|
Post by wannabee on Jul 12, 2024 23:45:22 GMT
If you are going to quote what Darzi said nine years ago it would be better if you linked the original Article where he also said But speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Darzi - one of the country's top surgeons - said the debate should focus on securing the best possible care - regardless of where it comes from."If the debate doesn't focus on the quality of care, then every patient and every clinician will know that the real argument about what matters has already been lost," he said.Clearly an outrageous comment to make that NHS Patients should receive the best possible care. www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31052010Or better yet be more informative and include what Darzi said last year before being tasked by Streeting In his view GPs who are Independent Contractors should be directly employed by the NHS to make it a more integrated service. Obviously you may think this is another Crackpot idea and a slippery slope to Privatising the NHS Bringing GP services ‘into the fold’ would ‘finally complete the NHS’, according to former health secretary Lord Ara Darzi, who has suggested all GPs should be given the right to NHS employment.
The independent GP contractor model is ‘frozen in time’ and ‘cannot keep up with today’s demands’, he argued in an opinion piece for the Financial Times.
In the piece, Lord Darzi called for GPs to be welcomed ‘on the same terms as those working in hospitals’ in order to ‘finally complete a joined-up, unified NHS’.
And he said his ‘big regret’ from his time as health minister under the Labour Government between 2007 and 2009 was ‘our failure to persuade GPs to change the way they work’.
The current model of general practice is not set up to deal with patients with multiple, long-term health conditions, and the current state of population health ‘demands modern “hub” facilities complete with routine diagnostic capabilities’, according to Lord Darzi.
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 13, 2024 2:00:13 GMT
Isn't there a problem though in the culture / world we are creating in the UK? Is there a moral issue for those people, single and couples, who may be childless but simply don't want to contribute to others lifestyle? No there absolutely isn't. Just because they've chosen not to have kids, doesn't then mean, that they themselves potentially won't have to rely on the state in other ways. They might be unlucky enough to be inflicted with a life long illness, they might drink and/or smoke to high heaven, they might have to attend hospital due to repeated skiing accidents, whereas as the people who've had the children, might not have ever smoked or drank, or have been a burden on the state due to them having repeated accidents as a result of leisure activities. Not to mention the fact, that the children that THEY never had, will be the ones paying the taxes that pay for their pensions in later life. As members of a society, we accept that in order for that society to function, we all have to contribute as fairly as possible. And people who feel aggrieved because they believe that because they are paying for somebody else's welfare beyond their own, simply don't understand the principle of a fair society. There are plenty of people that believe that if you've got the money to pay for the best schools and the best health care, then you should absolutely be allowed to do so, whilst at the same time, being completely at a loss, as to why they should be expected to contribute to the health care and education of others less fortunate than themselves.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 13, 2024 7:17:42 GMT
Isn't there a problem though in the culture / world we are creating in the UK? Is there a moral issue for those people, single and couples, who may be childless but simply don't want to contribute to others lifestyle? No there absolutely isn't. Just because they've chosen not to have kids, doesn't then mean, that they themselves potentially won't have to rely on the state in other ways. They might be unlucky enough to be inflicted with a life long illness, they might drink and/or smoke to high heaven, they might have to attend hospital due to repeated skiing accidents, whereas as the people who've had the children, might not have ever smoked or drank, or have been a burden on the state due to them having repeated accidents as a result of leisure activities. Not to mention the fact, that the children that THEY never had, will be the ones paying the taxes that pay for their pensions in later life. As members of a society, we accept that in order for that society to function, we all have to contribute as fairly as possible. And people who feel aggrieved because they believe that because they are paying for somebody else's welfare beyond their own, simply don't understand the principle of a fair society. There are plenty of people that believe that if you've got the money to pay for the best schools and the best health care, then you should absolutely be allowed to do so, whilst at the same time, being completely at a loss, as to why they should be expected to contribute to the health care and education of others less fortunate than themselves. I agree with that in the main. However I'm also funding those kids who'll pay my pension (yeah right, like I'll even be entitled to a state one in the end) during their growing years, so fair's fair. What I shouldn't fund are the professionally feckless and the countless Mrs Bibis' who have zero intent of ever working or contributing, and somehow are allowed to claim the same benefits as genuine job seekers. It's not in Labour's interest to sort that out though as they want elements of society dependent on them being in government, it's an unwritten covenant. I spent 6 years delivering grant funded works based on the benefits people claimed, we saw every fiddle in the book. My favourite was a guy in Normacot trying to get a grant on a property he was advertising for rent in the front window, using benefit forms from his Mrs Bibi that were all registered to another address. It was that blatant we could just close it down there and then. Slightly off topic but the one that really pissed me off was a guy we got an RBL grant for who then, transferred the property to his daughter as soon as we'd done the work designed to suit him (OT assessments etc). He just buggered off to wherever his property was, it was just a fiddle to get money out of a charity to pay for his daughter's home renovation.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 13, 2024 7:34:23 GMT
