to support a system with substandard outcomes, but I am not.

 

[MrMoonX]

I'd prefer to have access to high quality care with world leading outcomes for all. The trouble is the NHS doesn't provide that, while plenty of other countries, who use alternative systems such as that being implemented, do.

You may be happy to sacrifice people's lives and health for your ideology by continuing to support a system with substandard outcomes, but I am not.

But they aren't doing it to improve care they are doing it cos private healthcare tsars donated big bucks to the Tory party

 

[Dolph]

But they aren't doing it to improve care they are doing it cos private healthcare tsars donated big bucks to the Tory party

Evidence or just irrational paranoia?

(Hint, evidence of donations is not evidence that the changes are not driven by the success of models elsewhere and the failure of the NHS to improve in-spite of massive cash injections)

 

[Stag]

You don't need evidence to realise people will do things that's in their financial interest, why do you think we deposed Gadaffi?

 

[Dolph]

You don't need evidence to realise people will do things that's in their financial interest, why do you think we deposed Gadaffi?

We know that from the public sector unions want the NHS and the public sector generally to be a jobs club

 

[Monkeynut]

Evidence or just irrational paranoia?

(Hint, evidence of donations is not evidence that the changes are not driven by the success of models elsewhere and the failure of the NHS to improve in-spite of massive cash injections)

It does however hint at a conflict of interest - by the same logic, you could say that the Labour Party support Union activities because unions around the world have largely helped worker's rights and not at all because they recieved millions of pounds in funding - but since you have criticised the Labour Party for this before we must not have double standards.

(for the record I am against any large donations from special interests)

 

[scorza]

I'd prefer to have access to high quality care with world leading outcomes for all. The trouble is the NHS doesn't provide that, while plenty of other countries, who use alternative systems such as that being implemented, do.

You may be happy to sacrifice people's lives and health for your ideology by continuing to support a system with substandard outcomes, but I am not.

While you ... I can't make up my mind if you're happy to sacrifice people's lives and health for profit or just sheer naivety. Which healthcare industry do you suppose is the most profitable - US or European? Do you honestly think we're marching towards the healthcare system that generates the best healthcare outcomes or the best profit margins?

 

[Dolph]

While you ... I can't make up my mind if you're happy to sacrifice people's lives and health for profit or just sheer naivety. Which healthcare industry do you suppose is the most profitable - US or European? Do you honestly think we're marching towards the healthcare system that generates the best healthcare outcomes or the best profit margins?

Yet again, you present an irrelevant point, we are not, in any way, heading towards a US system. It shouldn't even be mentioned it's so irrelevant. The only reason you keep doing so is because you can't actually argue the point based on the facts, so go for a strawman.

European healthcare systems do make profits, they also save more lives than the NHS, which does not. The NHS has show no improvement despite a doubling of funding in real terms, which means funding is not the answer. that leaves reform.

Why are you so against reform?

 

[Danthus]

I'd prefer to have access to high quality care with world leading outcomes for all. The trouble is the NHS doesn't provide that, while plenty of other countries, who use alternative systems such as that being implemented, do.

You may be happy to sacrifice people's lives and health for your ideology by continuing to support a system with substandard outcomes, but I am not.

You have read a report, right?

Or is this based on your anecdotal evidence?

 

[Danthus]

They have £40 million debt to clear, I think they have agreed to do it in 10 years.

The biggest cost to any organisation is salaries, you don't have to be a genius to work out jobs will be cut.

 

[Dolph]

They have £40 million debt to clear, I think they have agreed to do it in 10 years.

The biggest cost to any organisation is salaries, you don't have to be a genius to work out jobs will be cut.

And again, a hospital should not be a jobs club...

 

[scorza]

Yet again, you present an irrelevant point, we are not, in any way, heading towards a US system. It shouldn't even be mentioned it's so irrelevant. The only reason you keep doing so is because you can't actually argue the point based on the facts, so go for a strawman.

