Cameron has sold the some of the NHS to his failing buddies.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-sell-out-tories-sign-largest-5323402

[youtube]wSy3zbavGFs[/youtube]

If only real life were as humerous as Rudes' video, this sell-off is a travesty.

Got to vote out the lying, self serving Tory ....

Not sure if it's a sell out. The way I see it is the funding which would go to the NHS for operations, is covering the cost of patients who are being treated in private hospitals.

That would be the same as I had two years ago. An eye operation, and had I been sent to Arrowe Park it meant I could have waited up to 18 months. Instead , I was sent to a private hospital and was treated on the NHS within 4 weeks. The crossover makes complete sense if the waiting times can be reduced. Basically, the difference is, which building you attend. Doctors doing private operations also do NHS operations, so does it really matter where ?
Can't see a problem with that idea.

Profit.

Wouldn't it have been better to build up the NHS to clear these backlogs rather than throw the money to companies who have already shown incompetence and take a substantial cut out of that money as profit. This way, if and when the backlogs are cleared then they will have additional resources to prevent future backlogs.

The private companies aren't going to magically "produce" new surgeons etc, these people already exist and the NHS could employ them direct.

Next time you have a private operation or consultancy at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, knowing full well that the surgeon is the same one you meet in the NHS, ask yourself why this guy not busy doing NHS work at this time of day????

It's not profit ! It's the same cost as it would be on the NHS !!!!! It costs a damn site more if someone pays privately.

Whatever....

Strange point of view DD .The surgeons n the private sector are employed by the company they work for. The private patients obviously get priority, that's what private healthcare is about.
When the doctors are engaged with the NHS, they perform the treatment under NHS scheme, and I assume they are freelance to do that,if they have time on their hands that's what they do. If they do not have time on their hands, then they cannot do. If we had more trained doctors in this country then maybe the crisis would not have happened, but it has because we have a lack of qualified surgeons etc.
As happens I did not have a private consultancy and you read the wrong meaning into my post. I went to an optician who treats anyone and everyone, not private.
You cannot tell people who they should work for, and if these consultants/ surgeons wish to be employed by another company , that is their choice. Not only that, they also move from one end of the country to the other doing the same as most of them are top people in the area of expertise.

Can't understand why you think they should only be working only for the NHS.

Plus, if the NHS hospitals don't have enough operating theatres, then why not use the ones that are available? There were about 20 people having eye operations on the same day as myself, all on the national health. That could have meant another 20 people building up the backlog of Arrowe Park.

So I assume that your point is that empty operating theatres are a good idea because otherwise it might mean someone having an NHS operation in a different hospital ? I also assume, you would be happy to go to Aintree Hospital, Broadgreen Hospital, Liverpool Royal, Clatterbridge, The Women's Hospital, Countess of Chester because they are NHS hospitals, but not a hospital which is privately owned even though there is space and ops are done on the national health.

That is a particularly, peculiar idea

The majority of consultants that work in private hospitals are the same same consultants that work for the NHS.

If there is a shortage of operating theatres, you need to build more, the problem is not going to go away by avoiding the issue.

Many private hospitals do not have crash teams, their idea of backup when things go wrong is to dial 999 and you get ambulanced to the nearest NHS hospital (if you don't believe me, phone and ask).

I do know certain private hospital don't have resuscitation units, but fewer operations are now giving general anaesthetics, relying more on spinal injections when they can, even for hip replacements. I already stated that the private consultants also work in the NHS and they can perform their operations where is available. That is not the issue.

The fact is, at the moment anyone can go and have treatment in a private hospital under the NHS scheme. Is that so bad ??

Maybe you think an 80yr old person living on their own with no sight should be made to wait another 18 months to 2 yrs for an operation which can transform their lives and who would probably end up in a care home, which would cost even more. Or a child who is unable to lead an active life of a child for the next 18 months to 2yrs because they are hindered by a the wait for a relatively minor operation, which doesn't have to include general anaesthetic.

As stated ,many of the consultants who are employed by the private practices, work in the NHS,but also give lectures, and attend conferences at the Royal College of Surgeons, plus a lot more. Maybe they simply don't do enough !

Vom.

What is that supposed to mean ?

Nooooo - the backlog and shortage of money has been created by the promotion of private care.

