Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
NHS hospital management by overseas firms 'discussed' 
Author Message
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
bobbdobbs wrote:
They were never free but paid for by the taxpayer out of general taxation

But the public accepted that price. The problem is that the rich do not like the system because it means that they pay twice. Once for the private care and then for the public system for which they do not use. So they want to cut that expense, hence they are destroying the NHS by stealth.

No what's destroying the NHS, apart from the huge increase in management layers and the apparent need to pay them the going market rate (to attract the best candidates. Which is obviously doesn't) is the ever expanding cost. When the NHS was brought into being there wasn't the type of treatments available now and the costs. Need a heart transplant (cost £40k plus) in 1950 .. well you died. Want a test tube baby (one cycle £4k), In 1950 the NHS cost the country £400 million, by 1965 the cost was £1,200 million, by 1975 it had risen to £5,200 million per year and 2010-2011 £110 billion.
If you wanted a fully funded NHS that paid for everything then the country would be totally bankrupt (ok even more bankrupt than it is now). We cant afford that utopian ideal, once that premise has been taken away then you have to decide what is provided and who is going to pay for it.


the management layers were put in place to suck funds directly from the NHS
it was deliberate and planned

management will create extra layers to safe guard their own position and disregard the rest ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:54 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
MrStevenRogers wrote:

the management layers were put in place to suck funds directly from the NHS
it was deliberate and planned

management will create extra layers to safe guard their own position and disregard the rest ...

Unfortunately I concur and our political overlords will never fix it (as both sides have proved, time and time again)

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:56 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
MrStevenRogers wrote:

the management layers were put in place to suck funds directly from the NHS
it was deliberate and planned

management will create extra layers to safe guard their own position and disregard the rest ...

Unfortunately I concur and our political overlords will never fix it (as both sides have proved, time and time again)


there is away
but it will mean succeeding where 'guy fawkes' failed :) ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Last edited by MrStevenRogers on Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:19 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
MrStevenRogers wrote:
bobbdobbs wrote:
MrStevenRogers wrote:

the management layers were put in place to suck funds directly from the NHS
it was deliberate and planned

management will create extra layers to safe guard their own position and disregard the rest ...

Unfortunately I concur and our political overlords will never fix it (as both sides have proved, time and time again)


there is away
but it will mean succeeding where 'guy fawkes' failed ...

through reasoned "debate" I hope ;)

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:22 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
reasoned debate with a detonator in hand :) ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Last edited by MrStevenRogers on Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:25 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
MrStevenRogers wrote:
reasoned debated with a detonator in hand :) ...

ah the notorius C4 argument strategy :lol:

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:47 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Why exactly have we jumped to this conclusion that it will be American companies that take over these hospitals rather than French, German or Swedish ones?

And why are we assuming that in the event it is Americans, that somehow means we are trading in the NHS for an American model of health care? If Greyhound start a bus company in the UK, would they drive on the American side of the road? Perhaps they would not, it would cheaper and more effective to drive as we do. Perhaps they would likewise take over running of an NHS hospital within the framework of the NHS.

There are many countries that have privately managed hospitals within an NHS style public service, and that haven't experienced the catastrophes that our more wild-eyed reactionaries are predicting. I already listed three. Sometimes it is worth remembering that there is a world beyond America, and it isn't all bad. Maybe it's smarter to look at what is actually proposed and then arrive at an informed conclusion, rather than exercising your xenophobic knee-jerking muscles yet again.


Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:51 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
MrStevenRogers wrote:
reasoned debated with a detonator in hand :) ...

ah the notorious C4 argument strategy :lol:


it just may focus their attention on anything other then their expenses ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:52 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
Why exactly have we jumped to this conclusion that it will be American companies that take over these hospitals rather than French, German or Swedish ones?

And why are we assuming that in the event it is Americans, that somehow means we are trading in the NHS for an American model of health care? If Greyhound start a bus company in the UK, would they drive on the American side of the road? Perhaps they would not, it would cheaper and more effective to drive as we do. Perhaps they would likewise take over running of an NHS hospital within the framework of the NHS.

There are many countries that have privately managed hospitals within an NHS style public service, and that haven't experienced the catastrophes that our more wild-eyed reactionaries are predicting. I already listed three. Sometimes it is worth remembering that there is a world beyond America, and it isn't all bad. Maybe it's smarter to look at what is actually proposed and then arrive at an informed conclusion, rather than exercising your xenophobic knee-jerking muscles yet again.


it will make no difference who or from where
it will just be a gravy train very similar to the energy companies overseas ownership ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:55 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
Here is my MP. He is a Simon Burns, and is one of the health ministers who are architects of this system.
Image

Feel free to write to him at the Houses of Parliament. I contacted him via the 38 Degrees web site which is running a campaign against the NHS reforms. You’ll get a reply like this:

Quote:
Thank you for contacting me about the NHS reforms and the 38 Degrees campaign.

