The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Brennan]

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you. A private company will always put profits first, standards second. A nationalised service will always put standards first as they are answerable to the people.

That's why private enterprise in health is an incredible risk.

For example - http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/...estions-from-politicians-on-funding-1-6656708

All well and good saying that, but the amount of money wasted in the NHS is unreal. No point saying service is being put first when nurses are being hired through agencies and earning £30 an hour because they won't pay regular nurses enough. That's just one example.

Away from the front line there are managers getting paid to do nothing, people taking the piss with things like mileage reports and flexi time etc.

If a private company puts profits first, and the service is more efficient and better, then who cares ?

 

[Tubey]

All well and good saying that, but the amount of money wasted in the NHS is unreal. No point saying service is being put first when nurses are being hired through agencies and earning £30 an hour because they won't pay regular nurses enough. That's just one example.

Away from the front line there are managers getting paid to do nothing, people taking the piss with things like mileage reports and flexi time etc.

If a private company puts profits first, and the service is more efficient and better, then who cares ?

That ain't really the reason - it's because there aren't enough of them, so 'freelance' (for want of a better term) medical professionals can make a killing by staying uncontracted. That would remain the case in private hands.

Solution to that is to train UK-born nurses and doctors by making university tuition completely free of charge IMO.

NHS isn't perfect obviously, but what would happen under private ownership wouldn't be much different, as we've seen with the railways. Difference is through national control standards are always ringfenced, so that if the NHS hemorrhages money, the government can back it and maintain standards. Private enterprise, however, is much more likely to see the standards slip to offset the losses, or outright jettison the whole thing.

Point in case, once again Circle Health - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/09/nhs-hitchingbrooke-circle-healthcare_n_6441552.html

 

[Seanjd]

Nationalism is racism. If you're experiencing an upsurge in nationalism you're experiencing an upsurge in racism. You can't say that there are "no racist views" because they never, ever happens and if you disagree you're pretty much supporting racism. There is always racism. The SNP is a hateful party and people need to realise that.

Are UKIP nationalist?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That ain't really the reason - it's because there aren't enough of them, so 'freelance' (for want of a better term) medical professionals can make a killing by staying uncontracted. That would remain the case in private hands.

Solution to that is to train UK-born nurses and doctors by making university tuition completely free of charge IMO.

NHS isn't perfect obviously, but what would happen under private ownership wouldn't be much different, as we've seen with the railways. Difference is through national control standards are always ringfenced, so that if the NHS hemorrhages money, the government can back it and maintain standards. Private enterprise, however, is much more likely to see the standards slip to offset the losses, or outright jettison the whole thing.

Point in case, once again Circle Health - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/09/nhs-hitchingbrooke-circle-healthcare_n_6441552.html

Have you read the 5 year plan published last autumn by NHS England?

 

[Tubey]

Nationalism is racism. If you're experiencing an upsurge in nationalism you're experiencing an upsurge in racism. You can't say that there are "no racist views" because they never, ever happens and if you disagree you're pretty much supporting racism. There is always racism. The SNP is a hateful party and people need to realise that.

This is a bit silly...

Nationalism isn't inherently racist. The SNP are pro-Scotland, not anti-England, although in seeking independence they naturally have to point out the problems the have with English control.

I disagree with the SNP and feel they don't realise how good Scotland has it in the arrangement we have - but they're not racist, nor are they a hateful party. As davek said the other day, in Sturgeon and Hammond they have two of the finest politicians in the UK right now, and they often make rational reasoning for their thoughts - even if they do ignore the massive, massive counterpoints to their overall agenda.

 

[Tubey]

Have you read the 5 year plan published last autumn by NHS England?

Not all, just the summary. Why?

 

[roydo]

Sturgeon and Hammond

Yep. Much as I disagree with pretty much everything they say, you cannot but admire them and their political skill. Either would run rings around Miliband and Balls.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not all, just the summary. Why?

Because that's how the NHS is hoping to operate. Ignore the politicians, that's the person that was put in charge of it saying how it'll be run. I don't recall ever seeing in it that the service is going to be privatised, but I may have missed it.

