the latest NHS reforms

[eFestivals]

The tories fought the last election with a definitive promise in their manifesto that they wouldn't be changing the NHS.

Yet a few weeks in, they suddenly said that Primary Care Trusts would be abolished, with their role transferred to GPs. And now it's come out that the current Health Secretary has been working on this idea for SEVEN years .... yet somehow this seems to have slipped the tories minds when they wrote their manifesto. How very strange.

It was clear before the election that the tories had finally realised that there were some things within British society that the public wouldn't accept being destroyed, particularly the NHS and state schooling.

It was also clear before the election that their plan would be to divert as much taxpayers money as they felt they could get away with from these govt/local authority run services into being privately run services. And of course, that means that the tories and cronies then get to leech as much as they can of these taxpayer funds into private profit ... while the quality of service goes down and the cost of the services get more expensive to give them their profits, in the exact same way as has happened with every single service that has moved into private hands in the last 30 years.

I'd been feeling that that diversion of funds was the beginning and end of their plans, with the tories having accepted that the public wouldn't accept their destruction. But now I'm not so sure.

It's starting to look to me that the real plan is to fragment the services and undermine local control, while absolving govt ministers for the responsibility for them (so they can't take any blame) - after all, if (say) a new 'free school' fails, the minister can say "it's not my fault, it was independent", and it doesn't fall back on the local education authority either, as it's not something they're running.

As for the fragmentation of services, that stops these things being something that the public can easily defend. Just about everyone can and does get behind the idea that the NHS should exist, but when the operation of the NHS is fragmented and there is no grand overall plan, it becomes easier to knock down parts one-by-one, until there's nothing much left.

Defend what you care for, while there's still something worth defending.

[worm]

They also said that they'd be making cuts to it.

[eFestivals]

They also said that they'd be making cuts to it.

No, they said the exact opposite.

But they're making cuts to it.

[worm]

No, they said the exact opposite.

But they're making cuts to it.

Edited January 19, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

Yet a few weeks in, they suddenly said that Primary Care Trusts would be abolished, with their role transferred to GPs.

[diddly-dee]

They also said that they'd be making cuts to it.

[llcoolphil]

They also said that they'd be making cuts to it.

[eFestivals]

I specifically remember them saying that there'd be cuts to wasteful services in the NHS.

They only said that AFTER they'd been elected.

Their manifesto stated categorically that the budgets would remain unchanged.

[eFestivals]

Not got a lot of time to reply fully, but the farce of this is that the staff employed by PCTs will simply be re-employed by GP consortia to do exactly the same job they are doing now!

Not quite the same job.

They will be encouraged to use private service providers in preference to the NHS - and funnily enough, the two people within the upper NHS management who have backed this idea have recently landed highly-paid jobs with the consultancy (KPMG) that has been given the task of making it happen.

[lost]

it is increasing though more slowly and that's the issue, the nhs needs 7% increases yoy just to keep up with the aging population, its basically the same issue we have with pensions fewer workers supporting more retirees who proportionally will use the nhs a hell of a lot more, all my relatives 70+ take a shit load of medication each day

[eFestivals]

it is increasing though more slowly and that's the issue, the nhs needs 7% increases yoy just to keep up with the aging population, its basically the same issue we have with pensions fewer workers supporting more retirees who proportionally will use the nhs a hell of a lot more, all my relatives 70+ take a shit load of medication each day

It's actually a lot worse than what's happening with pensions - there's an exponential growth of healthcare expenses caused by the finding of new cures, which isn't happening with pensions.

If a cure for cancer was found tomorrow, not one life would be saved because of it - the lives would merely be extended. But along with that, there's still a fatal condition to treat at the end of that extended life (which is roughly equal in cost to a cancer treatment for someone with cancer today that may or may not be cured), as well as the extra costs of healthcare for that person until they get the fatal condition which kills them.

So while medical progression is always presented as "saving lives" and "saving money", neither of those facts are true; no lives are saved, and the costs are greater.

Sooner of later, societies all around the world are going to have to have a grown up discussion around the truth of the matter and not those lies, an some VERY difficult decisions are going to have to be made off the back of it.

Ultimately, if we keep going the way we are, then forced euthanasia will be the only solution.

[worm]

It was my understanding (however, i'm not absolutely certain) that the Tories stated that the amount of the NHS budgets would stay the same (although whether this was in absolute terms, or a real-terms to allow for inflation, or in percentage terms of GDP I don't know - this being a significant difference as opting for one over the other makes many millions of pounds difference). But they didn't commit to existing spending plans in terms of where the money was to be distributed through the NHS and whilst most voter's fears would probably have been assuaged by this (the Tory rhetoric was emphasising the elimination of waste and the circumventing of bureaucracy to allow more patient choice, more money to doctors and nurses, more money for new drugs, medical equipment etc. etc.) it seems that with the 'reforms' that have been put forward the reality is that there's probably the same amount of money notionally going into the NHS 'kitty' but due to the increased involvement of the private sector (which is really going some after Bliar's public-private partnership 'initiatives' which haemorrhage money into the private sectoras it is) there's likely to be less cash available for the provision of NHS 'owned' and controlled services which, depending on your perspective, will either lead to worsened (my film belief) or improved services.

