The NHS reforms - this isn't a U turn, it's not even a J turn

[medicalmum]

There seems to be a general feeling that the threat of the Health and Social Care Bill has gone away, with media commentators who should know better talking about U turns and government climb downs. In fact little has changed

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/06/andrew-lansley-health-bill

There is now a real danger that this will go ahead particularly in view of the distraction of the feeding frenzy over the collapse of the the Murdoch empire.Any ideas about how to get true opposition going again in view of media indifference/ignorance?

Thank you for posting this, medicalmum. I agree we have to keep the issue in the public eye.

Yes, the government definitely intend to go ahead with this. I suppose letters to the newspapers, commenting on MN or on newspapers' online websites are the way to go. Plus there'll be another demo soon, so maybe the scope for that will be widened.

I sometimes wonder if anything short of a general strike will actually make a difference. Maybe, if corruption leading to Cameron's door is discovered in the wake of the news hacking scandal, the government will topple of its own accord? It certainly seems to be wobbly these days.

However, if Labour are elected next time, we have no guarantee that they won't pursue the same course. Some of the changes already look pretty irrevocable to me.

So: continued protests and people like you posting like this!

I work in the NHS and am pretty cynical and fatalist about the whole thing. Ultimately governments, particularly this one, are just about achieving their political aims and don't really care about the general public no matter what they say.

nothing much more to add but getting on this thread
interesting, and depressing

Timidviper, even though I agree with you about the government's priorities, I still think we need to protest. Otherwise they believe we agree or at least that we will accept their changes. The way this government works, imo, is by floating something they know is going to be unpopular and then assessing how much public opposition there is. On the basis of that, they decide whether or not to go forward with the next (probably even worse) measure.

In spite of what I wrote earlier, I still think we should protest and continue protesting. What the government wants to do is expensive (it will cost more than it saves), unsafe (standards will fall when profit is a priority) and unfair (only the rich will get the treatment they need).

No, no and no!

www.powerbase.info/index.php/Private_Healthcare_Network_Map connections

How about the probity of this web of connections between politicians and the private health sector providers?

Could this be why the levers for the privatisation of the NHS are still intact in the Bill, I ask rhetorically? The whitewash has fooled everyone. We need a media storm about this conflict of interest. This follows on the back of the current exposures of the behaviour of politicians with the media.

The bill still has all the clauses to allow asset stripping of the NHS. Whose pockets will be lined? The population will realise too late that the NHS is purely a logo, with "choice" promoted as a highter priority than tackling fair access and health inequalities.

Is this ripe for a Mumsnet campaign?

connections

Sorry - that's the link for your document, drkay. Posted this before I was ready. Very worrying.

Yup, for all the use of that weasel word 'reform' what it actually amounts to is breaking up and privatising the NHS. And many of the people who worked on health policy under Labour have gone straight into lucrative directorships in the companies that stand to benefit - or have already won contracts. That's why there's no organised opposition.

I had heard from doctors' organisations that their red lines included reinstating the legal duty for the secretary of state to provide comprehensive health services. Hope that is actually true.

What's government for? I always thought we paid our taxes to enable the government to protect us and look after us, from cradle to grave. That means free health care (that we pay for with taxes), free education (ditto), protecting green spaces and the environment, etc etc. If that's not how it sees its role, could someone explain what we pay our taxes for?

Thank you so much for this, OP - vital to keep this at the forefront of the news, keep people aware of what those bastards are planning to do to our beloved NHS.

Public Health Proposals were changed slightly last week, esp relating to pregnant women and children aged 0-5.

drkay Cameron's Health Adviser originated from McKinsey too. I reckon that map has a lot of missing links.

Competition story from today's Grauniad.

Just heard part of this File on Four prog on Radio 4. Sounded interesting and a propos. It's repeated on Sunday, I think.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012l2yv

An Emergency Crisis?

Why are ambulances queuing up to unload patients needing treatment at hospital Accident and Emergency Departments? Some senior A and E medics say there are too few beds and not enough staff in a front line service struggling to cope. Cash strapped NHS Trusts are closing casualty units, or replacing them with lower grade Urgent Care Centres but what's been the impact on patients? Allan Urry asks whether A and E is on life support, at a time when the NHS is trying to make £20 billions savings without compromising patient care.
Presenter: Allan Urry
Producer: Samantha Fenwick.

.

Agree that this could easily get lost in the fog of the hacking scandal. I guess the main thing is for people to keep writing to their MPs, papers etc etc. Thanks for posting about it on here, medicalmum.

here's the BBC's step by step guide to the NHS changes

Have you seen this?

Polly Toynbee's article: Don't be fooled by the lull- the NHS is still at great risk.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/22/nhs-still-at-risk

Thanks, Polly!

Article in today's Grauniad.

Polly Toynbee today.

The cost of NHS reforms is rising by £1 mill a day, according to Puzzlemum's link.

Also, I have just heard Andrew Landsley say on the BBC that more money for health services is going to be given to wealthier areas. Can anyone explain this, please?

Solo, today's story appears to be about the funding allocations to the PCTs for - I assume - the financial year 2011-12 albeit rather late, rather than 2012-13 rather early. I haven't searched extensively but all the stories seem to consist of one fact: the formula that decides how much each PCT gets for its population has changed. Everything else appears to be rhetoric, summarised as:
Opposition: you are taking from the poor to give the rich [based on a statistical sample of 3 poorer areas and 2 richer ones, according to the BBC and the Guardian again]
Government: you would have given even less out than we are.

So this would appear to be an almost fact-free story. Listening to Lansley's interview on the Beeb here he notes that in areas where in the past more money was provided to tackle health inequalities, the money was not spent on this but rather on "providing health services" .

Perhaps by tomorrow someone will have been able to do some proper analysis on the story.

Thanks, Puzzlesum. Still don't understand why they would do this, though.

I agree, Solo - leaving politics to one side, the story makes no sense as currently reported.