If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank1 min ago
More Nhs Privatisation On The Way ?
Typical Tory sleaze - and more tax-payers money to line rich shareholders pockets. The transfer of OUR NHS to Tory cronies will obviously continue.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That would mean governments have no choice but to hand over massively lucrative contracts to political donors and funnel money out of the NHS.
I can see why that's a tricky problem to solve, but fundamentally it is exactly the kind of problem that governments are supposed to be there to solve. We shouldn't just accept it. Nobody forces their hand, it's done for expediencey.
I can see why that's a tricky problem to solve, but fundamentally it is exactly the kind of problem that governments are supposed to be there to solve. We shouldn't just accept it. Nobody forces their hand, it's done for expediencey.
please can anybody answer this serious question or do i need to start a new post , maybe in the jokes section...
is the poster gulliver for real or some sort of kid whos been let loose on a computer...having read the fools mostly totally irelevant replies on this post im guessing there needs to be a subsection in jokes "jokers"
is this section supposed to be for serious questions and replies amongst intelligent adults or what ?...maybe ive misunderstood the point of this board...jeeeeez
is the poster gulliver for real or some sort of kid whos been let loose on a computer...having read the fools mostly totally irelevant replies on this post im guessing there needs to be a subsection in jokes "jokers"
is this section supposed to be for serious questions and replies amongst intelligent adults or what ?...maybe ive misunderstood the point of this board...jeeeeez
Stop awarding contracts to political donors? Might be a start? Maybe tighten up donation rules so that cabinet members are forbidden from accepting donations from people with a vested interest in their policy area?
Could easily strip away some of the useless "healthcare professional" agencies that cost thousands an hour, endless consultancies which are awarded hefty contracts for impossible/useless advice. Abolish the hideous Trust system which treats hospitals as though they are businesses.
Obviously this would take years. But one step in the right direction is better than ten in the wrong one.
Could easily strip away some of the useless "healthcare professional" agencies that cost thousands an hour, endless consultancies which are awarded hefty contracts for impossible/useless advice. Abolish the hideous Trust system which treats hospitals as though they are businesses.
Obviously this would take years. But one step in the right direction is better than ten in the wrong one.
“It would need a good deal less public cash if it was not infested with parasite companies taking their cut.”
One of the biggest “parasite companies taking their cut” is the collection of General Practitioners which sucks up huge sums of cash.
Since it seems impossible to mention the NHS without taking political sides, the Blair government pumped enormous extra “resources” (i.e. taxpayers’ cash) into the GP service by virtually doubling GP’s pay whilst substantially cutting the work they were required to do. If a Tory government had done the same with a private contractor who was responsible for, say, cleaning hospitals, all hell would have been let loose. But the scheme passed virtually unnoticed. GP’s now perform little or no out-of-hours work (the NHS having to fund locums or agencies instead) and their pay has doubled.
“The CONs picked every note off the magic money tree and shook it bare , to pay the DUP to help dig them out of the ***, “
Just another point of pedantry (which I often adopt when dealing with your posts, Gulliver, because it’s easier than trying to engage in rational debate): The “Money Tree” was not used to pay the DUP. It was used to provide extra funding for services for the people of Northern Ireland. That’s what Members of Parliament are supposed to do – lobby the government to secure the interests of their constituents.
The biggest problem the NHS faces is that it used by politicians as a political boxing glove used to punch the other side. Many of the posts on here attest to that. It should not be a party political issue – it is far too important for that. Politicians for once, instead of finding ways to further their careers or the fortunes of their party, should seek to reform the NHS along sustainable lines. Simply shouting “we put the most money into it” is no solution. Any fool can spend money – especially when it is other people’s – but it takes a bit more skill to spend it wisely. The NHS is haemorrhaging cash at a phenomenal rate because it is badly organised and badly run and this is the product of decades of neglect. That neglect has not been financial – quite the opposite in fact because the money thrown at it borders on criminality. It has been organisational neglect coupled with a failure to accept that it is no longer sustainable in its present form.
One of the biggest “parasite companies taking their cut” is the collection of General Practitioners which sucks up huge sums of cash.