[Ed209]

If a cure for cancer was found tomorrow, not one life would be saved because of it - the lives would merely be extended. But along with that, there's still a fatal condition to treat at the end of that extended life (which is roughly equal in cost to a cancer treatment for someone with cancer today that may or may not be cured), as well as the extra costs of healthcare for that person until they get the fatal condition which kills them.

[eFestivals]

You might have already read it, but this article will interest you

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/15/cancer-the-new-normal

thanks, but it doesn't. It's not a question I need to consider, it's something I've long considered and long kno0wn the answer to.

One day the rest of the world will catch up with me on this one (if it's not already but been too scared to say), but probably far too late.

[eFestivals]

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's not semantics.

They said the budget wouldn't be cut. The budget has been cut.

Which of course makes the situation even worse in regard to the reform, because the savings they've been told to find won't be able to be found when nothing is fixed in place (cos the reforms) to be pinned down as wasteful and then cut.

[Uncle Liam]

Cameron specifically send that NHS spending would be ringfenced. So from what I understand there were to be no cuts to the budget, yet six months on the NHS has been told to make £20 Billion of savings by 2014.

I dont quite know what Cameron and Lansley are smoking on this one, or who exactly they are fooling. "We will give Doctors more say in running the NHS" and then introducing this policy that most doctors dont want.

Typical Cameron logic. We'll remove the bureaucracy by getting rid of the PCT's and the managers, and turning the doctors into managers and bureaucrats.

Reminds me of the time my stepdad (senior consultant surgeon, one of those people Cameron was targeting last week for making far too much money for working extra hours to save lives) having a run in with a pen pusher, and it got to the stage where he told him to "do the f**king operation yourself then"

[5co77ie]

It's all about lining the pockets of management consultants and private companies, all waiting in the wings.

Doctors are going to need training from management consultants and it's just ripe for private competition to start suggesting they can do it for less.

Already private accountancy giant KPMG (with the blessing of Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, and supported by former employees and ConDem MPs Mark Harper & Nick Gibb) have been contracted to advise GPs on financial strategy, and will be replacing NHS staff who normally carry out the work,

The NHS is being led to the slaughter for privatisation.

[lost]

So while medical progression is always presented as "saving lives" and "saving money", neither of those facts are true; no lives are saved, and the costs are greater.

Ultimately, if we keep going the way we are, then forced euthanasia will be the only solution.

[beLIEveR]

The most even-handed thing I can say about all this is that the Tories are doing to GPs what Labour did to Police Officers. Frankly, that's the only possible positive spin that can be put on this.

The only positive thing that even the Tories are claiming will come out of this is that the patient will be face-to-face with the person ultimately responsible for deciding what treatment they should have. Which sounds great. But I wonder what the effect of putting patients face-to-face with people ultimately responsible for deciding whether the NHS can afford to save their lives, or the lives of their parents, siblings, partners or children?

[eFestivals]

Well you've answered your own question the pyramid on which social security is based is inverting and then which option is going to be more acceptable to the public?

1) kick the can down the road with a cut here and the odd rise in the retirement age there until there's very little public funding for pensions, healthcare or education.

2) start shooting old people.

in an ageing democratic society though to get option 2 you will need to have a near literal example of turkeys voting for Christmas.

All very true. Which tends to suggest to me that we're well and truly f**ked, so we'll end up going the only other possible way (particularly when other factors are taken into the thinking). And that's going to be the complete breakdown of society as too many refuse to accept the position we've led ourselves into, with no less violent but less structured and fair consequences.

[grumpyhack]

Sometimes it's important to see the big picture. You can be so close that you can't see the wood for the trees. Although GPs may well be in the best position to assess an individual patient's needs how will they know about the conflicting needs of other patients in an area, region or hospital catchment area that they are not treating?

[hot_ice]

point raised on the daily politics had it spot on,

what happens when your refused a treatment because the company is a private company and worried about its profits?, the backlash could be huge

[llcoolphil]

It's all about lining the pockets of management consultants and private companies, all waiting in the wings.

Doctors are going to need training from management consultants and it's just ripe for private competition to start suggesting they can do it for less.

Already private accountancy giant KPMG (with the blessing of Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, and supported by former employees and ConDem MPs Mark Harper & Nick Gibb) have been contracted to advise GPs on financial strategy, and will be replacing NHS staff who normally carry out the work,

The NHS is being led to the slaughter for privatisation.

[llcoolphil]

Sometimes it's important to see the big picture. You can be so close that you can't see the wood for the trees. Although GPs may well be in the best position to assess an individual patient's needs how will they know about the conflicting needs of other patients in an area, region or hospital catchment area that they are not treating?

[llcoolphil]

You might have already read it, but this article will interest you

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/15/cancer-the-new-normal