mogwai84 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I'm not a fan of Diane Abbot, but I liked this comment she made: "...and more fundamentally, because of these reforms, the NHS will morph from a directly managed system of healthcare into a regulated industry of competing providers. It is the difference between an army run from the centre and the government giving over the defence of the realm to a bunch of competing mercenaries. (Obviously they would need a regulator. Ofsick, perhaps?) The Tories would not dream of organising defence in this way. Why are they introducing this system for healthcare?" From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/17/nhs-reforms-cameron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Neither am I a fan of Diane, but yes that is an amusing suggestion - why do the dogmatic privateers not call for competition in the military? Surely there is no more inefficient public sector organisation going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 the "top down" restructure actually means the PCTS (money men) all become redundant in the next 2 yrs. the GPs take over the budget, despite no training in managing an £80billion budget. what will actually happen is that the budget managers in the PCTS (already on big money) will move to work for the GP consortia to do exactly the same job, but with a new title. the GP centres will be able to pay themselves more money out of their new budget if they see fit. the hospitals (same ones) will carry out the same procedures on the same patients. the money for the ops will still come in, but from a GP collaborative rather than PCT. some services may be rationed, some may disapear if the money holders decide they dont want to pay. consultants will still be paid £100k + bonus from the NHS for 3 - 4 days work, plus their overtime as in the news this week (£100k average) plus private earnings. the NHS will carry on with the lower paid staff still earning the same or less, or being shipped off to private companies on worse terms and conditions (ie porters, domestics, lab staff etc.) the government will still claim the "frontline staff" ie doctors and nurses are protected and still in the NHS. local hospitals will be allowed to take on other services and sell more types of treatment "if" and only if the business adds up, ie money is to be made. treatments that dont earn money wont be wanted. Hospitals are to all become foundation trusts and then the next step will be to allow them to self manage as if a private company, to make it more "market led". the new govt are hell bent on carrying out a long held ambition to privatise by the back door the NHS, which they believe to be an outdated labour vote winner. once its changed for good, it will stay changed from that we know currently. the tories now have a 4 year opportunity to force through this once in a lifetime star objective, having got in on the back of protecting the NHS as part of their advertising, and "ringfencing" it. stinks to high heaven, Labour had many faults but the NHS was improving under them and under their investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I'm not a fan of Diane Abbot, but I liked this comment she made: "...and more fundamentally, because of these reforms, the NHS will morph from a directly managed system of healthcare into a regulated industry of competing providers. It is the difference between an army run from the centre and the government giving over the defence of the realm to a bunch of competing mercenaries. (Obviously they would need a regulator. Ofsick, perhaps?) The Tories would not dream of organising defence in this way. Why are they introducing this system for healthcare?" From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/17/nhs-reforms-cameron that just about sums it up perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It is the difference between an army run from the centre and the government giving over the defence of the realm to a bunch of competing mercenaries. ....... The Tories would not dream of organising defence in this way. If there were an easy profit in it for their mates in Big Business I'm sure they would give it serious consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.