"As I said Nationally we need a serious conversation"
My personal experience of the NHS has been superb, but it's pretty clear that very few people are happy with the funding mechanism. We have to move to a private model, that way everyone gets exactly the legal of cover they want and nobody can complain.
We have to move to a private model, that way everyone gets exactly the legal of cover they want and nobody can complain.
Could you explain how this would work?
GPs to be paid £150 to diagnose and treat dementia
Could you explain how this would work?
If you don't have any money you'll die and be unable to complain.
"Could you explain how this would work?"
Beats me. But it's clear that people think the current model is vulnerable to deliberate underfunding for political reasons and for my entire lifetime there has been a consensus that the NHS is underfunded.
So clearly it doesn't work for most people in practice.
I know people don't like this Hunt bloke, but he must be really bad if he thinks that underfunding a business and running it into the ground would make it attractive for privatisation? Is this some new kind of strategy for preparing a company for the market? Still haven't seen any prospectus yet though? Even odder still......
it's pretty clear that very few people are happy with the funding mechanism. We have to move to a private model
The private model is far less cost effective, the United states proves that in a very dramatic way. If you want the UK to spend more of its GDP on healthcare then a switch to the private model would be the way to go.
But if you are looking to reducing the cost of healthcare then privatisation is definitely not the way to go.
I know people don't like this Hunt bloke, but he must be really bad if he thinks that underfunding a business and running it into the ground would make it attractive for privatisation? Is this some new kind of strategy for preparing a company for the market?
What a silly comment.
Indeed Ernie, it's very hard to fit in with the tone of the thread, so excuse me.
so excuse me.
It's pretty much what I expect from you - disingenuous nonsense - the sort of stuff that a Daily Mail columnist would write. Not that you're a Tory of course.
Ernie look at the chart on the Kings Group link, France, Germany (in fact pretty much everyone) have much higher levels of private contributions to health (chart is % gdp). The US model is very different as income taxes are very low (rates and deductions) and so it's funded very differently to the European Welfare State model.
Look at the absolute levels of spending I posted.
IMO What we need is legislation which says private health care must cover pre-existing conditions. It would also help if we had a French style system where if you go "private" the state still pays it's standard fee and then you/insurance pays the top up. Everytime we go to the doctors or hospital in France we take our Carte Vital (a chip/pin smart photo card proving entitlement), a credit card and proof of insurance. France one of the most left wing countries in Europe. Do they have demonstrations complaining of a privitised Health Service ? No.
What we have is a fabulous idea, state health care for all free at the point of service. However its not funded at ANYTHING like the right level and no political party is suggesting increasing the budget appropriately. People simply won't vote for what's necessary.
"The private model is far less cost effective"
It *has* to be better than having it run by people who most people think are actively sabotaging it!
^^ this.
People are selfish, they will pay extra insurance for themselves, they won't pay enough extra tax for "everyone"
The NHS is many (positive) things, efficient is not one of them.
Electing a government which is committed to the NHS is the obvious solution rather than handing over healthcare provisions to profit driven providers.
jambalaya - MemberThe NHS is many (positive) things, efficient is not one of them.
Since you like quoting the King's Fund this one is especially for you jambalaya :
[b][i] "The evidence shows that the NHS is performing well compared to other countries' health systems, although there is still room for improvement in some areas".[/i][/b]
[url=
one: the NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries' health systems[/url]
"Electing a government which is committed to the NHS is the obvious solution rather than handing over healthcare provisions to profit driven providers."
But most people think that has never happened in my lifetime. (Or maybe in your opinion it has only happened half the time).
Either way, someone taking a percentage out is clearly going to do a far better job than someone who is deliberately sabotaging it.
"Myth one: the NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries' health systems"
So the Tories are a) Deliberately sabotaging it and also b) running it as well as everyone else's. 😀
So the Tories are a) Deliberately sabotaging it and also b) running it as well as everyone else's.
The Tories aren't running it in the day-to-day sense, and even the last reorganisation left a lot of the basic model relatively unchanged. It's quite possible for the fundamental system to be relatively efficient while the very top level (ie political) management is actively undermining the whole thing to try and make a private system seem more appealing.
