Discussion
It is and it isn't. THe valuable contracts are the completed care contracts, that is a patient is admitted into service (£), assessed (£) diagnostic testing (£) treatment (£) discharge. This is a good business model, and where they can't be treated they are escalated to the nhs provider at a loss of one payment (discharge) to the private provider. The benefit here is you can refuse to admit patients that don't fit treatment models (the "Its going to take 6 months to fix your car and I can only charge you £500, so I don't want to do it" problem), the nhs, as a provider can't refuse admission via say a&e and care pathways cannot be planned or predicted and can only be escalated within the service.
Some services do work better as private providers (better kit, more focussed on individual, quicker, more convenient times etc) but the nhs can't be effectively compared as a business as people don't like to think about health costs when they or a loved one are sick.
I used to be really interested in health economics, but it turns you into a bad person so I try not to think about it now!
Some services do work better as private providers (better kit, more focussed on individual, quicker, more convenient times etc) but the nhs can't be effectively compared as a business as people don't like to think about health costs when they or a loved one are sick.
I used to be really interested in health economics, but it turns you into a bad person so I try not to think about it now!
sidicks said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I think this one neatly sums up Conservatives attitude to the NHS.
I think this sums up the attitude of some members of the ignorant left who like to make lots of claims about the Tories and the NHS, none of which stand up to scrutiny.HTH
I have never voted Tory for many a reason, including having NHS workers in my family, along with disabled relatives. I'm not voting for Labour this time around either. I actually consider my political viewpoint to be quite liberal.
Go and have a research on what the Naylor Report stands for, then come back and tell me my comments don't hold scrutiny.
I'll give you a pointer if you like. The Nayler report requires the NHS to sell its assets as a condition of further government funding. Sell off to private companies or you get no money. It IS a form privatisation by the backdoor. If it was such a great idea why WOULDN'T NHS trusts buy in to it without having their arm forced?
TooMany2cvs said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Not that the NHS is slowly being privitised bite by bite or anything....
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
You don't believe it's going to be pre-determined who it's sold to?
OK, so you ARE suggesting widespread corruption and ineptitude INSIDE THE NHS...I'm not suggesting it is pre-determined by the NHS, more a case of by government. Which slightly changes the angle.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
No. Not 'in some areas maybe'. Overall.
No, in some areas there is a lot of inefficiency and wastage. The fact that overall you think things are ok is irrelevant to the point being made.
You see that row where it says efficiency?
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
TooMany2cvs said:
OK, so you ARE suggesting widespread corruption and ineptitude INSIDE THE NHS...
I'm not suggesting it is pre-determined by the NHS, more a case of by government. Which slightly changes the angle. HTH.
TooMany2cvs said:
If the hospital is cheapest and best quality - then it'll be done in the hospital. Great. But if they're expensive or poor quailty, then the work gets done CHEAPER AND BETTER ELSEWHERE! What's not to like about that?
If they're competing on level terms, and that includes daft things like having an Equalities & Diversities Manager to implement their WRES plan referred to earlier, then they shouldn't be cheaper. If bits of cost are ignored, then that just further loads the remainder of the NHS.TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps a GP has invested in sufficient facilities to be able to do minor operations - and they can bid on those. You do know that GP surgeries are private businesses, right?
Strange, isn't it, how nobody ever complains about the longest-standing and most widespread privatisation in the NHS - opticians, pharmacies, dentists and GPs...
The difficulty of finding an NHS dentist is a frequent complaint.Strange, isn't it, how nobody ever complains about the longest-standing and most widespread privatisation in the NHS - opticians, pharmacies, dentists and GPs...
GPs are technically private businesses but it's an odd arrangement where their income, area of coverage etc is allocated to them by the NHS. I've no idea how it came about (I think it's always been that way?).
Sheepshanks said:
GPs are technically private businesses but it's an odd arrangement where their income, area of coverage etc is allocated to them by the NHS. I've no idea how it came about (I think it's always been that way?).
Is that any different to, say, a ChipsAway or SnapOn franchisee?jjlynn27 said:
For a second I forgot where I was posting. Years of research by respected healthcare specialists vs ph-public-sector-inefficient mantra. Tough choice.
You see that row where it says efficiency?
You see that bit where it says 'overall'? Does that mean that all of the component parts are as efficient as they could be?You see that row where it says efficiency?
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 31st May 19:05
TooMany2cvs said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
TooMany2cvs said:
OK, so you ARE suggesting widespread corruption and ineptitude INSIDE THE NHS...
I'm not suggesting it is pre-determined by the NHS, more a case of by government. Which slightly changes the angle. HTH.
And for what it's worth, 'HTH' just makes you seem like a patronising t
t. Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
sidicks said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I think this one neatly sums up Conservatives attitude to the NHS.
I think this sums up the attitude of some members of the ignorant left who like to make lots of claims about the Tories and the NHS, none of which stand up to scrutiny.HTH
I have never voted Tory for many a reason, including having NHS workers in my family, along with disabled relatives. I'm not voting for Labour this time around either. I actually consider my political viewpoint to be quite liberal.
Go and have a research on what the Naylor Report stands for, then come back and tell me my comments don't hold scrutiny.
I'll give you a pointer if you like. The Nayler report requires the NHS to sell its assets as a condition of further government funding. Sell off to private companies or you get no money. It IS a form privatisation by the backdoor. If it was such a great idea why WOULDN'T NHS trusts buy in to it without having their arm forced?
The money raised by the sales goes straight back to the trust to reinvest. I'd imagine, knowing how poorly some trusts are run, that if they haven't looked in to raising money from selling off land and old buildings, they will have to have their hands forced.
