Tory Privatisation Of The Nhs

[mat hudson]

i am interested to see peoples thoughts as this is something that will effect a fair amount of trials riders, seeing as we depend on the nhs to fix us up from time to time.

for me this will be the final straw, if the NHS becomes privatised i will be leaving this country as it's probably the only thing its got going for it.

its taken so long to create i don't understand why the torys want to destroy it, the same as they are doing with the benefit system. in my opinion all people should be entitled to the same level of care regardless of how much money they earn and all hospitals should have the same funding and equipment (within reason of their location)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13329031

[Luke Rainbird]

the same as they are doing with the benefit system. in my opinion all people should be entitled to the same level of care regardless of how much money they earn

Slightly off topic, but you say you feel everyone should be entitled to the same level of care regardless of their income - shouldn't this be the same for the benefits that are dished out?

Why should the people that have worked themselves into a position where they earn more have a higher percentage of their income deducted at all, let alone for it to then be given to those who don't earn so much themselves?

Back on track; Obviously full privatisation of the NHS will be a bitch for a huge number of people/situations, though it does have its benefits.

[mat hudson]

Slightly off topic, but you say you feel everyone should be entitled to the same level of care regardless of their income - shouldn't this be the same for the benefits that are dished out?

how do you mean? since most people on benefits are unemployed.

[dann2707]

though it does have its benefits.

Please ignore me being dense, but what does it benfit?

[Luke Rainbird]

how do you mean? since most people on benefits are unemployed.

Maybe I used the word "benefits" in the wrong context. Think more along the ines of EMA/Grants for uni students etc. Just because your parents earn over a certain amount doesn't necessarily mean that they will be giving you £XXX more per week or year, yet pretty much the sole factor taken into consideration of who receives what is your parents income. Personally, I feel it should be an all or nothing thing. I know that then leads to a feeling of elitism and stuff too, so also has its downfalls, but the way financial aid is given out in all kinds of situations under the UK government is screwed up bigtime(and has been for ages, not just recently)

Please ignore me being dense, but what does it benfit?

At present, everyone pays towards everything. Great if there's nothing you could have done to prevent a situation in which you need help, but what about the billions of pounds worth of taxpayers money that goes into, for example, sorting out people who've drunk to excess and require medical treatment? Or people that smoke so much that they need ongoing support?

With a more privatised system in place, you pay for what you require/use.

There are exceptions to every system and there will always be pitfalls to them, but people often seem very keen to jump to a "the grass will definitively be greener on the other side" style conclusion without really looking at both sides.

Pros and cons again, but yeah. Just trying to stir up a discussion, rather than the general rants this is likely to descend into

[mat hudson]

Maybe I used the word "benefits" in the wrong context. Think more along the ines of EMA/Grants for uni students etc. Just because your parents earn over a certain amount doesn't necessarily mean that they will be giving you £XXX more per week or year, yet pretty much the sole factor taken into consideration of who receives what is your parents income. Personally, I feel it should be an all or nothing thing. I know that then leads to a feeling of elitism and stuff too, so also has its downfalls, but the way financial aid is given out in all kinds of situations under the UK government is screwed up bigtime(and has been for ages, not just recently)

At present, everyone pays towards everything. Great if there's nothing you could have done to prevent a situation in which you need help, but what about the billions of pounds worth of taxpayers money that goes into, for example, sorting out people who've drunk to excess and require medical treatment? Or people that smoke so much that they need ongoing support?

With a more privatised system in place, you pay for what you require/use.

There are exceptions to every system and there will always be pitfalls to them, but people often seem very keen to jump to a "the grass will definitively be greener on the other side" style conclusion without really looking at both sides.

Pros and cons again, but yeah. Just trying to stir up a discussion, rather than the general rants this is likely to descend into

i see what you mean with the ema situation, i never got it and my parents certainly didnt pay the difference! but if you look at the grand scheme of things, a much bigger percentage of your tax is being wasted in blowing up the middle east and i don't think anyone still condones that. anyway, back on topic.

if i ever get an ongoing condition i'd like to know there is something there for me to fall back on. and i'm quite happy paying taxes to ensure it's there when something does go wrong.

imagine not having insurance and breaking your leg or being injured in a car crash and no one doing anything about it. you could be dying and the hospital would just turn you away because you dont have insurance. sounds pretty shit to me.