No there absolutely isn't. Just because they've chosen not to have kids, doesn't then mean, that they themselves potentially won't have to rely on the state in other ways. They might be unlucky enough to be inflicted with a life long illness, they might drink and/or smoke to high heaven, they might have to attend hospital due to repeated skiing accidents, whereas as the people who've had the children, might not have ever smoked or drank, or have been a burden on the state due to them having repeated accidents as a result of leisure activities. Not to mention the fact, that the children that THEY never had, will be the ones paying the taxes that pay for their pensions in later life. As members of a society, we accept that in order for that society to function, we all have to contribute as fairly as possible. And people who feel aggrieved because they believe that because they are paying for somebody else's welfare beyond their own, simply don't understand the principle of a fair society. There are plenty of people that believe that if you've got the money to pay for the best schools and the best health care, then you should absolutely be allowed to do so, whilst at the same time, being completely at a loss, as to why they should be expected to contribute to the health care and education of others less fortunate than themselves. I agree with that in the main. However I'm also funding those kids who'll pay my pension (yeah right, like I'll even be entitled to a state one in the end) during their growing years, so fair's fair. What I shouldn't fund are the professionally feckless and the countless Mrs Bibis' who have zero intent of ever working or contributing, and somehow are allowed to claim the same benefits as genuine job seekers. It's not in Labour's interest to sort that out though as they want elements of society dependent on them being in government, it's an unwritten covenant. I spent 6 years delivering grant funded works based on the benefits people claimed, we saw every fiddle in the book. My favourite was a guy in Normacot trying to get a grant on a property he was advertising for rent in the front window, using benefit forms from his Mrs Bibi that were all registered to another address. It was that blatant we could just close it down there and then. Slightly off topic but the one that really pissed me off was a guy we got an RBL grant for who then, transferred the property to his daughter as soon as we'd done the work designed to suit him (OT assessments etc). He just buggered off to wherever his property was, it was just a fiddle to get money out of a charity to pay for his daughter's home renovation. Absolutely, we shouldn't be paying for that. Yeah it's an interesting subject this. I get what Paul is saying but also sort of agree with BJR. Could there be at least some sort of tax relief for those who don't have kids or don't utilise certain public services? Say one uses private health care, doesn't utilise state education and doesn't have kids, should they be paying for a bunch of services they don't use? In all other walks of life, we don't pay for services we don't receive so why should this be different? At the same time, I get that societal point Paul is making. It's a tough one really and don't know what the answer is but perhaps tax relief for those who aren't utilising certain public services would be an option. Mind, like that's gonna happen under this Labour government.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 13, 2024 7:39:30 GMT
No there absolutely isn't. Just because they've chosen not to have kids, doesn't then mean, that they themselves potentially won't have to rely on the state in other ways. They might be unlucky enough to be inflicted with a life long illness, they might drink and/or smoke to high heaven, they might have to attend hospital due to repeated skiing accidents, whereas as the people who've had the children, might not have ever smoked or drank, or have been a burden on the state due to them having repeated accidents as a result of leisure activities. Not to mention the fact, that the children that THEY never had, will be the ones paying the taxes that pay for their pensions in later life. As members of a society, we accept that in order for that society to function, we all have to contribute as fairly as possible. And people who feel aggrieved because they believe that because they are paying for somebody else's welfare beyond their own, simply don't understand the principle of a fair society. There are plenty of people that believe that if you've got the money to pay for the best schools and the best health care, then you should absolutely be allowed to do so, whilst at the same time, being completely at a loss, as to why they should be expected to contribute to the health care and education of others less fortunate than themselves. I agree with that in the main. However I'm also funding those kids who'll pay my pension (yeah right, like I'll even be entitled to a state one in the end) during their growing years, so fair's fair. What I shouldn't fund are the professionally feckless and the countless Mrs Bibis' who have zero intent of ever working or contributing, and somehow are allowed to claim the same benefits as genuine job seekers. It's not in Labour's interest to sort that out though as they want elements of society dependent on them being in government, it's an unwritten covenant. I spent 6 years delivering grant funded works based on the benefits people claimed, we saw every fiddle in the book. My favourite was a guy in Normacot trying to get a grant on a property he was advertising for rent in the front window, using benefit forms from his Mrs Bibi that were all registered to another address. It was that blatant we could just close it down there and then. Slightly off topic but the one that really pissed me off was a guy we got an RBL grant for who then, transferred the property to his daughter as soon as we'd done the work designed to suit him (OT assessments etc). He just buggered off to wherever his property was, it was just a fiddle to get money out of a charity to pay for his daughter's home renovation. Spot on. I’m all for fairness and supporting those less fortunate than myself through circumstances however I’m not for supporting those who “choose” to live off the state or go down a criminal route. I know this always provokes the response of “yes but what about the super rich” but at least with the majority of those they do contribute financially, just in some cases not enough (but still more than most). The majority of them have worked to become a success. Those that don’t contribute of course or part of the problem. I don’t have a problem with them going private either as they are entitled to pay for the best treatment and by doing so they’re freeing up space in the overworked NHS who of course do an amazing job having been treated by them recently (they do need to spend some money on their catering though
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 7:47:48 GMT
I agree with that in the main. However I'm also funding those kids who'll pay my pension (yeah right, like I'll even be entitled to a state one in the end) during their growing years, so fair's fair. What I shouldn't fund are the professionally feckless and the countless Mrs Bibis' who have zero intent of ever working or contributing, and somehow are allowed to claim the same benefits as genuine job seekers. It's not in Labour's interest to sort that out though as they want elements of society dependent on them being in government, it's an unwritten covenant. I spent 6 years delivering grant funded works based on the benefits people claimed, we saw every fiddle in the book. My favourite was a guy in Normacot trying to get a grant on a property he was advertising for rent in the front window, using benefit forms from his Mrs Bibi that were all registered to another address. It was that blatant we could just close it down there and then. Slightly off topic but the one that really pissed me off was a guy we got an RBL grant for who then, transferred the property to his daughter as soon as we'd done the work designed to suit him (OT assessments etc). He just buggered off to wherever his property was, it was just a fiddle to get money out of a charity to pay for his daughter's home renovation. Absolutely, we shouldn't be paying for that. Yeah it's an interesting subject this. I get what