A blatant lie about the NHS

[fillyboy]

Boris Johnson planning NHS England overhaul, leaked paper shows | NHS | The Guardian

Boris Johnson planning NHS England overhaul, leaked paper shows
Plans would put end to David Cameron policies seen as step towards privatisation of the NHS

Boris Johnson is planning a radical overhaul of NHS England, as he reverses controversial privatisation policies introduced by David Cameron, a leaked document suggests.

According to the draft white paper, the government is planning to reduce the role of the private sector in NHS England and give the health secretary greater control.

NHS commissioners would not be required to put contracts out to tender, which can draw competition from competing health groups. Instead, a new policy would leave the NHS and local authorities to run services and encourage them to work together more effectively.

The health secretary would also take more direct control over NHS England, with the plans putting emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and improving integration between the different departments of the NHS.

NHS Improvement, the health service’s spending watchdog, would also be scrapped and folded into NHS England.


That can't be right, I'm sure I read on here that the entire NHS was going to be sold off to Donald Trump and the patients would be force fed chlorinated chicken.

So, NHS not being sold off.
Leading the world on vaccinating.
EU looking like the sick man of Europe.

# sunlit uplands

 

[JohnD]

Blatant lie?

You're right, Boris Johnson is a notorious liar who has no shame.

You can't believe the stories they plant in the press, to test public opinion, either. Did you see the one in the Express about a wealth tax?

 

[just pumps]

Shame you don`t understand the story

 

[Mottie]

According to Lal back in March 2012, it was imminent.

Meanwhile, the most vulnerable get f*cked over yet again, and we still have our privatised health service to look forward to...

Funily enough though, as we are to adapt the american system......

Perhaps she should just admit she's been flogging a dead horse for the last 11 years and it’s time to clam up?

 

[ajohn]

Boris Johnson is planning a radical overhaul of NHS England

The radical aspects of Tory overhauls are often really intended to reduce costs and might be seen as trying to get a quart out of a pint pot. Anything but increase tax and often removing tax burdens from companies without gaining it from some where else. Brexit has an interesting aspect - collecting more tax from us. That is always where the burden falls.

This sounds a little project Taiwan to me. Effects on privatisation - well a number of countries are seriously wondering about the net effect of privatising utilities and the NHS as far as we are concerned is one. The Tories may have similar ideas but that is entirely the opposite way they usually want to go. They have been arguing for the state to be able to aid and support business too. Something they usually wont even consider. Sometimes it would just prolong the agony but sometime other countries buy it and it survives to some extent.

EU looking like the sick man of Europe.

Way better trading figures than we are likely to achieve. Maybe we will but for various reason mainly at the business end it's a bit dubious.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The health secretary would also take more direct control over NHS England, with the plans putting emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and improving integration between the different departments of the NHS.

Is this the Health Secretary that gives contracts to his mates?
So reducing bureaucracy means not bothering with the appropriate tender process?

 

[ajohn]

So reducing bureaucracy means not bothering with the appropriate tender process?

LOL No, disregarding instructions that come with vaccines.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The health secretary would also take more direct control over NHS England, with the plans putting emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and improving integration between the different departments of the NHS.

The same government, the same ministers that privatised the farcical track and trace, and the testing system that was abandoned because it couldn't cope?

 

[ajohn]

Selling the NHS probably goes back to occurrences in Mrs T's time and what Mrs T did. NHS people thought it was going to be sold. She sold all sorts that belonged to us. The NHS also had a weird experience. Money was spent tarting the places up. An enormous crystal chandelier found it way to a place where it didn't really fit in. That is the sort of thing that may happen when companies are sold. Bits and pieces got put out to the private sector anyway as has happened recently. Some of the recent aspects didn't exist so maybe that is the best way to create them. The gov don't have the people organise it. Leaves me wondering how good the people are who organise contracts are as well. Problems usually crop up with the companies they hand things over to as well.

Ask yourself what company would buy the NHS? Unlike insurance based set ups they would have to take the lot up. Insurance works on the basis of taking in people without problems, charging and looking after their needs as they occur showing a profit. Much as the NHS should work less the profit. To do that it needs to show a loss as hitting exact costs isn't possible. Or profit gets spent on something for the NHS. The biggest problem all state based systems have is that tax increases will be needed as costs go up. A private insurance based system just increases prices.

A side effect of selling is that direct costs of running the gov drops. Things shift into expenditure. One of their aims was to reduce that. The private sector is seen as more efficient. In real terms that is a mixed bag but say people need to be shed the gov don't get blamed which would be bad for votes. They can no longer boost the number of jobs artificially to keep unemployment numbers down. The gov also shifts debt. It's not theirs any more it's the private sector that is running what ever it is. It's led to artificial competition in some areas and things like a dictatorial BT. Share ownership seems to have drifted abroad.

One strange change was made more recently. Shifting some aspects of treatment choices to GP's. A joke in the trade was consultants saying they would have to start sending GP's Xmas cards as GP's used to send them. Recently I heard that GP's have been told to stop sending people for an MRI as it's too expensive. It's highly likely to be factual. I have heard similar things directly from GP's. Part of the reason for that is health checks at work. Sometime they suggest something should be looked at, go to your GP. GP in an odd position so send to hospital for checks. Nothing serious in my case. GP's at times have been able to use certain facilities as often as they like with the same person. Not so with all in relationship to diagnosis.

