well maybe not- i do rather suspect that lansley has been sacrificed for this one, but he does seem rather useless
Chat Forum
This should send the right-wingers into full anti social healthcare mode
-
Posted 3 months ago #
-
Interesting graphic, I assume there's no overlap between the different blocks, right? No members of Unison that are also members of the Royal College of Nursing (or whatever)?
Either way it makes little difference. The important figures are a) the opinion of the general public, and b) the stability of the coalition. Everyone else can be painted as an "interested party", only "looking out for their own job".
Posted 3 months ago # -
unlikely to be any crossover though some may be in two unions but i doubt it.
Of course those who work in healthcare are interested parties but as this is a change to dleivery rather than their terms and conditions it is not about how it affects them.
I cannot thionk of any change being opposed by everyone and yet again thelib dems need to have a word with themselves dirty **** turncoats
everyone knew the tories would shaft the HNS for their mates in business but the lib dems --- ****
Posted 3 months ago # -
Well thats made up graphic if ever I saw one. I know plenty of BMA members who would fall on the right side, as well as a few RCN members.
IMO its a graphic that tells you nothing apart from the view point of the person who put it together.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Very litttle overlap if any mogrim.
the key thing here is the opposition from the royal colleges. (not nursing tho)Unprecedented.
I expect more trouble here yet - the various doctors bodies getting more involved. they could make it unworkable
Posted 3 months ago # -
What I don't get about these NHS reforms is that the government are saying "we're going to put control in the hands of the doctors because they know best" but the doctors are saying "know we don't, it won't work", yet they're still pressing ahead.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Very litttle overlap if any mogrim.
Fair enough, still a very biased graphic though - where are the 1000s of private sector workers that are probably quite happy about the idea of their companies getting more work and providing them with a secure(ish) job? Why use "a few hundred" coalition workers, instead of a more neutral number (e.g. 300+, 350+, not sure what the number is)?
Posted 3 months ago # -
There's no avoiding it, it's a dog's breakfast. The NHS needs reform, but this ain't it.
Posted 3 months ago # -
This should send the right-wingers into full anti social healthcare mode
As if we weren't having enough fun already.
Posted 3 months ago # -
All the English NHS needs is to get rid of the foundation hospitals nonsense, private providers and that sort of thing and then left alone.
the last thing it needs is major reorganisation. Just follow the Scottish model. simplify and co operate
Posted 3 months ago # -
Lansley can't say that he hasn't been warned.
Posted 3 months ago # -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZFeO2t4luQSomewhat appropriate this song came on the radio when I opened this thread
Posted 3 months ago # -
[/quote]"the key thing here is the opposition from the royal colleges. (not nursing tho)Unprecedented"
Unfortunately, the Royal Colleges didn't oppose it... if they did, it would have spiced things up a bit
Posted 3 months ago # -
Royal college of GPs has come in in total opposition. the others have not yet.
The crucial thing being the royal colleges (of doctors do) not have trade union functions like the BMA or RCN. Only concerned with standards
Posted 3 months ago # -
I suppose you could always look at the "debate" as a way of obfuscating the public's focus on other things e.g.
1. The "massive" (exaggerated) cost of the changes, even at £3Bn, is likely to represent less than 1% of the NHS annual spend when spread over the 3 or so years the implementation will take. By contrast the NHS has just put aside an *additional* £15B to cover the cost of compensating those who have been seriously harmed whilst in its care.
2. Many of the most vocal groups have very strong vested interests in maintaining the current status quo. It's quite noticeable that much of the commentary focuses on the impact on staff, with little, if any mention of patients.
3. If the current system is so wonderful how come we have 20% more patients dying at weekends, massive variations in outcomes between providers and hospital patients repeatedly being left in filthy conditions by staff who would rather stand round chatting than give good care (per recent news coverage of this and the 60+ people who died last year or completely avoidable bed sores)?
4. We're always told by the politicians and unions that the NHS is the envy of the world - so why is it that no-one is rushing to copy its model of care and most of the systems with the best outcomes already have integrated models similar to that advocated in the Health Bill?
