Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

NHS reforms- anyone else as disbelieving as I am?

319 replies

nowwearefour · 17/01/2011 22:10

What on earth is going on here? Privatisation by stealth? I know what- let's take the focus off the patients and the healthcare and put it on re-organising ourselves.AGAIN. how brilliant. anyone care to help me see what the benefits are of this?

OP posts:
wubblybubbly · 19/01/2011 15:20

It seems the only people who are 100% behind these reforms are the tories and private health care companies.

Even GPs are saying there is no need for this level of reform.

Why then, in this economic climate, are the government proposing to spend billions pushing this through, when simply changing the current PCT boards to include more GPs and healthworkers could have achieved exactly the same thing?

Perhaps because it's got bugger all to do with improving the NHS for the end user and everything to do with privatisation?

Anyway, I've posted my question to Newsnight.

Swedes1 · 19/01/2011 15:54

wubbly - agree the timing is poor. V best of luck with your recovery and I hope the reconstruction goes well.

It seems to me that this government are trying to do too much, without much attention to detail.

bettiboo · 19/01/2011 16:33

I haven't read all the way through these posts, but I do firmly believe that this is the end of the NHS. I work in the NHS and have always thought of it as a great institution, to be relied upon - it's on its way out I'm afraid. We didn't choose this did we? I don't know anyone in this country that wants to see the end of the NHS. It's very sad. I dread to think what privatisation will mean for the people of this country.

TigerseyeMum · 19/01/2011 17:24

Re: the discussion that people living longer costs the NHS more money - this is not actually correct, odd though it sounds.

The highest costs accrued by most people are at birth at at end of life. So, being born is expensive, palliative care prior to death is expensive.

The stuff in between is relatively little, by comparison. Therefore, it makes little difference how long we live, because we are all born and we all die, in the end, which are the most expensive bits.

So it's a bit of an anomally to cite the NHS as unaffordable because we are all living longer.

What IS costing billions is the fact that dementia will affect 1:3 of us within 20 years. So 1:3 of us will need care in later life. This is a genuine concern for the NHS as most people don't have adequate pensions never mind the means to pay for dementia nursing care. As carers allowances and social services provision has just been cut back, will we all be able to pay for ourselves to have this specialist care, will you have racked up enough insurance premiums by then if the NHS is being abolished?

I learned today that we are funded for 1 further year only. GPs themselves are not that interested in funding us, though they acknowledge they value the service - dishing out antidepressants is cheaper (for them , more expensive for the economy as a whole). Where are the economies of scale though? With no overview, GPs will take the cheapest route in the short term which costs the economy billions - literally billions - in the medium-long term.

So reforms threaten to cost the taxpayer even more.

If you are suffering from mental ill-health in my region, in 12 months time you will need to fund any therapy yourself I'm afraid :(

RRocks · 19/01/2011 18:01

This sounds like the end of the NHS in England, which is a fundamental part of English society. It's not that no other way is possible, but they haven't properly considered other options and put their argument to the country.

The government were not elected to do this; don't have a mandate to do it. If they want to do it they should put a clear argument to the electorate and there should be a referendum, although how they would organise that when there is no English parliament or assembly is an awkward one. If it were a UK referendum they would be soundly defeated.

This doesn't affect the healthy young men who go out and demonstrate/riot but mainly the elderly, women and children. It should result in much bigger demonstrations than the poll tax, being a more important issue, but many people might not see the value in the NHS untl they need it themselves.

Kat2011 · 19/01/2011 19:16

Someone just sent me this link to sign a petition if anyone is interested...

www.nhscampaign.org/white-paper-comment/e-petition.html

ThisIsANiceCage · 19/01/2011 19:25

Here's that petition as a clickable link

wubblybubbly · 19/01/2011 19:47

Thanks for the petition. I've signed and posted on FB.

pascoe28 · 19/01/2011 20:07

I can't wait - I presume everyone objecting to these reforms is happy with the status quo and doesn't think anything needs to change?

The NHS hitherto has been a Stalinist structure that should be broken up.

Imagine if there was a Ministry of Food, that allocated food in the way the DoH runs the NHS - do you think you'd get as much choice/taste/nutrition/value in your weekly food 'allowance' as you enjoy at present??

Of course not.

I don't like such limited ambition and believe we can do better than that.

alex1986 · 19/01/2011 20:22

Seems we've been picked up by these guys Smile
www.financenews.co.uk/fnews/new-nhs-reforms-will-lead-to-1billion-in-redundancy-payments/

alex1986 · 19/01/2011 20:23

Seems we've been picked up by these guys :-)www.financenews.co.uk/fnews/new-nhs-reforms-will-lead-to-1billion-in-redundancy-payments/ even

AimingForSerenity · 19/01/2011 20:33

I don't think anybody in the NHS would say that nothing needs to change but I do think most of us would say that we are already working to economise without harming services to the public. The service now is immeasurably better than when I qualified many years ago despite its failings.