Paul is saying but also sort of agree with BJR. Could there be at least some sort of tax relief for those who don't have kids or don't utilise certain public services? Say one uses private health care, doesn't utilise state education and doesn't have kids, should they be paying for a bunch of services they don't use? In all other walks of life, we don't pay for services we don't receive so why should this be different? At the same time, I get that societal point Paul is making. It's a tough one really and don't know what the answer is but perhaps tax relief for those who aren't utilising certain public services would be an option. Mind, like that's gonna happen under this Labour government. How do you evidence it? How do you police it? The only way to do it would be pay as you go. If you want to drive on a road, you have to pay. If you want to see a doctor, you have to pay. If you want your child to go to school, you have to pay. If you want the fire brigade to put out your fire, you have to pay. If you want the police to come investigate a crime, you have to pay. That, in my opinion, would be a terrible society. I much prefer taxation system that taxes those who can afford it the most more than those who have less. But taxing wealth should be the norm and should happen a lot more than it does to make it fairer. However you do it, society will never be perfect. There will always be people playing the system, whether that is benefit fraudsters, MPs giving cash to mates, tax avoiders etc. All our government can do is heavy regulate those in power, shut down every single tax loophole that clever professionals find for their rich clients, and try to have a system that incentivises and enables people on benefits to cone off them. Going after benefit fraudsters is always going to be a tough one. Ultimately it will always cost the tax payer more than the fraudster is getting. But we need to do what we can with a mind to proportionality. Regulating MPs, and recovering cash from ppe fraudsters during covid, such as Baroness Mone, and then closing tax loopholes would be a really good way to generate extra revenue for the treasury I would expect.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 13, 2024 8:03:48 GMT
I agree with that in the main. However I'm also funding those kids who'll pay my pension (yeah right, like I'll even be entitled to a state one in the end) during their growing years, so fair's fair. What I shouldn't fund are the professionally feckless and the countless Mrs Bibis' who have zero intent of ever working or contributing, and somehow are allowed to claim the same benefits as genuine job seekers. It's not in Labour's interest to sort that out though as they want elements of society dependent on them being in government, it's an unwritten covenant. I spent 6 years delivering grant funded works based on the benefits people claimed, we saw every fiddle in the book. My favourite was a guy in Normacot trying to get a grant on a property he was advertising for rent in the front window, using benefit forms from his Mrs Bibi that were all registered to another address. It was that blatant we could just close it down there and then. Slightly off topic but the one that really pissed me off was a guy we got an RBL grant for who then, transferred the property to his daughter as soon as we'd done the work designed to suit him (OT assessments etc). He just buggered off to wherever his property was, it was just a fiddle to get money out of a charity to pay for his daughter's home renovation. Absolutely, we shouldn't be paying for that. Yeah it's an interesting subject this. I get what Paul is saying but also sort of agree with BJR. Could there be at least some sort of tax relief for those who don't have kids or don't utilise certain public services? Say one uses private health care, doesn't utilise state education and doesn't have kids, should they be paying for a bunch of services they don't use? In all other walks of life, we don't pay for services we don't receive so why should this be different? At the same time, I get that societal point Paul is making. It's a tough one really and don't know what the answer is but perhaps tax relief for those who aren't utilising certain public services would be an option. Mind, like that's gonna happen under this Labour government. How would that work in practice? Health care: Most people - even wealthy - use both private and public in the main because private doesn't cover everything. Private A&E, first response and intensive care is almost non-existent yet a lot of us need it at some point otherwise you're going to be left at the side of the road in the event of an accident. And most people who do go private opt to do so on a case by case basis depending on what the ailment is, what the waiting time is, whether their insurance ckvers it or whether they can afford it at the time, and whether public or private give a better service (I've known a case where following a private consultation the Dr recommended the individual used the local public hospital because they offered better treatment for his complaint). So you're bever actually out of the system Education: Someone starts out private for their kids but either loses their job, business goes bust or their kids are unhappy and wants to go back into state education. As they've paid nothing why should the state take them in? Do these kids therefore go uneducated or have I got to now pay for Tarquin who's Mummy and Daddy's pretensions haven't been realised. No Kids. Unless you sign up to either having or not having kids at the point you start paying tax how are the payments scheduled? Do you pay and then get a rebate at 60 if you haven't had any kids (or 80 in the case of Mick Jagger) or do you start paying once you have kids at an unaffordable rate? For society to work we all need to contribute and orivate options are exacty that - options over and above.. People will always try to 'game' the system just as people will always try to avoid paying tax. Both should be prosecuted.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 13, 2024 8:19:04 GMT
Absolutely, we shouldn't be paying for that. Yeah it's an interesting subject this. I get what Paul is saying but also sort of agree with BJR. Could there be at least some sort of tax relief for those who don't have kids or don't utilise certain public services? Say one uses private health care, doesn't utilise state education and doesn't have kids, should they be paying for a bunch of services they don't use? In all other walks of life, we don't pay for services we don't receive so why should this be different? At the same time, I get that societal point Paul is making. It's a tough one really and don't know what the answer is but perhaps tax relief for those who aren't utilising certain public services would be an option. Mind, like that's gonna happen under this Labour government. How do you evidence it? How do you police it? The only way to do it would be pay as you go. If you want to drive on a road, you have to pay. If you want to see a doctor, you have to pay. If you want your child to go to school, you have to pay. If you want the fire brigade to put out your fire, you have to pay. If you want the police to come investigate a crime, you have to pay. That, in my opinion, would be a terrible society. I much prefer taxation system that taxes those who can afford it the most more than those who have less. But taxing wealth should be the norm and should happen a lot more than it does to make it