lolli_pop Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 it's been explained many times on the forum but people still don't "get it" or don't want to Please do explain how good preventative healthcare is for people with chronic conditions like diabetes in the US compared to the NHS, without insurance (not emergency care - insulin, pumps, meters, testing strips, eyecare, footcare). Please do explain why people with diabetes are often literally begging the insulin they need to live from pharmaceutical companies. My personal favourite at the moment has to be the lovely (and by lovely I mean appalling and depressing) advice page, Help Paying Your Premature Baby's Medical Bills http://preemies.about.com/od/resourcesforparents/a/PreemieMedBills.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Conversely, in nations where you get what you get what you pay, for the standards of care are higher than in the UK. But that hardly matters because that isn't what the government is proposing. What they are addressing is the endless bureaucracy that is throttling the life blood (cash) out of the NHS. Surely nobody should object to the principle of changing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Conversely, in nations where you get what you get what you pay, for the standards of care are higher than in the UK. But that hardly matters because that isn't what the government is proposing. What they are addressing is the endless bureaucracy that is throttling the life blood (cash) out of the NHS. Surely nobody should object to the principle of changing that? Arguably if you look at overall outcomes in the UK we get more than we pay for. We already get very good value and world class outcomes in many areas. We fail in some areas - the response should be to fix those not trash the the whole system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 the response should be to fix those not trash the the whole system. Agreed. That would be why nobody is proposing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 PCTs are regional bodies set up by statute to cover a certain area. The CCGs will be smaller more flexible bodies representing the GPs who sign up to them, if not run by the GPs themselves. So straight away the bureaucracy of the PCT has gone along with a good chunk of the cost. Well, it hasn't removed a chunk of the bureaucracy; the CCGs replace the PCTs. Then the RCGs replace the SHAs, then the NHSCB replaces.....nothing at all. It's an additional layer of bureaucracy Removing geographical limitations opens up the commissioning process to competition but in practice patients will want to be treated locally so the beneficial effect may end up being muted. My concern isn't about geographical limitations, they were removed years ago. I know lots of PCTs who already commission services from independent hospitals and treatment centres well outside their geographic area. We don't need new legislation to introduce that because it's already in place. My concern is about geographic obligation, and the fact that it isn't in the bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What they are addressing is the endless bureaucracy that is throttling the life blood (cash) out of the NHS. Surely nobody should object to the principle of changing that? I wouldn't object to that, but the bill does nothing to remove bureaucracy, it adds an additional layer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Could you elaborate on how the removal of PCT's is adding bureaucracy? I've had a little exposure to PCT's and even the people who run them acknowledge that they aren't much cop and are incredibly expensive ways of not achieving much. They do meet targets though, but from what I've seen those are the wrong targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Could you elaborate on how the removal of PCT's is adding bureaucracy? I've had a little exposure to PCT's and even the people who run them acknowledge that they aren't much cop and are incredibly expensive ways of not achieving much. They do meet targets though, but from what I've seen those are the wrong targets. As I'm sure you're aware, the bill proposes removing PCTs and SHAs, but replacing them with CCGs and RCGs. Then on top of that comes the new quango, the NHSCB. It doesn't remove bureaucracy, it adds to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Cameron is holding a summit on Monday to try and get more support in order to push through reforms. Bizarrely though he hasn't bothered to invite doctors, nurses or GP's - the very people the Tories claim the reforms will give more power to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The tories are trying to sell off the NHS, they just won't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.