Since it seems impossible to mention the NHS without taking political sides, the Blair government pumped enormous extra “resources” (i.e. taxpayers’ cash) into the GP service by virtually doubling GP’s pay whilst substantially cutting the work they were required to do. If a Tory government had done the same with a private contractor who was responsible for, say, cleaning hospitals, all hell would have been let loose. But the scheme passed virtually unnoticed. GP’s now perform little or no out-of-hours work (the NHS having to fund locums or agencies instead) and their pay has doubled.
“The CONs picked every note off the magic money tree and shook it bare , to pay the DUP to help dig them out of the ***, “
Just another point of pedantry (which I often adopt when dealing with your posts, Gulliver, because it’s easier than trying to engage in rational debate): The “Money Tree” was not used to pay the DUP. It was used to provide extra funding for services for the people of Northern Ireland. That’s what Members of Parliament are supposed to do – lobby the government to secure the interests of their constituents.
The biggest problem the NHS faces is that it used by politicians as a political boxing glove used to punch the other side. Many of the posts on here attest to that. It should not be a party political issue – it is far too important for that. Politicians for once, instead of finding ways to further their careers or the fortunes of their party, should seek to reform the NHS along sustainable lines. Simply shouting “we put the most money into it” is no solution. Any fool can spend money – especially when it is other people’s – but it takes a bit more skill to spend it wisely. The NHS is haemorrhaging cash at a phenomenal rate because it is badly organised and badly run and this is the product of decades of neglect. That neglect has not been financial – quite the opposite in fact because the money thrown at it borders on criminality. It has been organisational neglect coupled with a failure to accept that it is no longer sustainable in its present form.
Krom, I agree with all of that – and to further cut wastage I would also reduce the number of administrative personnel and stop offering non-essential treatments. I suppose one problem is that implementing any major change requires an advance back-up strategy – a major, major task ... possibly impossible.
"suppose one problem is that implementing any major change requires an advance back-up strategy – a major, major task ... possibly impossible."
Unfortunately that is the view of many connected with the NHS, naomi. "It's too difficult so we'd better leave it as it is". It is not a realistic option to leave it as it is and the plain fact of the matter is that the people currently tasked with making it fit for purpose - both politicians and NHS management - are simply not up to the job. Most politicians have not run anything more demanding of their skills than a bath and have no real vision beyond maintaining their status. Many of the so-called senior managers in the NHS are simply journeymen/women who flit from one post to the next (with the usual increase in pay, natch) avoiding the flack when the excrement hits the air conditioning as a result of their ineptitude.
Much of this country has moved away from "it must be done so we'll get on and do it" towards "it's a bit too difficult so, as much as it needs doing, we'd be better off leaving it as it is" (witness Brexit as a prime example). It does nobody any good and will eventually see more and more of the country's services fall to Third World status.
Unfortunately that is the view of many connected with the NHS, naomi. "It's too difficult so we'd better leave it as it is". It is not a realistic option to leave it as it is and the plain fact of the matter is that the people currently tasked with making it fit for purpose - both politicians and NHS management - are simply not up to the job. Most politicians have not run anything more demanding of their skills than a bath and have no real vision beyond maintaining their status. Many of the so-called senior managers in the NHS are simply journeymen/women who flit from one post to the next (with the usual increase in pay, natch) avoiding the flack when the excrement hits the air conditioning as a result of their ineptitude.
Much of this country has moved away from "it must be done so we'll get on and do it" towards "it's a bit too difficult so, as much as it needs doing, we'd be better off leaving it as it is" (witness Brexit as a prime example). It does nobody any good and will eventually see more and more of the country's services fall to Third World status.
-- answer removed --
Yes naomi, it has become an unwieldy monster. But it didn't happen overnight. It has been deteriorating for years. What doesn't help is that every time any suggestions are made for improvements, which will inevitably mean a mix of state and private enterprise involvement, up go the arms bleating "hands off our NHS". Many people would sooner see its seventy year old principles maintained (only on paper because they are impossible to maintain in reality) than to have some pragmatism injected into the behemoth.
In short, they prefer to continue with the current shambles than bite the bullet and get it sorted in case the changes upset a few people.
In short, they prefer to continue with the current shambles than bite the bullet and get it sorted in case the changes upset a few people.