As with many industries these days, the smaller guys are leaching off the big guys.

How much does it cost the private hospitals for training? - nothing, it is effectively subsidised by the NHS (and so a double whammy!).

How much do the private hospitals pay consultants? - more than NHS, this means that NHS have to pay their consultants more or they tend to just work part-time private.

What sort of operations do private hospitals carry out? - they cherry pick the ones that are most profitable which skews the NHS costs in comparison.

How much does it cost a private hospital to have NHS backup cover? - nothing even though the NHS has to provide a priority service, the NHS has to provide its own backup which is a major overhead.

So private hospitals are doing most of the stuff on the cheap (except paying the consultants) but charge more, the country is now paying the premium cost for the budget service which also disadvantages its own NHS service.

The quantity of patients is not going to go down, the investment is needed in the NHS and should have been done earlier, its a problem that will not go away. We already have drugs being withdrawn (ie the NHS refusing treatment!!!), the NHS is cutting back, the government is growing the private service - that can only head one way.

Oh yes, you also realise that a private consultant can prescribe NHS funded medication - yet another double whammy against the NHS.

If you can't say anything constructive in a debate, then don't say anything. Futile one syllable remarks are not impressionable.

17 meanings for VOM. Pick one granny.

DD , I cannot be bothered continuing for obvious reasons.
You have your opinion and I can see the benefits for many who are able to have an operation sooner rather than later, if it helps them.
Cost is cost in any walk of life, some might not get a chance and if your mother needed an op under such a scheme and had the choice then I think you would be more than happy for her to go ahead.
If on principle alone you refused her that, then I think it would not be a very calculated reason.
Whilst the hospital crisis is in full swing, for whatever reasons, if the option is there, I cannot see why it should not be accepted. Building new operating theatres will take time, and you surely know how long it takes for even architectural plans to be drawn up etc. etc.

There is one other thing to be incorporated, and that this process has been going on for years.

Now I am not prepared to continue any further tonight, because someone is behaving is a ridiculous way.

Some very fair and valid points have been made for the usage of private health care. I have issues relating to the way public cash is given out to less scrupulous companies as mentioned in the posted article. If £1,200 per minutes is paid out to agency nurses why is it not simply paid for nurses and not pay agency fees? The article is littered with figures and i'm sure it is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The comment asking why surgeons should not be able to do private work too is a fair one but if we are paying their wages then they should only do NHS work during their normal working day but do extra work in their own time. Its a fact that they do both throughout the day so who actually pays and who profits. The debate is bound to run on and on and it is about profit and sometimes greed. It is leading to a multi layered NHS which will not suit everyone and some will be too blinkered to see.

The principal of getting your NHS treatment done privately or even in a different country when the local NHS are unable to provide it in a reasonable time-scale has been a patients right for a number of years and the NHS have to fund it. I'm not arguing against that.

Nothing is changing from a patient's perspective, but a lot of funding is changing hands.

What I am disgusted by, is the NHS is in desperate need of funding to stop backlogs happening, money is suddenly available and it is getting thrown at private companies - why?

This is intentionally depriving the NHS and promoting private health care - surely that is closing the NHS down?

It can't be depriving the NHS, as it is going towards treating the NHS patients. That's how I see it.
So far as figures are concerned I have no idea, but in the meantime, surely a possible solution for many in a different hospital, is no different than being at Arrowe Park or anywhere else. Just call it Arrowe Park annexe, it might sound better. Also I doubt they would do major ops in the private hospitals (don't really know) but minor ops without general anaesthetic, can be in and out in a few hours. It has to be an option at the moment for many. The place was heaving when I went, about 20 having eye ops, and obviously many others for other things. Maybe they are operations that need more immediate attention, I know mine was, and a lady was there who had been waiting for 2 years at Arrowe Park, so she had gone back to her GP. as she was deteriorating rapidly. Arrowe Park had said she would have to wait another few months.
Anyway, I was very grateful, even tho I didn't ask for it. At the time, I was unable to drive, falling down steps, and not able to judge anything. Not nice when the 3D goes. Now my sight is just about perfect again. Thanks to them.

If it pays a private company to build an annexe at APH then it would pay the NHS to build the same annex at APH, the NHS can lease it out for private (we already have the basis for this in place at APH called the Park Suite where APH gets the profits).

