• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Bye Bye NHS?

#2
If the NHS is taken over by a 'firm' (overseas or domestic) then the NHS is by definition privatised... even if it is still being paid for by the NI contributions.

We'd be better served binning daft 'targets' and the plethora of managers and getting back to 'healing the sick'.

Giving people the chance to choose their hospitals (from the local areas) would allow the performers and non-performers to be spotted. Non of this you must do twelvty hips and fiveteen ingrowing toenails for every heart bypass or what ever.
 
#3
BBC News - NHS hospital management by overseas firms 'discussed'

This giant 'con' they're playing ("we don't want to privatise the NHS") isn't fooling anybody.
Do you have a problem with your GP? They have been private enterprises since the start of the NHS.

The NHS is the closest thing this country still has to organised religion. Any thoughts or plans for change are treated as if it is in contravention of a holy text.

Sadly in reality it is not a perfect system staffed by "angels" whose only concern is the welfare of its patients. The reality is that it is a monolithic organisation set up in large part to service the needs of its employees not its users. For the amount it costs it should be doing so much better.
 
#4
Sadly in reality it is not a perfect system staffed by "angels" whose only concern is the welfare of its patients. The reality is that it is a monolithic organisation set up in large part to service the needs of its employees not its users. For the amount it costs it should be doing so much better.
Really?

Have you conducted any research into its cost relative to other systems? Or the outcomes obtained for that money?
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#5
BBC News - NHS hospital management by overseas firms 'discussed'

What's the collective ARRSE wisdom on this one? Glad to see it go?

Personally I'm miffed about Lansley and the Tories not having the balls to come out and say what their objectives are - at least I'd respect them for this.

This giant 'con' they're playing ("we don't want to privatise the NHS") isn't fooling anybody.
If you read your own link you will "see" that selective quoting by BBC news from the Observer and Unison (and yourself) proves nowt. All Governments irrespective of colour are constantly consulting but whether it gets to be a debate in parliament or to policy level or are different matters.
 
#7
Giving people the chance to choose their hospitals (from the local areas) would allow the performers and non-performers to be spotted.
But nobody will have that choice. Lansley is spouting twaddle about "choice" and "patient-centric care".

He was asked on question time whether a patient would be able to decide which hospital they want to - answer: No.
 
#9
If you read your own link you will "see" that selective quoting by BBC news from the Observer and Unison (and yourself) proves nowt. All Governments irrespective of colour are constantly consulting but whether it gets to be a debate in parliament or to policy level or are different matters.
Well my belief in the Bill being de facto privatisation actually has nothing to do with the article - the article was just an interesting starting point.
 
#12
Well done. You can use google.

So what do you make of that web page then? How does the data described support your previous statement?
The World Health Organization, in its World Health Report 2000, provided a ranking of health care systems around the world according to criteria of the overall level and distribution of health in the populations, and the responsiveness and fair financing of health care services.[3]

I think that the fact that the WHO place us 2nd bottom in that table is fairly damming. What do you think about it?
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#13
Well my belief in the Bill being de facto privatisation actually has nothing to do with the article - the article was just an interesting starting point.
So why use the link instead of just putting your own personal views on where the current government is going vis-a-vis the management of the NHS?
 
#14
The World Health Organization, in its World Health Report 2000, provided a ranking of health care systems around the world according to criteria of the overall level and distribution of health in the populations, and the responsiveness and fair financing of health care services.[3]

I think that the fact that the WHO place us 2nd bottom in that table is fairly damming. What do you think about it?
I think you've quoted a website which quotes an eleven year old report compiled using 13 year old data.
 
#15
So why use the link instead of just putting your own personal views on where the current government is going vis-a-vis the management of the NHS?
Because I wanted to know what ARRSERs think of the continuing developments.

The news article is a new development - mostly because of Shirl-The-Girl's response and whether or not the Bill will actually manage to get through the Lords.
 
#17
#18
Right. So you've done no research. You've read Wikipedia and found a news article - probably also through google.

So a) how does any of the data you have linked to illustrate your point (they should be doing more with the money) and b) how does the Health and Social care bill change any of this?
I would be interested in how you expect a layman to do any research into the subject without the use of the internet.

As for point a, the reduction in productivity clearly shows that they should be doing more with the money, because that was being achieved previously.

As for point b I have made no comment on how the Health and social care bill will make changes.

Edit:
The news item is actually just an extract from the Parliamentary report, it seemed an easier item to post, but here is the report for clarity.
MPs publish report on NHS hospital productivity - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
 
#19
The NHS is the closest thing this country still has to organised religion. Any thoughts or plans for change are treated as if it is in contravention of a holy text.

Sadly in reality it is not a perfect system staffed by "angels" whose only concern is the welfare of its patients. The reality is that it is a monolithic organisation set up in large part to service the needs of its employees not its users. For the amount it costs it should be doing so much better.
The other organised religion is the idea that whatever we are paying for something, it could be done cheaper and better by the public sector Privatisation works where you have a market and the market can be made to work efficiently. But health care is not a normal market. It is like the railways and defence. Any market solution would be artificial and any efficiency savings are likely to be hoovered up by the commercial companies. We are likely to get a service indistinguishable from the NHS but costing a lot more.

This US report on the comparative costs of the US Health Care includes statistics on UK costs and outcomes. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

The obvious conclusions are that in the early C21st the UK spent around 80% of the absolute and %GDP of our neighbours for health care outcomes around the average for the OECD. On the figures collected, the NHS is an efficient system. It is average health care for less money. Arguably, the previous government's policy of spending more on the health care system bit more of on the HNS was a sensible policy.

Here is what the US said about why their health care costs so much.

Structure of Health System. The structure of a country’s health system and
providers’ bargaining power has a major effect on a country’s level of health
spending. In the United States, many hospitals (and hospital systems) have
consolidated in the past several years, enabling them to obtain better price leverage
in negotiations of reimbursement rates with insurance plans. Available research
indicates that this consolidation has enabled hospitals to obtain higher prices but has
not led to demonstrable improvements in health care quality.74
And thisis what is likely to happen if a series of international firms get to own large numbers of hospitals./ We have already had a staste of this with Southern Cross looks like what is proposed.

Here is the OECD copmments on the benefiots of the NHS
As one OECD researcher noted, “Countries with
single-payer systems or integrated public financing and delivery (national health
services) found spending control easier.”7
So how is opeing up the NHS to commerical suppliers going to make the system cheaper and more efficient?

The comments on being a monolithic organisation that could be done cheaper is one that applies to the armed forces.
 
#20
I would be interested in how you expect a layman to do any research into the subject without the use of the internet.
You said you've conducted research into the subject and I presumed this research underpinned your original point - that the NHS should be doing more for the money it receives.

You then provided - via Wikipedia - an indirect link to an 11 year old report which described national health care systems across the world based on data as much as 13 years old (i.e. when the then New Labour government were still committed to Conservative spending projections and had not initiated any reforms).

Now, finally, you have supplied a link to a report by the Public Accounts Committee which has claimed a small decline in productivity in spite of rising investment.

I presume you have no explanations as to why productivity has declined? For instance, NHS workers enjoying protections under the Working Time Regulations and not having to work 110 hour weeks, as was the case before? This naturally affects productivity as the NHS as an employer has legal limits on the volume of work it can demand for a given salary.

You have argued the NHS should do more with the money it receives. You haven't pointed me to a single health care system in the world that is as efficient/more efficient as/than ours and 'achieves more' with the money whilst preserving the principles underpinning the NHS.

So basically, you've got no idea what you're talking about.
 

Latest Threads