kaz7
Well-Known Member
During covid i found 111 really good , sent me an ambulance but that is another story , try them and they should sort out something , hopefully
Getting a GP appointment
- Thread starter mackenzie
- Start date
It’s always been partly privatised. All GPS are private contractors. Drugs, equipment, PFI hospitals all private. You are wrong about a Tory plan. The biggest privatisation of modern times was PFI hospitals under Blair and Brown.
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
I was about 10th in queue last year and waited an hour. I was 1 in the q for 20 minutes. Probably someone shouting abuse at the staff
Evidence?
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
I work in health insurance and the amount of people trying to use our own online GPs to gain a private referral as they’ve given up trying on Nhs is ridiculous.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
What I saw working undercover at a GP surgery - BBC News
BBC Panorama reporter Jacqui Wakefield worked as a receptionist at an Operose Health GP practice.
www.bbc.co.uk
It’s not always been partly privatised at all. It changed for the first time in the 80s. You are right about Blair though. New Labour was just soft Tory though.
Of what? Tories pushing further privatisation or that there are decent health care officials?
m7mcfc
Well-Known Member
I was in a pub near me and saw all the reception staff from the local doctors. All giggling away and one of their phones rang. She answered it pronto. I walked up to her and said you can answer your phone in the pub try answering at the surgery are you fucking deaf to the phone ringing there.
That goes for the fucking lot of you I said.
I got no response.
That goes for the fucking lot of you I said.
I got no response.
I wonder why.
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,698
They probably,and justifiably,thought you were mentally ill.
Totally and utterly wrong. The refusal of the BMA in 1948 to join the NHS is a cause celebre.
When agreement was finally reached for GPs to become private contractors, the minister was asked how it was done, he replied:
”We stopped their mouths with gold”.
Thus GPs have never been employed directly by the NHS.
TO form an opinion on the NHS, you need to get basic facts right.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. The fact that GPs are private or public contractors is not an issue I'm discussing or even debating. GPs make up a small section of the NHS, I'm talking about how the organisation is funded and how sections of it have been privatised for profit making since the 1980s.
Before the major changes came in the NHS had a simple yet effective funding mechanism. A certain percentage of the GDP was given to the NHS. Over time that has been reduced and the deficit made up by essentially "selling off" sections to private organisations to run. That privatisation has resulted in reduced service and efficiency. Short term gain for long term pain. That is what we are seeing right now.
I think you have en for some political myths
I don't quite understand your comment but here's a good overview of the NHS privatisation history.
https://keepournhspublic.com/campaigns/privatisation-pfi/
What I mean is this:
neither party is willing to admit that the nhs is failing. There are of course some good parts and some bad ones, but the fact remains that uk health numbers are worse on multiple dimensions than almost all comparable countries. To fix this would require a large amount of money or some hard political decisions, so both political parties (a) use distraction techniques to cast doubt on the others preferred path. E.g “the tories want to sell off the nhs” (b) go along with the quasi religious positioning of the nhs. (c) steadfastly avoid the radical solutions required.
A concrete example: primary care accounts for 90% of all patient interactions, but only 9% of the budget. Most researchers believe that the primary budget needs to be above 20%. This would require radical action, but which party is going to say “we need to reduce the costs of secondary care by reducing secondary care services”?
Edit PS. If you think the paper you quoted is a good overview, consider its language and ask yourself what the purpose of the paper is. The title of the link alone should alert you.
Last edited:
Happy for you to point out any inaccuracies and educate me :)
What we agree on is that the NHS is failing. Whether you want to accept it or not, a big part of that comes from under funding and privatisation. I agree it's not a one party cause, as the article clearly points out the Labour Party implemented significant changes. However, it feels like your stance is that privatisation isn't per se a bad thing. Kind of ironic that you're pushing your own agenda but then berating others for having one...
Not pushing any agenda, but the case against privatisation has not been made. It is merely asserted as a bad thing, Yet both parties accept it is necessary. They disagree on the scale and on which parts. The NHS’s own campaign is pants, I have never seen any research which backs it up. If you think part privatisation is a bad thing, tell me why. (Personal example: the nhs does not provide dermatology services in my area due to small numbers so when I needed an operation for a cancerous growth, I was operated on by a private surgeon and the nhs paid the bill. Seems reasonable to me)
As for underfunding any public service feels it is underfunded, it is a way of life, but fine words butter no parsnips, they have to show how increased funding would improve matters.
Some examples:
why are many elective nhs services not available at weekends?.That effectively wastes 28% of capital investment.
Why do many imaging departments close at 4pm?
Why has so little progress been made in the establishment of hubs Of specialist excellence? Compare uk cardiac surgery costs with India.
How do trusts allocate budgets to departments? Is there a protocol?
What has been done to relieve the problem of bed blockers where no care is available on discharge?
There are hundreds of these structural budgetary issues which never seem to get resolved.
I worked for a major west London trust about 20 years ago. Recently the wife of an old friend‘s son became a nurse there. Questioning revealed that structural problems I encountered then are just as bad today.
So, while it would be great to increase funding, the nhs must tackle long standing problems first.
On a basic level privatisation means higher costs to the taxpayer for the same service. You only have to look at America compared to us or Canada to see that. Yes some part privatisation might be efficient like the example you’ve given but once you open that door - as we already have - it’s difficult to put the brakes. You only have to look at the example of Virgin health suing the NHS to see the murky world of privatised health care.
Given we are on a football forum I’ll use a football analogy to highlight my point. Are city at an advantage that our owners like to reinvest the profit we make back into the club rather than other clubs, say spurs, who draw significant profits every year? Absolutely. Same for the taxpayer and health.
I agree the NHS has huge problems, not all of which is caused by under funding. My wife who works in the NHS faces institutional red tape and computer says no scenarios all the time - it drives her mad.
But this whole argument that services need to be privatised to be fixed is flawed. The whole funding system within the nhs has become so complex and dysfunctional it needs stripping back and simplifying. You have trusts in London where hospitals are grouped together, staff are shared and yet the hospitals could be 1.5 hours apart - it’s madness.
m7mcfc
Well-Known Member
What could they reply every last one of them have selective hearing when the phone rings in the surgery.