howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 January 2011
21:5689606#1
all very confusing, we were told by dave prior to the election that our health service and overseas aid were protected from spending cuts.
in the new bill 20 billion quid will be lost in the health service over the next 4 years, meaning many job losses.
i managed to sit through prime minsters question time for about half an hour today, nearly red ed asked double glazing salesman dave whether he could give a guarantee that waiting times would not get worse.
dave reminded me of tony blair at his most slippery in trying to avoid giving an answer, resorting to abuse and raising his voice to playground bull level.
this was alluded to by the speaker who mentioned that a ten year old constituent has asked him why people shouted in the commons.
what will be the next broken promise?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
19 January 2011
22:1789608#2
May-be a law should be proposed to flag ministers when they break their election promises.
Before the General Election, each party would have to make a pact with the electorate, signed and sealed in a constitutional office, by way of which, if a party is voted in, then it will not be so simple to blatently break pre-electoral promisses!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 January 2011
22:5189616#3
Howard - what complete rot.
Alexander - reform of the NHS was very much part of the manifestos of both Party's.
ConHome published some mythbusters today over NHS reform. Here are a few key points:
""""Myth: The NHS is being cut.
Fact: We are increasing the NHS budget above inflation year-after-year - something which Labour opposes. But this does not mean that we can continue to put up with inefficient services, because of the rising demands on the NHS due to an ageing population and better technologies. That is why we are modernising the NHS - but any savings we make will be ploughed straight back into patient care.
""""Myth: The changes weren't in either of your parties' manifestos.
Fact: They were in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. The Conservative manifesto (p. 46) promised that GPs would be given control over the health service budget. The Conservative manifesto (p. 45) promised that every Trust would be made a Foundation Trust. Both the Conservative (p. 27) and Liberal Democrat (p. 42) manifestos promised that new social enterprises would be created to deliver NHS services. The Conservative (p. 45) and Liberal Democrat (p.42) manifestos promised that all types of providers - NHS, voluntary, or independent sector - would be free to deliver NHS services. An independent NHS Board was promised in the Conservative manifesto (p. 46). Scrapping central, politically-motivated targets was promised in both the Conservative (p.46) and Liberal Democrat (p. 42) manifestos. Cutting back on unnecessary administrative costs was included in both the Conservative (p. 46) and Liberal Democrat (pp. 40-41) manifestos.
""""Myth: The NHS doesn't need any change.
Fact: Someone in this country is twice as likely to die from a heart attack as someone in France. Survival rates for some cancers are amongst the worst in the OECD. Premature mortality rates from respiratory disease are worse than the European average. The number of managers in the NHS doubled under Labour, and productivity went down year-on-year.
""""Myth: GP consortia will be forced to use the private sector.
Fact: It will be up to GP consortia to decide their own arrangements.
""""Myth: These changes will cost £3 billion.
Fact: The one-off cost of our changes will be £1.4 billion, of which £1 billion are the costs associated with reducing the size of the NHS bureaucracy - a reduction that is needed to honour both parties' promises to reduce the cost of administration in the NHS. As a result, the changes will pay for themselves within two years, and go on to deliver £5 billion of savings over this Parliament.
""""Myth: GPs do not want to do the job you are asking them to do.
Fact: In just 12 weeks, GPs covering over half of the country have come together in groups to lead our modernisation. They have come forward voluntarily, more than two years before the formal handover of responsibility takes place in April 2013. This demonstrates the enthusiasm among frontline GPs to take advantage of the opportunities our modernisation plans offer.
""""Myth: These changes are a revolution.
Fact: Our proposals are an evolution of plans which governments of all parties have introduced over the past twenty years. Giving power to GPs has been around for the last two decades, with Labour setting up 'practice-based commissioning' when they realised that abolishing GP fundholding was a mistake. Foundation hospitals, and allowing patients to choose where to be treated on the NHS, have been ideas in the NHS for the best part of a decade.