Anybody can spin anything in to a negative. I don't see the Naylor report as that.
The NHS estate is massive and nearly 1/5 of it was built before 1948, some of those buildings won't even be economical to maintain anymore. The report also states there £5bn in maintenance budgeted for.
Part of the plan is to build 26,000 homes as well. That's probably the best return they'll get for the land - selling it to property developers.
It seems a lot of people expect to sprint out of hospital after being taken there in an ambulance on blue lights.
One thing I notice is that there keeps being medical breakthroughs which extend peoples lives. This is great for the individual, but if the person it saves isn't then leading a productive life, it becomes very expensive. There seems to be a lot of servicemen, for example, who through improvements in medicine, can get blown to pieces and then survive, but seemingly requiring a huge amount of care with questionable life quality.
My grandmother was very fit and lived until she was 95. Only in the last few weeks of her life was she in NHS care as she was basically dying, her care home was (rightly in my opinion) paid for from her (my late grandfathers) savings. However, she would have been on the state pension for 35 years, good for her, but by the time she had 3 kids, how long would she have spent paying into the system? This kind of life expectancy is great for the individual, but I'm not sure it's sustainable without fairly drastically extending peoples working lives, which will hit people like me with a physical job quite hard.
One thing I notice is that there keeps being medical breakthroughs which extend peoples lives. This is great for the individual, but if the person it saves isn't then leading a productive life, it becomes very expensive. There seems to be a lot of servicemen, for example, who through improvements in medicine, can get blown to pieces and then survive, but seemingly requiring a huge amount of care with questionable life quality.
My grandmother was very fit and lived until she was 95. Only in the last few weeks of her life was she in NHS care as she was basically dying, her care home was (rightly in my opinion) paid for from her (my late grandfathers) savings. However, she would have been on the state pension for 35 years, good for her, but by the time she had 3 kids, how long would she have spent paying into the system? This kind of life expectancy is great for the individual, but I'm not sure it's sustainable without fairly drastically extending peoples working lives, which will hit people like me with a physical job quite hard.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
So you don't believe that government ever have any influence of which organisations win contracts. Really?
Well, it'd be completely and utterly illegal, for a start...https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-procurem...
And that's for services actually being procured by central Government departments, which the NHS isn't. The Dept of Health are, but they don't procure any clinical services. NHS England does that for national projects, regional trusts do it for local projects and services.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I'm wasting my own time debating, as we'll never be on the same page.
"Debating" generally requires you to have the first clue what you're actually on about.sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
For a second I forgot where I was posting. Years of research by respected healthcare specialists vs ph-public-sector-inefficient mantra. Tough choice.
You see that row where it says efficiency?
You see that bit where it says 'overall'? Does that mean that there are all the component parts are as efficient as they could be?You see that row where it says efficiency?
Would this make the 3 series or London perfect? Of course not, there is very little in life (if anything) which is.
TooMany2cvs said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
So you don't believe that government ever have any influence of which organisations win contracts. Really?
Well, it'd be completely and utterly illegal, for a start...https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-procurem...
And that's for services actually being procured by central Government departments, which the NHS isn't. The Dept of Health are, but they don't procure any clinical services. NHS England does that for national projects, regional trusts do it for local projects and services.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I'm wasting my own time debating, as we'll never be on the same page.
"Debating" generally requires you to have the first clue what you're actually on about.t. Sheepshanks said:
If they're competing on level terms, and that includes daft things like having an Equalities & Diversities Manager to implement their WRES plan referred to earlier, then they shouldn't be cheaper. If bits of cost are ignored, then that just further loads the remainder of the NHS.
You will struggle to find any large organisation without permanent equality/diversity managers and associated plans. If they are doing their job then it is likely a pretty good piece of risk management.If you want to look at non-jobs then focus on Arms Length Bodies where the amount of waste is appalling.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Yep. I was correct in my last post. You are a patronising tt.
You may very well think I'm a tt. t. I'll try to cope with the disappointment.But, yes, well spotted. I am patronising you. Because you're f
king clueless. That's not a great issue in itself - but you actually appear to have zero desire to gain a clue, and you're quite happy to be Thoroughly Outraged at your utter misunderstanding of reality...Slagathore said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
sidicks said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I think this one neatly sums up Conservatives attitude to the NHS.
I think this sums up the attitude of some members of the ignorant left who like to make lots of claims about the Tories and the NHS, none of which stand up to scrutiny.HTH
I have never voted Tory for many a reason, including having NHS workers in my family, along with disabled relatives. I'm not voting for Labour this time around either. I actually consider my political viewpoint to be quite liberal.
Go and have a research on what the Naylor Report stands for, then come back and tell me my comments don't hold scrutiny.
I'll give you a pointer if you like. The Nayler report requires the NHS to sell its assets as a condition of further government funding. Sell off to private companies or you get no money. It IS a form privatisation by the backdoor. If it was such a great idea why WOULDN'T NHS trusts buy in to it without having their arm forced?
The money raised by the sales goes straight back to the trust to reinvest. I'd imagine, knowing how poorly some trusts are run, that if they haven't looked in to raising money from selling off land and old buildings, they will have to have their hands forced.
Anybody can spin anything in to a negative. I don't see the Naylor report as that.
The NHS estate is massive and nearly 1/5 of it was built before 1948, some of those buildings won't even be economical to maintain anymore. The report also states there £5bn in maintenance budgeted for.
Part of the plan is to build 26,000 homes as well. That's probably the best return they'll get for the land - selling it to property developers.
So what you're essentially saying is that they'll give them something as long as they can rob them first?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff