Save The NHS - Drop The Bill

MaxwellBygraves

beverick

bianchimoon wrote:

.....NHS too big and important to be Fked around with by fools and tools!

..and there by lies the problem. The NHS is franenstien's monster in a corporate frock.

£100bn budget and little or no financial control. If a private organisation a fraction of that size filed accounts that said its balance sheet leveled at 'about' a value (as the NHS say their budget for 2011/12 is 'about' £106bn) they'd have their accounts qualified.

It's an NHS that's too big to manage efficiently and too political to change effectively. if anyone tries to make a change (be it politician or manager) there's a public outcry and the media line up behind any credible individual who is seen to offer a coherent objection to the change. Not because the change is right or wrong it's just that "it's the NHS" and changing it is wrong.

People "say" (or so we are told by the media and politicians) it's an NHS which should be protected even though it was set up to serve a population of around 40m not 65m. Set up at a time before procedures such as organ transplants were even considered and never mind considered routine. Set up at a time that even elementary drugs such as penecillin had yet to be made available to the masses. Set up at a time when many qualified doctors were trained in medical practices with their feet in Victorian medicine.

Should the concept of a high degree of general medical care being available to all be maintained - of course (even though the NHS has consistently failed to deliver this).
Should patients receive a consistent outcome in all cases irrespective of their circumstances or location - of course (the NHS has consistently failed to deliver this as well).
Should the concept of 'free at the point of delivery' be upheld - well that depends on who you are and the treatment undertaken (so no basically).
Is taxation the best way to fund the provision of health services - probably not for all services, no.
Should taxation be used to develop and deliver new procedures - not really.
Should there be a 'national' health service - only if it's the correct thing to do for the benefit of the population.
Should "the Bill" be dropped - no. Of course not. There should be continuous change to the provision of healthcare in the UK to reflect the continuous change in the needs of us, the patients, balanced against available services and
the best use of available funds.

Bob

MaxwellBygraves

beverick wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

.....NHS too big and important to be Fked around with by fools and tools!

..and there by lies the problem. The NHS is franenstien's monster in a corporate frock.

£100bn budget and little or no financial control. If a private organisation a fraction of that size filed accounts that said its balance sheet leveled at 'about' a value (as the NHS say their budget for 2011/12 is 'about' £106bn) they'd have their accounts qualified.

It's an NHS that's too big to manage efficiently and too political to change effectively. if anyone tries to make a change (be it politician or manager) there's a public outcry and the media line up behind any credible individual who is seen to offer a coherent objection to the change. Not because the change is right or wrong it's just that "it's the NHS" and changing it is wrong.

People "say" (or so we are told by the media and politicians) it's an NHS which should be protected even though it was set up to serve a population of around 40m not 65m. Set up at a time before procedures such as organ transplants were even considered and never mind considered routine. Set up at a time that even elementary drugs such as penecillin had yet to be made available to the masses. Set up at a time when many qualified doctors were trained in medical practices with their feet in Victorian medicine.

Should the concept of a high degree of general medical care being available to all be maintained - of course (even though the NHS has consistently failed to deliver this).
Should patients receive a consistent outcome in all cases irrespective of their circumstances or location - of course (the NHS has consistently failed to deliver this as well).
Should the concept of 'free at the point of delivery' be upheld - well that depends on who you are and the treatment undertaken (so no basically).
Is taxation the best way to fund the provision of health services - probably not for all services, no.
Should taxation be used to develop and deliver new procedures - not really.
Should there be a 'national' health service - only if it's the correct thing to do for the benefit of the population.
Should "the Bill" be dropped - no. Of course not. There should be continuous change to the provision of healthcare in the UK to reflect the continuous change in the needs of us, the patients, balanced against available services and
the best use of available funds.

Bob

David? Andrew? Is that you...?

Do you have any evidence or substantiation for what you're saying? What exactly do you find objectionable about free healthcare/universal healthcare? Without claiming it's perfect, what makes you think the NHS has 'consistently failed' ? Why do you claim to support change based on the needs of patients yet object to the ideas of free healthcare? What makes you think politicians are in favour of the NHS when both Tories and Lib Dems are happy to destroy it? Doesn't the 'public outcry' suggest that the NHS is both popular, effective and valued - if it's such a travesty why would this be? Can you not entertain the idea that changing the NHS is not wrong in itself, but privatising it in the face of public and professional opposition, with clear conflicts of interest amongst many of the politicians involved, with no clear democratic mandate is? You seem to object to your taxation going towards helping others in need - why? Your quite correct that the NHS was formed 60 years ago, on the principles of free, quality care for all so that people no longer had to worry about being able to pay the doctor - can you suggest why in the 21st C. this idea is outdated or 'frankenstein' ?

verylonglegs

Maxwell, what is your own experience of using the NHS? If you don't mind me asking that is, I'm not asking you to reveal your medical history in detail obviously.