fairer. However you do it, society will never be perfect. There will always be people playing the system, whether that is benefit fraudsters, MPs giving cash to mates, tax avoiders etc. All our government can do is heavy regulate those in power, shut down every single tax loophole that clever professionals find for their rich clients, and try to have a system that incentivises and enables people on benefits to cone off them. Going after benefit fraudsters is always going to be a tough one. Ultimately it will always cost the tax payer more than the fraudster is getting. But we need to do what we can with a mind to proportionality. Regulating MPs, and recovering cash from ppe fraudsters during covid, such as Baroness Mone, and then closing tax loopholes would be a really good way to generate extra revenue for the treasury I would expect. In Australia tax payers have to pay a Medicare Levy of 2%. This is means tested and not all have to pay it. The current basic tax rate in Australia is similar ours at 19.5%. So for an average wage earner in Uk that would mean around £60 a month for medical care, but this would be ring fenced purely for NHS. My friend in Australia says that their medical care is very good and doesn’t suffer from any lack of investment. I think this might work here and if it’s sold as a state medical insurance rather than a tax then people might be happier to pay it if it means a better NHS able to respond quicker to our country's health issues.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 13, 2024 8:59:32 GMT
If you are going to quote what Darzi said nine years ago it would be better if you linked the original Article where he also said But speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Darzi - one of the country's top surgeons - said the debate should focus on securing the best possible care - regardless of where it comes from."If the debate doesn't focus on the quality of care, then every patient and every clinician will know that the real argument about what matters has already been lost," he said.Clearly an outrageous comment to make that NHS Patients should receive the best possible care. www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31052010Or better yet be more informative and include what Darzi said last year before being tasked by Streeting In his view GPs who are Independent Contractors should be directly employed by the NHS to make it a more integrated service. Obviously you may think this is another Crackpot idea and a slippery slope to Privatising the NHS Bringing GP services ‘into the fold’ would ‘finally complete the NHS’, according to former health secretary Lord Ara Darzi, who has suggested all GPs should be given the right to NHS employment.
The independent GP contractor model is ‘frozen in time’ and ‘cannot keep up with today’s demands’, he argued in an opinion piece for the Financial Times.
In the piece, Lord Darzi called for GPs to be welcomed ‘on the same terms as those working in hospitals’ in order to ‘finally complete a joined-up, unified NHS’.
And he said his ‘big regret’ from his time as health minister under the Labour Government between 2007 and 2009 was ‘our failure to persuade GPs to change the way they work’.
The current model of general practice is not set up to deal with patients with multiple, long-term health conditions, and the current state of population health ‘demands modern “hub” facilities complete with routine diagnostic capabilities’, according to Lord Darzi.
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 10:11:51 GMT
How do you evidence it? How do you police it? The only way to do it would be pay as you go. If you want to drive on a road, you have to pay. If you want to see a doctor, you have to pay. If you want your child to go to school, you have to pay. If you want the fire brigade to put out your fire, you have to pay. If you want the police to come investigate a crime, you have to pay. That, in my opinion, would be a terrible society. I much prefer taxation system that taxes those who can afford it the most more than those who have less. But taxing wealth should be the norm and should happen a lot more than it does to make it fairer. However you do it, society will never be perfect. There will always be people playing the system, whether that is benefit fraudsters, MPs giving cash to mates, tax avoiders etc. All our government can do is heavy regulate those in power, shut down every single tax loophole that clever professionals find for their rich clients, and try to have a system that incentivises and enables people on benefits to cone off them. Going after benefit fraudsters is always going to be a tough one. Ultimately it will always cost the tax payer more than the fraudster is getting. But we need to do what we can with a mind to proportionality. Regulating MPs, and recovering cash from ppe fraudsters during covid, such as Baroness Mone, and then closing tax loopholes would be a really good way to generate extra revenue for the treasury I would expect. In Australia tax payers have to pay a Medicare Levy of 2%. This is means tested and not all have to pay it. The current basic tax rate in Australia is similar ours at 19.5%. So for an average wage earner in Uk that would mean around £60 a month for medical care, but this would be ring fenced purely for NHS. My friend in Australia says that their medical care is very good and doesn’t suffer from any lack of investment. I think this might work here and if it’s sold as a state medical insurance rather than a tax then people might be happier to pay it if it means a better NHS able to respond quicker to our country's health issues. France do similar and have a far more comprehensive health care than the nhs is able to provide. A similar example is in France you are given probiotics to take when you are prescribed antibiotics. Really basic, but a good example. Another is a proper women’s health check and physio sessions after giving birth. Paying a means tested amount based on capital and income and not just PAYE income, is fine. I am in favour, but the second anyone mentions anything like this they are attacked for trying to privatise the nhs. What matters is quality of healthcare for all. How that is achieved is irrelevant so long as it is universal.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 10:14:38 GMT
If you are going to quote what Darzi said nine years ago it would be better if you linked the original Article where he also said But speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Darzi - one of the country's top surgeons - said the debate should focus on securing the best possible care - regardless of where it comes from."If the debate doesn't focus on the quality of care, then every patient and every clinician will know that the real argument about what matters has already been lost," he said.Clearly an outrageous comment to make that NHS Patients should receive the best possible care. www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31052010Or better yet be more informative and include what Darzi said last year before being tasked by Streeting In his view GPs who are Independent Contractors should be directly employed by the NHS to make it a more integrated service. Obviously you may think this is another Crackpot idea and a slippery slope to Privatising the NHS Bringing GP services ‘into the fold’ would ‘finally complete the NHS’, according to former health secretary Lord Ara Darzi, who has suggested all GPs should be given the right to NHS employment.
