Save the NHS for our children

[RuthHill]

This petition is being given to Nick Clegg on Friday. If you haven't already, please sign it to save the NHS for our children.

www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.38degrees.org.uk%2Fpage%2Fm%2F74c05bf2%2F2d4f1744%2F598e50c7%2F4674cbd1%2F3802366347%2FVEsF%2F&h=2bd84

"Unlike in the UK in France treatment, whether private or public, is not free at the point of delivery. Even if you subscribe to the Sécurité sociale, on seeing a doctor or specialist (specialiste) you first pay the full bill (tarif) and are then reimbursed at a later date (about 10 days). Generally speaking, Sécurité sociale refunds 70 per cent of the cost of a visit to a médecin traitant (a GP or family doctor) and most specialistes."

link

Also, I've eventually figured out (I think) that the WHO report which places us in 18th place was published in 2000, is that right? So potentially at least 11 years out of date, perhaps even more depending upon when the data was collected.

Who is saying we should stick doggedly to the current system of administration though?

Are they the only 2 options? Wholesale reform or do nothing? Don't be daft.

Where it works, it works brilliantly. We can use that and build on it. Or we could, with the right funding. We're not going to get far by not replacing oncologists who retire or return to their home country, scrapping guaranteed referral times and disbanding specialist cancer expertise.

As a percentage of GDP the Frech Governments spending on health is spending is a similar level to us but they have private money topping it up to give them a bigger spend than us. It just seems to me that this argument that private involvement is wrong whatever the circumstances appears to be a crude and lazy response to any proposed change. I don't know whether it could be work in this country or not as France and this country aren't identical but it seems to fly in the face of the no private involvement brigade.

Another advantage France may have is that they appear to me to be a healthier society as a whole so this could help.

It isn't a similar level inappa. In 2000 (when the WHO report was published) the french spent 11.2% of GDP, the UK spent 8.4%. That's a massive difference.

Yes that is total spend by all players, not total Governement spend

The Government don't have an independent supply of cash inappa, the people pay, one way or another.

wubbly- What do you mean? There is an obvious difference between public and private capital, it is not the same.

RuthHill and others

There is no free healthcare in this country.

The NHS is free at the point of delivery but the majority of the population pay for it through PAYE/NI deductions and also subsidise those who cannot pay for it due to low income.

I am very afraid myself that the proposed transfer of responsibility to GP's has massive, massive, massive potential to be a disaster which the government will then either partially successfully cover up or if unsuccessful, lose the subsequant election as a consequence.

Not all GP's will approach it in the same manner and with the same agenda.

Gp's are a very mixed bunch.

GPs are the weak link in the plans, this is very true. Mine is a particularly good practice, very go ahead and has employed a practice manager to take care of budgets and admin for years. I'm pretty sure they'll take advantage of any changes and make a really good job of it. Others are a liability and should probably not be in medicine at all. But they have patients - like Harold Shipman's - too deferential to the title to complain. Some kind of SATs test for GPs or an opportunity to shop a crappy doc would give us all more confidence.

?The NHS will be shown no mercy" says Cameron health adviser

Tamasin Cave

9 May 2011

'GPs won't have to turn to the private sector' to help with commissioning health services, said Andrew Lansley today in the Commons, trying to fend off accusations that the Tories are privatising the NHS with their reforms.

?The House knows my commitment to the NHS," he continued. ?I haven?t spent seven and a half years as shadow secretary and secretary of state to see the NHS undermined, or fragmented or privatised... That was never my intention. It is not my intention.?

Privatisation was ?never his intention?? Someone should tell that to Mark Britnell, a former high-flyer in the Department of Health, now global head of health at KPMG, and recent appointee to David Cameron?s ?kitchen cabinet? of health experts to advise on health service reform.

Just six months ago, Britnell told a conference of private healthcare executives1: ?In future, the NHS will be a state insurance provider not a state deliverer.?

In case there was any ambiguity in that, Britnell explained to conference delegates (in a session called 'Reform Revolution'):

?The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years."

How could Britnell, who made it into the top ten of the ?100 most influential people in health ? last year - as well as into No.10 - have got Lansley so wrong?

(Ref 1: Mark Britnell was speaking at a conference in October 2010 organised by private equity firm, Apax Partners. Read the conference brochure, and his quote, here.

www.spinwatch.org/blogs-mainmenu-29/310-tamasin-cave/5435-the-nhs-will-be-shown-no-mercyq-says-cameron-health-adviser

CogitoErgoSometimes - I believe the " opportunity to shop a crappy doc " is called the BMA and the "kind of SATs test for GPs " is, I believe a MBBS, MBChB, BM, or MB BCh followed by a two year foundation course and 12 months in-job-training. What were you proposing?

www.rcgp.org.uk/default.aspx?page=1367 For more details

ttosca - thank you.

thetideishigh - not sure what your point is, nothing can be completely free. Obviously we pay taxes. The point is that the amount you pay is no where near the price you'd pay if you needed a major op. Also, "the majority of the population pay for it through PAYE/NI deductions and also subsidise those who cannot pay for it due to low income." - this is a good thing.

Anybody who thinks that Lansley's proposed reforms will be positive for the majority, I think you are naive.

What I think is so shocking is that this government has no mandate to rule and are talking about making massive ideological changes across multiple areas, add this to the fact that these particular changes didn't even form part of their manifesto - and I really start to question how much of a democracy we really are.

It is quite obvious that no one in the Coalition has any sort of social conscience particularly the Tories.

Public health not fucking private profit.

I wonder how many of the private sector vultures are tory party donors.

I am very tired of hearing the mantra of 'competition' as a solution to all our woes.

FYI we've had competition for years in terms of tendering for laundry services, catering, cleaning and sterilisation services. All it has lead to is a race to the bottom, i.e whoever provides the services cheapest wins. Expect their service provision is usually the cheapest for a reason, namely it's shit. Thus standards are lowered, and how!

Whoever it was upthread who said that this sub-privatisation bollocks would lead to only the profitable work being done is exactly right.

If you want hip surgery (possibly not done incredibly well, but hey ho, now that waiting time targets have gone, by the time your turn comes, you'll be pleading for one) at some swanky assembly line clinic, you're in luck. If you have cancer (especially something like bowel cancer which requires a lot of complex surgery + treatment), are mentally ill, have MS (no community support for that anymore soon) etc, sucks to be you.

Good common sense from GAD.

It's so obvious that when it comes to health, cheapest is not best!

And clearly co-operation, different departments working together, so-called 'joined-up' care etc is better for patients.

Deadline for contributions to the 'listening exercise' is looming

here

I've worked in oncology and palliative care for many years and seen the improvements that increased funding to both areas has facilitated. I'm also well aware that the NHS needs reform - there are far too many tiers of management and some unnecessary targets but there is no escaping the fact that if you have a suspected malignancy then you get prompt investigation and treatment. Certain specialties are just too important to be put out to the lowest bidder.

.

Thank you, Donki. I have just spent well over an hour contributing to the 'listening exercise' - once I got over my fury at the questions ...

I keep telling myself, 'At least they say they are listening. Maybe someone will read this. They did set up this website after all. All is not lost...'

But I am leaping up and down like an outraged chicken, spitting feathers with frustration ...

I think it's all too late, tbh. I think they are going to do it. Our children and grandchildren will never know what it was like for a doctor to call at your house when you're ill; to recognise the doctor as being the same one you've been seeing for years; to ring up for an appointment, get one, go and see a doctor all within an eight-hour period, etc etc etc ...

.