Clegg flexing his muscles

Interesting article here about wealth and accessing healthcare.

The UK comes out very well.

Going back to clegg, the last time I looked the Tories couldn't get anything through the Commons without Libdem votes. So in that respect, Clegg does have power. The health reforms as they are now weren't in the coalition agreement, so the lib dems are not obliged to vote for them (although they did, at second reading). The Bill would not get through the Lords anyway, so it's a win win situation to amend it now. Clegg looks like he has some influence, Cameron doesn't lose legislation in the lords and keeps Clegg happy. Andrew Lansley's days look numbered though...

In all those countries they spend much on healthcare as a proportion of GDP than in the UK e.g. 10-11% compared to 8%. The NHS gives value for money. There still seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction in Canada about waiting times even if they are all relieved that the hospitals are publicly funded unlike in the US.

Isn't it true that pound for pound, we spend considerably less than the french or germans on healthcare?

The NHS seems good value for money to me and to most of the GBP. Satisfaction rates have never been higher.

The choice isn't between the NHS and the American system. It isn't even between the NHS and the German/Singapore model.

The choice is between the NHS and the French/Canadian models.

StealthPolarBear Only if you have someone as incompetent as Gordon Brown designing the regulation system (sadly, I could fully believe that Lansley is that incompetent).

But again, you don't see that happening in France, or Germany, or Canada - none of which have widespread publicly run hospitals, and none of which are known for poor healthcare.

I work in a renal unit (admin not nursing). One of the things we spend your taxes on is dietetic services. You can give patients dietary advice to improve their health hugely. Our patients have constant access to this service and get advice tailored to them. In many priate units they would maybe get a one off consultation and some written advice. Patients don't follow written advice very well and fail to comply. This makes them sicker and so they require more expensive and less effective treatment. Under the NHS their health is maximised and the end costs reduced.

and that care given is the bare minimum.

Governments don't run the NH - they fund it. Where things go wrong is when they think they are running it.

The NHS was a catastrophic mistake, and remains so today. Of course in a civilised, developed country healthcare should be universally accessible - this is still a huge social failing in America.

On the other hand, governments just can't run things very well. We see it time and again and again. Why, then, do we want them to run the NHS?

I would have no objection, as a first-step, to mutualising the NHS. Make every local unit in a hospital owned by its employees. If full privatisation isn't politically palatable, that would still be a huge step in the right direction.

Not to get all conspiracy theorist but big business has a vested interest in keeping healthcare on the private sector. We have an NHS because of the vision and commitment of the post war labour government. Other countries don't have state healthcare like us because they didn't have that political impetus at a point when it was possible to implement it. In living memory across the world healthcare has been in reach of only those who could afford it. The NHS is the most radical solution to that problem.

StealthPolarBear Why has no other country come to that decision? Even countries who in almost every other way, are far to the left of Britain?

Healthcare in France seems perfectly reasonable - and yet the State doesn't feel the need to run the hospitals there.

You're so right Northernlurker

I think you're right Chil1234 - the timing of this pause around the referendum is so bleeding obvious - and I'm very depressed. If Clegg really were to be acting out of principle he'd oppose the NHS bill completely and put a stop to the closure of PCTs and insist on a long-term consultation over improving what already exists. But he won't, it will just be some pathetic tinkering with Lansley's Bill enabling Cameron to repackage it while pretending to be respectful. I hate them all.

My objection, longfingernails, is that healthcare universally run for profit provides the best service for shareholders NOT patients. Private healthcare actually restricts options and reduces care not increases it.

Well, maybe if things are so dire in PCTs, then there is hope for the market approach after all.

Why should the State run hospitals and provide health services? I haven't heard a good argument for it yet, apart from sentiment.

As long as healthcare is free at the point of delivery, what objection is there? Do you object to IBM making a profit on NHS computers, or Phillips making a profit selling MRI machines to hospitals, or medical suppliers making a profit selling catheters to hospitals, or Bic making a profit selling pens to hospitals? Why, then, the objection to people making a profit from running hospitals?

This is what I expected. Thursday's results could be anticipated and the Coalition can't afford for there to be constant background rumblings about leadership elections from the LD camp or it'll get in the way of the business in hand. The conservatives know that the proposed NHS reforms are not winning favour as they stand and need revision. What better way to dampen the attacks on Clegg and legitimately adjust the reform bill at the same time than for the LDs to be seen to have a greater say? Next step will be that the LD front bench team takes a more vocal role in IDS's Welfare reforms. Watch this space.

I can't see the PCTS lasting - as Edam says - they are already leaking staff in vast numbers.