The independent GP contractor model is ‘frozen in time’ and ‘cannot keep up with today’s demands’, he argued in an opinion piece for the Financial Times.
In the piece, Lord Darzi called for GPs to be welcomed ‘on the same terms as those working in hospitals’ in order to ‘finally complete a joined-up, unified NHS’.
And he said his ‘big regret’ from his time as health minister under the Labour Government between 2007 and 2009 was ‘our failure to persuade GPs to change the way they work’.
The current model of general practice is not set up to deal with patients with multiple, long-term health conditions, and the current state of population health ‘demands modern “hub” facilities complete with routine diagnostic capabilities’, according to Lord Darzi.
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon. Would you be opposed to any form of means tested contribution towards healthcare or any element of private company assistance in the nhs even it improves healthcare and, fundamentally, the improvements are universally accessible?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 13, 2024 10:25:30 GMT
We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon. Would you be opposed to any form of means tested contribution towards healthcare or any element of private company assistance in the nhs even it improves healthcare and, fundamentally, the improvements are universally accessible? Any means testing needs to come with guaranteed timescales for treatment, whether that's operations, GP appointments etc and open scrutiny of management and service. PALs doesn't cut it in my experience. The service needs to be protected and respected, by those who use it and work for it, but it needs cross party co-operation and commitment towards delivering for the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 13, 2024 10:25:45 GMT
If you are going to quote what Darzi said nine years ago it would be better if you linked the original Article where he also said But speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Darzi - one of the country's top surgeons - said the debate should focus on securing the best possible care - regardless of where it comes from."If the debate doesn't focus on the quality of care, then every patient and every clinician will know that the real argument about what matters has already been lost," he said.Clearly an outrageous comment to make that NHS Patients should receive the best possible care. www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31052010Or better yet be more informative and include what Darzi said last year before being tasked by Streeting In his view GPs who are Independent Contractors should be directly employed by the NHS to make it a more integrated service. Obviously you may think this is another Crackpot idea and a slippery slope to Privatising the NHS Bringing GP services ‘into the fold’ would ‘finally complete the NHS’, according to former health secretary Lord Ara Darzi, who has suggested all GPs should be given the right to NHS employment.
The independent GP contractor model is ‘frozen in time’ and ‘cannot keep up with today’s demands’, he argued in an opinion piece for the Financial Times.
In the piece, Lord Darzi called for GPs to be welcomed ‘on the same terms as those working in hospitals’ in order to ‘finally complete a joined-up, unified NHS’.
And he said his ‘big regret’ from his time as health minister under the Labour Government between 2007 and 2009 was ‘our failure to persuade GPs to change the way they work’.
The current model of general practice is not set up to deal with patients with multiple, long-term health conditions, and the current state of population health ‘demands modern “hub” facilities complete with routine diagnostic capabilities’, according to Lord Darzi.
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/politics/lord-darzi-gp-contractors-need-to-be-brought-into-the-fold-to-finally-complete-the-nhs/We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon. I'm well aware "We deserve better" is Owen Jones's new pressure group. I was saddened that Jones decided to leave the Labour Party, I would have preferred if he had stayed to make his case from within, but it was his choice. Notwithstanding that the Twitter Post is just a cheap Headline Grabber as it in no way represents what Darzi said nine years ago nor what he believes then or now. I never implied you ran WDBs Twitter Account or choose what they Tweet but by reposting it it shows you endorse the Tweet otherwise you would have commented to the contrary. Very little shocks me these days I'm afraid Labour and Wes Streeting are committed to improving the NHS not Privatising it, it has become quite boring how many times he has to repeat the same comment which he did just two days ago.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 13, 2024 10:32:27 GMT
We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon. Would you be opposed to any form of means tested contribution towards healthcare or any element of private company assistance in the nhs even it improves healthcare and, fundamentally, the improvements are universally accessible? Yes I am opposed to most forms of privatisation. It's a hypothetical question of course but show me any example were privatisation of our services has delivered cost effective results in the long term. It's a tried and tested model which fails time and time again. Don't get me wrong there may be strategic examples were it is the only option or works but it should be a last resort. I have no issue with potentially paying nominal fees for certain services. I have an issue however with my taxes being used for private companies who time and time again put profits before people. If you think any privatisation is being done in good faith and for the best of the public then more fool you.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 13, 2024 10:35:01 GMT
We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon. I'm well aware "We deserve better" is Owen Jones's new pressure group. I was saddened that Jones decided to leave the Labour Party, I would have preferred if he had stayed to make his case from within, but it was his choice. Notwithstanding that the Twitter Post is just a cheap Headline Grabber as it in no way represents what Darzi said nine years ago nor what he believes then or now. I never implied you ran WDBs Twitter Account or choose what they Tweet but by reposting it it shows you endorse the Tweet otherwise you would have commented to the contrary. Very little shocks me these days I'm afraid Labour and Wes Streeting are committed to improving the NHS not Privatising it, it has become quite boring how many times he has to repeat the same comment which he did just two days ago. You keep believing Wes. I'll keep pointing out their links to private health care and the many interviews were he says he will fix the NHS through the help of private health care.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Jul 13, 2024 10:54:08 GMT
The NHS and Social Care needs a serious rethink both on how its funded and delivered. The current model (like the state pension) doesn't work with an ageing population and reducing tax base.