[Luke Rainbird]

I'm not sure of the ins and outs, but I'd imagine there are methods in place to ensure that you can still get help when it's needed, but I don't know the finer details so can't really comment. Like I said, it's swings and roundabouts

Wars are slightly different. Certainly not saying so much money should be spent there or that it's ok, but just because money's being wasted there doesn't mean it's ok for it to be wasted in slightly smaller amounts elsewhere

[bikeperson45]

At present, everyone pays towards everything. Great if there's nothing you could have done to prevent a situation in which you need help, but what about the billions of pounds worth of taxpayers money that goes into, for example, sorting out people who've drunk to excess and require medical treatment? Or people that smoke so much that they need ongoing support?

With a more privatised system in place, you pay for what you require/use.

I've never found that smoking example effective, we as trial riders know the risk that we're taking when riding yet we still do it out of choice in the same way a smoker chooses to smoke. We both know the risks involve, granted that smoking still probably costs a lot more then trials injuries but the principle's the same. I think that the NHS is one of the best things about this country, I just don't see why sick people should have to die because they couldn't afford the medicine when there's people with millions who just spend that money on segways.

[Mark W]

At present, everyone pays towards everything. Great if there's nothing you could have done to prevent a situation in which you need help, but what about the billions of pounds worth of taxpayers money that goes into, for example, sorting out people who've drunk to excess and require medical treatment? Or people that smoke so much that they need ongoing support?

With a more privatised system in place, you pay for what you require/use.

What happens if you get born with a rare condition that's not diagnosed 'til later in your life, and which requires extensive medical treatment that you'd then have to pay for? What happens if you develop any kind of serious illness that requires a lot of medication or treatment (e.g. cancer of some kind)? What happens if you happen to have a car accident and need a lot of treatment? Have you seen how much some people are having to pay in the US for what we consider to be relatively common procedures? There's nothing good about it at all.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs, but I'd imagine there are methods in place to ensure that you can still get help when it's needed...

If there is then surely the system would basically be what we've got already? If it's privatised, there's no incentive for anyone to give you free care to those who need it, is there?

[super]

It's bloody complicated but at the end of the day some form of privtisation has to be a good thing - look at the german system - they have a private system that provides way better standards than we have in the uk at a cost per person of less than the goverment pays into the NHS!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Are they actually removing the way healthcare is paid for (i.e. we no longer pay NI contributions and instead pay for personal health insurance) or are they just looking at privatising certain sectors in order to improve efficiency (in theory) and 'streamline' things?

[JT!]

I'm in the US. The healthcare system out here is just short of criminal. It's absolutely disgusting how it's set up right now. If the Tories plan to turn the medical system to anything like it is out here they're f**king idiots.

[Scott Gibbs]

The torries ARE idiots!

[Luke Rainbird]

Haha, I knew however I put it it'd get taken the wrong way to some extent. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing; like I said I don't know enough about it to really pass judgement on the whole, just trying to point out that in situations like these you always get people instantly jumping to the side of "shit son, it's free at the minute (which it really isn't...) and they want to take that away from us" where as it's not so black and white.

Obviously full privatisation of the NHS will be a bitch for a huge number of people/situations, though it does have its benefits.

Aif there's nothing you could have done to prevent a situation in which you need help

There are exceptions to every system and there will always be pitfalls to them, but people often seem very keen to jump to a "the grass will definitively be greener on the other side" style conclusion without really looking at both sides.

Pros and cons again, but yeah. Just trying to stir up a discussion, rather than the general rants this is likely to descend into

I think that the NHS is one of the best things about this country, I just don't see why sick people should have to die because they couldn't afford the medicine when there's people with millions who just spend that money on segways.

Totally agree with your last comment to an extent. Yes, I think it's horrible that there are people dying all over the world because they're ill or can't afford to eat while there are selfish people about who could feed those people for a year, yet buy a shiny bike without a seat instead of helping out. That doesn't, however, mean that just because some people have succeeded financially that they should cover a larger proportion of other people.