5. We're told the NHS represents good value for money, despite the pretty poor outcomes when compared to other health systems.
At 11% of GDP, plus another 5% to cover off balance sheet pension liabilities, the NHS is now the most expensive healthcare system in the world - so why do so many patients continue to encounter a service that doesn't care, processes that are designed around the convenience of staff, and clinical practice that often repeats known mistakes that are not found in other health systems or amongst private providers - evidenced perfectly by the 70,000 complaints against doctors last year and the cursory efforts to ensure that poor practice is diagnosed, addressed and prevented from reoccurring.
6. The current level of NHS activity delivered by Private Providers is less than 1% of total spend - so why has the public been led to believe it's already a very substantial component of health delivery?
7. Many of the current critics against "Privatisation" are themselves private providers to the NHS, though conveniently forget to mention that when speaking out. Perhaps it's a case of those who currently benefit just protecting their interests(GP's working as contractors to the NHS on £500,000 a year being a case in point).
For me though, the real issue is that the NHS is a bit like a bubble in which staff have been led to believe that change is always bad and something that can and should be resisted at all costs - even when changes are proven to significantly improve patient experience / outcomes.
There is very little recognition for just how bad the NHS is at transferring and embedding good practice - this is almost entirely due to the current structure; which operates operates as a series of fiefdoms that aren't accountable enough to the patients they serve, or for the value they give to the tax payer.
A couple of examples of simple things the NHS should do to improve outcomes, avoid deaths and at little or no cost but hasn't...
* The number of NHS Trusts that still haven't adopted the WHO Surgical Safety checklists to avoid serious untoward incidents is a great example of this - the NHS continues to make mistakes but doesn't even use completely free tools that are proven to reduce errors in surgery by up to 50%.
* Another good example of the NHS "bubble" is the 10% of inpatients who continue to be given the wrong doses / wrong drugs - the trend on this hasn't changed in years despite patients continue to die as a result.. largely because no-one cares and no-one ever gets held to account for failing to sort it out (see the £15B litigation provision at the top of this post). And so it goes on...
Posted 3 months ago # -
Faremr John - so much of that is wrong its not funny - I'll just adress a couple of the most obvious
2. Many of the most vocal groups have very strong vested interests in maintaining the current status quo. It's quite noticeable that much of the commentary focuses on the impact on staff, with little, if any mention of patients.
simply not so - the main focus is on the damage it will do to care - the royal college of GPs for example does not represent staff at all - its purely about professional standards. Perhaps you should actually read the data from the objectors which are almost universal across the system.At 11% of GDP, plus another 5% to cover off balance sheet pension liabilities, the NHS is now the most expensive healthcare system in the world
Simply wrong - don't know where you get the 5% or even the 11% number as neither is true. Its cheaper than most and far far cheaper than the US
There is very little recognition for just how bad the NHS is at transferring and embedding good practice - this is almost entirely due to the current structure; which operates operates as a series of fiefdoms that aren't accountable enough to the patients they serve, or for the value they give to the tax payer.
And privatisation makes this worse - as this new structure will do.
Privatisation of the health service which is what this bill is intended to do worsens outcomes and increases costs.
OP - you were absolutly right
Posted 3 months ago # -
Do you think privatisation will solve these problems?
Farmerjohn, you are Andrew Lansley and I claim my five pounds.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Farmer John, nobody is claiming that the NHS is perfect. God knows, I work for it.
But if you think that the ConDem reforms are going to improve matters, then you are deluded. It's not as if we are spending anything like the Franco-German models - and historically, the NHS has provided reasonable value at less than continental levels of expenditure. At its best, it works because we co-operate, across & between specialties. The Bill stands a good chance of fragmenting those working relationships, and there will be considerable knock-on effects in both acute and chronic care. At that point, platitudes about competition are going to fall flat.
To put it another way... if you are going to bring up failings on (generally under-staffed & under-resourced - I know, I've worked on 'em) elderly care wards, then tell me how hiving off profitable elective activity to the likes of Ali Parsa is going to benefit their corner.
It's a bludy stupid Bill.
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