Only Labour has the good will to enact the necessary reforms. I have no experience on the clinical side of care but some of the adminstrative systems are absolute relics with management/staff inertia a big issue as they are used to doing things in a very particular way.
Personally i think some sort of higher taxation is inevitable unless we are content with a service under increasing pressure and decline.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 13, 2024 11:40:16 GMT
The NHS and Social Care needs a serious rethink both on how its funded and delivered. The current model (like the state pension) doesn't work with an ageing population and reducing tax base. Only Labour has the good will to enact the necessary reforms. I have no experience on the clinical side of care but some of the adminstrative systems are absolute relics with management/staff inertia a big issue as they are used to doing things in a very particular way. Personally i think some sort of higher taxation is inevitable unless we are content with a service under increasing pressure and decline. It's called deliberate neglect and it's something which the conservstive party has been spearheading over the last 14 years. As chomsky once said, “That’s the standard technique of privatisation: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.” Let's not forgot that our "special relationship" with the USA and our "trade deal" post brexit which contained a dossier showing large amounts of health services within it. The managed decline of the NHS has been long in the making but you'd never get the public support for the tories doing it. They've managed enough decline and run the services far enough into the ground so that sympathetic and frustrated members of the electorate will now be more appeased towards privatisation believing its the "model" which is the issue and that we can only solve the crisis with the help of the private sector. It's weird because the managed decline has been well discussed on here in the past and the markings have been on the wall for a long time. But now the big bad tories are out and it's labour, backed by private health care investors, suggesting privatisation any form of due diligence has went out the window.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 13, 2024 11:43:50 GMT
You keep believing Wes. I'll keep pointing out their links to private health care and the many interviews were he says he will fix the NHS through the help of private health care. But you're didn't point out a Link to Private Health Care, you posted a false allegation link to Private Health Care nine years ago which was anything but.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 13, 2024 11:54:21 GMT
We deserve better is a movement opposed to NHS privatisation- I personally do not run their twitter account and choose what they quote. You'll be in for a shock soon. Would you be opposed to any form of means tested contribution towards healthcare or any element of private company assistance in the nhs even it improves healthcare and, fundamentally, the improvements are universally accessible? I've had both hips replaced since 2011 both times contracted out by NHS to Nuffield Hospital in Plymouth. They also provided excellent physiotherapy for several weeks after surgery. More recently my post cancer review CT scans were all done by a private company from Cardiff and the Mrs had cataract removals of both eyes by a private company in Exeter contracted by NHS. In addition my Mrs worked for Plymouth NHS Trust accounts department in the late 90s & has a wry smile when people talk about private health companies being used by NHS, saying this occurred way back over 25 years ago. My point is that private health companies have been engaged successfully with NHS for many years and yet people still moan about privatisation of the NHS. We are already there with certain NHS Services, but we need a more radical way of paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 13, 2024 11:58:33 GMT
You keep believing Wes. I'll keep pointing out their links to private health care and the many interviews were he says he will fix the NHS through the help of private health care. But you're didn't point out a Link to Private Health Care, you posted a false allegation link to Private Health Care nine years ago which was anything but. I have done many times before. I don't feel the need to quote my whole post history everytime on the subject. Here are his donations from private healthcare - www.thenational.scot/news/24250557.wes-streeting-takes-175k-donors-linked-private-health-firms/Here he is gushing about using private healthcare in the guardian. Again emphasising as if it's the only solution after managed decline - www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/12/wes-streeting-defends-labour-plan-private-sector-cut-nhs-backlogHere's some more recent info on Lord Dazi the advisor and his links to private health Or what about Alan Milburn another one of Starmers cronies to get a promotion? You can keep pretending the obvious writing isn't on the wall for as long as you like wannabee but you aren't going to pull the wool over my eyes like you will others.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jul 13, 2024 12:05:40 GMT
I believe that until the NHS is streamlined from the top then it will just keep going the way it has done for some years now. Many of the strategists simply have no clue about the actual medical priorities. When I worked on an ambulance , at first the priorities for conveyance to the hospital and then home again went to cancer patients and dialysis patients. Both are critical treatments. Most people understand cancer but not many people probably know that not having renal dialysis will kill you in a couple of weeks. The management in their infinite wisdom decided that the priority of these two categories was relegated and replaced by discharge patients. A discharged person is no longer a patient technically but the other two most definitely are. I might be wittering on here but if serious errors of judgement like this are made, then where else in the operation are errors being made. Although this is not primarily about financial matters, their is a cost to it.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 13, 2024 12:20:24 GMT
