Privatise the NHS

[Fop 1]

Potential Universal flu jab, by looking at things in a slightly different way. Saying something can't or won't be done because it can't be done now or is difficult to do now is spurious.

 

Although again it underlines the big issue in UK publicly funded research, which is it has often done the expensive leg work, and then the private sector moves in take the $$$'s.

 

You do realise that influenza and AIDs are completely different infections don't you? Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

It was your example not mine.

 

Yes they are different, but the problems (if not necessarily the solutions) are similar. The fact that they are trying to do that with flu as we speak rather renders the whole point moot.

 

 

Like I said, I'm no immunologist or microbiologist, but I'd hazard a guess I know a fair bit more than you. Why don't you use your best friend Google to find out the facts behind the difficulties of HIV vaccination? I advise you to stay away from Parky websites mind.

Aye I noticed, in fairness I probably have had more to do with both than you.

 

 

And I notice you still keep dodging the public pay private rake in issue that has largely killed much publicly funded research.

[Fop 1]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way.

 

 

What's shocking or even surprising about it? If its not possible to make an HIV vaccine why waste money trying? There would obviously be no money in it.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

 

 

So how much do you think an effective HIV vaccine or cold vaccine would be worth? You're talking out your arse and you know it.

Like I said that's not really the point, and you know it.

 

No, the point is you're a contrary wum who lives for chomps, I know. Yawn. Nearly home time.

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

[Happy Face 29]

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

 

You're not like. Any pharmaceutical company would have an Aids vaccine up and running in a shot if they could.

 

 

They've been treating it for 20 years already and as discussed bioterror vaccines are where the big research money's going now.

[Fop 1]

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

 

You're not like. Any pharmaceutical company would have an Aids vaccine up and running in a shot if they could.

 

 

They've been treating it for 20 years already and as discussed bioterror vaccines are where the big research money's going now.

I wondered how long you could stand it.

[Happy Face 29]

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

 

You're not like. Any pharmaceutical company would have an Aids vaccine up and running in a shot if they could.

 

 

They've been treating it for 20 years already and as discussed bioterror vaccines are where the big research money's going now.

I wondered how long you could stand it.

 

 

You complete me.

[Renton 21985]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way.

 

 

What's shocking or even surprising about it? If its not possible to make an HIV vaccine why waste money trying? There would obviously be no money in it.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

 

 

So how much do you think an effective HIV vaccine or cold vaccine would be worth? You're talking out your arse and you know it.

Like I said that's not really the point, and you know it.

 

No, the point is you're a contrary wum who lives for chomps, I know. Yawn. Nearly home time.

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

 

It's true though isn't it? It's impossible to have any normal discussion with you because you are just contrary for the sake of it, which means you have to constantly evade questions, because basically you inevitably tie yourself in knots and talk out your arse.

 

It's a shame really because I reckon you might have some valid points sometimes, but they're hidden in a sea of shit.

[Fop 1]

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

 

You're not like. Any pharmaceutical company would have an Aids vaccine up and running in a shot if they could.

 

 

They've been treating it for 20 years already and as discussed bioterror vaccines are where the big research money's going now.

I wondered how long you could stand it.

 

 

You complete me.

Agreeing with you makes me feel wrong in a good way.

[Fop 1]

Is this becoming another ludicorus conspiracy theory again, Big Pharma is not trying to vacinate against HIV because it wants to flog its antivirals? As Chez says, that doesn't even make commercial sense, but last time I checked, there were very good biological reasons to think that HIV vaccination would be very difficult, or even impossible. Sometimes, usually even, the simplest explanations are the right ones.

 

According to that report commercial investment in an AIDS vaccine has all but dried up either way.

 

 

What's shocking or even surprising about it? If its not possible to make an HIV vaccine why waste money trying? There would obviously be no money in it.

 

 

So it is all about the money then?

 

Of course, who's denying that?

So if it is purely all about the money why would the course that made the most money not be taken over everything and anything else?