It's bloody complicated but at the end of the day some form of privtisation has to be a good thing - look at the german system - they have a private system that provides way better standards than we have in the uk at a cost per person of less than the goverment pays into the NHS!

This was more what I was getting at, but put across a whole lot more eloquently

[craigjames]

As far as I understood they weren't looking to privatise the NHS, a proposed reform was to allow private companies to tender to run a hospital for a fixed period of time, at which point the contract would be reviewed. Thus allowing competition to come into the organisation and potentially improving standards. There isn't much of an issue to this as it stands, still tax payer funded, still free health care; however how it is implemented, monitored and regulated would have a huge impact on whether it was successful or not.

The NHS currently is awful, there are huge amounts of wastage both financially and resources wise. I was reading a report on prescriptions from pharmacies; standard prescription which costs you £7.20 for say anti-biotics which could cost say £40 depending on brand, but due to the pharmacies affiliations/ kickbacks/ commissions from certain pharmaceutical companies a certain brand is chosen, put through as the prescription and what should have been a £40 charge to the NHS is considerably more. It was silly things like saline, due to contracts that already exist the NHS is getting charge horrific amounts for money for what is saline distilled water... Personally I think wastage like this and bureaucracy in the organisation are big issues that need tackling rather than radical reform.

However unless you've been reading the Mirror or some other Labour affiliated tabloid no one has said the government is going to privatise the whole NHS....

[Tomm]

Slightly off topic, but you say you feel everyone should be entitled to the same level of care regardless of their income - shouldn't this be the same for the benefits that are dished out?

Well, that depends if you think healthcare is more fundamental than a right to council services / housing / education etc. I would argue that healthcare is a fundamental right for people in developed countries, far more so than the right to have your bins emptied every week or so etc. Or put more cynically, without good health you can't work / pay taxes.

Maybe I used the word "benefits" in the wrong context. Think more along the ines of EMA/Grants for uni students etc. Just because your parents earn over a certain amount doesn't necessarily mean that they will be giving you £XXX more per week or year, yet pretty much the sole factor taken into consideration of who receives what is your parents income. Personally, I feel it should be an all or nothing thing. I know that then leads to a feeling of elitism and stuff too, so also has its downfalls, but the way financial aid is given out in all kinds of situations under the UK government is screwed up bigtime(and has been for ages, not just recently)

People live in poverty in this country, some people can't afford to eat every day. You probably don't see it, because the circles you move in (apologies if I'm wrong, but since you're on TF it's fairly likely you're white and middle class with a bit of disposable income) are sheltered from the worst of it. My point is that people missing out on EMA are unlikely to starve...

Anyway, the NHS. Where else in the world can you find a healthcare system that is based entirely on need? We have a fantastic healthcare system over here, definitely something to be proud of. Whilst the tories don't want to necessarily privatise the whole lot (yet), they're playing with fire. Done right, their system could improve efficiency, give patients more choice and drive down cost to the taxpayer. Done badly, it'll cost more and result in a fragmented service run by lowest bidder sharks whose bottom line is more important than patient welfare.

The biggest concerns seem to be around this idea that if institutions can offer to provide a service for a given price, it's much easier to compete on price on certain services. E.g. a gallbladder operation would be easy and simple to calculate the cost for, whereas elderly inpatient admissions or people requiring ITU can result in long hospital stays and large costs that are difficult to identify on a balance sheet. The trouble is, elective surgery is how most hospitals make their cash. Thus third party outfits will be able to undercut the NHS on the simple items (E.g. the gallbladder operation/hip replacement etc) and leave the District General Hospital to cover the costs of the complicated patients. Since aforementioned hospital won't be making any money on its elective operations any more (the independent-sector treatment centre has gazumped them), where is the money going to come from? In this worst-case scenario, NHS hospital budgets dry up and the standard or care is driven down as a result.