In Australia tax payers have to pay a Medicare Levy of 2%. This is means tested and not all have to pay it. The current basic tax rate in Australia is similar ours at 19.5%. So for an average wage earner in Uk that would mean around £60 a month for medical care, but this would be ring fenced purely for NHS. My friend in Australia says that their medical care is very good and doesn’t suffer from any lack of investment. I think this might work here and if it’s sold as a state medical insurance rather than a tax then people might be happier to pay it if it means a better NHS able to respond quicker to our country's health issues. France do similar and have a far more comprehensive health care than the nhs is able to provide. A similar example is in France you are given probiotics to take when you are prescribed antibiotics. Really basic, but a good example. Another is a proper women’s health check and physio sessions after giving birth. Paying a means tested amount based on capital and income and not just PAYE income, is fine. I am in favour, but the second anyone mentions anything like this they are attacked for trying to privatise the nhs. What matters is quality of healthcare for all. How that is achieved is irrelevant so long as it is universal. France has a far greater emphasis on preventative healthcare starting with pharmacies of which there are 22,000 in France compared to less than half that in the UK. 40% of the UK health budget is estimated to be spent treating preventable diseases - the biggest single factor being obesity.27% of the population are morbidly obese and a further 35% are overweight. Public or private is interesting but either way it would be a problem that would be easier to crack if we did more to help ourselves. Public health in Britain is absolutely shocking and is the elephant in the room -,I guess because no-one will vote for someone who tells us we're all a bunch of fat fuckers.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 13, 2024 12:29:57 GMT
The NHS and Social Care needs a serious rethink both on how its funded and delivered. The current model (like the state pension) doesn't work with an ageing population and reducing tax base. Only Labour has the good will to enact the necessary reforms. I have no experience on the clinical side of care but some of the adminstrative systems are absolute relics with management/staff inertia a big issue as they are used to doing things in a very particular way. Personally i think some sort of higher taxation is inevitable unless we are content with a service under increasing pressure and decline. It's called deliberate neglect and it's something which the conservstive party has been spearheading over the last 14 years. As chomsky once said, “That’s the standard technique of privatisation: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.” Let's not forgot that our "special relationship" with the USA and our "trade deal" post brexit which contained a dossier showing large amounts of health services within it. The managed decline of the NHS has been long in the making but you'd never get the public support for the tories doing it. They've managed enough decline and run the services far enough into the ground so that sympathetic and frustrated members of the electorate will now be more appeased towards privatisation believing its the "model" which is the issue and that we can only solve the crisis with the help of the private sector. It's weird because the managed decline has been well discussed on here in the past and the markings have been on the wall for a long time. But now the big bad tories are out and it's labour, backed by private health care investors, suggesting privatisation any form of due diligence has went out the window. There have been many organisations including the BMA who have accused the Conservative Government of a managed decline of NHS, citing Chomsky's quote although he never said it specifically about NHS, as a demonstration of a pathway to Privatisation There is some evidence that this is true. When the Conservative came into office in 2010 the NHS Waiting list was 2.3M by 2019 prior to Covid the waiting list had doubled to 4.6M and today it is approaching 8M a 300% increase. During the 13 years under the previous Labour Government it increased NHS Budget by 6% annually in real terms I.e adjusted for inflation. In the 14 years under the Conservative Government NHS Budget has increased by 2% again in real terms. The NHS waiting list is dangerously high not alone because of the negative effect on the health of individuals and undoubtedly some have already and will in the future die prematurely or suffer needlessly as a result. It also damages the Economy. Whether or not the Conspiracy Theory attached to the Conservative Government can be supported by their actions, it is quite another thing to attach the same Conspiracy Theory to Labour because they MIGHT do something in the future. If Streeting manages to reduce NHS waiting lists and uses spare capacity within the Private Sector to partially achieve that only an Ultra Ideologue would object. If Streeting introduces streamlining within NHS which improves delivery Ditto It is quite bizarre to base criticism on incorrect interpretation of someone's words rather than future actions www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/6/29/7-6-million-how-englands-healthcare-waiting-list-trebled-under-the-tories
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jul 13, 2024 12:38:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 13:14:35 GMT
Would you be opposed to any form of means tested contribution towards healthcare or any element of private company assistance in the nhs even it improves healthcare and, fundamentally, the improvements are universally accessible? Yes I am opposed to most forms of privatisation. It's a hypothetical question of course but show me any example were privatisation of our services has delivered cost effective results in the long term. It's a tried and tested model which fails time and time again. Don't get me wrong there may be strategic examples were it is the only option or works but it should be a last resort. I have no issue with potentially paying nominal fees for certain services. I have an issue however with my taxes being used for private companies who time and time again put profits before people. If you think any privatisation is being done in good faith and for the best of the public then more fool you. I tend to agree with you. But I wouldn’t oppose some level of privatisation or means based payment towards the NHS, so a change to current model, if it meant better healthcare. I was wondering if you are ideologically opposed to it regardless of outcomes or whether, more like me, you are opposed to it generally but if it could deliver better outcomes then fine (so long as it is still universally available). It is a massive hypothetical of course. But every single public service has some private element tagged. For example, school meals in schools are generally now provided by external companies, and are a million times better and healthier than they were in my day when my school hired staff to do it.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 13:16:03 GMT
