Monstrous Vampires: Cameron And Friends About To Bleed The NHS Dry

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.

Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

Most people view healthcare as a human right like water and air and not a privilege.

Its one of the few things we will disagree on.


Now the UK health system is under huge strain and needs a overhaul but there are plenty of country's like France and Japan that can provide good quality healthcare to all. I want the UK to be more like THEM.

sorry but no one in the civilized world wants the US dog eat dog healthcare system.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.

Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

Our taxes pay for the system. If they want to privatize it, then we should see a reduction in income tax / national insurance, matching what we'd be paying in premiums to the private supplier. It's only fair!

Is it any wonder that the NHS is under such financial strain when we look closely at the incompetence and gravy train riding execs in charge?
Example from a recent report on a female senior NHS Trust exec, on a six figure (£250K) salary who was awarded a £155K retirement payoff, which she cashed in, then a day after "retiring", started her new position, in the same role she had retired from, stating that she didn't have to actually retire at retirement age! So no wrongdoing there then!

I also remember another case where a husband and wife team, both execs at an NHS trust, and both on big six figure salaries, were awarded big six figure redundancy payments when their NHS Trust was to merge with another. They then, shortly afterwards, joined the new bigger merged NHS Trust on even bigger salaries than before. In effect, they were laid off, with big payoffs, then rehired back into the same roles in the new organization.

We then have the merry-go-round of short term executive contracts, filled by more gravy train riders, while NHS Trusts are looking for the right person for the job. The Pro-Rata rates awarded to these "Temporary" execs is even larger than most full time execs get.

These are just 3 abuses I can remember from recent times and from memory. There are many many more out there, but it gives an indication of the snouts in the trough when it comes to the upper (mis)management levels. Meanwhile, dedicated, trained medical staff are underpaid and overworked. Services are outsourced and service levels, competency and accountability drop off the radar.
The whole system needs a huge overhaul but I believe it is being deliberately run down to make privatization more palatable to the masses.
It can be fixed, but not by the people currently in charge, as they have proved their greed and lack of accountability time and time again.

originally posted by: Britguy

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.

Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

Our taxes pay for the system. If they want to privatize it, then we should see a reduction in income tax / national insurance, matching what we'd be paying in premiums to the private supplier. It's only fair!

Current Private involvement (or at time of last election anyway) was 6%. I can only assume that part of this was for catering and part of it for cleaning. Why some people (not for a second you) cling to the notion that it must be 100% in the public sector always puzzles me until I realise the person saying that usually is a spokesperson for Unite/Unison/some other union representing public sector workers. Sometimes, it makes sense to leave things to organisations that can offer the service at at least the same level for no more cost - preferably less.

That's not sucking anything dry, it's attempting to get the best value for money. Quite why the blog in the OP - please don't try and pass this off as a legitimate article - focuses on the current government when Blair and Brown weren't against use of private companies is ironic.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

I really wish you'd research stuff about the UK before commenting, it's getting to be a bad habit.

We pay National Insurance towards the NHS (on top of general taxation). The Government budget for the NHS is around £130 Billion a year, of which the bulk is covered by aforementioned NI contributions.

originally posted by: Britguy
Is it any wonder that the NHS is under such financial strain when we look closely at the incompetence and gravy train riding execs in charge?

It's quite easy to pick on the very highest paid managers in the NHS, but the fact is that the highest paid people are medical consultants and (not NHS) general practitioners.

Pay in the NHS
General practice

The big areas of waste in the NHS is a health care service that is not joined up with social care and there's too much money in massive hospitals. Perversely, austerity seems to be "forcing" the health service to become more joined up out of necessity, which is a good thing.

The NHS is a good heath care system and I will defend it. Poor care is the exception rather the the rule. The NHS has high satisfaction rates. The NHS is highly efficient in comparison to the US and some other systems. US healthcare has areas of excellence, but it is highly inefficient and costly, plus millions of US citizens have access to very limited healthcare.

a reply to: paraphi

Still the NHS could be better and I want the best.

Forget backwards US im looking at places like france ect

a reply to: crazyewok

Indeed it could and largely that is down to inefficiencies and bad management. One thing that can be said about private firms is their management tend to be a lot better as they don't act like they have a pot of limitless cash like those in the public sector.

It says a lot that to clear a backlog of things like X-rays and CAT scans, the NHS can do so within a few months by contracting out to private hospitals for £700 million as opposed to the billions that they would "need" to spend to add that capacity into NHS hospitals, which would likely still be under the same kind of bad management regime as they had now and still not solve anything.

originally posted by: Britguy

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.

Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

Our taxes pay for the system. If they want to privatize it, then we should see a reduction in income tax / national insurance, matching what we'd be paying in premiums to the private supplier. It's only fair!

I agree with that. Tax you less and let you spend your own money.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

I really wish you'd research stuff about the UK before commenting, it's getting to be a bad habit.

We pay National Insurance towards the NHS (on top of general taxation). The Government budget for the NHS is around £130 Billion a year, of which the bulk is covered by aforementioned NI contributions.

I knew that, which is why "free" healthcare isn't really free. Somebody has to end up paying for it, even for those who don't kick in.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.

Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

Most people view healthcare as a human right like water and air and not a privilege.

Its one of the few things we will disagree on.


Now the UK health system is under huge strain and needs a overhaul but there are plenty of country's like France and Japan that can provide good quality healthcare to all. I want the UK to be more like THEM.

sorry but no one in the civilized world wants the US dog eat dog healthcare system.

Meh, healthcare in the US is not as abyssmal as the politicians and activists make it out to be and the largest problems in our system have come from both government regulations and our out of control civil tort system. A single change--that of making our tort system like that of the UK, would cut a lot of our expense, both directly and indirectly.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?

I really wish you'd research stuff about the UK before commenting, it's getting to be a bad habit.

We pay National Insurance towards the NHS (on top of general taxation). The Government budget for the NHS is around £130 Billion a year, of which the bulk is covered by aforementioned NI contributions.

I knew that, which is why "free" healthcare isn't really free. Somebody has to end up paying for it, even for those who don't kick in.

Look just accept our culture of universal healthcare is for us like your gun culture is to you, sacred.

We take pride in all levels of socity in providing healthcare to all who need it, whenever they need it,

The queation for us is not if universal healthcare is wrong but the best way to achieve it with the best results.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't know anyone who claims it is "free" - it has and always will be "free at the point of use".

It's also worth noting that the costs are actually lower. In the US, a typical Cancer treatment can cost $300,000 whereas in the UK, it costs the NHS on average something like £60,000 per person, with comparable survival rates. There does seem to be an element of profiteering in the US system.

Neither can shine a light on the French or German systems though, which are a mix of private and public provision paid for out of a mix of taxation and employee insurance (similar to the UK's National Insurance) - again, it's generally free at the point of use.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I agree with that. Tax you less and let you spend your own money.

Taxation in the UK is really quite low. I am a higher rate payer and my last P60 showed that over the course of the year, including NI payments, I lost around 25% to taxation, so not a great amount.

a reply to: stumason

Then your GP is crap.

My GP is a very thorough man, as was the one I had before him. They are not afraid to refer patients on to hospitals for more specific diagnosis of ill defined problems, nor are they shy about getting things pushed through when things get lost in translation.

That your GP is a dunderhead is in no way indicative of the sort of service that one should expect from most NHS general practices.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Don't I know it