For the bit of healthcare I work in, a good chunk of the service is provided by a private company. I have no ideological preference either way,but let's just say I'm far from convinced by the logic that private is more efficient - as a possible patient and as a tax payer I'd prefer that service to be provided by the NHS (as it is in some places).
It may well be just that one company, but at the very least it undermines the 'public bad, private good' message that is so prevalent through this whole debate. If anyone has a better idea for how to organise things then I'm all ears, but I think the standard of reasoning and evidence for why it will be better and what current problem is being solved needs to be a bit higher than "well it's obvious, isn't it?".
"the very top level (ie political) management is actively undermining the whole thing"
So it doesn't work and has to be taken out of political control and into our own hands where we can choose. Private model is the only way to do that - if people don't like shareholders just buy healthcare from a not for profit company.
outofbreath - Member"Myth one: the NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries' health systems"So the Tories are a) Deliberately sabotaging it and also b) running it as well as everyone else's.
The only person using the term "deliberately sabotaging" is you. I can't figure out if you are arguing against yourself, or against the King's Fund. Can you explain?
BBC.CO.UK There's your private model right there, tear the arse out of it and shut the doors once it's clear there's no profit
I'm still left wondering how outofbreath thinks that private healthcare would ensure everyone gets the cover they want.... I want the best cover please.
I also want the best education possible for my son so when the trick for health care has been revealed can we apply it to education too?
It's pretty much what I expect from you - disingenuous nonsense - the sort of stuff that a Daily Mail columnist would write.
You are too kind Ernie thank you
"The evidence shows that the NHS is performing well compared to other countries' health systems, although there is still room for improvement in some areas".
I take it back. Perhaps they are getting it ready to be privatised after all.
Why are you guys even bothering to debate this ?
Public sector provision of anything is anathema to the Tories.
The NHS will remain a shell logo but everything thing else is now out to tender
SPENDMATTERS.COM and the NHS cannot afford to recruit & retain "bid response teams" so will NOT win any work in competitive tenders against Serco, Virgin, Capita etc.
Its all a done deal...Chill
On both Andrew Marr and Sky's new Sophy Ridge programmes the newspaper reviewers (inc Guardian journalist) agreed we spend far too little on health care and that a proper debate isn't possible as the conversation quickly becomes very politcial and highly emotional. As such nothing gets done and health care costs confinue to rise far faster than any government is willing to acknowledge.
Will catch up on thread later
jambalaya - MemberErnie NHS asked for £8bn pa by 2020
Hoping that if you keep saying it, it'll become true? The correction was on the previous page so it's nice and easy to repeat.
Stevens reminded Hunt that the document said the health service would need £8bn-£21bn by 2020, and would only cope with the smaller amount if major progress was made on improving social care, public health and how NHS care was delivered.
And the health select committee says:
“In our view, the funding announced in the Spending Review does not meet the Government’s commitment"
TL;DR- the NHS didn't just ask for £8bn, and the government hasn't given them it anyway.
Nick Hulme, chief executive of Colchester and Ipswich hospital trusts, told HSJ of current problems in A&E: "It's unprecedented. I've not seen anything like this in 37 years in the health service. There is always a hangover from Christmas and New Year but this has been absolutely relentless (in demand and acuity of patients)."
this is absolutely what medic colleagues have told me about their post xmas and new years shifts
and its been a mild winter!!
taken out of political control and into our own hands where we can choose. Private model is the only way to do that
But that's not what's happening or likely to happen - the current model is NHS England (basically department of health) or local groups commission a service from one provider for each area. More of those services being from private companies instead of public NHS makes no difference to choice.
But even with a more radical change, genuine choice depends on people being able to make an informed choice between several viable options. That's almost impossible in healthcare, beyond the very basic "I went private to see someone faster about my knee" type scenario. For surgery, or oncology, or diabetes management, or radiology, or for countless other specialist areas it's impossible for most people, including those working on other areas of healthcare, to know what's really important. We end up with people thinking that private is better because they had nice chairs in the waiting room and a better cafe, never realising that the same problems (or worse) with staffing and equipment meant they'd received pretty average care.
There's also the risk if you duplicate services that certain conditions or procedures become too infrequent for staff to maintain competency/familiarity, with fairly well known clinical risks - even with the current model, there are some specialist departments that cover a huge area because that gives better care, at the expense of local treatment.
THEGUARDIAN.COM 