Its the NHS with the backlog not the Private Hospitals, its the NHS that needs the additional facilities.

The NHS is also promoting that GPs enhance their facilities for minor surgery.

If your waiting time is excessive, ask your doctor about NHS funding privately, its been available for years (since 2009 I think) under Patient Choice.

I'm genuinly glad that you had a positive experience Granny but I think you have also proven that more funding is needed in the NHS rather than outsourcing, which must still be paid for from public funds. The extra funding would most certainly bring down waiting times, lead to better treatment and improve staff moral.

It would be interesting if the gov had an independent bean counter work out the cost of various operations done in the NHS and then see if the private companies could do the same ops for that amount.
ie paid per operation and not as one huge sum paid annually

The government has various means of finance checking but if ever they want to implement change they say "we do not recognise those figures" or results, depending on the process used. Listen out for the phrase on the news, it appears quite regularly.

Is it me, or is the point I'm making not getting through ?

Treatment done on national health, treatment done by surgeons/ specialist/ consultants who are also employed by the NHS , treatment performed in operating theatres, operating theatres in the walls of a private hospital. Why is it EXTRA funding ?The same funding would be used in an NHS hospital, it is only the waiting times that are different, and the waiting times on the NHS are being reduced, instead of increasing by providing this service. SIMPLE. Stop making it difficult !

In very simple terms......

You want to go to Liverpool from Seacombe by the ferry boat.
The first ferry boat is full
A second ferry boat is sailing from Woodside, if you can get there, so at the same cost you can get that one.
So you get on the one from Woodside and arrive at Liverpool a little before the Seacombe ferry boat. It didn't cost anymore !.

I had a similar experience to Granny when I needed a knee replacement. NHS choice I think it is/was called. So I could have the knee done in Arrowe Park and wait at least 6 months or in Murrayfield within 3 weeks. No contest, as once I had decided to have the knee replaced I wanted it done asap.Same surgeon worked both hospitals but as there is limited capacity everywhere the waiting list for Murrayfield was much shorter.To me it it makes perfect sense to basically rent the private facilities just as anybody would hire,say a cement mixer as it is only needed for a limited period.Talk of spending the money on improving NHS facilities misses the point that building a new hospital or increasing the capacity at those we have seems to take an eternity. The last thing anybody wants is having to wait for an operation.People complain all the time about long waiting lists and when something is done to shorten the delays people still complain.

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.

Granny . Are you saying the NHS will be paying directly to the surgeons who do the outside operations at private hospitals on the NHS behalf ? I thought the NHS had to negotiate with private hospitals as to prices for various ops/procedures they needed? Also thought the private places then paid those Drs/Operators whatever they needed to to secure them. Also understood that the private hospitals were well aware that NHS top exec had targets to keep for waiting times , and tailored their prices upwards accordingly - meaning ops etc often cost far more than usual?

What I am saying is the surgeons who work for private companies also work for the NHS. Did you not know that ? Probably because they have experience in the necessary field required.

So if the surgeon does an operation on the NHS patient , that is exactly it. What the cost is for hiring the operating theatre might be, I don't know, but if it reduces waiting lists and backlog for the NHS operating theatres, then why not ?
Surgeons from private health care companies e.g. Bupa, have long performed operations in the same manner for the NHS. At least 30 years that I know of, but at that time using the NHS operating theatres !

Radiographers also work for the NHS, on 'supply' from private companies at massive cost; did you know that ? Why doesn't the NHS executive employ radiographers directly ? One wonders how many other areas are 'supply' or contracted out.

One surgeon is the best in the country, and provides his services all over the country.

http://surgicalcareers.rcseng.ac.uk/surgeons/practising-as-a-surgeon/independant-practice

The more operations done in the private sector the more consultants and nurses will migrate away from the NHS, we already have a shortage of consultants and a critical shortage of nurses.

This in turn will create a bigger backlog and starts a never ending spiralling decline of the NHS plus a substantial increase in costs.

I'm all for contracting out to reduce backlogs, I am not in favour of giving handouts to the private sector in preference to the NHS, the NHS has to remain the dominant sector for public work and has to be built up to cope with future demands.

If you want to to what happens when public services are contracted out, look at the high cost, low quality bus services we now have, look at the turmoil the education system is in, look at the fines the utility services are receiving.