Right, enough thinking. Time for name-calling:

[mat hudson]

it all seems pretty hypocritical as well when the government can spend 250 million on a new alternative vote system which is very heavily opposed. why not give that 250 million to the health service instead? http://www.no2av.org/02/why-our-country-cant-afford-have/

[craigjames]

it all seems pretty hypocritical as well when the government can spend 250 million on a new alternative vote system which is very heavily opposed. why not give that 250 million to the health service instead? http://www.no2av.org/02/why-our-country-cant-afford-have/

Did you follow the vote at all? The have system was requested by the Liberals as a caveat of entering a coalition with the Tories to form a government. The Liberals wanted it, the Tories didn't. The vote was cast and as a public we voted no, so we won't get it....

[Si-man]

It's bloody complicated but at the end of the day some form of privtisation has to be a good thing - look at the german system - they have a private system that provides way better standards than we have in the uk at a cost per person of less than the goverment pays into the NHS!

We do, its called Bup.

EDIT: Didnt read it all

Edited May 10, 2011 by Si-man

[NVWOCI WVS]

i am interested to see peoples thoughts as this is something that will effect a fair amount of trials riders, seeing as we depend on the nhs to fix us up from time to time.

for me this will be the final straw, if the NHS becomes privatised i will be leaving this country as it's probably the only thing its got going for it.

its taken so long to create i don't understand why the torys want to destroy it, the same as they are doing with the benefit system. in my opinion all people should be entitled to the same level of care regardless of how much money they earn and all hospitals should have the same funding and equipment (within reason of their location)

http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-13329031

If you don't fully understand politics (or atleast the subject you wish to discuss), and your opinion is biased/misinformed, it's best not to talk about it on the internet. It makes you appear ignorant.

The torries ARE idiots!

I do not disagree with you, but I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.

It is my opinion; that too many people have too many opinions on subjects, which they have no idea about. Unless a statement, such as this, is backed up with either a solid argument, or some kind of supporting evidence, it is completely worthless, and makes you sound silly.

[munkee]

Privatisation is something that will end up spreading in to most areas. The public sector isn't driven to make money like the private sector is. It may claim it is driven to "save" money and offer a "good" and "quality" service for everyone but realistically when you are paying the equivalent of a monthly/yearly subscription that everyone has access to, the level of all of the aforementioned things various incredibly. In the private world people with money tend to lean to buying the more expensive things. With expense we often see an increase in quality and a reduction in time to get a service. As I said the public sector does not have this driver so everyone is stuck in the same boat and what do we get? Long waiting times, very erratic and varied quality of service all for the same expense? Well.. no because those with more money end up paying more for the services via tax which to them is an even shitter deal. Whilst on the other hand those who are taxed less may look at the service and say "yea actually that is pretty decent". Those with lower incomes see the public sector as value for money. Those with the money tend not to.

I for one have rarely ever used the NHS but the times I have the service has been terrible. My dad now suffers from cancer and I have to say his treatment so far has been shockingly varied between different hospitals, doctors, nurses etc. As I stated before without the push and drive for making money none of these areas will want to truly standardise and give a quality of service that can be expected to be the same no matter where you go. Making money or atleast finding an equal driver will lead to this standardisation and a baseline of healthcare that no matter who you are you can walk in to a hospital anywhere in the country pay your money and get the same service. Take a look at the likes of mcdonalds, wallmart, subway, nissan, honda etc etc.. private companies even when franchised can work well. I am open minded to the change because as much as we all love getting something for "free" we really aren't always getting a service we would desire. I expect we have all said it at some point "dont complain about blah blah its a free service what do you expect".. but this isnt facebook/msn/hotmail.. its healthcare and peoples lives that are potentially being messed around with.

[ogre]

give natural selection a chance?

[Muel]

Why not just put taxes up even further on fags and booze? I'd hate it if that happened, but I'd naturally drink and smoke less, so I'd be healthier and the government would have moh monies. Everyone's happy.

[BurlyBox]

think how much we would have saved if we didnt go bomb Libya. surely a country closer that isnt in a recession would be more appropriate to fix their country and then cuts wont need to be made on things we need more.

[munkee]

BurlyBox that is a united nations movement. We would be involved in that to some extent regardless and it is in our own interests to be involved as you never know when we may need the UN for our own country in the near future.

I don't condone libya involvement at all I think it seems a bit strange how our involvement has changed over the weeks to technically just funding a rebel army to overthrow a dictator who has over 3/4 of a populations support..but that is for another topic =p