 

I would contend most businesses, including pharmaceutical ones, are primarily out to make money, and will set out to maximise their profits, if that's what you're saying. It's the governments job to make sure the average citizen gets a fair deal through legislation, taxation etc, very broadly speaking. And imo, in the UK, they do quite a good job re: healthcare.

 

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your point, please elaborate if I have.

 

So if they could make more money out of treating the symptoms than curing/vaccinating they would (the only argument is if they could).

 

Well it would be a big disincentive to invent a vaccine that ultimately damaged your profit margins, of course. But it has already been explained to you that this would not be the case, hasn't it? We could talk hypothetical bollocks all day, I'd rather not though.

 

No all that's been mentioned are some figures he pulled out of his ass (and there's plenty of counter arguments to that ).

 

So basically if they can they will, so almost certainly in some circumstances they already do.

 

 

So how much do you think an effective HIV vaccine or cold vaccine would be worth? You're talking out your arse and you know it.

Like I said that's not really the point, and you know it.

 

No, the point is you're a contrary wum who lives for chomps, I know. Yawn. Nearly home time.

When people resort to that I know they know I'm right.

 

It's true though isn't it? It's impossible to have any normal discussion with you because you are just contrary for the sake of it, which means you have to constantly evade questions, because basically you inevitably tie yourself in knots and talk out your arse.

 

It's a shame really because I reckon you might have some valid points sometimes, but they're hidden in a sea of shit.

It's quite possible, but if you set out to WUM then don't cry if it comes back your way too.

 

Other than that as I said you know I'm correct.

[Fop 1]

Potential Universal flu jab, by looking at things in a slightly different way. Saying something can't or won't be done because it can't be done now or is difficult to do now is spurious.

 

Although again it underlines the big issue in UK publicly funded research, which is it has often done the expensive leg work, and then the private sector moves in take the $$$'s.

 

You do realise that influenza and AIDs are completely different infections don't you? Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

It was your example not mine.

 

Yes they are different, but the problems (if not necessarily the solutions) are similar. The fact that they are trying to do that with flu as we speak rather renders the whole point moot.

 

 

Like I said, I'm no immunologist or microbiologist, but I'd hazard a guess I know a fair bit more than you. Why don't you use your best friend Google to find out the facts behind the difficulties of HIV vaccination? I advise you to stay away from Parky websites mind.

Aye I noticed, in fairness I probably have had more to do with both than you.

 

 

And I notice you still keep dodging the public pay private rake in issue that has largely killed much publicly funded research.

 

 

And you still seem to be dodging these.

[Renton 21985]

It's quite possible, but if you set out to WUM then don't cry if it comes back your way too.

 

Other than that as I said you know I'm correct.

 

I haven't set out to be a WUM though, at least not in this thread. It appears to be your life though. Out of interest, why? I don't mind playing the devil's advocate occasionally, but to do it all the time? Seriously, wtf is that about?

[Fop 1]

It's quite possible, but if you set out to WUM then don't cry if it comes back your way too.

 

Other than that as I said you know I'm correct.

 

I haven't set out to be a WUM though, at least not in this thread. It appears to be your life though. Out of interest, why? I don't mind playing the devil's advocate occasionally, but to do it all the time? Seriously, wtf is that about?

Still dodging.

[Renton 21985]

Potential Universal flu jab, by looking at things in a slightly different way. Saying something can't or won't be done because it can't be done now or is difficult to do now is spurious.

 

Although again it underlines the big issue in UK publicly funded research, which is it has often done the expensive leg work, and then the private sector moves in take the $$$'s.

 

You do realise that influenza and AIDs are completely different infections don't you? Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

It was your example not mine.

 

Yes they are different, but the problems (if not necessarily the solutions) are similar. The fact that they are trying to do that with flu as we speak rather renders the whole point moot.

 

 

Like I said, I'm no immunologist or microbiologist, but I'd hazard a guess I know a fair bit more than you. Why don't you use your best friend Google to find out the facts behind the difficulties of HIV vaccination? I advise you to stay away from Parky websites mind.

Aye I noticed, in fairness I probably have had more to do with both than you.

