28-04-2013, 12:16 PM
21
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Wrong Karen darlin' when I had my first hip operation in 2004, there were people just ahead of me on the waiting list, that did go abroad to have their sugery. I too was bing lined up to go that route (and would have gone but for the fact of complications in my individual case). And incidentally, it wasn't the Labour Government that was responsible for the huge waiting lists, but the previous Tory Government under Thatcher (phth, phth, phth) and Major who had managed to 'starve' the NHS of sufficient funding throughtout their respective governments.
I had a fair bit of surgery during Thatcher's reign and wasn't kept waiting once, in fact, I was admitted to hospitals pretty quickly (one case, within 24 hours). I remember those days of the NHS with a great deal of fondness for all the staff concerned. I can say, without any shadow of a doubt, that since those days, things have changed drastically in the NHS - and not for the better.
28-04-2013, 01:00 PM
22
Re: Our poor NHS!
Labour was when this started, no matter what UJ says. Conservatives under Thatcher would never have dared Bliar slipped it in as people never thought labour would dupe them like this.Labour brought in employment laws that Thatcher would never have dared do too !!
28-04-2013, 01:39 PM
23
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by ben-varrey
->
No Uncle Joe - it was definitely Labour that came under the kosh for excessive waiting lists that brought the EU down on their heads - same as with the minimum wage thing.I had a fair bit of surgery during Thatcher's reign and wasn't kept waiting once, in fact, I was admitted to hospitals pretty quickly (one case, within 24 hours). I remember those days of the NHS with a great deal of fondness for all the staff concerned. I can say, without any shadow of a doubt, that since those days, things have changed drastically in the NHS - and not for the better.
Karen darlin' waiting lists for surgery don't just happen overnight, they had been steadily building throughout both Major's and Thatcher's (phth, phth, phth) governments because the NHS wasn't being given the priority in funding that Bliar subsequently gave it, thus waiting lists, whilst first increasing immediately following the election of Bliar, did then drop again as the increased spending filtered through the system.
28-04-2013, 05:52 PM
24
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Karen darlin' waiting lists for surgery don't just happen overnight, they had been steadily building throughout both Major's and Thatcher's (phth, phth, phth) governments because the NHS wasn't being given the priority in funding that Bliar subsequently gave it, thus waiting lists, whilst first increasing immediately following the election of Bliar, did then drop again as the increased spending filtered through the system.
)
28-04-2013, 06:43 PM
25
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Over my dead body!!!! - NO WAY!!!
I did ask whats the answer I see your reply does nothing to help the discussion along.
So I ask you UJ what is the ANSWER to the state of the NHS today?
28-04-2013, 07:06 PM
26
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by Aerolor
->
Although its a couple of years old now, I took this article from the Open University "Politics Today" - a report which says the NHS is the most efficient healthcare system in the World. "Surprise report: NHS 'most efficient healthcare system in the world'
Monday, 8 August 2011 10:15 AM
By Ian Dunt
The NHS is one of the most efficient healthcare system in the world, according to a surprising new report.
In a development which will complicate the government's arguments for healthcare reform, a Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine report found only Ireland's heathcare system saved more lives per pound spent.
"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, the Bournemouth University academic who analysed post-1980 data for the report.
"The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals.
"The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you - pretty dismal results."
The US performed particularly badly, as did Switzerland and Portugal.
Even Ireland may currently be performing worse than it does in the report because of the extent to which its economy has shrunk since medical data was made available.
Health secretary Andrew Lansley will struggle to write off the report, given that he previously quoted Professor Pritchard when arguing for his healthcare reforms.
The government relied particularly on a gap between UK and European cancer survival rates to justify its push for healthcare reform, which would increase competition and privatisation in the NHS.
But this argument was also flatly contradicted by the authors.
"In terms of actual cancer mortality rates, rather than the more ambiguous 'survival' rates, the UK had better results... which appears to be linked to major additional funds going to cancer care," the report reads.
Labour's decision to boost health spending while in office saw it reach a record 9.3% of GDP, but this remained less than in Germany (10.7%) or the US (15%).
Even with spending at such a low level, UK health performance was far more effective than that for other comparable European countries.
The NHS saved 3,951 lives per million of the population, compared to just 2,779 in France and 2,395 in Germany."
28-04-2013, 08:21 PM
27
Re: Our poor NHS!
This is what bothers me and what I believe should stop if we want to retain an NHS that is truly a public owned service. - Make no mistake, the NHS is methodically being privatised - The Lords rejected appeals to even amend Section 75 last week and it is well on the way to going through unchanged.Sorry for cutting and pasting another wedge of information, but this is something which is important and everyone should be informed of what is happening to our NHS if we want a National Heath Service for everyone 10, 20, 30 years on.