Who are Prime PLC ?

http://www.primeplc.com/news/prime-...-closes-47-million-of-nhs-property-deals

Prime PLC are a company who specialise in healthcare buildings, been around for quite a while (at least 18 years) and seem to have kept their nose clean. They picked up work from the numerous healthcare centres that were being built and have done loads.

Virgin Care, which has been handed contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds to run more than 230 NHS and social care services, is one of at least 10 private health firms seeking state-funded contracts whose company structures include tax havens, it can be revealed.

An analysis by Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant at Tax Research UK, has found 13 holding companies, some of them offshore, between Virgin Care and its ultimate parent company, based in the British Virgin Islands.

While not currently recording a profit in the UK after administrative expenses, Virgin Care borrows money solely from a holding company and says it will repay that loan, which will be corporation tax-deductible, when a profit starts to be recorded. That holding company is based in the UK but it, in turn, owes money to other parts of the Virgin empire, whose ultimate parent company is in the British Virgin Islands. Its principal beneficiaries are billionaire businessman Sir Richard Branson, reported to have a net worth of £2.7bn, and his family.

Despite the company structure, which makes it unlikely to pay any tax in the UK in the foreseeable future, according to Murphy, Virgin Care recently won contracts worth £500m to provide 30 primary care services across England, including GP practices, GP out-of-hours services, walk-in centres, urgent care centres and minor injury units . Its website claims Virgin Care, which became part of the Virgin Group in 2010, runs 230 NHS and social care services while employing 5,500 people.

The company’s latest accounts referred to the health and social care bill – which has opened the NHS to more private providers – as an “opportunity”. Its highest-paid director earned a basic salary of £300,295 in 2013/14.

A spokesman for Virgin Care said: “As the report points out, we have not yet reached a state of profitability. The shareholders are still investing in the growth of the business. We are incorporated and resident in the UK for tax purposes and subject to UK tax law, and will meet those obligations as and when we reach profitability.”

Advertisement

A report from Murphy, commissioned by the Unite union, examined the tax affairs of 10 private companies which are actively seeking to take on NHS services. Of those companies – Bio Product Laboratories (BPL), Care UK, Circle, General Healthcare Group (GHG), HCA International (Hospital Corporation of America), Ramsay, Spire Healthcare, The Practice PLC, UnitedHealth (Optum) and Virgin – only two (Ramsay and HCA) pay any significant corporation tax in the UK, and all make use of tax havens in their corporate structures.

All the companies contacted said they do not use tax havens to avoid tax and claimed that when profits were earned, tax would be paid. Murphy told the Observer that while some of the companies can legitimately say they are not recording a profit, there is seemingly a “low commitment” among them to pay tax in the UK. He said: “What the structure of many of these businesses shows is that tax planning is at the very core of their activities. This is the wrong priority for companies working in the state-funded NHS, where the tax contribution everyone makes, including those who supply NHS services, is vital to the continuing health of the nation.”

He writes in his report: “Virgin is by no means the only company to have offshore ownership. Although Spire has been reconstituted during 2014 as a UK stock exchange-quoted company, it is still controlled by a Guernsey-based private equity operation, while Bio Products Laboratory Holdings is owned from the Cayman Islands by Bain Capital, another private equity fund.

“Circle Holdings plc is another company with strong offshore links, and it is in fact itself a Jersey-registered company with a related British Virgin Islands company owning another part of the Circle operation at present.”

The report further finds that Optum UK, a subsidiary of United Healthcare, is bidding for a Staffordshire-based NHS cancer and palliative care contract worth £1.2bn. Optum’s links to tax havens including the Cayman Islands through its parent company, are not clear. However, it has not paid any corporation tax in the UK, but the company said it will do so once it becomes profitable.

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said he was also concerned that seven of the firms, including Virgin and GHG, have US subsidiaries or investors, potentially allowing them to use a new EU-US trade deal to prevent the government blocking their future bids or terminating existing contracts. He said: “Many of these companies are US companies, or have strong US investment links, which means the government could be prevented from taking their NHS contracts back into the public sector unless the NHS is exempted from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.”


http://www.theguardian.com/society/...o-to-firms-that-use-tax-havens?CMP=fb_gu