NJ, //But it didn't happen overnight. It has been deteriorating for years. //
Precisely. I've been saying that since I joined this thread.... and others.
I agree with you. I too think the 'Hands off our NHS' mentality creates a major obstacle. If it's going to survive, like it or not, it
has to change.
Precisely. I've been saying that since I joined this thread.... and others.
I agree with you. I too think the 'Hands off our NHS' mentality creates a major obstacle. If it's going to survive, like it or not, it
has to change.
But if more expensive it's not value for money. And if less money what's bring cut ? And again there's loss of control and possible quality issues from, for example, underpaid and disgrunted cleaning staff. It's just bad practice to offload one's responsibilities elsewhere, perhaps to the lowest bidder. Do the job properly, take responsibility, do it in house. Employ the necessary staff and ensure it's right.
For what it's worth I made the following response on a previous thread:
"Youngmafbog. When you say that no more money should be given to the NHS I would suggest a single, one off fund be created to make redundancy payments to every non-clinical position between team leader and director. If a director can't work without several layers of managers between them and the folks actually doing the work then they shouldn't be there either.
This may seem drastic but the system is so unwieldy that it is now impossible to fix by tinkering around the edges.
The savings in salaries and the other costs involved can then be directed to patient care, which is where should be. It would also release the bottlenecks which currently inhibit patient care and allow support staff ( IT, HR etc) to simply do their jobs.
At the same time a Royal commission or similar ( totally removed from political control) should be set up to consider the whole concept of the NHS in the twenty first century. This would be charged to complete within a timescale of , say, eighteen months After publication, to the general public, of their findings the politicians can put their views to the electorate before the next election. "
"Youngmafbog. When you say that no more money should be given to the NHS I would suggest a single, one off fund be created to make redundancy payments to every non-clinical position between team leader and director. If a director can't work without several layers of managers between them and the folks actually doing the work then they shouldn't be there either.
This may seem drastic but the system is so unwieldy that it is now impossible to fix by tinkering around the edges.
The savings in salaries and the other costs involved can then be directed to patient care, which is where should be. It would also release the bottlenecks which currently inhibit patient care and allow support staff ( IT, HR etc) to simply do their jobs.
At the same time a Royal commission or similar ( totally removed from political control) should be set up to consider the whole concept of the NHS in the twenty first century. This would be charged to complete within a timescale of , say, eighteen months After publication, to the general public, of their findings the politicians can put their views to the electorate before the next election. "
"It's just bad practice to offload one's responsibilities elsewhere, perhaps to the lowest bidder."
No it's not, OG. Almost every major company outsources most of its non-core work to other providers. No large firms that I know of undertake their own cleaning; many outsource their payroll and their pensions administration; those that provide catering for their staff usually do so via specialist caterers. Many firms let contracts for their core work: Openreach has a big contract with MJ Quinn for external telecoms equipment provision; Network Rail uses Balfour Beatty and others for its civil engineering. All pay the going rate for the work because it is better value (even allowing for the contractors' profits).
Cries of horror go up every time it is discovered that the NHS is using such "privatised" services and I just don't know why. As I said earlier, GPs are essentially private contractors (who make a tidy "profit") but nobody seems to bat an eyelid at that. The aim is to give patients the best possible service using the funds available. If it cannot provide services in a timely manner that private contractors can then they have a duty to use those contractors.
No it's not, OG. Almost every major company outsources most of its non-core work to other providers. No large firms that I know of undertake their own cleaning; many outsource their payroll and their pensions administration; those that provide catering for their staff usually do so via specialist caterers. Many firms let contracts for their core work: Openreach has a big contract with MJ Quinn for external telecoms equipment provision; Network Rail uses Balfour Beatty and others for its civil engineering. All pay the going rate for the work because it is better value (even allowing for the contractors' profits).
Cries of horror go up every time it is discovered that the NHS is using such "privatised" services and I just don't know why. As I said earlier, GPs are essentially private contractors (who make a tidy "profit") but nobody seems to bat an eyelid at that. The aim is to give patients the best possible service using the funds available. If it cannot provide services in a timely manner that private contractors can then they have a duty to use those contractors.
