Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Is the Coalition telling us to say goodbye to the NHS?

31 replies

jamtodaybrighton · 23/09/2010 11:46

Is anyone else really worried what the Coalition are up to with the NHS White Paper, and whether there is any way of stopping them? They seem to be backing a wholesale privatisation of the NHS. All hospitals will be Foundation Trusts, and they will be able to earn as much money as they like from private patients. Doesnt this mean that we will have the really ugly sight of a two-tier health service? Why are we going backwards in our healthcare system towards inequality, when other countries are trying to make theirs fairer?

And in community services, the Coalition does not seem to mind who provides the services. Their mantra is any willing provider. We are going to end up with hundreds of private healthcare companies doing things like community physio and podiatry. They will all say they are fantastic, but how will we really know? And the Coalition is ideologically wedded to light regulation. No-one will be watching these companies when they start to try to cut costs. They will be in healthcare to make a profit. Profit before patients - is that what Cameron meant by protecting the NHS?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
jamtodaybrighton · 12/10/2010 12:18

Everyone can comment and should comment, not only to the Department of Health, but also to your MP. Some Lib Dems are saying today that they won't support the tuition fees proposals, because they promised not to before the election. Similarly some Lib Dem MPs rebelled against the Academies Bill, because they did not agree with the principles ideology behind the extension to all schools and/or the lack of consultation with parents. Now we are not really being consulted about the changes to the NHS. If your MP is a Coalition MP, write to them about the White Paper. They did not put NHS top-down reorganisation in the Coalition agreement, and they should not be doing it. The more letters they receive, the more they will realise that we are watching them, and did not give them a mandate to break up the NHS, waste money on transaction costs, and bring back a postcode lottery for care.

OP posts:
ISNT · 11/10/2010 17:43

Erm I had no idea that individuals could comment on this idea as part of a consultation process. If I didn't know this I'm sure loads of other people don't either. Not exactly been shouting about it, have they.

I guess they will be able to say that the public supports it due to lack of response to the consultation Hmm

sarah293 · 11/10/2010 17:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
jamtodaybrighton · 11/10/2010 17:22

I am not sure why there are some posts about insurance based health systems elsewhere. We don?t have an insurance based system here and we don?t need one. Insurance based systems push up transaction costs ? ie we would have to fund a new health insurance industry. You can see on
this chart from the Commonwealth Fund that we are the second cheapest per head health system and second overall in the rankings. The Netherlands are ranked first, but their costs are 28% higher per head than ours. We would be mad to go down the health insurance route.

What we should do is build on what we do well, running a very cost-effective but state funded health service. On You and Yours today Lansley was obviously very uncomfortable. Not surprising, because he was in debate with the Chief Executive of the BMA and the Director of Policy at the Patients Association. The BMA clearly feel that Lansley might completely ignore their grave concerns about the speed of change and the fact that none of these huge changes has been piloted. The Director of Policy from the Patients Association said that patients didn?t understand the scale and implication of what is being planned, but that they were in favour of more sharing of best practice, rather than spending money on an expensive reorganisation. They also wanted their GP to recommend them for the best treatment, not the cheapest. Even Sir Philip Green says we can get even better value for money from public services by doing more central purchasing, not less. But Lansley is abolishing the NHS ?bureaucrats? who do the efficient purchasing.

Although the consultation period ends today, please consider responding to it. Even late responses will have an impact. There is an easy email link on this DoH page. It is enough to say that you think the Coalition is moving too fast, and that it can?t really state that it has consulted when there is so little understanding out in the public sphere about what is actually planned.

OP posts:
ISNT · 10/10/2010 17:57

I don't even understand the theory TBH.

public sector = people's money is taken in, in the form of tax, and then redistributed amongst a load of (usually low to middle earning) people, in order to provide a service that benefits the community. The working conditions etc are usually pretty good compared to the private sector. They pay taxes and the money circulates around and around.

private sector = people's money is taken in, in the form of tax, then spent in the private sector where some of it is siphoned off in profits and large salaries for the owners etc. the rest is spent on providing a service for the community. the people employed in the middle and lower ends have less preferable terms and conditions etc. They pay taxes and the money circulates around and around, with a bit less each circuit due to the siphoning off.

