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

(Acclaimed News) With previous Conservative governments, as bad as they were, essential state services such as Health and Education weren’t privatised. How things now look set to change as David Cameron is setting the stage for the privatization of the National Health Service.

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

I think now that they have a second term, the UK should prepare its buttocks for an almighty pounding.

a reply to: newsaddict

Almighty pounding from whom?

Too many voters were focused on the Referendum...

Most of them seemed myopic to the impact another 5 years of Osbourne would entail.




I don't advocate for political assassinations really, but he is a traitor.

a reply to: newsaddict

Typical panic mongering.

Is there any evidence the current government is going to "bleed the NHS dry"? The use of private pathology labs and treatment centres has been going on for years and (shock horror) actually work. I work in hospitals and gone are the days when it took weeks to get blood results from the hospital pathology labs - now you can get them in hours. Why wait weeks/months for a routine operation in a massively expensive general hospital miles form your home, when you can attend a clinic and have it done within days by people who deliver better clinical outcomes?

The NHS can work with the private sector. This slavish belief that private is bad is rubbish. Private - in the right context - is good. For example, general practice is pretty good in the UK and (shock horror) GPs are private.

I believe that the NHS will remain public, but that some parts of the NHS can be private.

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.

a reply to: paraphi

Exactly!

I would like to add that the European systems (such as France and Germany) we're often told are better - and they are with higher survival rates for cancers, better and quicker diagnostics and shorter waiting times - are actually heavily mixed public and private sector.

As long as is free at the point of use, what is the issue if you go to a BUPA or NHS hospital?

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.

All people need to know is as it says in the link,

"The British Government introduced the NHS as an universal and free right for all the citizens without distinctions of income and social classes." Any thing less is breaking a government pledge.
GP practices are set up for the community, they are there for the duration, and that is why they are so good. Mess around with community practices by using competition laws and using bidding contracts, (yes that is being implemented) will not guarantee that ideal. As soon as the for profit privateers get their investors complaining, they will be out of that place quick time when their allegiance is to their investors, who only want more of the same.

Make your own minds up about this, but IHMO you will end up having to pay medical insurance to a for profit company over which you have no control.

No government who expects to stay in power will ever contemplate a health service you're suggesting. For the foreseeable future it will always be free at the point of use. Even Labour saw the need to use private companies in the NHS and allowed them to make a 5% profit.

Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we all pay health insurance already – it's called National Insurance. What difference does it make if it goes straight to public finances or to a private company to provide exactly the same service for exactly the same cost to you? The reality is, it will be more efficient and cost less to the tax payer.

a reply to: smurfy

The GP system is not that good. I have a friend there who has been waiting over a year to get a CAT scan

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: smurfy

The GP system is not that good. I have a friend there who has been waiting over a year to get a CAT scan

Jeebus - that is a long time. Are you sure he hasn't been forgotten about? I went in once to my GP to have my knee looked at (old football injury) and was told I'd be referred...Never heard back.. What astounded me though was the GP saying, and I quote:

"And what do you expect me to do about it?" with regards to my knee problem...

And another time, I went in with pains in my head - not headaches, actual stabbing pain. I still get it now - and the response was

"Have you tried taking Ibuprofen?"

to whit I replied, "Yes, but it isn't a headache, it feels like I have a needle jabbing my brain"

The GP then responded "Well, I'm not sure what you expect us to do"...

originally posted by: 321Go
No government who expects to stay in power will ever contemplate a health service you're suggesting. For the foreseeable future it will always be free at the point of use. Even Labour saw the need to use private companies in the NHS and allowed them to make a 5% profit.

Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we all pay health insurance already – it's called National Insurance. What difference does it make if it goes straight to public finances or to a private company to provide exactly the same service for exactly the same cost to you? The reality is, it will be more efficient and cost less to the tax payer.

Er, I dunno if you are talking to me, since I was partially in agreement with you, but anyway the national health insurance contribution is only and ever was a partial payment, the rest comes out of the general tax accumulations, so there is no handing over the/your National health service contribution to pay the private sector, it is that plus much more, and often courtesy of the private sector who charge for all their R&D forever in inflated prices for the simplest of things.

a reply to: smurfy

As long as whatever is contracted out to the private sector is done with price controls, then there shouldn't be an issue.

As it stands now though, the NHS is so disjointed in it's management, some Trusts are paying 10 times the amount for drugs and supplies as the next one over, because there is no centralised pricing structure.

If Government can offer contracts with such controls, then there will be little scope for profiteering and over-charging the NHS. Competitive contract tendering feeds into this, as the one who fancies putting in an overpriced bid simply won't win the contract.

I thought this was about real vampires.

a reply to: newsaddict

Stop scaremongering.

Privatization does not automatically mean a hellish US healthcare system.

There are plenty of option between a NHS style system and a free for all dog eat dog 3rd world US system, some of those option provide better healthcare than we have. Just ask France or Japan or the 17 other country's above us that provide better healthcare!

Our current system is cumbersome, inefficient and barely meeting its purpose. And throwing money at such a system is like throwing # at a wall.

I dont care weather my healthcare is 100% public, 100 % subsidized private or a mix in between as long as I get the very best care and treatment universally regardless of my finical situation.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Too many voters were focused on the Referendum...

Most of them seemed myopic to the impact another 5 years of Osbourne would entail.




I don't advocate for political assassinations really, but he is a traitor.

Maybe millpede should have offered a Referendum that the people ASKED for ? That democracy for ya. If you don't offer what the people want you don't get votes!

And as my above post said we dont know what these changes are yet.

originally posted by: smurfy

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.

All people need to know is as it says in the link,

"The British Government introduced the NHS as an universal and free right for all the citizens without distinctions of income and social classes." Any thing less is breaking a government pledge.
GP practices are set up for the community, they are there for the duration, and that is why they are so good. Mess around with community practices by using competition laws and using bidding contracts, (yes that is being implemented) will not guarantee that ideal. As soon as the for profit privateers get their investors complaining, they will be out of that place quick time when their allegiance is to their investors, who only want more of the same.

Make your own minds up about this, but IHMO you will end up having to pay medical insurance to a for profit company over which you have no control.

Tell that to France, Germany and many other country's with universal healthcare that have a mixture of private and public spending and have vastly better quality of care than us.

Why continue with our breaking system when there is better ones?

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?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: smurfy

The GP system is not that good. I have a friend there who has been waiting over a year to get a CAT scan

That's funny. Here in the US I can get you a CT that very same day.

Usual waiting time for a CT scan depends on severity, but 2-3 weeks maximum.

If somebody has been waiting over a year then either:

a) They have been forgotten about.

b) They missed a letter from the hospital and missed their appointment.

c) They don't really need the scan anyway.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: smurfy

The GP system is not that good. I have a friend there who has been waiting over a year to get a CAT scan

That's funny. Here in the US I can get you a CT that very same day.

Depending of course on the hospital and money you have. Bet its not that quick if in a charity hospital or on medicaid

I can get a CT scan within a few hours here if I pay for it.

And to add the most I had to wait for a CT scan was 4 days on the NHS for a non emergency.