The privatised NHS

[newwave]

Every so often we hear of someone who is refused life saving/extending drugs or treatment because NICE or someone decides it is to expensive.

I suspect when the NHS is privatised this will become far more prevelant because the most important thing in deciding to refuse treatment and/or drugs will not be clinical need but how it will affect the controlling companies bottom line and it's excutives bonuses.

You need a hip operation ? sorry mate weve spent our budget for this year, come back next year that is if you can still walk.

dont be poor, dont be old, dont be ill

Unless your rich of course and can go private then please come in.

Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne, you really are filth

Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne, You missed out Miliband, yes Newwave they may all be filth. In any case under Labour waiting times to get sevices rose from 41 days to 49.See report form the Independent. www.independent.co.uk GPs have always had budgets, and recommend that those under 60 don't get hip replacements new knees etc, because of costs, this was under the labour administration. I should know I worked with the elderly for years. They did not get operations and services under Labour!
don't be poor, don't be ill, don't be old. I told this to my clients all the time, they lived the New Labour Party and it's caring attitude, every day of their old lives!

I think private companies will take only the work they believe they can make profit from.

Some might happilly accept a contract that will initially make small losses but as less and less investment is made into the NHS the companies will have commissioners by the balls and their fees will rise.

Comp, whilst I have little time for some/most of New Labour it cannot be doubted that under NL the following things occurred:

New hospitals
New schools
Tax credits
Minimum wage
Far lower hospital waiting times
Reduction in child poverty

etc etc

This is not to say I did not have a major problem with their disregard to civil liberties and them crawling to the City, Murdoch, the rich and powerful.

The Tories under Thatcher/Major allowed the public service infrastructure to crumble, the stories of leaking school roofs and shortage of books was in many cases true, same with hospitals.

The Tories have opposed every progressive act, minimum wage, the setting up of the NHS, etc.

Labour may be (at times) spendthrift but at least they try to do the right thing.

The Tories by contrast are a partisan party that first and foremost looks after their "friends" the rich and powerful like themselves.

We have Tory MP's who want the minimum wage abolished as if it isnt so small they themselves would consider it loose change. Yet they have no problem with the scum "earning" millions and want the 50% tax band removed.

When Osborn announced his spending cuts in Parliament the scum on the benches behind him were howling, laughing and gibbering "More More" in regard to the cuts he was announcing, waving their order papers to the opposition benches.

Not for one moment did the Tory filth consider that hundreds of thousands, if not millions would lose their jobs leading to home repossessions, debt, pain and misery.

I truly truly believe that Osborn would have no problem if his policies brought even more misery to the poor and weak.

This government intends to destroy the post war social compact.

You show me a Tory minister or MP and in MOST CASES I will show you something that is devoid of any human empathy or compassion.

Comp you come over as a decent person, tell me where I am wrong.

Tories always say "we have to repair the financial damage done by Labour, they may like to consider that Labour always has to repair the social damage done by Tories.

Rant over (for now) :o

New hospitals at what price? The PFI payback is obscene and the contracts should never have been signed. Same for the PFI for schools.

Tax credits - welfare dependency that many now can't do without, even those on highish incomes.

Far lower hospital waiting times? Come and look at the Belgian model which is part funded by taxes and part by private insurance. I was referred to see a specialist in January, and have since been seen by another department who have organised everything and I will have my op in April. All the subsequent appointments after the first one made internally, no waiting, have seen the anaesthetists already, and am ready to have it done. So efficient.

I went to school under the Tories and never saw a leaking roof, or a shortage of books. I did see that as a teacher under New Labour though.

Bottom line Newwave is that the UK is on the bones of it's arse. There is no money left; we have huge amounts of interest to pay and money that goes to the EU and something has to give. I'd be happy with leaving the EU and not paying them squillions each year; that would help with the finances, but as I don't expect that will happen, there will be cuts. We've been here before; perhaps if Labour didn't cock up the finances, the Tories wouldn't have to do social damage to get everything back on track...chicken...egg... etc. I would argue though that by creating a client state Labour have created social damage and through what seems to be unchecked immigration without those coming in necessarily wanting to integrate.

And who will pay for all the wonderful new schools, new hospitals & tax credits when the money all runs out?

But isn't the PFI an example of how large private companies view the tax payer as a delightful cash cow ripe for the taking? Yet the tories want to increase the involvement of such companies in taxpayers' affairs. How is that going to work? Particularly with the "light touch" they seem to want in terms of checking up on things, which is what worked so well in the financial sector...