What am I missing?

ISNT · 10/10/2010 17:53

But I don't see why people with right wing views are advocating it

It's more expensive than the NHS
The money to run it is taxed directly from companies and individuals
Most people pay even more to top up - indicating to me that the basic level provided to those on low income etc is not adequate/doesn't cover everything

I don't get it Confused

Is it that private automatically = better in a rightwing mindset? if no-ones making money from something then it must be immoral?

betelguese · 10/10/2010 17:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ISNT · 10/10/2010 17:02

this is quite an interesting overview of systems around the world. it looks like the french govt pays more than ours. health insurance premiums are taken out of pay - both employer and employee contribute. So like NI. But then most people pay out of pocket for "top up" insurance as well. That doesn't sound so great to me TBH. More expensive and people are still paying on top.

onimolap · 10/10/2010 17:00

When is the White Paper due?

At its inception, the NHS also took private patients, and this wasn't abolished until the 1970s. Balancing the books is going to be tough, but if this provides extra funds I can't see why we shouldn't return to its roots on this one.

I'm much more worried about GP led funding, especially as someone has posted that the BMA is against it (they were so right in their opposition to the last administration's new GP contracts). Especially the funding of cutting edge uber-specialities which individual GPs might want to refer a patient to only once in their career. Even big polyclinics are not large enough to provide a fair picture of population needs.

ISNT · 10/10/2010 16:58

I also wonder how it is cost effective to pay GPs (some of the most highly paid people in the NHS) to run everything (which they have no experience of doing) - rather than lower paid people who have experience and presumably the right skill set.

GPs have a skill set which to my mind does not point in the direction of cheerful group agreements. they are used to working alone, for themselves, they have very strong views, are decisive, and like to be "right". A generalisation, but they're appropriate qualities for GPs. I can't begin to imagine how they are going to band together by the hundred and agree on how to run the NHS Hmm. I mean, they don't want to do it themselves.

ISNT · 10/10/2010 16:52

What happens in France, USA, Holland etc if you don't or can't pay for it? The insurance / cost of consultation.

I agree with teh OP (no surprise there).

I wonder who is going to provide the services which are difficult to make profitable.

I wonder what will happen if eg a hospital only manages to get contracts for 2/3 of its services - it won't be able to run on that - it will have to shut?

I worry about large hospitals on premium land especially in London being sold off.

I wonder how, if you are seeing 4 or 5 different companies for your treatment, how notes will be transferred between them safely (data protection).

I worry about a lot of it TBH.

I think that running a service like this for profit is just a bad idea.

betelguese · 10/10/2010 16:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

omnishambles · 10/10/2010 12:33

Its not the modernisation thats the problem per se its the speed and lack of consultation.

nd the fact that it is being done in such a way so that future govts wont be able to change it back.

Senior healthcare officials and indie organisations are in a state of complete panic.

The skills loss alone is said to be projected at 40% where normally you would expect 15% for a restructuring - coming so soon after the amalgamation of the pcts its just ill thought out.

Not to mention giving areas like public health to councils and scrapping funding for lots of other initiatives.

Flighttattendant · 08/10/2010 13:44

And look at the railways.

Oh yes, other countries have fantastic, privately operated rail systems. Why can't we? Good question. We haven't though, it's totally crap.

I think the NHS will go the same way.

Flighttattendant · 08/10/2010 13:43

Yes Tokyo, quality in America is fantastic if you have money.

If you don't you are truly stuffed. The tories won't care though...'I'm alright Jack' being their ethical stance.

octopusinabox · 08/10/2010 13:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Siasl · 05/10/2010 23:06

I've worked in the Netherlands and Australia and both have superior health systems based on a health insurance that are also considerably cheaper.

The NHS needs to be killed off ASAP and something decent put in its place which provides first world healthcare without the ridiculous debt burden it creates. Other countries can do it... why not the UK?