MaxwellBygraves

verylonglegs wrote:

Maxwell, what is your own experience of using the NHS? If you don't mind me asking that is, I'm not asking you to reveal your medical history in detail obviously.

No, fair question. Mixed, probably like everyone else.

Personally I'm lucky enough to have never needed it for anything serious (touch wood). I've spent hours stuck in queue's, sat in waiting rooms, and waited weeks for test results probably like most of us have, for mainly minor ailments. Which I know wasn't fun, but hey, the staff are only human like the rest of us.

My girlfriend works as an HCA in a hospital (so on the frontline) and I am aware how tough and thankless the job can be, so I have experiences from my side as a patient and my girlfriends as a member of staff. I am aware that the NHS is not perfect, and will never be, but the alternative is considerably worse.

When several family members have been seriously ill, the care received has on the whole been great and my sister quite literally owes her life to the staff of the hospital where she was treated after an accident.

Obviously my political views as a socialist and an anti-capitalist means that I support the principles in theory behind the NHS - and I firmly believe that the day we allow it to be taken away from us will be a day that our children rue.

verylonglegs

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Maxwell, what is your own experience of using the NHS? If you don't mind me asking that is, I'm not asking you to reveal your medical history in detail obviously.

No, fair question. Mixed, probably like everyone else.

Personally I'm lucky enough to have never needed it for anything serious (touch wood). I've spent hours stuck in queue's, sat in waiting rooms, and waited weeks for test results probably like most of us have, for mainly minor ailments. Which I know wasn't fun, but hey, the staff are only human like the rest of us.

My girlfriend works as an HCA in a hospital (so on the frontline) and I am aware how tough and thankless the job can be, so I have experiences from my side as a patient and my girlfriends as a member of staff. I am aware that the NHS is not perfect, and will never be, but the alternative is considerably worse.

When several family members have been seriously ill, the care received has on the whole been great and my sister quite literally owes her life to the staff of the hospital where she was treated after an accident.

Obviously my political views as a socialist and an anti-capitalist means that I support the principles in theory behind the NHS - and I firmly believe that the day we allow it to be taken away from us will be a day that our children rue.

That's the problem for me, I want A&E to be free of charge and equally emergency care such as cancer and many other life-threatening conditions but I have also seen, or rather experienced, the other side of an over-stretched 'service'. That is being in such debilitating pain where you haven't slept properly for weeks and are barely functioning and having to listen to your GP tells you that to see a consultant will take 8 weeks and then maybe the same time again for treatment. I still shudder at the waves of nausea that moment caused.

I was fortunate enough to be able to buy my way out of that situation but obviously there must be many who are unable to which is the sticking point for me. Beverick raises questions and although I don't concur with all his answers it illustrates the debate that always seems to fall in one of two camps and the usual political divide, unlimited healthcare or no healthcare. It's bloody infuriating and I feel there is a middle ground somewhere but politics in this country won't allow it.

beverick

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

beverick wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

.....NHS too big and important to be Fked around with by fools and tools!

.....
Bob

David? Andrew? Is that you...?

Do you have any evidence or substantiation for what you're saying? 12 years working with and in the Health service - and 50 years as a patient.

What exactly do you find objectionable about free healthcare/universal healthcare? If you could open your small mind and actually READ what's written rather than relying on rhetoric I wholly support universal healthcare.

What do I find objectionable about free healthcare? Well. Where do I begin. Just for a taster, should someone who elects to have cosmetic sugery privately and then have it reversed without underlying medical reasons on the NHS get the procedure free - I say no . Should someone who, like me, requires life preserving drugs for the rest of their live get those drugs free then yes. Should I also get every other item of prescription medicine free for the rest of my life - no. Should someone be able to 'queue jump' by paying £200 for a private consultation and then elect to take the procedure free on the NHS then no. You should have to pay for all treatment under those circumstances.

Without claiming it's perfect, what makes you think the NHS has 'consistently failed' ?