"The Guardian, Monday 22 April 2013 21.29 BST[/B]
NHS: Section 75 of the health act is an engine for destruction
Section 75 of the health act is the mechanism that locks in privatisation of the health service: the Lords must amend it
Andrew Lansley's Health and Social Care Act, which came into effect on 1 April, had a troubled passage through parliament, including an unusual legislative "pause". This was to allow the government time to "listen" to its many critics, including most healthcare professionals and a majority of the public, who believed the plans would create and lock in rights for private providers to make a profit from the NHS. Lansley gave assurances that these voices had been heard, and that clinical commissioning groups would be able to decide "when and how competition should be used".
However, concerns about privatisation returned to centre stage this week, when the regulations governing procurement and competition debated in the Lords. As Lucy Reynolds, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, puts it, if the act itself was the aircraft of privatisation, the structure that gave the idea the potential to fly, section 75 of the regulations is the engine that will allow take off.
The wording of section 75 requires commissioners to put out to tender everything that could be provided by an organisation other than the NHS. Private contractors are more likely to win these tenders than doctors, many of whom will never have even seen a tender notice. The regulations would create rights for commercial providers under rules originally devised by US corporations to promote their commercial interests. If implemented, they will drag the NHS into a competition law regime which creates obligations for governments to compensate private providers in the event of services being brought back into public provision.
The British Medical Association, along with many other health organisations including the Royal College of General Practitioners, are calling for the regulations to be withdrawn, as is the Labour party. The BMA says they must be replaced with new regulations that "unambiguously reflect previous government assurances that commissioners will not be forced to use competition when making their commissioning decisions", and explicitly state this principle.
As contracts are lost by public sector bidders, the teams that would have delivered them will be made redundant because funds will not be available to pay them. Under the proposed regulations, the government is not permitted to rescue such a service unless all other competitors are equally subsidised, in the interests of non-discrimination.
The competitive tendering forced by the current draft of the regulations requires a large amount of administration, which will divert funds away from frontline care. Thanks to market-driven changes that have already taken place administrative costs have risen to at least 16%, in contrast to the pre-1980 figure of less than 5%.
These regulations will act as the motor of the NHS privatisation by giving companies a mechanism to force their way into NHS service provision for the patients, procedures and places wherever they see profits. The likes of Care UK or Virgin Care will try to cherry-pick easy and profitable services – diagnostics, routine elective surgery, and simple treatments, for example – leaving behind A&E, care of the elderly, mental health services and anything that is unpredictably expensive.
Seeking the withdrawal and replacement of these regulations is not scaremongering; there is plenty of evidence that market-driven health services lead to limited choice, escalating costs, and reduced quality. There is no evidence to support the idea that competition breeds excellence in healthcare.
According to Robert Evans, professor of economics at the University of British Columbia, market innovations in the NHS over the last 40 years have led to greater inequity, increased inefficiency, cost inflation and higher levels of public dissatisfaction. It is time to reject the market ideology that has plagued the NHS for more than a quarter of a century, wasting billions of pounds in the process."
29-04-2013, 07:13 AM
28
Re: Our poor NHS!
I find it interesting that so many articles quote the figures for cancer recovery in England ....Cancer Research - charity
Macmillans - charity
Hospices - charity
Is England run on charity?
I don't think that it matters which party brought about this state of affairs, lets thank the British people for being so charitable
29-04-2013, 11:54 AM
29
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Karen darlin' waiting lists for surgery don't just happen overnight, they had been steadily building throughout both Major's and Thatcher's (phth, phth, phth) governments because the NHS wasn't being given the priority in funding that Bliar subsequently gave it, thus waiting lists, whilst first increasing immediately following the election of Bliar, did then drop again as the increased spending filtered through the system.
29-04-2013, 12:21 PM
30
Re: Our poor NHS!
Originally Posted by orangutan
->
The problem is that Blair did not really give it priority in funding. Yes, he put some money in, but it was always into technology/buildings/equipment that without the staffing levels were like bottomless pits of waste. And he publicly refused to have a ringfenced tax for the NHS I wonder why...
So why then Ania darlin' - did the waiting lists for all types of surgery drop in latter part of the Labour Government??? - this was due to the amounts of money being pumped into the NHS, and yes both Bliar and Brown did 'ringfence' NHS spending in successive budgets when other parts of the Government's budgets were facing cuts.
|
|