----------------------------------------------------------
I have expressed my view recently that these reforms simply do not go far enough. I would prefer that the whole inefficient state system be privatised and a system introduced based on the continental insurance based health services. You will not find any Frenchman or German wanting to swap their system for ours....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 January 2011
23:0289618#4
barry
i will not resort to callig your post "rot", quite interesting but inaccurate.
firstly, what do g.p.s do if they are not business orientated and do not want control over financing?
secondly, when is a funding shortfall not a cut?
thirdly, why did dave lose his cool to mildly red ed in the commons and resort to personal abuse when forced admit that waiting times would increase?
i do hope you do not blame that on nick and friends.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
19 January 2011
23:0789619#5
Barry,again you are talking about somthing that you nothing about,I worked in Germany and when I got runover out there,they would not take me to the hospital till my mate went back to the digs to get my insurance papers,I had just come out of work in was 2230hrs and raining very hard.The Hospital was very good and i was in there 3weeks.But they were telling me only wish we had a NHS like you.And some years later I was also in Hospital in france again very well looked after ,but they were saying the same,we wish we had the NHS like you have in the UK.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
19 January 2011
23:4489620#6
I refuse to take sides in any arguement about the NHS, as we all know it is not perfect and I doubt it ever will be but we still need it.
Alexander we would never have any ministers or politicians at any level as at election times they all tell their own variation of the truth, whatever colour they are. UKIP included
Vic, out of interest how many years ago are you talking about with regards to Germany and France. Your comment is not applicable if you are not talking about the last couple of years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
20 January 2011
09:2689637#7
Yes David Cameron does resort to snide comments at Prime Ministers Questions. If he didnt do that his stature would increase, as he comes across very schoolboyish when he does it...not very prime ministerish to do it. There is a difference between scoring a political point and slagging the opponent off to cheaply whip up the guffaws.
I dont know about the rest of you but these NHS reforms fill me with terror. i dont have any faith in Andrew Lansley who couldnt even get the Christmas flu awareness campaign right. This was spoken about on the radio this morning. There was no flu awareness campaign so no demand for vacine, then when the medics got worried a flu awareness campaign started, but there was not enough vacine in place.
This is a huge topic but the other point I would make is about Flu again. It seems calls are now being made for the Flu vacine to be ordered in at Government Minister level..as the doctors were left to order what they needed this year only to make a hash of it. People with health problems, following the late awareness campaign, asked then for the vacine but couldnt have it. There wasnt any.
This is the first step in this new Lansley campaign about letting the doctors manage everything...look what happened with this. A ballsup!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 January 2011
09:3789638#8
Totally disagree PaulB on just about every point you made though I have some sympathy over what you said about Lansley but from a different perspective.
Howard - GPs are not exactly on their own, they generally work in groups and have staff. As for a 'funding shortfall' the simple fact is that NHS spending is increasing overall and no matter what you spend on the NHS there will always be a funding shortfall, it is an open chequebook and that is a massive weakness in this whole sorry NHS system.
Vic, I expect I have had more recent experience of the French system than you.
The biggest myth that most people sadly buy into is that the NHS is actually good. It may well be if looked at in isolation, but when you compare it to international standards it falls a long way short of meeting a reasonable expectation. Personally I believe that we all in the UK deserve the best and we will only get that if we drop this whole failed experiment of state funded medicine and adopt an insurance based system on the basis of many continental schemes (not the USA).
These reforms are good for what they are, mere tinkering with a failing system.
20 January 2011
09:5189639#9
I am afraid that, even if good intentions are there, the shiny new government made up of pals is displaying its inexperience for us all to see and snigger at. If it wasn't so serious.
