[Closed] NHS Privitisation is coming

In other shocking news, its been revealed that the companies that supply the NHS with machinery, ambulances, beds, cleaning materials, drugs, plasters, consumables and computers are all private sector companies that make a profit out of providing to the public sector

Will nobody put an end to this madness!

my Trust currently has a ban on recruitment and a M.A.R.S. scheme going (mutually agreed resignation scheme) to try and reduce staffing further, PFI application has been put on hold too, basically it's even more down the ****er than it ever was, the above wouldn't surprise me at all, especially as they are talking "central hubs" for pathology rather than individual hospitals, weather these hubs are in the UK has yet to be determined, but it doesn't take long to fly blood samples etc to the likes of India et al

Well, they effectively privatised the undergraduate element of the universities with the tuition fees move, so I guess they are just looking for he next thing to sell off.

They're probably using it as a diversion to get the forests sold; I mean which are the great British public going to get more upset about? 😉

You are very cynical TJ. The exchange of emails with American Private Providers was simply an exercise in our favourite Downing Street nutters blue-sky-thinking programme. It was purely a sort of thinking-out-loud. One which they clearly wanted to keep from the public as they didn't want us worrying our pretty little heads about.

They are absolutely hell bent on opening up the NHS to European competition law. Because once they do, then its irreversible. The genie is well and truly out of the lamp. At the NHS will be absolutely at the mercy of big business. Them and their mates. Chances of the present health secretary, and one or two other tory MP's popping up on one of their boards as a non-exec director in a year or two after the deed is done?

Why are you such a xenophobe, TJ?

here we have the best funded health care service in the world and all it gets is knocks.. sure money is tight but those spending the money have to spend it wiser money doesnt grow on trees..
the health service like many public cervice providers seems more keen to shed jobs than reduce the income of those it employs? does my mrs mate whos a gp need to pay 22k into a pension fund.. who much does she need? does the guy living opposite who has a degree in elctricl engineering and maintains equipment in a local hospital need to take 4 years off to get a physics degree all paid for?
surely if all the employess agreed there true value based on a set wage budget they could all work and maintain the service level just not have quite the benifits they once had.. just like my lads did when i said i couldnt afford to keep them all on this summer but would need them all come october.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

In other shocking news.................Will nobody put an end to this madness!

Not quite as shocking as when I first heard your guru Zulu-Eleven, and writer of your bible "The Plan", Dan Hannan, slag off the NHS to an American TV audience, calling it a failed experiment and mistake which made people [i]"iller" [/i]! And urging the American people to keep their appalling private profit making healthcare system.

Let's remind ourselves what your political inspirator had to say about the NHS Zulu-Eleven

What sort of Schweinhund makes a profit out of sick kiddies ?

Well, apart from each and every employee of the NHS who sell their time, at a profit, to their employer?

To give NHS assets and money to foreign private health companies

that's called a PFI? you know all the off-balance sheet dodgy contract financing of shiny new stuff we need and sometimes don't need because we change our mind that's happened for the last 20 years

the interview of Hannan was so sycophantic (sic) it wasn't true, ego's on both sides being stroked

I don't think you understand what "profit" means cranberry.In fact it's clear that you don't.

I guess it depends on the person/role you are dealing with. If it's someone whose conduct will have a direct or indirect affect on the outcomes of the wellbeing of me, my family or friends. I'd like to deal with people who were motivated to do the best they could rather than the minimum they can get away with. As Z11 illustrated both public and private sectors can do this very well, but likewise can also be tasked with doing the minimum that can be got away with. So for me the issue is not public vs. private, but excellence vs. mediocrity (or as politicians would put it - 'Delivering value for money in difficult times', or some similar guff)

Most people I know on the shopfloor are adopting the crash position... get ready for the cluster****.

I would like to grip people who spout vague platidues about markets and competition in defence of all this. Decent service in acute care is dependent upon co-operation & collaboration: between individuals, between specialties, between hospitals. Do not underestimate the importance of that capacity. And some right nonsense has been promoted in defence of the ConDem reforms (e.g. the dubious use of AMI data [url= http://www.nhsconfed.org/Documents/Salon_summary_No_patient_left_behind_jr100211.pdf ]here[/url]). The NHS may not be perfect, but we are in serious danger of fragmenting the kind of stuff it [i]can[/i] do well. The plans will do wonders for the health of nicely-timed ventures like Circle inc - I doubt they will do wonders for overstretched elderly care wards.

My dad has just retired from it all, praise be, and so won't be dealing with the coming nonsense (how does competition "work" in paediatric intensive care, FFS?).

Platitudes, even. 🙄

[i]profit
noun
1. Often, profits.
a. pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction. Compare gross profit, net profit.
b.the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.
c. returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments.
2. the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.: The company works on a small margin of profit.
[b]3. advantage; benefit; gain.[/b][/i]

I understand fully what profit means.

I think the third explanation follows from the previous ones in the list.

Gaining a monetary reward from having sold your labour is not a "profit". It's a wage.

(how does competition "work" in paediatric intensive care, FFS?).

well, you goto your GP, who is the one who is providing the funding, s/he will suggest the best hospital/the one who gave him/her the best freebie. You'll be given some choices, do you want blue sheets or yellow sheets, would you like to be treated by the senior consultant or are you happy with the junior doctor, (think hairdressers). Would you like the drugs that might work, or some sugar pills. Would you be interested in an extended warranty on the work? How about some Insurance just in case you get ill again, afterall you never know.

See lots of ways competition can work.

The idea of selling medical care is abhorrent.

the one who gave him/her the best freebie

There will be an avalanche of promotional tat, especially pens. 🙂

CaptJon - Member

The idea of selling medical care is abhorrent.

Why? How would your dentist make a living, otherwise?

Don't forget that good old partner GPs in surgeries are self employed individuals that happen to have a contract to provide services to the NHS.

the current crop of torries have been planning thsi all along, one of camerons main advisors on healthcare is a front for the US healthcare lobbyists
and just look at the toad hanrahan renting his ass to the big healthcare companies to attack obamas reforms

before long we will have all the benefits of american healthcare;
itll cost the taxpayer twice as much,
provide healthcare for less people,
reduce average life expectancy
and make some nice profits for ex-mps/ exec directors of the new providers

Wages are not profit they are compensation or a payment ...pretty basic economics.
To say they profit from it would be stretching the definition to breaking point IMHO

(w?j)
n.
Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration* on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.
wages Economics. The portion of the national product that represents the aggregate paid for all contributing labor and services as distinguished from the portion retained by management or reinvested in capital goods.
A fitting return; a recompense. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb: the wages of sin

*Remuneration is the total compensation that an employee receives in exchange for the service they perform for their employer. Typically, this consists of monetary rewards, also referred to as wage or salary[1]. A number of complementary benefits, however, are increasingly popular remuneration mechanisms.

profit..
•
[C or U] money which is earned in trade or business, especially after paying the costs of producing and selling goods and services.. a bit like the profit you make from selling your time and skills to the nhs as an employee then.

especially after paying the costs of producing and selling goods and services.. a bit like the profit you make from selling your time and skills to the nhs as an employee then.

"Especially after paying the costs of producing and selling goods and services" ?

Obviously nothing like an NHS employee then.

jez, i can't believe that a thread about the NHS being shut down has descended in to an argument about the definition of profit and wages.

And to be clear Wages are not profit. Wages are a business Cost, and to the employee they are compensation not profit.

The post in question said "employee[s]...sell their time, at a profit, to their employer". "At a profit", as opposed to "at a loss" for example. It didn't say that wages were profits. Practically all NHS employees will profit as a result of (or, perhaps more accurately, as part of) their employment.

I'm surprised that those who wish to change the meaning of words to suit their own personal political agendas haven't yet invoked God .....

[i]"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?"[/i]

Of course the Lord's Prayer says :

[i]"forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us"[/i]

Which brings a whole new meaning to the word "trespass".

@OP and the public are taking it up the backside as usual.

Broken promises by Tories shock...

Earn more cash/move away and don't worry?

the public are taking it up the backside as usual

Are they though ? Just about every single opinion poll since the last general election has had the Tories behind Labour. Surprisingly, there wasn't even the "honeymoon period" which always occurs when a party is first elected to government. In the case of the junior party in the coalition their support immediately collapsed to half of what it had been.

There is no evidence that Tory policies enjoy widespread support among the general public. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. And let's not forget that, despite being in opposition for 13 years, Tory policies so unimpressed the electorate that they found themselves unable to form an effective government without the support of a rival party.

rOcKeTdOg - do I take it that you work in Pathology?

Are they though ? Just about every single opinion poll since the last general election has had the Tories behind Labour. Surprisingly, there wasn't even the "honeymoon period" which always occurs when a party is first elected to government. In the case of the junior party in the coalition their support immediately collapsed to half of what it had been.

And the alternative was? i don't think the tories won the election, it was more a case that the Labour party was such a shower of S**** that they were virtually unelectable. A really crap state of affairs.

Well, since we're discussing profit as being such a critical issue... what if an NHS facility/operation, was passed over to a private not-for-profit organisation?

BUPA
Macmillan

😉

Who the flecking hell would ever vote Tory, for gods sake they are running the country into the ground

Toxicshocks, yes Histology

Who the flecking hell would ever vote [s]Tory[/s] Labour, for gods sake they [s]are running[/s] ran the country into the ground

FTFY

There is no evidence that Tory policies enjoy widespread support among the general public. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. And let's not forget that, despite being in opposition for 13 years, Tory policies so unimpressed the electorate that they found themselves unable to form an effective government without the support of a rival party.

This shower know they have a small chance of winning the next election, but they would have to be extraordinarily bad for voters to vote for milliband, although the amount of cock ups, u-turns and other stuff they've done stranger things have happened.

So putting the politics aside, they have focused on the economics and how many nests of their associates they can feather through privatisation before they leave. And when they leave Government there'll be no consequences for them as they are millionaires.

Who the flecking hell would ever vote ToryLabour, for gods sake they are runningran the country into the ground

No point doing that Pies as everyone already knows that the previous labour Government were tories in disguise. Just highlights the mess the country has got into by having too many tory type Governments in power.

 

Why on earth weren't you lot out riding your bikes today?

@ernie_lynch & Co, I agree.

I did vote labour last time, I thought they were not the party of '97 but I wasn't going to vote Tory, BNP or Lib Dem.

If the public can't stand the Torys, then I hope Labour get a real leader and start the challenge at the next election.

I guess we have to wait till the next election otherwise we'll get a water cannon in the face.

And the alternative was? i don't think the tories won the election, it was more a case that the Labour party was such a shower of S* that they were virtually unelectable.

Well I think it's pretty clear that the electorate have a range of alternatives when it comes to voting in general elections, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question.

And of course you are absolutely right - the Tories didn't win the general election, that's why they have had to rely on the support of another party to form an effective government.

As far [i]"the Labour party was such a shower of S* that they were virtually unelectable"[/i] is concerned, you'll find that in parliamentary democracies ruling parties are invariably get voted out of office after a period of time, whether they do extraordinarily well whilst in government, or extraordinarily badly. Such are the contradictions and failings of capitalism that the electorate are never fully satisfied.

In the case of the UK 13 years in power is pretty long time, so New Labour were due to be voted out of office whatever their record/performance. The only surprising thing was the lack of support and confidence the British electorate had in Her Majesty's Opposition.

Having said that, I completely agree with you that New Labour were an unelectable shower of shit, well from my perspective anyway. Unfortunately too many people disagreed with me and New Labour were able to form a government for 13 years.

"employee[s]...sell their time, at a profit, to their employer". "At a profit", as opposed to "at a loss" for example. It didn't say that wages were profits.

What sort of Schweinhund makes a profit out of sick kiddies ?

Well, apart from each and every employee of the NHS who sell their time, at a profit, to their employer?

Privatisation eh?

So you mean staff will have to justify their wages? The outfit/s will have to be organised, cost efficient and answerable to the customer who has the choice to go elsewhere? About bloody time! View echoed by my better half who works for the NHS.

Well I think it's pretty clear that the electorate have a range of alternatives when it comes to voting in general elections, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question.

Doesn't mean the electorate have a meaningful choice though, and for most of the electorate their vote is of minimal importance.

And of course you are absolutely right - the Tories didn't win the general election, that's why they have had to rely on the support of another party to form an effective government.

As far "the Labour party was such a shower of S* that they were virtually unelectable" is concerned, you'll find that in parliamentary democracies ruling parties are invariably get voted out of office after a period of time, whether they do extraordinarily well whilst in government, or extraordinarily badly. Such are the contradictions and failings of capitalism that the electorate are never fully satisfied.

I will agree that the electorate are never happy, that parties do become "stale", but it doesn't change the fact that Labour were a shower of S*, who should have never given the chance.

In the case of the UK 13 years in power is pretty long time, so New Labour were due to be voted out of office whatever their record/performance. The only surprising thing was the lack of support and confidence the British electorate had in Her Majesty's Opposition.

I think the problem is that Labour were S****, Conservatives no better, so the argument about choice, I suppose would you like to be shot or hung?

Having said that, I completely agree with you that New Labour were an unelectable shower of shit, well from my perspective anyway. Unfortunately too many people disagreed with me and New Labour were able to form a government for 13 years.

So you mean staff will have to justify their wages? The outfit/s will have to be organised, cost efficient and answerable to the customer who has the choice to go elsewhere? About bloody time! View echoed by my better half who works for the NHS.

And will the "customer" really have a choice of where they go, oh sorry mr ambulance driver could you pass the brochure so i can pick the hospital you take me to.

Thank you for your thoughtful dissection of my post in easy to chew segments mrmo. Truly I'm not worthy of it.

I will simply point out that I have managed perfectly well not having either Labour or the Tories as my preferred electoral choice since 1995, if everyone else had agreed with me then neither would have formed a government. So if I can vote other than Labour or Tory, then everyone else can. We have Labour or Tory governments purely because people want Labour or Tory governments.

ernie, whilst i agree that if people voted on mass then we might get away from the see-saw we have, i truly believe that most people do not vote labour or tory for any reason other than, I have always done it. And because so many people will not change, you land up with the election being determined by a handful of voters in a handful of seats.

And yes i know the referendum failed....But it was a crap system being proposed. And for most people the current system is the only system they know and assume, as the UK is right and everyone else is wrong, the current system must be the best.

We have Labour or Tory governments purely because people want Labour or Tory governments.

Not strictly true. I'd give my vote towards a Labour government because I don't want a Tory government and that is the only realistic way of achieving that desire. Doesn't mean that I actually want a Labour government. I suppose I could always vote for the party that actually aligns with my own politics but that is throwing my vote away and making way for what will always be the greater of two evils.

I'd be happy for you to convince me that I'm talking bollox on this as it's something that I try to ratioanlise every time I go to vote.

if people voted on mass then we might get away from the see-saw we have

People do vote "on mass" .........30 million last election.

The problem you appear to have is that they are not voting correctly. Which whilst I won't dispute that, I'm not going to blame either Cameron or Brown for.

Doesn't mean that I actually want a Labour government.

Yes it does. You want a Labour government rather than a Tory government.

I vote purely on my "preferred electoral choice", it doesn't mean that support everything that the candidate says, or that I even like the party. Until 1995 I was supporting the Labour Party in elections, and yet I considered the Labour Party to be hopelessly inadequate and only supported it like a rope supports a hanged man.

So ernie, if you think all politicians from major parties are a bunch of crooks, who do you vote for to show your opinion? Knowing full well that a vote for the monster raving loony party isn't going to get them into power because most people will vote the same way every time there is an election.

Knowing full well that a vote for the monster raving loony party isn't going to get them into power

Ernie did... and they did 😯

[img] [/img]

This thread encapsulates the problem of healthcare in the UK; the debate is politicised which simply turns it into a nonsense argument where points are scored and egos boosted or bruised and no one gets any kind of sensible answer or conclusion.

Two questions;

1.) Which country has the best healthcare system in the world?
2.) How do we make our system match that one?

Carry on....

Ok crikey, What is the best is a hard one, certainly not the US, expensive and incomplete coverage. The profit motive results in lots of extra tests. Loose your insurance loose your care, pay for all treatments etc. But if you have money the care is good.

Look at the NHS, there is rationing, there are waiting times, but everyone can get care when they need it, income is not relevant.

Which would i prefer, the UK model as it is. Is it perfect, of course not, can any healthcare system be perfect? unfortunately no, there can never be enough money to provide every treatment to every patient.

in other shocking news, pretty much the whole of primary care in England has been "privatised" for the last 40 years. GP's are mostly not employees of the NHS, instead they work for partnerships who pay them a salary and allow them to share in "profits". For some reason the NHS allows these private companies to borrow money (free) to make capital improvements to their buildings, and then retain the profit when buildings are sold.

Whilst everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over privatisation of failing hospitals in the secondary care sector, it's good to see that most people continue to overlook the largely private primary care sector.

I've had 3 punctures today, so am unable to muster any enthusiasm for debate.

The NHS is the best healthcare system we will achieve in the UK, and the Tories hate that, but when it's gone, it's gone.

The major problem with any debate about this is that rich people (and politicians, strangely enough) can afford not to give a shit. If the NHS was all there was, and everyone relied on it, I suspect that it would be rather better supported and rather better thought of.

Anyway, back to puncture mending.

1.) Which country has the best healthcare system in the world?

[i]What do you mean by best?
I assume the answer you're looking for is Cuba, no?[/i]

I don't know, it's a genuine question. Is healthcare in Cuba better than everywhere else? I was thinking of one of the Scandinavian countries, but I've not looked into it.

I think Cuba has some of the best medical education and doctors.
But also what is best? The most efficient? The cheapest? The shortest waiting lists?
There are different sytems across the globe. I don't think that there exists a "best" system, just a more acceptable to the voting public system.

[i]think Cuba has some of the best medical education and doctors[/i]

Again, not having a go, but does that equate to the best healthcare system?

I've pumped the tyre up, just waiting to see if I can get to 4 punctures in one day...

Again, not having a go, but does that equate to the best healthcare system?

But also what is best? The most efficient? The cheapest? The shortest waiting lists?
There are different sytems across the globe. I don't think that there exists a "best" system, just a more acceptable to the voting public system.

Possibly last year i stated the NHS was being broken up, all these so called new directorates, facilities and new name boards outside every hospital departmnent, they even have their own car parking spaces.

Then we have the new , as in brand new dr,s surgerys, that do a lot more than doctor, they have physio, ot, and chemists on site, smaller surgeries are being amalgamated into the new ones and they suddenly aquire a new branding, all ready for the sel off to health insurance comapnies, just like PFI shcools and roads have been either built and then paid for by the tax payer, or taken over, and then become pfi.

Now if i was over 50 anda mountainbiker,i would be seriously worried about care when im a bit older,and my ability to pay for an accident on a bike, and then theres the privatised care homes, for when people get really old, or over 65.

So ernie, if you think all politicians from major parties are a bunch of crooks, who do you vote for to show your opinion?

Don't put words into my mouth, I have never said that I think [i]"all politicians from major parties are a bunch of crooks",[/i] they are clearly not. As far as who I vote for, it really is going off the topic and it's something which I've commented on much more relevant threads.

With reference to Cuban healthcare provisions, it has long been established that not only does Cuba's healthcare system deliver first world care in a third world country, but at a fraction of the cost, something which other countries, including Britain, have looked into. And not only that, in some areas of medical research Cuba is a world leader. And all this has been achieved under cripplingly US sanctions which yes include, unbelievably, pharmaceutical supplies.

This article in the Daily Telegraph which quotes extensively, of all people, a director of the right-wing free-market Adam Smith Institute, highlights the extraordinary value for money that the healthcare system in Cuba provides :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/4204119/Castros-Cuba-can-be-a-lesson-to-the-world.html ]Castro's Cuba can be a lesson to the world[/url]

We are failed Anglo-Saxons [i]and[/i] failed Scandinavians. 8)

ernie, sorry, didn't mean you think politicians are a bunch of crooks, that is my basic standpoint. I accept some aren't but far too many are in it for what they can get. You only have to consider the expenses fiasco.

My point is if you have no faith in any of the major parties then how do you express your opinion in a meaningful manner.

but yes it is digressing from the topic in hand.

However i don't believe any of the parties are actually good for the NHS, labour and the abuse of PFI has wasted vast sums of money, if the projects had been funded on balance sheet the long term costs would have been far smaller. And tories they seem hell bent on destroying the NHS for their friends in the private sector to make some money.

There is no evidence that Tory policies enjoy widespread support among the general public. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. And let's not forget that, despite being in opposition for 13 years, Tory policies so unimpressed the electorate that they found themselves unable to form an effective government without the support of a rival party.

That is so true.

What are the chances of a drop in taxes if we privatise the NHS?

What are the chances of a drop in taxes if we privatise the NHS?

😆

Still having the politics debate when the real questions go unanswered.
What's the best, how do we move towards it?

totalshell - Member

here we have the best funded health care service in the world and all it gets is knocks.. sure money is tight but those spending the money have to spend it wiser money doesnt grow on trees..

Rubbish - we pay far less for our health care than most similar countries - and get far more.

healthcare for profit[u] always[/u] means more cost for poorer outcomes - [b]always[/b]

This is a determined ideological attempt to break up the health service in England ( as the con dems writ does not run in Scotland ( or Wales??))

the NHS is a fantastic system that provides great healthcare very cheaply. it is probably the most efficient in the world with priorities and rationing set by clinical need and effectiveness.

We get far better healthcare outcomes for far less money than the US yet the condems want to turn our system in to a us style system. It stinks to high heaven. Fight to protect your NHS or forever live to regret it

What are the chances of a drop in taxes if we privatise the NHS?

Zero.
But they believe they are doing a good job saving money
and considering they screwed half our health care budget on PFI Hospitals
last time they was in Parliament and also done a great job selling off our railways
and busses that some how the TAX Payer still supports when the private sector screws up
and you can see how well a good job they done there, including flogging off our social housing.

