Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
How refreshing to see some from the 'left' of the political spectrum, Bern, placing the needs of patients ahead of the ideological needs/wants of the NHS.
The NHS is in the mess it is in because it hangs on to old out-dated dogma and because politicians have been too scared to take the drastic action needed for us to get the decent healthcare we deserve in this country. The NHS system is not fit for purpose.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I do not agree with what you are saying Barry ,and you are wrong in saying the N.H.S. is not fit for purpose,there is room for improvement,and that is being done slowly,
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
``The NHS system is not fit for Purpose`That`s the message and intent from a right wing Tory.
Can we trust them with the NHS ?......................Naaaaah!
But how refreshing to see philanthropy,however misguided, from the right of the political spectrum.
I agree with BarryW, and I am able to do that because I am not driven by ideology or sentimental attachment to ideals that no longer work. Yes, I am left leaning and proud of it. I am also a businesswoman, and happy to remain small because that is how I enjoy my own business, while supporting and developing much bigger businesses. But to lose opportunities for improvement because of an inability to re-evaluate the circumstances would be lunacy. My experience is that the public sector is unable to move with the times and ha spectacularly failed to learn any lessons at all. However, I know, personally, private and third sector health and social care organisations who function incredibly well, providing quality care and support with value for money - NOT cutting corners but spending money wisely, planning ahead, using resources effectively. To miss an opportunity to re-build our NHS because of dogma is ridiculous!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Well said Bern - right and left united in a common cause, better healthcare free from political dogma.
It is so sad that many place more importance on the institution than on health outcomes and it is that which is the big problem with our whole healthcare system.
Reg - the NHS would not be 'safe' in my hands, good healthcare for all is more important than an outdated and inefficient institution. So yes, the NHS would not be safe, I would put patients first not systems.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would go for pragmatism over out dated left and right wing ideologies, on this thread and others we read about the failings of a minority of health care staff. no doubt some exist at the hospital in question. will they remain or be left to be a risk or at the very least a nuisance to the general public?
won't hold my breath on that one, then we have the pratlings of dave and andrew lansley that privatisation is not on the cards.
this hospital could be the trojan horse, we will not know until another "experiment" comes into effect.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 24. Privatisation means profit from care.
Need to lean a bit more......we can drift when we are successful...........grassroots and washing up bring us back.
# 25. Last paragraph....have to say from your many postings there are many things that would not be safe in your hands.
Last sentence.........you would put patients before systems..............where would you put profit?
# 26. second paragraph.Why are Flashman and team saying the NHS is safe in their hands and their `disciples` saying it it is not? Fork tongues!
And every time ...............Experiments become permanent..................Alarm bells!
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
If privatisation means profit, that means the money is being wasted somewhere along the line now.
Some experiments work, maybe this one will maybe not we will not know unless it is tried.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If the NHS had been better managed up to now it would not be in so much debt. There is nothing wrong with managing the budget properly, and what, exactly, is wrong with having a business head in charge if it can also deliver good healthcare without unnecessary debt? It is perfectly possible to reduce costs without reducing quality - it is just a matter of using the resources better and not encouraging waste.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The suggestion that profit is a dirty word is what is wrong here. There is nothing wrong with it in healthcare provided you get the healthcare outcomes and no, it does not mean higher costs, it means more efficient use of resources. Anyone who has used The Chaucer Hospital will know that. Not only that, anyone who depends on the treatments provided by drugs developed at great risk and cost by these oh so evil profit making companies should realise it.
Reg, if your attitude towards life and the economy prevailed we would have an economy like Albania's. I note that you go go on about your anti-private enterprise message but seem not to say anything improving healthcare. Your NHS means more of the same, more cancer deaths and a creaking third rate and eventually third world system. Open your eyes to the real world and not your cosy little socialist paradise that has never and will never exist.
I frankly care nothing for the NHS, it is just a very flawed man-made institution that is not producing the kind of healthcare we deserve in this country. Who delivers that care is totally unimportant, it could be a business, a charity, a social enterprise - anyone, the results for people being treated is all that matters. The ill patients matter not the NHS.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
and free at the point of use barry, with a one tier system?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
You talk a good story Barry, but sorry that is all it is" talk."There are lots of cost,s that the NHS pays out that most of the public no nothing about,one of them is the very high cost of geting rid of Hospital wast",How do I know about this one" ? because part of my working life was taken up with it. I have no wish to talk about it,it is not a very nice thing to talk about on open forum.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BERN has admitted she is no longer left leaning, but of course has some valued viewp;oints.
REG;
Clearly with all barryw's dave cock ups and u turns no we cant trust the tories with
OUR nhs.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Well now - interesting exchanges
For me the key things are firstly to see improved healthcare intervention outcomes and secondly that the service fundamentally remains free at the point of use.
I actually care little who delivers the service, in my ideal it would be the state, however the state has proved conclusively over the last 40 plus years that it is actually incapable of delivering high quality, cost effective and efficient healthcare that delivers the best possible outcomes for the most people.
The accreditation of medical professionals should and must remain within the purview of the state, as must the funding of the service provision, as Barry says the delivery can be by any competent provider, leaving the state to review and audit performance and outcomes.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Vic any health care organization has to meet that cost , its not exactly a state secret . The current set up of the NHS is not fit for perpose in my opinion . It is not underfunded it is under managed . Too many headline grabbing initiatives and too little baseline care .
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
yep sarah
but lets see how we can make it beter
not dismantle it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
It is too big and too unwieldly to reform from within , the repeated faliures of reform initiatives show this , it is also used to drive Political agendas by all major parties . It gets used as a football to prove political points , In my opinion and experience it is not fit for perpose
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
rather worrying that our two members on the inside both believe that the n.h.s is not fit for purpose.
what the answer is defeats me, i would like the n.h.s reformed somehow with quality management cutting out waste and deadwood but the suggestion is that it is not possible.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I have been running the Kent Splenectomy Trust now for 19years
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Nice post Ross.
I too care about who provides it. I also agree about inefficiencies and want tax payer's money used wisely.
However the bottom line is that this IS about ideology, in the proper sense of the word, not just in the context of party politics.
Although I am not totally against this concept, I find it absurd that people should present the idea that they believe that 'the care of the patient' is 'the most important thing' whilst upholding the idea that the provider is not important.
If this were actually true then the only provider we should award the contract to was the one that would plough ALL profit into making MORE people well. If this is not your belief, then you don't actually believe 'the care of the patient' is 'THE most important thing'
If this particular provider is prepared to work with their ONLY interest being that of the public, regardless of their income, then I'm all for it.
If we do expect them to provide this vital role, yet only do it to make large profits for shareholders, then we set a clear national message.
It's a bit like saying "big society: check on your elderly neighbours, but only if they are likely to include you in their will"