NHS dentistry is always being played with. When people need work done they find things have changed. My dentist just wants to be an NHS dentist but found her salary dropped alarmingly and rather suddenly due to NHS contract changes. I needed a crown. Cost was such under the NHS that some would just go for an extraction. There was a choice of type of crown according to if she did a root canal job or not. Something they would normally do as a matter of course as it removes the chances of complications.

All areas of the NHS seem to work on the basis of a budget rather than need. Tax increases aren't favoured.

Then recently playing with contracts of employment. Companies are inclined to do what they like with them these days and do.

What they did on schools is interesting as well. Straight from the horses mouse. Yes it costs more initially but there after it's cheaper. The net effect on teaching is interesting. My wife was one until she retired.

So what will happen this time. There has been talk of a ring fenced budget ??? where has the money we pay been going? May mentioned taxing older people. We have a set up where all pay all of the time but with salary stagnation and jobs situations it's not working out. For prompt treatment on many things that crop up best join BUPA but only when there is zero wrong with you because if anything in a persons medical history suggests problems they wont cover it. People with certain problems may find themselves passed over to the NHS anyway.

They have made some other changes as well that could have consequences - local business taxes. A council can keep them if they like. They were collected centrally and doled out supposedly due to need. Think about how much business tax collected varies in different parts of the country. I don't have a clue how that is actually working out. Maybe there are complications in areas that collect lots.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Ask yourself what company would buy the NHS? Unlike insurance based set ups they would have to take the lot up.

It doesn't work like that.
The government decides how much the service costs. They draw up a specification of the service. Then they put it out to tender (or they're supposed to) to see if anyone can do it more cheaply.
Then they evaluate each tender.
The tender that satisfies their criteria (not just price, but the credibility to do the job) is awarded.
The idea is that the government can provide the same or better level of service, via the contractor, at reduced cost, which they pay the contactor.

The contractor and the service is constantly monitored to see if the contractor is providing the service required by the specification, meeting targets, etc.

Obviously the contractor makes their money by reducing costs, generating profit, generating some spin-off income, or reducing the level of service within the confines of the specification.

All areas of the NHS seem to work on the basis of a budget rather than need.

If demand exceeds supply, there's no choice.

Straight from the horses mouse.

Don't you mean the horthe's mouse?

With Spoonerism, you're supposed to interchange the first letters, not the last.
In a rit of fealous jage. Peter Sellers.

 

[fillyboy]

Selling the NHS probably goes back to occurrences in Mrs T's time and what Mrs T did.

Really?, I'd have pinpointed the start to Labour's PFI fiasco.

Out of curiosity, what part of the NHS did Maggie sell off.

 

[ajohn]

It doesn't work like that.

You've missed the point of that part of my post. I'm explaining why no one would buy the NHS in it's entirety or the why there are complications involved in going in that directions such as the private insurance route. They would need to take on current liabilities. There might even be problems involved with giving it away.

The rest of your post is also incorrect as a state owned facility could do exactly the same thing. I've part outlined the complications of them being able to do just that.

Your last comment is also incorrect. A totally private company will like increases demand and absorb it if it is profitable. That may involve a mix of borrowing and cost increase. In the states case it will involve tax increases and borrowing. No difference in that respect. Increasing facilities needs more income. Health is very much a facility area and possible treatments increase rather than diminish. Some turn out better than others but cultures can be hard to change. Cost savings going in one route may not be obvious.

There is a way that hospitals could be sold. Makes more sense than PFI really. Actually I suspect they have been studying Taiwan in several areas. A run down on their health system
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960712/

You'll see that they are beginning to have taxation problems and more about complications are around on the web. You'll notice a "well ours is better^ comment but as theirs is working............... It's looking in our direction to see if there are any cost savings for them.

Politics and health but Tawain appears to have plenty of MRI units and a USA view as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447690/

But we are were we are. Taiwan wasn't.

 

[ajohn]

Really?, I'd have pinpointed the start to Labour's PFI fiasco.

Out of curiosity, what part of the NHS did Maggie sell off.

Out of context so why bother. She sold all sorts of so many thought NHS as well. Bits instead slowly over time.

PFI - look and see who used it first. Initially launched in 1992 by Prime Minister John Major, PFI is part of the wider programme
One side effect is that it reduces public borrowing - some other entity does it.

 

[Notch7]

That can't be right, I'm sure I read on here that the entire NHS was going to be sold off to Donald Trump and the patients would be force fed chlorinated chicken.

childish strawman

 

[Notch7]

Fillyboy says NHS privatisation not increasing under Tories




Private firms given £9.2bn of NHS budget despite Hancock promise
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/21/private-firms-nhs-budget-matt-hancock-promise

I bet there is no connection between this ^

and this:


New health secretary Matt Hancock received £32,000 in donations from chair of think tank that wants NHS 'abolished'
Matt Hancock received nine donations between £2,000 and £4,000 from businessman who heads board of free market group, the Institute of Economic Affairs


Do Tory MPs make any money out of private healthcare?

"An investigation has found numerous examples of Conservative MPs receiving donations or work connected with private healthcare firms, pharmaceutical companies and social care providers"



"Union group UNITE have released a list of 70 MPs with proven links to private healthcare providers - and here's the rum bit - all of these MPs voted in favour of the recent Health & Social Care Act, a bill that went a long way towards privatising swathes of the NHS. So."


Fillyboy says: nothing to see here