 

 

And I notice you still keep dodging the public pay private rake in issue that has largely killed much publicly funded research.

 

 

And you still seem to be dodging these.

 

Dodging what exactly? Ask me a specific question and I will answer it if I can.

 

Edit: if you mean the ones here, I didn't think were worth responding to, but since you asked....

 

Yes they are different, but the problems (if not necessarily the solutions) are similar. The fact that they are trying to do that with flu as we speak rather renders the whole point moot.

 

That's bollocks, the problems aren't remotely comparable, you're showing your ignorance.

 

Aye I noticed, in fairness I probably have had more to do with both than you.

And I notice you still keep dodging the public pay private rake in issue that has largely killed much publicly funded research.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Renton

[soccermom 0]

Privatising the NHS sounds like an all round simple solution, where those of us who can afford it buy insurance and get preferential treatment and those who can't would frequent 'free' clinics that are abused and run by unethical, undertrained and unregulated like many of those in the US.

 

Being someone who works in the health service, I believe a more simple solution would be to stop paying managers of managers of managers of accountants.

 

We have one of the best, fairest (to a point, excluding much publicised postcode lotterys, which on occasion have been misquoted and misrepresented in the media) accessible, proven healthcare systems in the world. We need to replace these bonus gaining, money orientated statisticians with good honest doctors and nurses. Those who know what the patient needs and when, those who know how to run a hospital ward/theatre/clinic/department at its best, effectively and for the purpose of treating those in need of healthcare, with training I'm sure they would be able to remain within their budget, Well they did in the 'olden' days of head consultants and matrons.

 

Why can these proven methods not be brought into the 21st century? The role of matrons today is that of pen pushing, infection control obsessed related hitlers who can't remember how to bedbath a patient.

 

Hands on is what the health service needs, not buzz words, fads and media campaigns. It needs people who care about people, not people who care about their bonuses and are put into place because they went to school with the chairman or are known to be good 'yes' men.

 

Well thats just my opinion anyway. I am officially off my soap box now!

[Renton 21985]

Privatising the NHS sounds like an all round simple solution, where those of us who can afford it buy insurance and get preferential treatment and those who can't would frequent 'free' clinics that are abused and run by unethical, undertrained and unregulated like many of those in the US.

 

Being someone who works in the health service, I believe a more simple solution would be to stop paying managers of managers of managers of accountants.

 

We have one of the best, fairest (to a point, excluding much publicised postcode lotterys, which on occasion have been misquoted and misrepresented in the media) accessible, proven healthcare systems in the world. We need to replace these bonus gaining, money orientated statisticians with good honest doctors and nurses. Those who know what the patient needs and when, those who know how to run a hospital ward/theatre/clinic/department at its best, effectively and for the purpose of treating those in need of healthcare, with training I'm sure they would be able to remain within their budget, Well they did in the 'olden' days of head consultants and matrons.

 

Why can these proven methods not be brought into the 21st century? The role of matrons today is that of pen pushing, infection control obsessed related hitlers who can't remember how to bedbath a patient.

 

Hands on is what the health service needs, not buzz words, fads and media campaigns. It needs people who care about people, not people who care about their bonuses and are put into place because they went to school with the chairman or are known to be good 'yes' men.

 

Well thats just my opinion anyway. I am officially off my soap box now!

 

Good post argued passionately, not sure I agree though. You seem to be advocating trained clinicians should be used as managers, I would have thought this was actually a huge waste or resources if anything. Like it or not, its vital that a huge organisation like the NHS (the second largest in the world iirc, after the Indian railways) has effective management. I've also heard that the NHS has a very lean management structure compared with an equivalent private-sector company, it'd be interesting to see if anyone has any figures that might back this up or disprove it.

 

I don't think we can go back to a bygone age when only a handful of treatments was available though. As for the implication that managers don't care about people as much as clinicians, well, I think that's a bit insulting. I also work for the Department of Health although I'm not a clinician or a manager. I am, however, a user of the NHS and I value it greatly, I'm sure the vast majority of people do, managers included.