Yeah, that's why the Secretary of State will not have a duty to provide a health service under Lansley's reforms. The only reason why you'd do that is to ensure there doesn't have to be a universal healthcare service. Lansley's reforms are the first step towards a US style healthcare nightmare, not a European style universal health service.

European healthcare systems do make profits, they also save more lives than the NHS, which does not. The NHS has show no improvement despite a doubling of funding in real terms, which means funding is not the answer. that leaves reform.

That's not the question I asked. Private Equity, Hedge Funds, Goldman Sachs executives aren't interested in just making a profit, they're interested in maximising profits. That's why you get PE funded companies like Blue Cross coming in, stripping the assets of residential care homes to make a quick buck for the shareholders, and then going bankrupt leaving creditors and patients to face the consequences. Can you give me any guarantees that what happened with Blue Cross won't happen when we have a lightly regulated, market driven free-for-all in the NHS?

Why are you so against reform?

Because reform under this government is always for the worse. There are plenty of ways the NHS could be reformed that I'd support - this is about the worst thing they could do imo.

 

[scorza]

And again, a hospital should not be a jobs club...

And how exactly do you think Circle will decide which jobs are needed and which ones aren't? Which do you think will be the bigger issue for them - quality of service or profit margin?

 

[Dolph]

Yeah, that's why the Secretary of State will not have a duty to provide a health service under Lansley's reforms. The only reason why you'd do that is to ensure there doesn't have to be a universal healthcare service. Lansley's reforms are the first step towards a US style healthcare nightmare, not a European style universal health service.

Except he does, as has been referenced earlier in the thread. Please read the actual bill not the made up **** put out by Labour or the unions...

That's not the question I asked. Private Equity, Hedge Funds, Goldman Sachs executives aren't interested in just making a profit, they're interested in maximising profits. That's why you get PE funded companies like Blue Cross coming in, stripping the assets of residential care homes to make a quick buck for the shareholders, and then going bankrupt leaving creditors and patients to face the consequences. Can you give me any guarantees that what happened with Blue Cross won't happen when we have a lightly regulated, market driven free-for-all in the NHS?

I think you mean Southern Cross, and you're continuing to poison the well, as well as make things up, as a 'lightly regulated, market driven free-for-all' isn't what has actually been proposed in the bill...

Because reform under this government is always for the worse. There are plenty of ways the NHS could be reformed that I'd support - this is about the worst thing they could do imo.

Such as? Can you give some examples, ideally with references to other, more successful countries (based on healthcare outcomes) that use them.

 

[Danthus]

And again, a hospital should not be a jobs club...

You complete failed to address my point.

 

[Dolph]

And how exactly do you think Circle will decide which jobs are needed and which ones aren't? Which do you think will be the bigger issue for them - quality of service or profit margin?

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

 

[Dolph]

You complete failed to address my point.

What was your point? All you did was give a statement that they were almost certain to cut jobs. You failed to make any further point about if or why this was bad, or indeed what would have happened if it had remained in NHS hands with a big budget overspend and debt to clear.

 

[scorza]

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

Ryanair aren't good at business then as they provide an awful QoS yet make amazing profits for the airline industry.

 

[Dolph]

Ryanair aren't good at business then as they provide an awful QoS yet make amazing profits for the airline industry.

Ryanair provide a low cost/low QoS solution that suits many passengers. In a fixed cost marketplace, their QoS levels wouldn't be tolerated.

 

[scorza]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/11/lansley-reveal-nhs-risk

This is interesting - Lansley and the DoH have been ordered to reveal their risk analysis of these reforms. What's the betting that the documents show that the government know these reforms won't do much to improve healthcare in this country at all. The chair of the Royal College of GPs thinks this will be the case:

Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of GPs and a leading opponent of the government's NHS plans, said: "The RCGP, among others, have been concerned for a year about the risks associated with the DH's plans to 'liberate' the NHS; risks such as the increased costs involved, fragmentation of services, and widening of health inequalities – all things that poll after poll has showed that health professionals are worried about. I'm looking forward to seeing what this document says because it could vindicate people like myself who have been speaking out for patients for a year now."