Cycling UK Forum

Don't get me wrong. I *like* the NHS, and I have had good experiences with the NHS. Because I like it, I want to see it improve, not deteriorate.

Free at the point if use or free at delivery, these terms seem odd to me.
Both can be taken as you could be charged later as in after use or delivery.

Is either a guarantee that you will not be given a bill after treatment and discharge?

Edwards wrote:Free at the point if use or free at delivery, these terms seem odd to me.
Both can be taken as you could be charged later as in after use or delivery.

Is either a guarantee that you will not be given a bill after treatment and discharge?

Of course it's not free in general, never has been, just no additional cost when you use it. The bill you pay? That's about ten percent of your annual tax bill goes to fund the NHS so they don't have to charge you when you use it (except for dentists and opticians of course)

I know it's not illegal and depending on your viewpoint it might not be immoral neither. It's not Millburn's view it's immoral.
Just how many politicians end up on boards or working unions or lobby groups where their mini
political contacts and ministerial knowledge/experience can be used for.personal.gain? Which party has more of its ex MPs doing this? I would contend.that if you feel this is immoral then your elected representatives on leaving Westminster probably don't. It is probably human nature among the successful to exploit the situation they're in for personal gain and politicians are.successful people.

Tangled Metal wrote: It is probably human nature among the successful to exploit the situation they're in for personal gain and politicians are.successful people.

It's worse in Alan Milburn's case because he used to call himself a socialist, and even ran a marxist bookshop in Newcastle.

More generally, it is about conflicts of interest. A minister knows that he can promote changes in the law to benefit certain parties who will reward him with a highly paid sinecure when he leaves his post. That knowledge is likely to sway his judgement.

There are a lot of terrible decisions made, and a lot of ex-ministers (the terrible decision makers) being paid a lot for doing not much, by the people who benefited from those terrible decisions. The two things may be connected.

Edwards wrote:Now that we have this govt in power again I am considering leaving.

If you leave can I have your boat? (and caravan and LandRover and bikes)

Dafydd17 wrote:

Edwards wrote:Now that we have this govt in power again I am considering leaving.

If you leave can I have your boat? (and caravan and LandRover and bikes)

I would need the boat otherwise I would have to walk/swim.
The rest, any person in their right mind would have scrapped them instead of sticking them together again, so you are welcome to them.
Bought cheap and repaired (well some of it).
There is always a spare berth for you if you want it.

I know we already pay for the NHS but the words now used do seem to imply that we could be charged extra after treatment.

Edited to add MrsE says when do you want the Land Rover delivered?

I don't claim to know anything about government or how it works and I do see things in a very simple way, but what I do know is that with the Torys in power, life for those of us on ESA, PIP, JSA, UC and those on low incomes is about to become much, much worse. In many cases, life will in fact literally end.
And in the case of the NHS possibly being privatised, I do now wonder how long it will be before things like insulin (which I depend on) become personally chargeable.
Is this a worst case scenario? Maybe. But I bet the hundreds of people who commited suicide after being thrown into situations that they couldn't cope with saw those days coming either.
If it weren't for my children and family being here, I'd make a bid for that spare berth.

Terrified doesn't begin to explain how I feel about the future.

Vantage wrote:...............those on low incomes is about to become much, much worse. In many cases, life will in fact literally end..................And in the case of the NHS possibly being privatised, I do now wonder how long it will be before things like insulin become personally chargeable.............Is this a worst case scenario? .................

YES

Vantage wrote:And in the case of the NHS possibly being privatised, I do now wonder how long it will be before things like insulin (which I depend on) become personally chargeable.

Diabetics are lucky. One of the early acts of the Cameron-Clegg government was to suspend the expansion of the prescription charge exemption to other chronic illnesses. It has not yet restarted. Austerity kills. http://www.prescriptionchargescoalition.org.uk/

It's the back door privatisation that worries me, at layers where you can't see it. You might go to a hospital for a blood test. This might appear to be done in a non privatised environment. But what about the testing itself once the sample has gone off?

Just one example of the layers that go into a healthcare system. In short, the average person will struggle to know just what privatisation means in such a complex system. So many healthcare trusts, drug procurement bodies, the list never ends of the non-public facing aspects.

It can't get much worse - just heard Farage has un-resigned himself and someone has proposed the lovely execrable Esther McVey for the House of Lords. Think I'll be leaving soon too.

iandriver wrote:It's the back door privatisation that worries me, at layers where you can't see it. You might go to a hospital for a blood test. This might appear to be done in a non privatised environment. But what about the testing itself once the sample has gone off?

What does it matter who does it as long as it gets done efficiently and effectively? You don't expect the NHS to manufacture its own beds and surgical equipment. It buys them in. So why do they need to do their own blood tests if someone can do it more efficiently and cost effectively? It saves the NHS spending money on building a lab and kitting it out with equipment and people - a big investment that is difficult to make within its annual budgetting one year payback model. So let someone else spend all the money and go for a pay as you go model instead.

TonyR wrote:

iandriver wrote:It's the back door privatisation that worries me, at layers where you can't see it. You might go to a hospital for a blood test. This might appear to be done in a non privatised environment. But what about the testing itself once the sample has gone off?

What does it matter who does it as long as it gets done efficiently and effectively? You don't expect the NHS to manufacture its own beds and surgical equipment. It buys them in. So why do they need to do their own blood tests if someone can do it more efficiently and cost effectively? It saves the NHS spending money on building a lab and kitting it out with equipment and people - a big investment that is difficult to make within its annual budgetting one year payback model. So let someone else spend all the money and go for a pay as you go model instead.

Mainly my problem is I don't believe what you describe is the reality. I believe the lowest bidder approach is at the cost of jobs with respectable terms and conditions in favour of zero hours contracts etc. and a chance to erode the service. All along a few fat cats at the top get rich while being hidden far enough away from the public eye to be accountable for anything.

iandriver wrote:Mainly my problem is I don't believe what you describe is the reality.

This is what I was trying to get out of Al earlier. Is it that he's comfortable with the principle of privatisation, or is he happy with how it is being implemented - accounting for the many examples of bad value, and the assertion that the private sector is creaming off the profits without bearing the risk.

The same could be asked about rail privatisation. While many people might have thought it was a good idea in principle, fewer are happy with what has happened since. The fact that the system has already undergone several reforms, and both Labour and Conservatives are proposing significant changes, indicate that the Major government made a hash of the original privatisation.

For anyone supporting private involvement in the health service, the question should be: do you support it blindly, or is your support dependent upon the contracts being of good value for the taxpayer? If you want it to work, then you should be as angry as anyone about bad contracts.