[peasepud 59]

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

 

Couldnt you also argue however that something such as HIV vaccine will not reach anything like a global coverage? What I mean is that out of that 6 billion the majority will not take it up for instance anyone happily married (so scratch 50% off?, catholics (who believe its a gay curse), so another 15-20%? Nuns? children (although I guess at some stage they become potential customers). Finally though theres a big big proportion of people who dont feel they need it because it will "never happen to them". To be fair the very people at high risk are those that wouldnt pay the $100 fee (drug addicts, street prostitutes etc).

 

Finally, I think theres another element and that is the moral crusaders who would argue that a vaccine against HIV would be taking out the fear factor and make the world more immoral, that in itself could reduce a companies stock.

 

Just point out now I havent got a fucking clue on the validity of any of the above statistics or even thoughts Im confident though that the customer base isnt anything like 6 billion because of those facts but am playing devils advocaat for the hell of it.

[soccermom 0]

Privatising the NHS sounds like an all round simple solution, where those of us who can afford it buy insurance and get preferential treatment and those who can't would frequent 'free' clinics that are abused and run by unethical, undertrained and unregulated like many of those in the US.

 

Being someone who works in the health service, I believe a more simple solution would be to stop paying managers of managers of managers of accountants.

 

We have one of the best, fairest (to a point, excluding much publicised postcode lotterys, which on occasion have been misquoted and misrepresented in the media) accessible, proven healthcare systems in the world. We need to replace these bonus gaining, money orientated statisticians with good honest doctors and nurses. Those who know what the patient needs and when, those who know how to run a hospital ward/theatre/clinic/department at its best, effectively and for the purpose of treating those in need of healthcare, with training I'm sure they would be able to remain within their budget, Well they did in the 'olden' days of head consultants and matrons.

 

Why can these proven methods not be brought into the 21st century? The role of matrons today is that of pen pushing, infection control obsessed related hitlers who can't remember how to bedbath a patient.

 

Hands on is what the health service needs, not buzz words, fads and media campaigns. It needs people who care about people, not people who care about their bonuses and are put into place because they went to school with the chairman or are known to be good 'yes' men.

 

Well thats just my opinion anyway. I am officially off my soap box now!

 

Good post argued passionately, not sure I agree though. You seem to be advocating trained clinicians should be used as managers, I would have thought this was actually a huge waste or resources if anything. Like it or not, its vital that a huge organisation like the NHS (the second largest in the world iirc, after the Indian railways) has effective management. I've also heard that the NHS has a very lean management structure compared with an equivalent private-sector company, it'd be interesting to see if anyone has any figures that might back this up or disprove it.

 

I don't think we can go back to a bygone age when only a handful of treatments was available though. As for the implication that managers don't care about people as much as clinicians, well, I think that's a bit insulting. I also work for the Department of Health although I'm not a clinician or a manager. I am, however, a user of the NHS and I value it greatly, I'm sure the vast majority of people do, managers included.

 

 

Well said and I hear and understand your statements, but I work up close with these 'caring' managers on a daily basis and all they are interested in are the latest government targets.

 

I'm not suggesting that we go back to the 60's and offer less of a service, On the contrary I'm suggesting we offer more of a service, trained clinicians and senior nurses do alot of their managers work loads now and forfeit the praise. What I am suggesting is the system needs a major overhaul. The right people put in charge of the right specialities. People who understand that area specifically instead of those coming forward to place they have no knowlegde of cutting staff ratios, witholding budget so they come in under and gaining thair bonus for saving that trust money, whilst depriving staff and patients of needed facilities and equipment.

 

Ofc not all managers fall under this umbrella but i'm saddened to say many of them do, they take these positions and hold on to them just long enough to improve their CV and often leave a mess of what was originally a well run fully funtioning department in their wake.

 

I am not anti-change, you can not be in this modern day NHS, it wouldn't work, we have new abilities and technologies developing everyday, we need to use these opportunities to learn and improve our practice not stifle professional development as a managerial exercise to gain individuals advancement.

 

There is so much history, pride and potential in our system, it seems a shame to watch it fall into the hands of those who abuse it and work purely for self gain. I am no angel, I go to work for money, everyone does, but working in health is a vocation, you see people born and you see them die, you need to care in the NHS. Thats the whole point of it.

[peasepud 59]

As an outsider I can see both sides to that argument. Firstly Id say that from "what you hear" the NHS appears to have too many layers of beaurocracy and not enough importance put on getting people cured. Rather that there are too many targets and statistics.

 

The NHS as a huge organisation needs managers, accountants and solicitors to ensure it continues doing its good stuff, managers need to control what is done and who does it, like it or not the NHS does not have unlimited resources Im sure we all wish it did but its just not possible therefore accountants need to control the resources. And finally, its a shit generation we live in but solicitors are needed to fight the raft of "the nurse spoke to me like shit" or "my big toes never been the same since I had that heart op" compensation claims that people put in.

 

If we allowed consultants and matrons to run the purse strings then the country would be bankrupt within a month, they care too much and everyone would have the best of care and operations as soon as possible. Unfortunately the worlds just not like that

[ChezGiven 0]

Wrong, the company that finds this vaccine will can expect to add around $200bn to its value overnight.

 

You see my little inexperienced fopster, bless you, you have no business experience and therefore forget/dont realise that its not just Africa that is in the market for a vaccine, its 6 billion people across the globe. Like all vaccines, they work on the basis of universal coverage.

 

Charge $100 a shot - thats $600bn in potential revenue.

 

Couldnt you also argue however that something such as HIV vaccine will not reach anything like a global coverage? What I mean is that out of that 6 billion the majority will not take it up for instance anyone happily married (so scratch 50% off?, catholics (who believe its a gay curse), so another 15-20%? Nuns? children (although I guess at some stage they become potential customers). Finally though theres a big big proportion of people who dont feel they need it because it will "never happen to them". To be fair the very people at high risk are those that wouldnt pay the $100 fee (drug addicts, street prostitutes etc).

 

Finally, I think theres another element and that is the moral crusaders who would argue that a vaccine against HIV would be taking out the fear factor and make the world more immoral, that in itself could reduce a companies stock.

 

Just point out now I havent got a fucking clue on the validity of any of the above statistics or even thoughts Im confident though that the customer base isnt anything like 6 billion because of those facts but am playing devils advocaat for the hell of it.

 

Oh you're quite right pud, i was just stretching the point as far as possible to make flopsy look as big a tit as possible. No, the $600bn figure was perhaps a 'little high' but it was to show the potential of a vaccine market and therefore dismiss any notion that there was less commercial interest.

 

I get asked the question quite a lot "Does your company have a cure for cancer and just doesnt let anyone know about it?". I work through a few figures with them and its clear that anyone who discovered something like this would rake it in.

 

The global market for HIV treatments is probably about $6-8bn, if you had a cure, you'd want to sell it.

Edited November 7, 2008 by ChezGiven

[ChezGiven 0]

As an outsider I can see both sides to that argument. Firstly Id say that from "what you hear" the NHS appears to have too many layers of beaurocracy and not enough importance put on getting people cured. Rather that there are too many targets and statistics.

 

The NHS as a huge organisation needs managers, accountants and solicitors to ensure it continues doing its good stuff, managers need to control what is done and who does it, like it or not the NHS does not have unlimited resources Im sure we all wish it did but its just not possible therefore accountants need to control the resources. And finally, its a shit generation we live in but solicitors are needed to fight the raft of "the nurse spoke to me like shit" or "my big toes never been the same since I had that heart op" compensation claims that people put in.

 

If we allowed consultants and matrons to run the purse strings then the country would be bankrupt within a month, they care too much and everyone would have the best of care and operations as soon as possible. Unfortunately the worlds just not like that

 

Back on track, this is the main thrust of the thread. As soccermom said, it would be great if the NHS didnt waste so much money (but does it? it had a £1.7bn surplus this year).

 

The issue is all about getting the balance right between equity (fairness, social justice, equal access to treatment for all) and efficiency. It needs to be a public and private system. One that works very well is the Singapore system.

