NHS

  Toneman 19:22 07 Jun 11
Locked

The PM talks about controlling "competition" and then says there will be no privatisation, where is the "competition" coming from then? I don't follow...

  natdoor 11:23 08 Jun 11

It seems, judging by the lack of response, that many are as perplexed as you. I am surprised that one particular individual has not held forth on this topic.

It is my understanding that at the moment, private companies provide NHS treatment. This was initially to combat long waiting lists and presumably the PCT bought specific services on an as-required basis. So the NHS controlled when private facilities should be used. This is altogether different from having private companies able to compete for providing treatments on a cost basis. Assuming they could undercut NHS services, this could lead to closure af NHS facilities. Once the private comany has a local monopoly, charges would be uncontrollable (look at privatised utilities, who are supposed to compete but follow like sheep when one company raises prices). Presumably he is now saying that this will not be permitted.

Anyway, this is how I see it. I suspect that Cameron doesn't understand what he's talking about. He has been operating in a hands-off chairman position and allowed ministers to develope policies in isolation, nearly all of which have had to have been reversed. He is now trying to play catch-up. He is struggling with policies which are vehemently supportd by the hard-core right and which he has been advised will result in an electoral backlash.

  Toneman 14:01 08 Jun 11

natdoor You have put my thoughts better than I could myself! I had in mind what has happened to our utility services and is happening to Local Government. When will the powers that be see that private suppliers are not in it for love?

  Algerian peter 14:11 08 Jun 11

Well said natdoor.

You have put into words what I think but what I could never exspress.

  john 52 14:31 08 Jun 11

natdoor you are correct but the surprising thing is that or should I say not surprising thing is that after over a 100 thread views there has been just 3 comments at the time of compiling this post it seems to be forum members are not wishing to comment on this subject because of the reaction from certain members which is in effect amounts to forum censorship applied by forum members remarks .

I am sure the FE will respond telling me I completely wrong but I have noticed the lack of posts over the last 10 days even taking in account the change of servers

  johndrew 15:18 08 Jun 11

Could it be that there is insufficient information in the public domain as yet for anyone to be able to accurately comment on the full proposals?

Thinking about options I can see several; some of them would fit the bill of 'controlled competition', others would not. However, I think the intention is to offer the possibility of private health facilities the ability to competitively quote for some work which would otherwise be carried out by the NHS. The 'control', presumably, would be the type, volume, cost and geographical location(s) of the work offered.

Guess we shall need to wait for the full proposal to find out though.

  oresome 15:59 08 Jun 11

The NHS is a gigantic organisation undertaking complex processes which I don't pretend to understand.

However, one or two things are clear.

The NHS has had a lot of money put in it during the Labour years, but outcomes for the patient have not improved to the same extent.

Large monopolies seldom if ever put the customer first and tend to be run largely for the benefit of those working in them.

The population is ageing, which will result in increased healthcare costs and diminishing tax revenues to pay for it.

For all our sakes, the NHS has to be made efficient and costs controlled. I can't see this happening without an element of competition to provide the motivation.

  Forum Editor 17:58 08 Jun 11

There has inevitably been a lot of discussion and analysis in the media about what the government intends to do (or not to do) with the NHS, but for me the most interesting comment of all was made by a senior NHS administrator when he said that the reason so many of us find it difficult to make a judgement about the government proposals is because we don't really understand how the NHS is run at the moment.

We can't decide what we think about changes because we don't know what happens now.

I have to say, that more or less sums up my position. I think I know a little about the structure and functions of the NHS, but it's so vast, and so complex that I realise I'm not qualified to judge - I can only comment from the point of view of being an NHS customer. I see the organisation as most of you see it - at the point of delivery of its services.

We all have stories to tell - both good and bad - about the NHS, but perhaps if we took time to stand back and look at it through slightly different eyes we might come to understand that it actually works pretty well. It has certainly been largely responsible for the health of the nation over a generation, and is the envy of many other countries - America included.

Undoubtedly there must be ways to improve what we have, and certainly there must be economies to be made, but in terms of 'Medical services for all, free at the point of delivery' it seems to me to fulfil the expectations of the vast majority.

  john 52 18:02 08 Jun 11

oresome

The NHS has had a lot of money put in it during the Labour years, but outcomes for the patient have not improved to the same extent.

Is that just your opinion if so please say so ? or provide evidence to support that statement . After being on the receiving end of NHS treatment over the last few years of a lot of treatment I have nothing but praise for the the standard of treatment and the speed of treatment I have received and the professionalism and kindness from the hospital staff . I remember when people were waiting over 2 years in pain for an operation some even dying while waiting unless you had the funds to pay privately .

  Forum Editor 18:06 08 Jun 11

john 52

Speculating about why other people do or do not take part in a discussion doesn't really achieve anything, and neither does making assumptions about how I'll react to your opinions. There's no forum censorship, other than that which results from people breaking the rules.

Suggesting that "....forum members are not wishing to comment on this subject because of the reaction from certain members" is really pointless and distracting speculation. We can manage well enough without it, I think.

  Algerian peter 18:45 08 Jun 11

Forum Editor

"Suggesting that "....forum members are not wishing to comment on this subject because of the reaction from certain members" is really pointless and distracting speculation. We can manage well enough without it, I think."

Well that was to be expected.

No wonder people avoid replying to threads.

I wonder how long before this is deleted.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

This abstract video touches on division in our technologic world

Best alternatives to iTunes for Mac | Best music players for macOS: Free your music from the…