If you want the NHS to do everything you have to give it all the money it need to do that.

We need to find a way to decide who to allocate the resources we can afford to give to the NHS to do the most good. NICE is one way of doing this.

We need to have an honest discussion about the scope and aims of the NHS, acknowledge that rationing of care is right, necessary and has always gone on and work out the best way to do that.

But Politicians are too chicken to do that.

Rationing healthcare is a GOOD thing. It allows you to use the resources available to help the maximum amount of people to the greatest extent.

I agree, TheCoalitionNeedsYou. Politicians are too scared to enter any sort of in-depth debate in which appropriate use of the NHS is discussed, because then they are told they are interfering too much with peoples' freedom to eat what they want, drink what they want, smoke what they want, have unprotected sex when they want, choose when they want to have children, exercise the amount they want, etc, regardless of the health consequences. These are all incredibly sensitive, personal issues which nevertheless have a significant impact on the NHS. Also, over time, without any effective form of rationing, what used to be accepted as cosmetic becomes essential for the sake of mental health, what used to be a privilege becomes a right, and what used to be a minor irritation becomes an unbearable problem. Also, more and more things become medically possible. A nightmare for any politician.

GP commisioning is a way of pushing these decisions away from poiticians so that they don't have to take responsibility for them. Which is probably ont he whole a good thing, though whether this is a good way of acheiving it is another question.

We should have explicit health care rationing and it should be independent of political control, in the same way that monetary policy is.

Isn't how to spend taxpayers' money a political decision? Politicians can't distance themselves from it too much, or people will begin to wonder what they voted for.

You could say the same about monetary policy.

Politicians should set up the system and set the goals and then keep out of the detail.

If only people could all agree on what the details are and what the bigger picture is.

Say a non-political body for NHS spending decided that IVF should not be available on the NHS and nor should gastric band operations. Where would those people who wanted them to be included go to to complain about it? Their MP, I would have thought, if they got no joy out of unelected officials. And what if the decision is made that once someone has got beyond a certain weight, they should not be offered any services on the NHS if their need for them is directly linked to their weight? Wouldn't they complain to their politician, also? Politicians will always be dragged into these sorts of details, won't they? Even if they do try hard not to discuss them.

i expect they all want us to drop dead from booze at a young age, saving £££ on pensions - hence the 24 hour drinking and cheap booze culture

They do, of course - but only after they've scrapped the NHS and therefore don't have any responsibility to help keep us alive.

Of course, the really cunning thing is not to have a centralised body of any sort. Let individual GPs decide whether they personally support gastric band operations; whether they want to help their patients access IVF treatment; whether they think an expensive drug to keep a liver cancer patient alive for another 3 months is worthwhile etc. Hopefully, then, the unpalateable choices will have been made in such isolated places around the country that everyone will just blame the individual GPs and not the system. It's then strongly in the interests of the politicians to pretend that everything is available, nothing needs rationing, it's poor planning on the individual GP's part if everything isn't available, it's not the politicians' fault just because they haven't actually provided enough money for everything to be available in reality. And no centralised body is collecting the data around the country to oversee what is actually happening, so no-one can argue otherwise.

The NHS has been privatised by stealth by PFI already,even before DC and his ilk.Am not Tory,btw

Yes, the same as with monetary policy. The rationing system needs to be transparent and linked to cost and benefit, not just to the individual. Political involvement leads to resources being depleted ny the merry go round of being transferred to the priority of whoever is shouting loudest that week.

I don't think what the Government is doing and proposing is going to result in a transparent rationing system, unfortunately.

No it's just a fudge to be able to blame someone else for the rationing.

I'd rather my mum has her hip replaced than be wheeled past a fancy "atrium" at the new hospital.

newwave - I always replace the word "progressive" with the word "punitive". I find it gives a far more accurate reflection of the true meaning.

I always replace the word 'progressive' with 'blahblahblahblah' as they carry the same level of meaning.

Unless you are talking about tax.

Specifically, income tax being taxed at higher rates for higher incomes.

NHS bosses pay, 50% up in the last 4 years, a girl of 4 in Crawley West Sussex denied the right to sight saving surgery.

Whilst I agree that treatment should be carefully considered against cost and potential good, just 7% of the top knobs pay would allow this child a full and healthy life, free from disability.

Doesn't take a great brain to work out why we have a situation of appartheid in access to good health services.