I am deeply committed to the NHS, as is the Prime Minister who said, "you could sum up my priorities in just three letters: N-H-S".

Our reform plans were examined in detail by the independent NHS Future Forum, which comprised the country’s leading doctors, nurses and NHS experts. They concluded that the twin demands on the NHS – of an ageing population and of rising costs of new treatments and technologies – meant that reform of the NHS was needed. They also recommended significant changes to the Government’s original plans, which we have accepted. These significant changes have addressed many of the concerns originally raised by 38 Degrees and others.

I am unsure as to the basis of the latest concerns expressed by 38 Degrees. First, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill, “removes the Secretary of State’s duty to provide”. However, 38 Degrees’ own legal advice states that the Secretary of State has never had such a duty to provide. Therefore, the Health and Social Care Bill makes no changes to the Secretary of State’s duty to provide, because it never existed in the first place.

Second, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill opens up the NHS to competition law. However, once again, 38 Degrees’ own legal advice states that competition law already applies to the NHS.

I hope you agree with me that 38 Degrees’ concerns are without foundation, as their own legal advice has confirmed.

I am grateful to you for taking the time and trouble to draw this campaign to my attention.

Yours sincerely

The Rt Hon Simon Burns MP
Member of Parliament for Chelmsford
simon.burns.mp@parliament.uk


He won’t be changing his mind. He’ll probably end up with a directorship on one of the benefitting companies when this government gets voted out. This is, after all, what this is really about. The Tories advancing their careers in the race to become as rich as possible.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Last edited by paulzolo on Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:11 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
Here is my MP. He is a Simon Burns, and is one of the health ministers who are architects of this system.
Image

Feel free to write to him at the Houses of Parliament. I contacted him via the 38 Degrees web site which is running a campaign against the NHS reforms. You’ll get a reply like this:

Quote:
Thank you for contacting me about the NHS reforms and the 38 Degrees campaign.

I am deeply committed to the NHS, as is the Prime Minister who said, "you could sum up my priorities in just three letters: N-H-S".

Our reform plans were examined in detail by the independent NHS Future Forum, which comprised the country’s leading doctors, nurses and NHS experts. They concluded that the twin demands on the NHS – of an ageing population and of rising costs of new treatments and technologies – meant that reform of the NHS was needed. They also recommended significant changes to the Government’s original plans, which we have accepted. These significant changes have addressed many of the concerns originally raised by 38 Degrees and others.

I am unsure as to the basis of the latest concerns expressed by 38 Degrees. First, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill, “removes the Secretary of State’s duty to provide”. However, 38 Degrees’ own legal advice states that the Secretary of State has never had such a duty to provide. Therefore, the Health and Social Care Bill makes no changes to the Secretary of State’s duty to provide, because it never existed in the first place.

Second, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill opens up the NHS to competition law. However, once again, 38 Degrees’ own legal advice states that competition law already applies to the NHS.

I hope you agree with me that 38 Degrees’ concerns are without foundation, as their own legal advice has confirmed.

I am grateful to you for taking the time and trouble to draw this campaign to my attention.

Yours sincerely

The Rt Hon Simon Burns MP
Member of Parliament for Chelmsford
simon.burns.mp@parliament.uk


He won’t be changing his mind. He’ll probably end up with a directorship on one of the benefitting companies when this government gets voted out. This is, after all, what this is really about. The Tories advancing their careers in the race to become as rich as possible.


remember the theme tune 'things can only get better'
now play it to 'things can only get worse'

welcome to the leading 2nd world nation on the planet ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:19 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
So they want to cut that expense, hence they are destroying the NHS by stealth.

No what's destroying the NHS, apart from the huge increase in management layers and the apparent need to pay them the going market rate (to attract the best candidates. Which is obviously doesn't) is the ever expanding cost. When the NHS was brought into being there wasn't the type of treatments available now and the costs. Need a heart transplant (cost £40k plus) in 1950 .. well you died. Want a test tube baby (one cycle £4k), In 1950 the NHS cost the country £400 million, by 1965 the cost was £1,200 million, by 1975 it had risen to £5,200 million per year and 2010-2011 £110 billion.
If you wanted a fully funded NHS that paid for everything then the country would be totally bankrupt (ok even more bankrupt than it is now). We cant afford that utopian ideal, once that premise has been taken away then you have to decide what is provided and who is going to pay for it.


