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 ...

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 ...

reasoned debated with a detonator in hand ...

ah the notorious C4 argument strategy

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.

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

Here is my MP. He is a Simon Burns, and is one of the health ministers who are architects of this system.


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:



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.

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

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.

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.