Jim Graham Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Anything (in theory) can be privately run and government funded. Often, the government actually saves money by employing a private company to do something instead of keeping work in the public sector; a private company has a huge incentive to eliminate waste, public sector workers have no incentive at all to do so. To quote some entirely fictitious figures as an example; you want to build a road. Your budget for the road is £10,000,000. The public sector has no reason to care how much it spends; everyone is getting paid their wages anyway. The road is very likely to cost £10,000,000. The private sector wants to trim the cost as much as possible; by eliminating waste, they might be able to charge the government £9,500,000, spend £9,000,000 and make half a million pounds profit on the deal. The risk, of course, is that unscrupulous private companies will save money in other ways than by eliminating waste. You don't want them laying down wooden planks instead of concrete in order to save an extra two million quid; the road would collapse within a year if they did that. Good analogy but it needs a bit of realism adding: If the road in question was the Sheffield inner ring road extension the council claimed it would cost about £23m. In the end it cost £93m. So not even close. The contractors made a profit and the tax payers picked up the bill. With privatisation the contractor would only have got £23m (or a more realistic figure) to build it AND he would have had to build it to a specification. The NHS has the same problem as the council. They are completely unable to manage to a budget. Something has to be done. Unsurprisingly all the vested interests who can't control their spending like the BMA and the royal colleges are against the changes and that's a bandwagon the lefty loons aren't going to let pass by without jumping on. As usual they haven't got a plan of their own but they are damn sure they don't like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 They've not 'got caught' in it. They are ADVOCATING and ASSISTING. Shame on them. Will Labour turn it round again if they get in next election, I bet they won't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petminder Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Private companies already treat NHS patients, and NHS patients can even travel abroad to get a better service. NHS funding for patients opting for treatment abroad You may be able to go abroad for treatment on the NHS Competition will hopefully make the NHS more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Private companies already treat NHS patients, and NHS patients can even travel abroad to get a better service. NHS funding for patients opting for treatment abroad You may be able to go abroad for treatment on the NHS Competition will hopefully make the NHS more efficient. The key word there is 'opt'. If commissioning bodies choose to send you to the 'best' provider under the new reforms they do the opting for you and may take the choice away. Don't want to travel for routine treatment? Tough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 They mean Andrew Lansley's head on a spike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petminder Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The key word there is 'opt'. If commissioning bodies choose to send you to the 'best' provider under the new reforms they do the opting for you and may take the choice away. Don't want to travel for routine treatment? Tough! I was just pointing out that some NHS services are already provided by private companies and it must be better to allow more companies to provide services, rather than have people travelling abroad to get something that should be available here. All our drugs are manufactured and dispensed by private companies; I don’t understand why some people are worried about private companies providing NHS services, when it is something that already happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I was just pointing out that some NHS services are already provided by private companies and it must be better to allow more companies to provide services, rather than have people travelling abroad to get something that should be available here. All our drugs are manufactured and dispensed by private companies; I don’t understand why some people are worried about private companies providing NHS services, when it is something that already happens. I haven't got a problem with a mixed healthcare system, part-public and part-private. These reforms however could lead to some very strange and undesirable things happening within the system, e.g. because of the deliberate omission of geographical compulsion. The reforms are not geared up to patients needs but to increasing the scope for private provision in the NHS for the benefit of corporates - the government hasn't even attempted to gloss over that and the fact that the public debates never refer much to the patient experience clearly indicates that the entire thrust of the reforms is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treadol Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Will Labour turn it round again if they get in next election, I bet they won't Will they be able to? Once it's opened up to EU competition law I'm not sure it can be put back to how it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Competition will hopefully make the NHS more efficient. I think the problem is likely to be selective competition. The NHS has, within reason, to deal with everything. The private companies can cherry pick the profitable easy stuff and leave the NHS with the expensive complex stuff. A lot of specialist staff and equipment is only cost effective because they/it are used for the less complicated prodeedures as well as the really specialised stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petminder Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think the problem is likely to be selective competition. The NHS has, within reason, to deal with everything. The private companies can cherry pick the profitable easy stuff and leave the NHS with the expensive complex stuff. A lot of specialist staff and equipment is only cost effective because they/it are used for the less complicated prodeedures as well as the really specialised stuff. The NHS is at an advantage because it already as the equipment, it just doesn't have the incentive to become more efficient but should easily be able to compete for easy work, either way another provider should mean shorter waiting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.