 

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14...th-care-system/

[soccermom 0]

As an outsider I can see both sides to that argument. Firstly Id say that from "what you hear" the NHS appears to have too many layers of beaurocracy and not enough importance put on getting people cured. Rather that there are too many targets and statistics.

 

The NHS as a huge organisation needs managers, accountants and solicitors to ensure it continues doing its good stuff, managers need to control what is done and who does it, like it or not the NHS does not have unlimited resources Im sure we all wish it did but its just not possible therefore accountants need to control the resources. And finally, its a shit generation we live in but solicitors are needed to fight the raft of "the nurse spoke to me like shit" or "my big toes never been the same since I had that heart op" compensation claims that people put in.

 

If we allowed consultants and matrons to run the purse strings then the country would be bankrupt within a month, they care too much and everyone would have the best of care and operations as soon as possible. Unfortunately the worlds just not like that

 

A happy medium is needed. We need balance throughout the system.

It'll never happen, the right thing never does.

 

Just another of lifes lessons.

 

Viva la revolution!!!!

[soccermom 0]

As an outsider I can see both sides to that argument. Firstly Id say that from "what you hear" the NHS appears to have too many layers of beaurocracy and not enough importance put on getting people cured. Rather that there are too many targets and statistics.

 

The NHS as a huge organisation needs managers, accountants and solicitors to ensure it continues doing its good stuff, managers need to control what is done and who does it, like it or not the NHS does not have unlimited resources Im sure we all wish it did but its just not possible therefore accountants need to control the resources. And finally, its a shit generation we live in but solicitors are needed to fight the raft of "the nurse spoke to me like shit" or "my big toes never been the same since I had that heart op" compensation claims that people put in.

 

If we allowed consultants and matrons to run the purse strings then the country would be bankrupt within a month, they care too much and everyone would have the best of care and operations as soon as possible. Unfortunately the worlds just not like that

 

Back on track, this is the main thrust of the thread. As soccermom said, it would be great if the NHS didnt waste so much money (but does it? it had a £1.7bn surplus this year).

 

The issue is all about getting the balance right between equity (fairness, social justice, equal access to treatment for all) and efficiency. It needs to be a public and private system. One that works very well is the Singapore system.

 

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14...th-care-system/

 

 

That's big bonus achieving!!

 

 

but I fully agree, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with a top up system. Pay private if you can afford it, more and more NHS hospitals have private wards offering numerous services. Like wise if you want to pay for meds, whats the issue here? They should be happy not condemning the prospect, less for them to shell out it gives some people a hope, and if it works it will improve the hospitals morbidity and mortality rates!! Ofc the drug companes will see this as a good way to make a quick buck praying on the foolhardy and desperate. It takes medics to be honest with these people about their situation but ultimately their decision to purchase is theirs alone.

[ChezGiven 0]

Privatising the NHS sounds like an all round simple solution, where those of us who can afford it buy insurance and get preferential treatment and those who can't would frequent 'free' clinics that are abused and run by unethical, undertrained and unregulated like many of those in the US.

 

Being someone who works in the health service, I believe a more simple solution would be to stop paying managers of managers of managers of accountants.

 

We have one of the best, fairest (to a point, excluding much publicised postcode lotterys, which on occasion have been misquoted and misrepresented in the media) accessible, proven healthcare systems in the world. We need to replace these bonus gaining, money orientated statisticians with good honest doctors and nurses. Those who know what the patient needs and when, those who know how to run a hospital ward/theatre/clinic/department at its best, effectively and for the purpose of treating those in need of healthcare, with training I'm sure they would be able to remain within their budget, Well they did in the 'olden' days of head consultants and matrons.

 

Why can these proven methods not be brought into the 21st century? The role of matrons today is that of pen pushing, infection control obsessed related hitlers who can't remember how to bedbath a patient.

 

Hands on is what the health service needs, not buzz words, fads and media campaigns. It needs people who care about people, not people who care about their bonuses and are put into place because they went to school with the chairman or are known to be good 'yes' men.

 

Well thats just my opinion anyway. I am officially off my soap box now!

 

Good post argued passionately, not sure I agree though. You seem to be advocating trained clinicians should be used as managers, I would have thought this was actually a huge waste or resources if anything. Like it or not, its vital that a huge organisation like the NHS (the second largest in the world iirc, after the Indian railways) has effective management. I've also heard that the NHS has a very lean management structure compared with an equivalent private-sector company, it'd be interesting to see if anyone has any figures that might back this up or disprove it.

 

I don't think we can go back to a bygone age when only a handful of treatments was available though. As for the implication that managers don't care about people as much as clinicians, well, I think that's a bit insulting. I also work for the Department of Health although I'm not a clinician or a manager. I am, however, a user of the NHS and I value it greatly, I'm sure the vast majority of people do, managers included.

 

 

Well said and I hear and understand your statements, but I work up close with these 'caring' managers on a daily basis and all they are interested in are the latest government targets.

 

I'm not suggesting that we go back to the 60's and offer less of a service, On the contrary I'm suggesting we offer more of a service, trained clinicians and senior nurses do alot of their managers work loads now and forfeit the praise. What I am suggesting is the system needs a major overhaul. The right people put in charge of the right specialities. People who understand that area specifically instead of those coming forward to place they have no knowlegde of cutting staff ratios, witholding budget so they come in under and gaining thair bonus for saving that trust money, whilst depriving staff and patients of needed facilities and equipment.

 

Ofc not all managers fall under this umbrella but i'm saddened to say many of them do, they take these positions and hold on to them just long enough to improve their CV and often leave a mess of what was originally a well run fully funtioning department in their wake.

 

I am not anti-change, you can not be in this modern day NHS, it wouldn't work, we have new abilities and technologies developing everyday, we need to use these opportunities to learn and improve our practice not stifle professional development as a managerial exercise to gain individuals advancement.

 

There is so much history, pride and potential in our system, it seems a shame to watch it fall into the hands of those who abuse it and work purely for self gain. I am no angel, I go to work for money, everyone does, but working in health is a vocation, you see people born and you see them die, you need to care in the NHS. Thats the whole point of it.

 

Very nicely put. I worked in Great Ormond St at the Institute of Child Health for nearly 2 years, amazing experience.

[ChezGiven 0]

As an outsider I can see both sides to that argument. Firstly Id say that from "what you hear" the NHS appears to have too many layers of beaurocracy and not enough importance put on getting people cured. Rather that there are too many targets and statistics.

 

The NHS as a huge organisation needs managers, accountants and solicitors to ensure it continues doing its good stuff, managers need to control what is done and who does it, like it or not the NHS does not have unlimited resources Im sure we all wish it did but its just not possible therefore accountants need to control the resources. And finally, its a shit generation we live in but solicitors are needed to fight the raft of "the nurse spoke to me like shit" or "my big toes never been the same since I had that heart op" compensation claims that people put in.

 

If we allowed consultants and matrons to run the purse strings then the country would be bankrupt within a month, they care too much and everyone would have the best of care and operations as soon as possible. Unfortunately the worlds just not like that

 

Back on track, this is the main thrust of the thread. As soccermom said, it would be great if the NHS didnt waste so much money (but does it? it had a £1.7bn surplus this year).

 

The issue is all about getting the balance right between equity (fairness, social justice, equal access to treatment for all) and efficiency. It needs to be a public and private system. One that works very well is the Singapore system.

 

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14...th-care-system/

 

 

That's big bonus achieving!!

 

 

but I fully agree, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with a top up system. Pay private if you can afford it, more and more NHS hospitals have private wards offering numerous services. Like wise if you want to pay for meds, whats the issue here? They should be happy not condemning the prospect, less for them to shell out it gives some people a hope, and if it works it will improve the hospitals morbidity and mortality rates!! Ofc the drug companes will see this as a good way to make a quick buck praying on the foolhardy and desperate. It takes medics to be honest with these people about their situation but ultimately their decision to purchase is theirs alone.

 

Fortunately, drug companies are not allowed to communicate directly with patients in the EU. There are risks in this though, the top-up thing needs to be carefully regulated.

[soccermom 0]

As an outsider I can see both sides to that argument. Firstly Id say that from "what you hear" the NHS appears to have too many layers of beaurocracy and not enough importance put on getting people cured. Rather that there are too many targets and statistics.

 

The NHS as a huge organisation needs managers, accountants and solicitors to ensure it continues doing its good stuff, managers need to control what is done and who does it, like it or not the NHS does not have unlimited resources Im sure we all wish it did but its just not possible therefore accountants need to control the resources. And finally, its a shit generation we live in but solicitors are needed to fight the raft of "the nurse spoke to me like shit" or "my big toes never been the same since I had that heart op" compensation claims that people put in.

 

If we allowed consultants and matrons to run the purse strings then the country would be bankrupt within a month, they care too much and everyone would have the best of care and operations as soon as possible. Unfortunately the worlds just not like that

 

Back on track, this is the main thrust of the thread. As soccermom said, it would be great if the NHS didnt waste so much money (but does it? it had a £1.7bn surplus this year).

 

The issue is all about getting the balance right between equity (fairness, social justice, equal access to treatment for all) and efficiency. It needs to be a public and private system. One that works very well is the Singapore system.

 

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14...th-care-system/

 

 

That's big bonus achieving!!

 

 

but I fully agree, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with a top up system. Pay private if you can afford it, more and more NHS hospitals have private wards offering numerous services. Like wise if you want to pay for meds, whats the issue here? They should be happy not condemning the prospect, less for them to shell out it gives some people a hope, and if it works it will improve the hospitals morbidity and mortality rates!! Ofc the drug companes will see this as a good way to make a quick buck praying on the foolhardy and desperate. It takes medics to be honest with these people about their situation but ultimately their decision to purchase is theirs alone.

 

Fortunately, drug companies are not allowed to communicate directly with patients in the EU. There are risks in this though, the top-up thing needs to be carefully regulated.

 

 

Fully agree, sad to say tho that the system will produce more chiefs with bigger wigwams!

 

It'll never be perfect, you just have to keep doing your best as a professional, and stay the right side of the bureaucracy.

[Fop 1]

Potential Universal flu jab, by looking at things in a slightly different way. Saying something can't or won't be done because it can't be done now or is difficult to do now is spurious.

 

Although again it underlines the big issue in UK publicly funded research, which is it has often done the expensive leg work, and then the private sector moves in take the $$$'s.

 

You do realise that influenza and AIDs are completely different infections don't you? Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

It was your example not mine.

 

Yes they are different, but the problems (if not necessarily the solutions) are similar. The fact that they are trying to do that with flu as we speak rather renders the whole point moot.

 

 

Like I said, I'm no immunologist or microbiologist, but I'd hazard a guess I know a fair bit more than you. Why don't you use your best friend Google to find out the facts behind the difficulties of HIV vaccination? I advise you to stay away from Parky websites mind.

Aye I noticed, in fairness I probably have had more to do with both than you.

 

 

And I notice you still keep dodging the public pay private rake in issue that has largely killed much publicly funded research.

 

 

And you still seem to be dodging these.

 

Dodging what exactly? Ask me a specific question and I will answer it if I can.

 

Edit: if you mean the ones here, I didn't think were worth responding to, but since you asked....

 

Yes they are different, but the problems (if not necessarily the solutions) are similar. The fact that they are trying to do that with flu as we speak rather renders the whole point moot.

 

That's bollocks, the problems aren't remotely comparable, you're showing your ignorance.

 

Of course they are comparable, it was one of YOUR examples.

 

They aren't the same, but much like the flu eventually a vaccine will be made. You're probably right that it's not worth the drug companies money presently though. But then I said that pages ago.

 

Aye I noticed, in fairness I probably have had more to do with both than you.

And I notice you still keep dodging the public pay private rake in issue that has largely killed much publicly funded research.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

 

The issue of public research money leading to private payouts, which has repeatedly bled the public research sector dry.