Why have you misquoted me? I did not say that the NHS has failed. I said it has failed to provide a high degree of a high degree of general medical care to all and deliver a consistent outcome in all cases irrespective of their circumstances or location. I can only say post-code lottery in defence. It depends largely where you live and the policies (and indeed politics) of the local providers/commissioners to decide which services are funded and which aren't - that can't be right (oh, and did you try to get an NHS dentist in between about 1990 and 2006?). As the level of service depends on where you live the NHS has demonstrably failed to deliver consistent high quality services.

Why do you claim to support change based on the needs of patients yet object to the ideas of free healthcare? As I said above, I do not support the idea of free healthcare.

There should be no discrimination regarding the standard or quality of health available to anyone based on their ability to pay but those able to pay for certain, and largely elective healthcare, should.

What makes you think politicians are in favour of the NHS when both Tories and Lib Dems are happy to destroy it?

You're into rhetoric aren't you? What makes you thing you're right? On what basis do you say that either Lib Dems or Tories manifestly want to 'destroy' the NHS? There are funding plans in place for the remainder of the current parliament which suggests to me a commitment to retain social healthcare for as long as any government can - until the next election.

Doesn't the 'public outcry' suggest that the NHS is both popular, effective and valued - if it's such a travesty why would this be?

Popular and valued yes - clearly. Effective - no. The sentiments of the NHS resemble political football being propelled through the feelings of the masses, whipped up by a circulation hungry press who's only interest is kicking it in the opposite direction from its previous trajectory or the one planned depending on the prevailing climate.

Can you not entertain the idea that changing the NHS is not wrong in itself, but privatising it in the face of public and professional opposition, with clear conflicts of interest amongst many of the politicians involved, with no clear democratic mandate is?

I must admit, having read this paragraph (a few times) I did wonder if you should concentrate on maintaining educational standards above healthcare. I did say that social healthcare services available and the way they're provided should be subject to review and change as appropriate. The public would argue against 'privatisation' without knowing what that meant - evidenced by the fact that, according to the NHS, approximately half of the NHS is now run in the way the 2011 bill would roll out to the rest of the institution. Do you, or indeed does anyone, fully understand the role of private providers in providing social healthcare? Where do you draw the line with private services in healthcare? Should every aspect of social healthcare be priovided by public funding? If so, I suggest we start building ambulances and developing drugs using the public purse. Please cite the conflicts of interest you refer to (over and above those relevant to the previous and prior administrations). Wasn't it Alan Milburn who was an advisor to a drugs company whilst being healthsecretary? Also, the conflicts of interests of politicians are nothing compared to the fact that many NHS medics have private practices. I firmly believe they should work for one and not the other.

You seem to object to your taxation going towards helping others in need - why?

You have absolutely no basis to say this. You have no basis on which to say this. However, I don't think I should pay for people like Lord Chinless of Binge to have a tattoo removed or a wart excised when they can pay for it themselves. Basically, I do not think (and I imagine the majority of people would agree) that certain types of elective treatment should be free to all.

Your quite correct that the NHS was formed 60 years ago, on the principles of free, quality care for all so that people no longer had to worry about being able to pay the doctor - can you suggest why in the 21st C. this idea is outdated or 'frankenstein' ?

If you read what I put I said that we need change to ensure that quality care is maintained (nb as above, I do not accept that it should be free in call cases). The general view of the left is to resist structural change but just add more money. Investment without change is rarely successful - you invariably need both.

Bob

MaxwellBygraves

Unfortunately, more bad news - I've just heard that, despite the online e-petition amassing over 160,000 signatures, despite the promise in the 2010 Tory manifesto that 'any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be elegible for formal debate in Parliament', the government have vetoed any formal debate on the Bill as a result of the Drop The Bill petition.

Thank you if you signed - it appears that democracy is now merely an optional extra for our Dear Leader if it get's in the way of him and his mates making big money out of the NHS.

Meanwhile, if you feel particularly passionate about this issue, here's a good campaign to get behind - https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/co ... billboards

I'll post any updates and developments here as and when.

MaxwellBygraves

Oh and another good artiucle to get your teeth into: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -insurance

MaxwellBygraves

Cracking piece in the Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/91068 ... r-NHS.html

verylonglegs

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Unfortunately, more bad news - I've just heard that, despite the online e-petition amassing over 160,000 signatures, despite the promise in the 2010 Tory manifesto that 'any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be elegible for formal debate in Parliament', the government have vetoed any formal debate on the Bill as a result of the Drop The Bill petition.

