Forums Forums National News NHS or PHS

Yes Granny, it is you, it appears you are having a senior moment with reposting my comment. I was making the point that if more funding was made available for investment in the NHS then there would have been no need for you to go elsewhere. Whilst it cost you no extra your treatment was still paid for out of public funds directly to the private healthcare system. That is the sort of money that should have been invested into the NHS thus resulting in lower waiting times etc etc

Thanks Salmon, someone on the same wavelength, at last

Geemeister:
Apparently, staff moral cannot cope with the backlog, so help is needed.
The money was not paid to the private healthcare system. The money was paid to the surgeons working for the NHS on NHS salaries (not private salaries) but using their facilities to reduce waiting times.

Have a look at this. I haven't read it all, but it certainly gives a clear picture of how things are taking shape.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19674838

I get my info by talking to my GP who also has a brother who's a surgeon. Neither are happy with the governments proposals or current 'sharing' system. I currently have very little faith in BBC's reporting as a lot of it is from government press releases etc. Staff moral will increase when the stresses of coping are lifted by increasing staffing levels through extra funding. Its a vicious circle.

People leaving the NHS and doing agency work at the same locations for more money. Was told this weekend of doctors using days off from the surgery to collect 2K for a shift in a hospital. You only ever hear what spin the BBC puts on stuff, not the reality, reality is a myth.

Why are "profit" and "private company" such dirty words to some people?
Where would the NHS be, exactly, without private companies, that contribute things like:
Drugs, MRI machines, CT Scanners, X-Ray machines, EKG machines, Hospital Beds, Stethoscopes, Defibrillators... White coats...????
... OK I'll stop there but the point has to be made, surely? Private Companies are not all simply" "Profit Hungry", evil empires! Yes they are allowed to make a profit, which is required not only in order for them to remain in existence, but to continue to do those things they spend that money on, like Research and Development, providing employment, paying wages, etc. OK some investors make money too but without that investment, we would have little or none of the medical technology advances that we all enjoy and benefit from today.
So, IF quality medical care also, really COULD be provided more efficiently and at less cost to the Public, by some or all of it being provided by private <spit!> companies, then unless you are simply using this as a Political football, why would that be such a terrible thing? On the contrary...

The issue isnt necesarily about either profit or private company. It is about lack of investment in the NHS. i think you make a loose valid point about some companies off-setting their tax liabilities by making public donations of equipment. The vast majority of the items you mentioned are paid for via the hospital trusts and some equipment is also obtained via public donations.
No one has intimated that private companies are evil empires, if you can afford to pay, then why not? I agree that a lot of research and development is done by private companies but these same companies also receive tax incentives and rebates in order to entice them to stay in the UK. This is also money that this and subsequent governments have removed from certain establishments in order to save costs, that is a different subject to the one at hand.
Personally I believe that NHS & PHC can co-exist in their original formats but the NHS desperately needs the investments to make it sustainable.

Oh it is....a National Service is being sold off to Private Groups- in particular-buddies of the Coalition Gov't.

Health Services being sold for a Profit. Disgusting.

They aren't dirty words but neither is in-house a dirty word.

The NHS has a long-term problems with capacity, implementing a short-term funding solution that only creates medium-term solution isn't going to help.

The NHS is short of facilities, there is money available, it makes sense the NHS is built up.

Its like having a bus company that is short of buses, occasionally you will lease competitors buses but what you don't do is give money to your competitor to buy more buses and in that process he will entice your own staff away from you, you obviously buy more buses for yourself. The staff in this case being consultants and nurses which there is already a shortage of.

There has been no question of financially competitive prices.

Next step will be the NHS selling its own operating theatres and leasing them back, another short-term stop-gap solution for what is going to be an ever increasing long term problem..

Sorry Rude, I chose my opening words poorly. I was refering to CVCVCV's comments. The NHS is in a poor state and those working in it are not being given the support they both need and deserve from this government. I will always be a full fledged supporter. Whilst I can see why people receiving help from outsourcing think it is a good thing I find it difficult to understand why people appear blinkered to the slow stripping down of a world respected institution.

Interesting read here showing that the previous government led by Messrs Miliband, Brown, Balls and Burnham signed deals with private companies for more than £65 billion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...S-is-paying-for-Labours-dodgy-deals.html

It is indeed an interesting article. £65b sold off by last government and at least £240b by this one. The Telegraph will always put a Tory spin on things but the essence of the piece is correct. This isn't a debate over which party is better or worse than the other. They have all failed to invest and so all take a share of the blame. If the article had been written by a labourite it would probably have mentioned previous Tory cabinet members. It was a labour government that instigated the outsourcing to private health venues in order to get the waiting times down. This was a fine short term plan but unless investment runs parallel, which was the original idea, it is also a short sighted one. Sorry if my reply sounds weighted against the Tories, this was not the intention. As I stated previously, they have all failed miserably in one way or another.

can anyone tell me what difference in principle there is, when a patient or someone incapacitated can be cared for at home? They have the 'home care teams' visiting but also have to pay for the service to a company. Is that privatisation ?
Also, is that a system the NHS have put into operation themselves. I'm not always sure where the NHS is governing themselves or to what point the Government is involved.
I would have thought that NHS make their own choices and are in control of how things should be operated, and run with efficiency, with a seperate organisation to monitor and the funding from Government.

That is another can of worms Granny, usually the care given is means tested thereby some pay and some do not. It is not a fair situation when some people have been able to save and others on a similar income may have squandered their money yet the frugal gets squeezed. There are several layers to the care at home situation. Some only have family or friends as carers. Some have home help visitors. Some have occupational therapy involvement etc. It really depends on what your individual needs are.

No, it isn't a fair situation.

The awful thing is, that those who are paying, are not getting the service they pay for.

It's also strange that those who get most help from the government in supported living allowance ,entitlements and benefits and actually have more surplus cash at the end of each day, than many of those who don't get benefits or credits etc., are the ones who shout and jump up and down, making the most noise.

I haven't been privy to any census results relating to complainers. I think it to be more likely that they each jump up and down at about the same rate according to the people that i'm aware of. My son was 57p (a number engrained for eternity) in wages over the level to get any help, this was worked out by his handing over 3 months wage slips and the DWP working out the average, he had done overtime one week because he needed the money and that had taken him over the limit. He never complains and just keeps plodding on. Definitely not fair.