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

[jamtodaybrighton]

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.