Thank you if you signed - it appears that democracy is now merely an optional extra for our Dear Leader if it get's in the way of him and his mates making big money out of the NHS.

Meanwhile, if you feel particularly passionate about this issue, here's a good campaign to get behind - https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/co ... billboards

I'll post any updates and developments here as and when.

I'm not overly surprised, I remarked to a friend when it was launched that the epetitions idea was a great way for politicians to pretend they are interested in what people have to say and appease them somewhat.

MaxwellBygraves

verylonglegs wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Unfortunately, more bad news - I've just heard that, despite the online e-petition amassing over 160,000 signatures, despite the promise in the 2010 Tory manifesto that 'any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be elegible for formal debate in Parliament', the government have vetoed any formal debate on the Bill as a result of the Drop The Bill petition.

Thank you if you signed - it appears that democracy is now merely an optional extra for our Dear Leader if it get's in the way of him and his mates making big money out of the NHS.

Meanwhile, if you feel particularly passionate about this issue, here's a good campaign to get behind - https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/co ... billboards

I'll post any updates and developments here as and when.

I'm not overly surprised, I remarked to a friend when it was launched that the epetitions idea was a great way for politicians to pretend they are interested in what people have to say and appease them somewhat.

Haha exactly, I'm not so much surprised but disappointed. Purposeful, peaceful demonstration I think is the next step forward.

ddraver

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Watch a video of Lansley being heckled, in particular by a lady determined not to let him pass - what a hero.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17093082

What a smug coward Lansley really is. Seems determined to make himself the Dr. Beeching of healthcare!

Have to disagree with you there Max, I think she's done the impossible and made even more of a fool out of herself than Andrew Lansley

Something has got to change with the NHS (and in most of Britain), now matter how much the public want too, it cannot keep going like it is. I ve seen lots of criticism here but no genuine alternative solutions.

I have to point to my own experiences a bit here. I ve live in the Netherlands for exactly a year now. I pay nearly double the amount of tax I used to in the Netherlands and have to pay ANOTHER EUR100 on top of that in health insurance (which is topped up by my employer). Now I can afford this and me paying it means that the govt can cover people that cant. i still have to pay the first EUR200 of my medical costs too.

The public in Britain still think it can have a government that supplies us with the same public services as those in Western Europe whilst we pay vastly less tax then people in Western Europe. This is simply not possible (as a few countries around the world are discovering, some more violently that others).

One of the major problems with the NHS is that it is free at the point of service which means GP's (and I have a few family links to GPs) have to deal with too many people who do not need to see a doctor. If you could cut that down they would have much more time to deal with genuinely ill people.

MaxwellBygraves

@ddraver I'm pressed for time so can't write too much: in a nutshell, I will say the following - I disagree that the NHS is unsustainable in it's current form. Evidence I have posted points to the contrary. I'm not against any reform per se - but Cameron's reforms are purely ideological and will only add to beauracracy etc. If you disagree, fine, but then I ask why has the government continually refused to publish the risk register (standard procedure normally) - what are they hiding? Why don't they want the public to see it?

Even if you agree that the bill is necessary or you support the principles behind it, my other objection is that it is totally undemocratic. Professionals in the NHS are against it - fact. The Tories promised in the run up to the election and in their manifesto they would not change the NHS - fact. Not the usual politicians white lie, but a proper pork pie - a blatant lie. Cameron and Lansley have continually refused to consult with professional bodies over the bill - fact. They refuse to publish the risk register - fact. They refuse to allow parliamentary time to debate the issue, raised by the epition, despite promising in their manifesto they would allocate time to any petition with over 100,000 signatures - fact. Polls have repeatedly shown that the majority of the public are opposed to the bill - fact. Senior Conservatives and many Tory commentators have called for the bill to be dropped - fact. Various reports indicate that the Tory party has received, and continues to receive, money from corporations who stand to benefit financially from the bill. So I oppose on two counts, the contents of the bill, which you may disagree with, and the way in which the government has gone about introducing the bill. Democracy is not an option.

ddraver

It might be sustainable unti lthe next election, but it is not sustainable for the next 20 years, Part of the problem is that politicians are utterly incapable of thinking past the next poll.

Fine, you disagree with this bill (I'm not entirely in favour, at the moment it does nt concern me), but what WOULD you do?

MaxwellBygraves

ddraver wrote:

Fine, you disagree with this bill (I'm not entirely in favour, at the moment it does nt concern me), but what WOULD you do?

Let's not go there eh, best not to get me started

MaxwellBygraves

Big news - http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/main-conten ... ealth-bill

Essentially, the commissioning groups, those very people who Lansley has created to give more control to, are calling on the bill to be dropped. So now, not only do professionals oppose, Lansley's own creations now also oppose!!

As I have already said, now that they have made it clear they will not listen to the people, peaceful, purposeful demonstration is the next step. Here is a demo on 10th March in Newcastle city centre, to coincide with the Lib Dem conference. I'll be attending, please consider doing so if you can!

http://www.keepournhspublic.com/meeting.php?id=350

MaxwellBygraves

I'll post demo's in other locations as and when I hear about them...

MaxwellBygraves

I spoke to soon!!

*London demo - 7th March - please attend if you can!*

Info here - http://www.unitetheunion.org/saveournhs ... FI.twitter

ddraver

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Fine, you disagree with this bill (I'm not entirely in favour, at the moment it does nt concern me), but what WOULD you do?

Let's not go there eh, best not to get me started

What? So its fine to try to convince people to disagree with one bill while putting nothing else as an alternative up for discussion?

Everything wrong with politics (notably GB politics) is encapsulated in that nutshell!!

Frank the tank

Must say that I've always wondered why whenever a government (of any political persuasion) when challenged by the opposition don't just give it some. If you don't like it repeal it when if you get elected.

It galls me a "so called" labour party didn't repeal a lot of the anti trade union law Thatchers mob brought in. I totally understand why they didn't but it suited them not too.

MaxwellBygraves

Frank the tank wrote:

It galls me a "so called" labour party didn't repeal a lot of the anti trade union law Thatchers mob brought in. I totally understand why they didn't but it suited them not too.

You can have any colour you want, so long as its blue.

verylonglegs

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

It galls me a "so called" labour party didn't repeal a lot of the anti trade union law Thatchers mob brought in. I totally understand why they didn't but it suited them not too.

You can have any colour you want, so long as its blue.

So if the labour party aren't truly representative of their ideals why do the unions continue to back it?

MaxwellBygraves

verylonglegs wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

It galls me a "so called" labour party didn't repeal a lot of the anti trade union law Thatchers mob brought in. I totally understand why they didn't but it suited them not too.

You can have any colour you want, so long as its blue.

So if the labour party aren't truly representative of their ideals why do the unions continue to back it?

A lot of the unions, especially PCS if I remember correctly, are privately considering withdrawing their backing. Understandably in my view, as Labour have rolled over to Tory austerity, cuts etc.

But where would this leave them? The Labour party in disarray, may as well hand the next election to the Tories. Which is even worse. In my view, the best option is to stay united with Labour in an attempt to get Ed into power (opinion polls atm give Ed a clear majority). Give Ed a term, then reconsider position.

MaxwellBygraves

Fantastic news! - The billboard campaign that I posted previously has already exceeded it's donation target. This means that next monday over 150 billboards will go up in London attacking the health bill. Bloody well done. See here - https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/co ... billboards

MaxwellBygraves

Oh and the BMA give it's verdict on Lansley's bill - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... nt-doctors

MaxwellBygraves

Shocking news...government spends 40K of taxpayers money on...


...legal costs to keep the NHS risk register under wraps.

Let me repeat that again. The government has spent, to date, 40K on lawyers. To help keep NHS risk register secret. That thing that we are ALL entitled to know about. The NHS risk register, which will detail the risks and perceived costs to the NHS if reforms are implemented. Is being kept secret by the government to prevent you from seeing it - and they're using your money to do so.

Source: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... er%3A10268

MaxwellBygraves

More privatisation is inevitable - http://www.healthprofessionals4nhs.co.u ... .full_.pdf

I've also heard that the College of cancer specialists, one of the last organisations not to oppose has officially changed it's stance and is now calling for bill to be withdrawn after surveying members. Ha - what a car crash for our Dear Leader.

MaxwellBygraves

More info on understanding the waffle of Lansley etc - http://m.politics.co.uk/comment-analysi ... -economics

Yet more murky dealings - http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti ... giant.html

And vaguely related, a poster from the Labour campaign in the 30's. Strikingly apt for today, I thought. Interesting anyway. Oh how I yearn for a real Labour party again...

MaxwellBygraves

Retired GP on the effects of the health bill - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiLhJrZO ... e=youtu.be