Dr Gloom 21963 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Signed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It's a shame the NHS is always handled / discussed via politics as it leads to so many stupid discussions. Trying to compare a pre thatcher NHS to today's is ludicrous. Just look at all the sort of costs / treatment / drugs etc around now that weren't then. It will be the same looking back in 30 years. Then you could look at some of the PFI deals. None of us and no business would dream of buying a property / new premises under such crippling debt. I'm not sure what the answer is, but in the real world it's probably going to be more and more privatisation. People can talk about the differences between political parties, but in the great scheme of things, that's just shuffling the deck chairs. It probably doesn't help that most people find it a very good service when they use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21642 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It's a shame the NHS is always handled / discussed via politics as it leads to so many stupid discussions. Trying to compare a pre thatcher NHS to today's is ludicrous. Just look at all the sort of costs / treatment / drugs etc around now that weren't then. It will be the same looking back in 30 years. Then you could look at some of the PFI deals. None of us and no business would dream of buying a property / new premises under such crippling debt. I'm not sure what the answer is, but in the real world it's probably going to be more and more privatisation. People can talk about the differences between political parties, but in the great scheme of things, that's just shuffling the deck chairs. It probably doesn't help that most people find it a very good service when they use it. Okay, so in your own words, try and explain how more privatisation is an answer if you want to retain universal care? What does your last sentence even mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Okay, so in your own words, try and explain how more privatisation is an answer if you want to retain universal care? What does your last sentence even mean? I'll start with the last service. If the end users experience was terrible, the user (voter) would be more welcoming to any party that decided to really plough money into it. (I'm talking about stuff like doubling its budget not the tit for increases current parties offer). As it is, your general punter is usually served very well and it is not a massive factor in elections. As for privatisation, what extra costs would we have to plough in now if we didn't have the privatisation we currently have? Think of all the care homes, home visits, etc etc. I'm not saying particularly that the level of service is better, but that money would need to be found. Going forward it either needs a radical overhaul, billions extra from somewhere or more privatisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5226 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just to add in, we have private medical cover at work, and it's almost entirely useless. The insurance company resists paying out wherever possible by attempting to consider everything either a pre-existing condition, or something linked to a pre-existing condition. Privatisation looks to me like it'll have all of us forking out more money to cover treatments that insurance companies won't, aside from the premium we'll have to pay anyway. It'll transform poor health into even more of a burden than it already is. Once the NHS is gone, people are really going to miss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17289 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Read this the other day, the much derided Polly Toynbee thinks the head of the NHS in England could save it from the clutches of the private sector... http://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2016/feb/12/nhs-can-be-saved-decide-how-guardian-health-service?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other And apparently local health trusts can chose to not implement the new junior doctors contracts if they don't want to.. Edited February 13, 2016 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21642 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I'll start with the last service. If the end users experience was terrible, the user (voter) would be more welcoming to any party that decided to really plough money into it. (I'm talking about stuff like doubling its budget not the tit for increases current parties offer). As it is, your general punter is usually served very well and it is not a massive factor in elections. As for privatisation, what extra costs would we have to plough in now if we didn't have the privatisation we currently have? Think of all the care homes, home visits, etc etc. I'm not saying particularly that the level of service is better, but that money would need to be found. Going forward it either needs a radical overhaul, billions extra from somewhere or more privatisation. No, you haven't answered. Private firms need to make profits. How does introducing a third party skimming off money for share holders into the equation reduce costs? It blatantly doesn't does it. Now for PFI, where a huge capital investment was required immediately, there is an argument for this. But to run services? Explain to me clearly how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 No, you haven't answered. Private firms need to make profits. How does introducing a third party skimming off money for share holders into the equation reduce costs? It blatantly doesn't does it. Now for PFI, where a huge capital investment was required immediately, there is an argument for this. But to run services? Explain to me clearly how that works. Paragraph one: Take care homes. If they were not currently being provided by the private sector, that money would need to come out of the public purse. Paragraph two: I'm not championing pfi's, just stating that a lot of them were set up on ridiculous contracts which today is swallowing money that could be better spent on services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21642 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Paragraph one: Take care homes. If they were not currently being provided by the private sector, that money would need to come out of the public purse. Paragraph two: I'm not championing pfi's, just stating that a lot of them were set up on ridiculous contracts which today is swallowing money that could be better spent on services. Private care homes are not the nhs and are subsidised massively by the state. Incidentally the sector is in crisis. But I fail to see any relevance to the discussion, and yet again you haven't explained how introducing a profit motive will reduce costs for the tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 The way the tories want to do it is evil as well - contracts with guaranteed profits with no get outs - see the Chinese Sizewell deal which puts all PFIs combined to shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Private care homes are not the nhs and are subsidised massively by the state. Incidentally the sector is in crisis. But I fail to see any relevance to the discussion, and yet again you haven't explained how introducing a profit motive will reduce costs for the tax payer. All care homes were at one time paid for by the tax payer. Reversing that decision would cost the tax payer billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5226 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 All care homes were at one time paid for by the tax payer. Reversing that decision would cost the tax payer billions. Right but, with it in the private sector, are those using the service not paying for both running it and the profits of those who own them? So Renton's right, ultimately, more money is being spent on them now - just the cost is focused on a smaller group of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Right but, with it in the private sector, are those using the service not paying for both running it and the profits of those who own them? So Renton's right, ultimately, more money is being spent on them now - just the cost is focused on a smaller group of people. However you dress it up its now not coming out of the "public" finances. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm just saying that currently, there's a certain pot of money that has to be divided out. That's why I mentioned earlier either vast increases in budget, privatisation or some radical overhaul is all that will change the stays quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21642 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 However you dress it up its now not coming out of the "public" finances. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm just saying that currently, there's a certain pot of money that has to be divided out. That's why I mentioned earlier either vast increases in budget, privatisation or some radical overhaul is all that will change the stays quo. Yes it is! Just because the provider is private doesn't mean it's paid for by private payers. If you can't pay, the state pays, regardless of the provider. This whole discussion is a red herring Tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Edited February 13, 2016 by Christmas Tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33272 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Take away that fin at the top of it's head and it kinda reminds me of someone........ Hmmmmn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21963 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Take away that fin at the top of it's head and it kinda reminds me of someone........ Hmmmmn. Not pointy enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7034 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Why are you talking about old folks homes CT? Literally no link to the topic being discussed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21642 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Why are you talking about old folks homes CT? Literally no link to the topic being discussed I've had a think about it and think he means the nhs should be means tested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Why are you talking about old folks homes CT? Literally no link to the topic being discussed Because they used to be funded by the taxpayer and now they are privatised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I've had a think about it and think he means the nhs should be means tested? Not at all. I would rather the whole system was independent from politicians and funded twice as much as it is now, but that's never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21642 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Because they used to be funded by the taxpayer and now they are privatised No. They used to be RUN by councils, now most are in private hands. At some point means testing came in meaning they were FUNDED by the user until the user ran out of cash. This has literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Edited February 13, 2016 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7034 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It's not worth arguing with the sofa selling, taxi driving, pro privatisation, Tory voting WUM. I'll take note of the opinions of those who work, or have worked, in the NHS and appear to actually know what they are talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) No. They used to be RUN by councils, now most are in private hands. At some point means testing came in meaning they were FUNDED by the user until the user ran out of cash. This has literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Where do you think the councils got their money from Edited February 13, 2016 by Christmas Tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now