I know the NHS sucks - there are some really good bits, and some really good people, but overall it sucks. But what are the options? Privatise (and we all know if we are honest that that is what Dave n Nick want) or Reform. Reform would be painful but honest - robust management, zero tolerance of waste and of poor practice. Privatised=budget priority and we should acknowledge that. A finite budget isn't a bad thing, it is a driver for excellence. It just needs to be managed properly by someone who understands the needs of the service. Not necessarily GPs, who have other priorities hopefully, and certainly not by heavyweight managers drafted in from engineering or the Post Office.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 January 2011
10:0489643#10
Sadly Bern I think you are wrong and they do not want to privatise it. DC is genuine in his commitment to the NHS and that is holding back the changes this country really needs.
International and UK experience shows that there is nothing wrong with private hospitals and they can be far better than NHS ones. there is no reason at all why our health system should be dominated by state owned assets.
20 January 2011
10:1789644#11
Private nursing and medicine is usually superior because it is better managed with standards and outcomes as drivers and improved accountability. However - and it is an enormous however - whichever way you cut it, it is for those who can afford it. The NHS is paid for by us and NOT free as some try to imply - free at the point of delivery is not the same as free. It is available according to need and not wallet. That is what a civilised society should aim for. It is not impossible to manage a health system properly without privatising it, but it is a huge ask and needs a decent set of balls to take it on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 January 2011
10:3389649#12
That is why I am saying the system needs changing away from being purely funded from taxation and to bring in an insurance based system Bern. This would be no more 'for those who can afford it' than the systems in France or Germany are and they certainly are not... Everyone who needs healthcare deserves the best in this country and that means having access to the standards we have in private hospitals. That will only be achieve by a complete change of system and dumping what we have now completely.
20 January 2011
12:2289655#13
Insurance is a luxury for some, BarryW, and unobtainable for others. I don't dispute the need for reform and something much more than tweaking, but I think you are wildly optimistic about the possible developments along insurance pathways. The NHS has a habit of placing rose-coloured specs on many people who think it is wonderful despite the huge and damning evidence to the contrary - reform has the same effect on right-wingers!!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 January 2011
13:2489658#14
Bern - it works in Germany. The State pays the insurance for those who cant afford it and on benefits and underwrites uninsurable conditions.
for everyone else tax relief could be given on premiums and, of course, there should be a reduction in taxation to fully reflect the reduce cost to the state.
This way no-one goes without health cover.
What is more important is that the providers of healthcare are seperated from the healthcare budgets and that affects attitudes to treatment.
When I had a bit of a scare and had to go through a range of tests a couple of years ago not a stone was left unturned by The Chaucer and they found something wrong totally unassociated with the problem I went in for. That was because it was paid for by insurance and was not coming out of the Chaucer's budget, they were not limited as to what they could spend on me and just did whatever they considered necessary with no budget constraints.
Comparing that with someone elses experience, but with K&C, while full of praise, rightly, for the staff and their dedication, they did not get nearly the range of tests and checks that I received.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
20 January 2011
15:2889663#15
If Barry's ideas were taken up I would bet all the tea in China that taxation would not come down. I also think that it would cost quite a bit more to have private insurance in comparison to the NHS portion that comes out of National Insurance payments at present, you get what you pay for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 January 2011
17:2689675#16
Jan - I know a bit about the insurance side of thing and I expect it would actually reduce in price if it became more widely accessed. Also I suspect that employer funded PME packages would become more common and should be encouraged by government. I am also suggesting that tax relief on premiums should be given and, if done in the same way as for pensions everyone, even a non-taxpayer, would only pay £80 out of every £100 spent on it. Insurance cover would need to meet a minimum standard to qualify for the tax relief with companies expected to publish claims experience, which would be part of the quality testing.
As for tax reducing - well that should be part of the deal, full stop.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
20 January 2011
18:2589678#17
1. I do not understand why a state health service should be free at the point of use for those who can afford to pay or to insure themselves.
2 why is medical research concentrated primarily on finding new cures rather than finding how to eliminate the causes of disease? If you eliminate causes the country spends less on drugs and hospitals and GP visits.
Actually I can answer Q2. Most research is funded by drug companies.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson