Politics Today

[DB9]

You'd think it would be political suicide, but you wonder what's on the Tories' minds when they stripped out that clause added by the Lords.

How would a party sell the idea that they privatised the NHS? Really can't see it

 

[RedPaul]

Your opinion is valid too, DB. But Red said that he thought the NHS didn't need to be fully State funded, so I thought maybe he had a specific idea, assuming he realises that parts of the NHS are already outsourced. I guess I'm thinking about the rumours months ago that maybe the Govt might hand over the NHS to private industry lock, stock and barrel. The Govt of course denied it but it's difficult to know if they're telling porkies or not based on their previous record.
And, would the NHS (or whatever its new name would be) really be better if it were in private hands?

To try and answer, it's about how it is funded not about who does the slicing and dicing, or empties the bins.

For me the NHS is a bottomless behemoth of money into which taxation is just sunk. Election after election, budget after budget is dominated by arguments over funding increases and a willy-waving competition as to who 'invests' the most into it. Both major parties are as bad as each other and what ever the Government of the day announce, to the Opposition parties it it never enough. The Tories are obsessed with structure and reorganisations, and Whitehall control. Labour still pretend it is 1945 and Bevin. Neither is a fit for purpose approach in a 21st century modern 'democracy' with an ageing, unhealthy population and a social care crisis. Devolving the same structure to Cardiff and Edinburgh to run has not shown any benefit, indeed health outcomes in Scotland have got worse and they have children's hospitals with no children in and the worst drugs death figures in Europe - even the Minister resigned in embarrassment a month or so ago.

Is the answer a German style compulsory heath insurance system where tax (from employer and employee) goes straight into the system?
Is it an Australian style Medicare system, also insurance based?
Is it a Norwegian style system where you pay f\modestly for access, but it is capped (about £150 pa, with various exemptions) which weeds out the freeloaders and stubbed toe-ambulance callers?

I would not have an issue with genuine private "investment" into hospitals specifically either. If O2 and Emirates want to sponsor venues, why can't they sponsor hospitals? If big construction companies want to build new hospitals, let them. The 'tax payer' should not underwrite it but if a local consortium of healthcare providers, doctors and councils see a need then it should be explored

Fundamentally for me there needs to be a proper debate about it, and some options laid out. Harsh as it may sound, our 'gold-plated' NHS has not covered itself in glory through the pandemic despite the heroism of the front line workers within it, and the events of the past year has merely emphasised what a creaking monolith it is. This is not the first winter of 'extreme pressure on the NHS', just an extreme example of one, and unless we address the issue, it won't be the last.

 

[Rosencrantz]

I think less money spent by the NHS on management or business consultants which could be channelled to frontline services would be a start. So much money seems to be spent on "money saving experts" that doesn't seem to save money at all unless it is to strip away services.

 

[DB9]

I think less money spent by the NHS on management or business consultants which could be channelled to frontline services would be a start. So much money seems to be spent on "money saving experts" that doesn't seem to save money at all unless it is to strip away services.

That has been said time and time again with Politicians promising to do something but for some reason don't.

 

[tavyred]

I thought the argument against U.K. style healthcare was not what we spent on it, but our relatively poor clinical outcomes in comparison to equivalent nations?
Isn’t our % of GDP spend on healthcare quite low or about average?

 

[Rosencrantz]

I thought the argument against U.K. style healthcare was not what we spent on it, but our relatively poor clinical outcomes in comparison to equivalent nations?
Isn’t our % of GDP spend on healthcare quite low or about average?

Percentage of GDP isn't a straight forward indicator of standards.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/

USA spend the most but then it costs the most. I think we are generally average although second bottom in the G7. But it is how you spend it that really matters as much as how much. Our problem seems to be getting enough resources to the front line. Management consultants seem to offer lots of advice about cutting most services other than their own.

 

[lamrobhero]

I understand that there is an overlap between health and social care. Recent NHS increased spending was 'front loaded' to use the jargon so that there could be reforms which will enable an integrated approach. A move to outsourcing might be a move in another direction. There is a certain sort of management consultant/politician who love deconstruction but once that is done there is nothing left.

 

[Alistair20000]

It's multi faceted really. Yes the stamp duty change will have a bearing, as it always does, but it's not all of it. Wrt London, it's an odd beast. I think high end luxury apartments right in the centre have taken a hit, but the burbs have held up and are now actually increasing.

Another factor I think is that the economy isn't doing as badly as all that. Yes things were looking a bit grim in the summer, but they've since picked up and no-one we know in London is currently out of work. There were some that lost their job, but they're now back in work. Salaries seem to be holding up too.

We are living in a huge la la land bubble at the moment.

Once furlough and government help packages end and business failure and job losses mount up the housing market will level off or fall and the over valued stock market will have it’s customary “correction”

The sh*te storm has yet to hit us.

 

[Alistair20000]

To try and answer, it's about how it is funded not about who does the slicing and dicing, or empties the bins.