StealthPolarBear · 05/10/2010 18:14

no I don't think they're telling us to say goodbye. I don't think we'll have time to say bye before it's gone.

AlpinePony · 05/10/2010 18:12

lifeinlimbo - I live in Holland and as a higher rate taxpayer, I pay 94 euros a month health insurance with an annual excess of 165 euros. I can claim partial reimbursement for glasses and dentist too (dependent upon policy taken.)

Low earners can claim a "benefit" towards insurance and of course some companies provide it as part of your compensation. As an adult it's a legal requirement to have it, my son is covered for free.

I've just had a baby (emcs & scbu) - my care has (unfortunately) been far superior to anything the NHS could provide and I was also given a home nurse for 8 hours a day when I left hospital for 5 days.

My health insurance firm still makes a profit. The NHS is indeed a monolith.

Original poster
jamtodaybrighton · 05/10/2010 13:48

No-one is saying that the NHS is perfect. But it is an organisation that is highly valued by many, and that most of us want to keep not wreck.

Chil1234 and Xenia: I agree that the NHS is a huge organisation, and big organisations always need to make sure that they are being as effective as possible with public money. But I worked in health for a long time, and every year we had to find significant efficiency savings ? on top of which we had to find more savings again if there were any new services that everyone agreed would benefit patients but couldn?t be afforded. We had to constantly review what we were doing, and every year try to do things better and cheaper.

Also, the NHS is often accused of not wanting to change, but there has been a massive cultural shift in terms of waiting times, more daycare surgery, development of multiprofessional teams where nurses and health professional staff take on specialist roles, organising appointments around patients availability, more access to health care nearer home, changes in junior doctors working hours etc. It is convenient to say that none of this has happened, but it has. Respected organisations including the BMA are lining up to tell Lansley that the proposals are hugely risky, will actually set back progress on health improvements for several years due to the disruption, and do not have any clear benefits.

These proposals are opportunistic, and not really about improving health care at all. They will change the nature of the NHS completely and, if we let it happen, it will be almost impossible to get it back. Let alone that they said they would not do it.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 29/09/2010 12:52

The standard of service is really not consistent across the country or we wouldn't have phrases like 'postcode lottery'. I've been referred to a specialist by my GP and the earliest appointment I can get is 2 months away. My Belgian colleagues tell me this would be unacceptably in their system. Emergency services are free and easily accessibly in Germany, France, Holland, Singapore etc..... As I keep saying, we keep what works well and we change the things that are poorly done.

Why suggesting the NHS could be improved is seen as heretical, I'll never understand.

scaryteacher · 29/09/2010 12:13

Lifeinlimbo - Belgium; where healthcare is a mix of state and insurance and bloody good too.

lifeinlimbo · 28/09/2010 19:06

France - most hospitals are public not private. Like here, where there is also BUPA if you want to go private.

Tokyonambu - there is a massive difference between airlines and cars, and healthcare. Not everyone needs a car etc, but everyone deffinitely needs healthcare - for the public good!

Chil- it definitely is not changing things for the better. At the moment I can see a local doctor within a few days, with a standard of service that is consistent across the country, and be refered for any further treatment I might need. Emergency services are also easily, immediately accessible and free at point of care.
Our services are well joined up.

Chil1234 · 28/09/2010 18:31

"Can you give those examples then?"

Not only France and Germany but also Holland have very good healthcare provision and I understand that the Singaporean public health-care system is particularly effective as well.

The NHS just 'happened' overnight in the forties. What one day you'd had to pay for, the next day the government paid for. Fantastic ideological leap with huge social benefits but with a lot of waste and inefficiency built in because of the haphazard way it was created and how it has evolved since. Why not take the Dutch system and see what they do that we could copy? Why is changing something for the better 'breaking it?'

longfingernails · 28/09/2010 18:10

lifeinlimbo

France. The taxpayer pays but the service is provided by private hospitals.

Germany. This is a "compulsory insurance" model and it seems to work well.

The "old" NHS model of the government running hospitals is outdated and inefficient. I am glad that with Foundation Trusts etc, the system is being moved in the French direction.

Swipe left for the next trending thread