Still having the politics debate when the real questions go unanswered.
What's the best, how do we move towards it?

So you think "healthcare provisions" isn't political ?

Sometimes I truly despair........no wonder British politics is up Shit Creek without a paddle.

.

My point is if you have no faith in any of the major parties then how do you express your opinion in a meaningful manner.

The only reason I have no faith in the 3 major parties is that all 3 are now neo-liberal thatcherite parties. And as long as there is a social-democratic alternative to the neo-liberals, then I will vote social-democratic, I will never vote neo-liberal.

The NHS will never be safe under the control of neo-liberals, it will however be reasonably safe under social-democracy. Indeed it was a social-democratic agenda which initially created and sustained the NHS, under both Labour and Tory governments.

As far as my personal voting patterns are concerned :

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/teachers-striking-again/page/14#post-2691703

Yes I know that the Green Party is automatically dismissed because "no one votes for them", but that is not my responsibility - if 10 million people voted for them they would probably form the next government. At the last general election a sufficient amount of people voted Green for them to get their first MP, then this year they won control of their first council, that's how things happen - people need to vote instead of complaining.

Btw the way the latest opinion polls suggest that support for the Green Party has trebled since May '10, although admittedly it's from a low 1% to a still low 3%, but that probably now makes them the 4th largest party in the UK and there is no reason why their support can't continue to grow.

Incidentally I only voted green in May '10 because their candidate was the only one on my ballot paper with a social-democratic agenda, elsewhere I might have voted differently, eg, in Wales I would have quite likely voted Plaid Cymru. But if people just start voting in sufficient numbers for a social-democratic alternatives, then this will have a profound effect on British politics. And as they see their own support starting to ebb away, the 3 major parties will start to change their own agendas, you can be pretty sure of that.

Mmmm. Telling us all how you voted is really, really interesting, but the question still remains. Yes, if you want to make it political then it will be political, but the problem is exactly that. The NHS is used as a political football, constantly, by both sides.

The answer lies in taking healthcare out of political debate and answering the above question.

If what Tandem has linked and true, which will effect everyone within the country
and no ones happy about it. Then some how we should link and include trade unions and the whole
of the country should stop, which would shut down the country and walk to Parliament
including local town halls to voice your concerns.

I just can't believe people voted for them again I just hope it will effect them worse.

My Dad would have died in the the Queens Hospital in Romford if I had not grabbed a
surgeon walking past on Boxing Day and thats a new PFI building.
They totally foooked up!!
And for some bizarre reason my parents won't take it further.

but the answer is going to be political to a point, whatever the answer part of it will be money and funding.

Do we pay what we are paying, do we increase taxes and follow the current methodology or do we cut funding and move towards an insurance system.

What needs to be done is to revisit all the PFI deals and figure out the real costs to the tax payer, and re-negoitiate where possible. Whether there should be a £10 charge for seeing a GP as a method or preventing reducing cancelled appointments, i can see some logic, but the moment you start charging anything, it will mean people who should be seeing the doctor will not go.

to answer your questions - the best? depends what for. 🙂

US does cancer care really well but has child mortality rates like the third world.

Netherlands has some very innovative dementia care but much of their elderly care is rather uninspired.

teh French like to stick all medicine up their bottoms. 🙂

Probably the best would be the NHS left alone from political interference and taking best practice from where they see it.

Mmmm. Telling us all how you voted is really, really interesting, but the question still remains. Yes, if you want to make it political then it will be political, but the problem is exactly that. The NHS is used as a political football, constantly, by both sides.

The Conservatives done the same with Interest rates until Labour gave control to the Bank of England

Probably the best would be the NHS left alone from political interference and taking best practice from where they see it.

Of course I appreciate that politics will impinge at some point, but beginning the debate by establishing political stances will end in failure as everyone refuses to listen to any other viewpoint.

The way forward is to start with what is best, then work out how to get there.

Try to get the best healthcare we can, rather than the best that fits with our political standpoint, because, in many ways, healthcare is more important than what colour tie we wear on election day.

mrmo - an insurance based system will cost more automatically - its more complex to administer.

Teh best thing to do with the NHS right now is have a moratorium on major reorganisations - they distract time and effort from the core business and achieve very little.

Then revise and revisit it the more stupid bits. Foundation hospital and any vestiges of the internal market. cooperation is a key element no competitician.

All PFI deals need to be revisited - all waste money.

Strengthen NICE, improve NHS management, strengthen accountability in the form of local health authorities or the equivalent.