+1

So taking into account of inflation calculator

we have in todays money the cost of the NHS

1950 = £14.4 Billion
1965 = £18 Billion
1975 = £39.5 Billion
2011 = £110 Billion

And dont forget as we have allowed for inflation if the treatmenst had not changed then te costs should have been broadly static

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Last edited by hifidelity2 on Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:26 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
bobbdobbs wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
So they want to cut that expense, hence they are destroying the NHS by stealth.

No what's destroying the NHS, apart from the huge increase in management layers and the apparent need to pay them the going market rate (to attract the best candidates. Which is obviously doesn't) is the ever expanding cost. When the NHS was brought into being there wasn't the type of treatments available now and the costs. Need a heart transplant (cost £40k plus) in 1950 .. well you died. Want a test tube baby (one cycle £4k), In 1950 the NHS cost the country £400 million, by 1965 the cost was £1,200 million, by 1975 it had risen to £5,200 million per year and 2010-2011 £110 billion.
If you wanted a fully funded NHS that paid for everything then the country would be totally bankrupt (ok even more bankrupt than it is now). We cant afford that utopian ideal, once that premise has been taken away then you have to decide what is provided and who is going to pay for it.


+1

So taking into account of inflation calculator

we have in todays money the cost of the NHS

1950 = £14.4 Billion
1965 = £18 Billion
1975 = £39.5 Billion
2011 = £110 Billion

And dont forget as we have allowed for inflation if the treatmenst had not changed then te costs should have been broadly static


1965
1975
2011 = £110 Billion


the b(w)ankers seem to be doing all right
along with the NHS management and other senior civil servants

remember we are 'all' in this together
but its only us grunts on the ground that seem to be suffering ...

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:31 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
bobbdobbs wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
bobbdobbs wrote:
They were never free but paid for by the taxpayer out of general taxation

But the public accepted that price. The problem is that the rich do not like the system because it means that they pay twice. Once for the private care and then for the public system for which they do not use. So they want to cut that expense, hence they are destroying the NHS by stealth.

No what's destroying the NHS, apart from the huge increase in management layers and the apparent need to pay them the going market rate (to attract the best candidates. Which is obviously doesn't) is the ever expanding cost. When the NHS was brought into being there wasn't the type of treatments available now and the costs. Need a heart transplant (cost £40k plus) in 1950 .. well you died. Want a test tube baby (one cycle £4k), In 1950 the NHS cost the country £400 million, by 1965 the cost was £1,200 million, by 1975 it had risen to £5,200 million per year and 2010-2011 £110 billion.
If you wanted a fully funded NHS that paid for everything then the country would be totally bankrupt (ok even more bankrupt than it is now). We cant afford that utopian ideal, once that premise has been taken away then you have to decide what is provided and who is going to pay for it.

But I did say that we had rationing. I will accept a doctors opinion if the treatment is unnecessary. I also think that IVF is problematic and should be debated. While some will say that kids are a luxury that we cannot afford they are the ones that will be paying our state pensions in future years so we need them. Also people expect that some wonder drug should be offered to them even if it is ineffective for them, though DNA testing could eliminate those cases. There are lots of people who run through expensive drug regimes before heart surgery is used. I know of one person who spent a number of years with an irregular heart beat who because of side effects was on 20 different medications per day before he had a pacemaker installed. While I accept that some people can be solved by drugs alone many deteriorate until the only solution is surgery. Maybe the solution is research to find out whether the DNA of people impacts the success of a drug regime. It could mean those people will benefit from the best procedure as soon as possible.

I agree about the excessive levels of management and much of it is useless as well. That is a side effect of league tables, targets and assessments. Then you have the issue of governments raising peoples expectations of the NHS.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:08 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
But I did say that we had rationing. I will accept a doctors opinion if the treatment is unnecessary. I also think that IVF is problematic and should be debated.
For me there is no debate, it should NEVER be offered on the NHS. Not being able to have children is not life threatening or debilitating. If it effects you that much counselling should be offered or a simple nudge towards adoption/fostering. Otherwise GTFO!


Amnesia10 wrote:
While some will say that kids are a luxury that we cannot afford they are the ones that will be paying our state pensions in future years so we need them.
Children are not a luxury but they may mean you cant afford the luxuries you had before they came along.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Also people expect that some wonder drug should be offered to them even if it is ineffective for them, though DNA testing could eliminate those cases.
If the clinical decision is that the drug isn't going to work, the only comeback should be has the decision been correctly made. Not the highly emotive bandwagons that get created.


Amnesia10 wrote:
I agree about the excessive levels of management and much of it is useless as well. That is a side effect of league tables, targets and assessments. Then you have the issue of governments raising peoples expectations of the NHS.
People will always have high expectations of the NHS and they should have. But people should have an understanding it cant be everything to everybody.

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.