For me the NHS is a bottomless behemoth of money into which taxation is just sunk. Election after election, budget after budget is dominated by arguments over funding increases and a willy-waving competition as to who 'invests' the most into it. Both major parties are as bad as each other and what ever the Government of the day announce, to the Opposition parties it it never enough. The Tories are obsessed with structure and reorganisations, and Whitehall control. Labour still pretend it is 1945 and Bevin. Neither is a fit for purpose approach in a 21st century modern 'democracy' with an ageing, unhealthy population and a social care crisis. Devolving the same structure to Cardiff and Edinburgh to run has not shown any benefit, indeed health outcomes in Scotland have got worse and they have children's hospitals with no children in and the worst drugs death figures in Europe - even the Minister resigned in embarrassment a month or so ago.

Is the answer a German style compulsory heath insurance system where tax (from employer and employee) goes straight into the system?
Is it an Australian style Medicare system, also insurance based?
Is it a Norwegian style system where you pay f\modestly for access, but it is capped (about £150 pa, with various exemptions) which weeds out the freeloaders and stubbed toe-ambulance callers?

I would not have an issue with genuine private "investment" into hospitals specifically either. If O2 and Emirates want to sponsor venues, why can't they sponsor hospitals? If big construction companies want to build new hospitals, let them. The 'tax payer' should not underwrite it but if a local consortium of healthcare providers, doctors and councils see a need then it should be explored

Fundamentally for me there needs to be a proper debate about it, and some options laid out. Harsh as it may sound, our 'gold-plated' NHS has not covered itself in glory through the pandemic despite the heroism of the front line workers within it, and the events of the past year has merely emphasised what a creaking monolith it is. This is not the first winter of 'extreme pressure on the NHS', just an extreme example of one, and unless we address the issue, it won't be the last.

Great post RP. Sadly the NHS is a sacred cow so the debate that is needed will not even begin.

 

[IndoMike]

To try and answer, it's about how it is funded not about who does the slicing and dicing, or empties the bins.

For me the NHS is a bottomless behemoth of money into which taxation is just sunk. Election after election, budget after budget is dominated by arguments over funding increases and a willy-waving competition as to who 'invests' the most into it. Both major parties are as bad as each other and what ever the Government of the day announce, to the Opposition parties it it never enough. The Tories are obsessed with structure and reorganisations, and Whitehall control. Labour still pretend it is 1945 and Bevin. Neither is a fit for purpose approach in a 21st century modern 'democracy' with an ageing, unhealthy population and a social care crisis. Devolving the same structure to Cardiff and Edinburgh to run has not shown any benefit, indeed health outcomes in Scotland have got worse and they have children's hospitals with no children in and the worst drugs death figures in Europe - even the Minister resigned in embarrassment a month or so ago.

Is the answer a German style compulsory heath insurance system where tax (from employer and employee) goes straight into the system?
Is it an Australian style Medicare system, also insurance based?
Is it a Norwegian style system where you pay f\modestly for access, but it is capped (about £150 pa, with various exemptions) which weeds out the freeloaders and stubbed toe-ambulance callers?

I would not have an issue with genuine private "investment" into hospitals specifically either. If O2 and Emirates want to sponsor venues, why can't they sponsor hospitals? If big construction companies want to build new hospitals, let them. The 'tax payer' should not underwrite it but if a local consortium of healthcare providers, doctors and councils see a need then it should be explored

Fundamentally for me there needs to be a proper debate about it, and some options laid out. Harsh as it may sound, our 'gold-plated' NHS has not covered itself in glory through the pandemic despite the heroism of the front line workers within it, and the events of the past year has merely emphasised what a creaking monolith it is. This is not the first winter of 'extreme pressure on the NHS', just an extreme example of one, and unless we address the issue, it won't be the last.

Bold type = yes, I'm aware of that.
We use private health in Indonesia because the national health system is cheap but not cheerful.
As you're aware, private health is extremely expensive and better treatment is not guaranteed. In addition, insurance companies often find ways
not to cough up - yes you have to read the small print very carefully.
Regarding companies sponsoring hospitals, I imagine that would be relatively small money - just naming rights?
i know there are sometimes complaints about our NHS but judging from the comments from members of my family who have needed to use it the general opinion seems to be that they were happy with it. And I think that the NHS has dealt with the hopefully once in a generation Covid crisis well, but obviously there have been coordination problems between ministers, management and staff.
People think privatisation is the answer, and yet the railway service shows that it isn't.
So I don't think the principle of having a national health service is wrong, but the doctors, nurses and staff need a better salary and fewer working hours, which of course means
more of them and greater costs to the Govt. To help gain funds for that, we could start by ditching projects like the new high speed rail - which will probably end up costing a couple of hundred billion - and focus on the more urgent matters like the NHS.
Giving the NHS over to companies owned by Conservative party donors and buddies with the consequent lack of real and honest scrutiny and littel accountability when things go rong? No thanks.
Believe me, you don't know how lucky you are to have it.