 

[Tubey]

Because that's how the NHS is hoping to operate. Ignore the politicians, that's the person that was put in charge of it saying how it'll be run. I don't recall ever seeing in it that the service is going to be privatised, but I may have missed it.

Oh I know, but the plan is non-binding and can be altered depending on political will, as was previous plans (the 2000 plan makes interesting reading in retrospect - it calls for closer integration with the private sector, didn't happen for many years.)

If the Tories pull central funding, the NHS have to react to stay afloat, so ideological politics has a big impact on how the NHS exists.

 

[Clint Planet]

All well and good saying that, but the amount of money wasted in the NHS is unreal. No point saying service is being put first when nurses are being hired through agencies and earning £30 an hour because they won't pay regular nurses enough. That's just one example.

Away from the front line there are managers getting paid to do nothing, people taking the piss with things like mileage reports and flexi time etc.

If a private company puts profits first, and the service is more efficient and better, then who cares ?

How would the service be more efficient? What would a better service look like?

Also, critics of the NHS always cite "waste" as a reason to hand it over to commercial, profit-driven interests and, of course, it is true that the profit driven model will almost always be more "efficient" but then, isn't a private operator's profit a drain on the NHS just as inefficiency is? Both are money taken out of the system. Is it any better to have a private contractor making a £5M profit than it is to waste £5M through inefficiency? To me, neither seems ideal.

Finally, just how are these efficiencies achieved? Much of it will doubtless be through exploiting undertrained contracted workers via zero hours contracts and minimum wage pay.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Oh I know, but the plan is non-binding and can be altered depending on political will, as was previous plans (the 2000 plan makes interesting reading in retrospect - it calls for closer integration with the private sector, didn't happen for many years.)

If the Tories pull central funding, the NHS have to react to stay afloat, so ideological politics has a big impact on how the NHS exists.

All three main parties have signed up to it so I'd be surprised if they reneged on it. A big part of the last reorganisation was to give the NHS a degree of independence to free from the Department of Health.

It would be akin to taking back rate setting from the BoE imo.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

How would the service be more efficient? What would a better service look like?

Also, critics of the NHS always cite "waste" as a reason to hand it over to commercial, profit-driven interests and, of course, it is true that the profit driven model will almost always be more "efficient" but then, isn't a private operator's profit a drain on the NHS just as inefficiency is? Both are money taken out of the system. Is it any better to have a private contractor making a £5M profit than it is to waste £5M through inefficiency? To me, neither seems ideal.

Finally, just how are these efficiencies achieved? Much of it will doubtless be through exploiting undertrained contracted workers via zero hours contracts and minimum wage pay.

Not in my experience of the NHS it wouldn't.

 

[Tubey]

All three main parties have signed up to it so I'd be surprised if they reneged on it. A big part of the last reorganisation was to give the NHS a degree of independence to free from the Department of Health.

It would be akin to taking back rate setting from the BoE imo.

Indeed, but we live in a world where a party can sell its' political soul for power - see Clegg and tuition fees. There's a reason people don't trust anything the Conservatives say about the NHS, because they know if they spotted a chance to privatise the whole thing, they wouldn't bat an eyelid in doing so.

The Tories signed up to that because it'd be political suicide not to.

 

[Brennan]

That ain't really the reason - it's because there aren't enough of them, so 'freelance' (for want of a better term) medical professionals can make a killing by staying uncontracted. That would remain the case in private hands.

Wonder why that might be...

I was speaking to a nurse about this yesterday evening, she knows people who have graduated as nurses and instead of taking a job with the NHS they go through agencies because the pay is far better. The hours aren't guaranteed and there's hassle because you sometimes have to work away, but many find that sacrifice worth it.

If directly employed nurses were paid more in the first place then more would be inclined to stay with the NHS to begin with, and you wouldn't get agencies being paid absurd rates on such a regular basis.

 

[roydo]

If the Tories pull central funding

And they have said that?