A friend of mine said years ago that if you were starting an NHS up from scratch it would be easier to be efficient than it is trying to change such a big organisation.

I think the key is the effect that these changes will have on the service users which is why we're all worried.

gdmts1981 · 19/01/2011 20:39

It's somewhat like chicken little on here - particularly the typical bile about private companies being automatically bad and anything public being unquestionably good (notwithstanding some private companies being terrible and many public services being great).

Private companies run most elderly care services, do facilities management functions for the NHS and education - not to mention the fortune spent by many MNers on private tutors to supplement the state education service. Likewise several of our prisons, training centres and security for everything from power stations to airports are provided by private companies.

DC used the NHS extensively for his son, and many Conservatives have family who work in the NHS - the same as for the rest of the population. What logical reason can be put forward to say they are out to dismantle it or ideologically/purposefully wreck it? They would be sadistically harming themselves and their families by doing so which surely no one on here (unless nuts) would suggest is the case.

For people who say lobby group interests are the motivator - big business invests in all policical parties because they would be stupid to only ever back one side. There are too many different backgrounds and individuals in any political party to ever get a homogenous and universal opinion no matter how much lobbying someone does.

It's a shame the same can't be said for Unions who are typically whipping up fear and hysteria.

Maybe it won't work and maybe the doomsayers will be proved right but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt because the last Government certainly didn't crack the problem during their 13 years.

Rant over - peace out :)

wubblybubbly · 19/01/2011 20:39

pascoe, I'm delighted with the treatment and care I have received, it really couldn't have been better.

Another breast cancer patient who has been treated privately has received exactly the same treatment as I have, within the same timescale.

I've had a small team of local people deal with every aspect of my care from day one, with a dedicated breast care nurse at the end of the phone whenever I need advice.

This 'choice' business is a red herring. When you're diagnosed with cancer, you don't want choice, you want the best treatment available, yesterday. And generally, you don't want to have to travel halfway across the country to get it.

huddspur · 19/01/2011 20:41

The NHS in its current form provides a pretty woeful service so I don't see why there's a great clamour to maintain the status quo.

The NHS as a concept is flawed in my opinion, its a complete state monopoly with almost zero competition. I really think we should look at introducing an insurance system like the ones in France or in Germany, which produce a healthcare system that is vastly superior to ours.

wubblybubbly · 19/01/2011 20:45

huddspur, what chance would someone like me have of getting insurance with a recent history of breast cancer?

I can't even get bloody travel insurance to cover me.

huddspur · 19/01/2011 20:49

In France and Germany everyone gets insurance no matter what conditions they have/had

wubblybubbly · 19/01/2011 20:51

With no premium loading?

ThisIsANiceCage · 19/01/2011 20:52

"big business invests in all policical parties because they would be stupid to only ever back one side"

Yes. Why do businesses give money to political parties, just exactly?

huddspur · 19/01/2011 20:52

No, depending on your income you may not have to pay anything

Hammerlikedaisies · 19/01/2011 20:55

And Huddspur, there's something so wrong about competing to make the highest profits out of someone who is ill. If you're chasing a profit, that has to be your priority, not the patient.

bedhed · 19/01/2011 20:59

Nobody is saying that the govt want to purposefully wreck the NHS however they are not sufficiently dealing with the risks of what they are doing and this is ideological. The thing is if this goes wrong then it will cost lives. Simple as that. And as Wubby says most people want the best service possible, near to them. Not bloody choice (hope all goes well for you now btw).

There is no point in comparing the NHS to France or Germany - until we actually spend the same per capita as they do. Insurance schemes have their own problems and monopolies still exist due to the nature of the healthcare market itself.

Hammerlikedaisies · 19/01/2011 21:00

NiceCage, just imagine a world in which political parties were forbidden to take money from private businesses and politicians earnestly wanted to serve us with selfless devotion simply to create a better world for everyone.Bear I wanted a dream emoticon, but this'll do.

Thanks for the links, everyone. I have sent in questions but think I might have nightmares if I watch the programme.

huddspur · 19/01/2011 21:02

Competition drives up standards of healthcare, if a hospital is dirty or has poor treatment quality then people won't go there. An insurance type scheme gives people a choice and allows competition whilst ensuring universal healthcare for all.

Hammerlikedaisies · 19/01/2011 21:05

Bedhed, some of us are saying the government wants to wreck the NHS. It's totally against their philosophy. Not because they want everyone to suffer, but because they don't want to take the flack when things go wrong, they don't want to spend our taxes on it (they'd rather buy themselves the odd second home) and they want to allow private companies to make a profit. In their minds the profit they make will be partially paid back anyway in taxes. They choose to forget how much tax evasion goes on.

They've probably got loads of other motives too.

But they have no right, no mandate, no justification! It's the wrong thing to do.