France do similar and have a far more comprehensive health care than the nhs is able to provide. A similar example is in France you are given probiotics to take when you are prescribed antibiotics. Really basic, but a good example. Another is a proper women’s health check and physio sessions after giving birth. Paying a means tested amount based on capital and income and not just PAYE income, is fine. I am in favour, but the second anyone mentions anything like this they are attacked for trying to privatise the nhs. What matters is quality of healthcare for all. How that is achieved is irrelevant so long as it is universal. France has a far greater emphasis on preventative healthcare starting with pharmacies of which there are 22,000 in France compared to less than half that in the UK. 40% of the UK health budget is estimated to be spent treating preventable diseases - the biggest single factor being obesity.27% of the population are morbidly obese and a further 35% are overweight. Public or private is interesting but either way it would be a problem that would be easier to crack if we did more to help ourselves. Public health in Britain is absolutely shocking and is the elephant in the room -,I guess because no-one will vote for someone who tells us we're all a bunch of fat fuckers. The biggest positive I have heard from Streeting is his desire to move the NHS to becoming a preventative health service. That for me is the biggest change needed to make the country healthier and improve outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 13:18:43 GMT
Would you be opposed to any form of means tested contribution towards healthcare or any element of private company assistance in the nhs even it improves healthcare and, fundamentally, the improvements are universally accessible? I've had both hips replaced since 2011 both times contracted out by NHS to Nuffield Hospital in Plymouth. They also provided excellent physiotherapy for several weeks after surgery. More recently my post cancer review CT scans were all done by a private company from Cardiff and the Mrs had cataract removals of both eyes by a private company in Exeter contracted by NHS. In addition my Mrs worked for Plymouth NHS Trust accounts department in the late 90s & has a wry smile when people talk about private health companies being used by NHS, saying this occurred way back over 25 years ago. My point is that private health companies have been engaged successfully with NHS for many years and yet people still moan about privatisation of the NHS. We are already there with certain NHS Services, but we need a more radical way of paying for it. There is of course a balance. Value for tax payers money. Would it be better to invest more now to save money in the future by keeping some of what you have listed within the nhs and not contracted out? Nobody knows for certain the answer, but you demonstrate my point brilliantly because I guarantee you didn’t care exactly how the treatment was being offered, so long as it was high quality, fast and the outcomes positive for you and your family.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jul 13, 2024 13:19:47 GMT
Good point. An issue brexit has made much worse too.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 13, 2024 15:49:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 13, 2024 15:57:48 GMT
It's called deliberate neglect and it's something which the conservstive party has been spearheading over the last 14 years. As chomsky once said, “That’s the standard technique of privatisation: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.” Let's not forgot that our "special relationship" with the USA and our "trade deal" post brexit which contained a dossier showing large amounts of health services within it. The managed decline of the NHS has been long in the making but you'd never get the public support for the tories doing it. They've managed enough decline and run the services far enough into the ground so that sympathetic and frustrated members of the electorate will now be more appeased towards privatisation believing its the "model" which is the issue and that we can only solve the crisis with the help of the private sector. It's weird because the managed decline has been well discussed on here in the past and the markings have been on the wall for a long time. But now the big bad tories are out and it's labour, backed by private health care investors, suggesting privatisation any form of due diligence has went out the window. There have been many organisations including the BMA who have accused the Conservative Government of a managed decline of NHS, citing Chomsky's quote although he never said it specifically about NHS, as a demonstration of a pathway to Privatisation There is some evidence that this is true. When the Conservative came into office in 2010 the NHS Waiting list was 2.3M by 2019 prior to Covid the waiting list had doubled to 4.6M and today it is approaching 8M a 300% increase. During the 13 years under the previous Labour Government it increased NHS Budget by 6% annually in real terms I.e adjusted for inflation. In the 14 years under the Conservative Government NHS Budget has increased by 2% again in real terms. The NHS waiting list is dangerously high not alone because of the negative effect on the health of individuals and undoubtedly some have already and will in the future die prematurely or suffer needlessly as a result. It also damages the Economy. Whether or not the Conspiracy Theory attached to the Conservative Government can be supported by their actions, it is quite another thing to attach the same Conspiracy Theory to Labour because they MIGHT do something in the future. If Streeting manages to reduce NHS waiting lists and uses spare capacity within the Private Sector to partially achieve that only an Ultra Ideologue would object. If Streeting introduces streamlining within NHS which improves delivery Ditto It is quite bizarre to base criticism on incorrect interpretation of someone's words rather than future actions www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/6/29/7-6-million-how-englands-healthcare-waiting-list-trebled-under-the-toriesNobody is attaching any conspiracy theory. I'm attaching donations from private health, words used by the health secretary and appointments made by the prime minister to the government. Donations from private health care didn't magically end up there. Appointments to private health care advocates didn't magically happen either. I'm a strong supporter and follower of Every Doctor which was setup by NHS doctors to both whistle-blow as well as campaign against NHS privatisation. The concerns I have are shared with those whom have lived experiencing working for the NHS. An Ultra ideologue don't be so ridiculous 🤣. I can point to an abundance of evidence to support my views whether that be BT, British rail, steel, water, gas etc... Only an Ultra mug would believe that privatisation is the only answer and literally prove some of the biggest thinkers in our generation correct. My criticism is based on whom Labour share company with, accept money from and promote into positions with a say over our national health service. Myself and the many critics of Wes Streeting from the NHS and various foundations and charities haven't all misinterpreted anything wrong. That's simply your arrogance getting in the way again. It's just a great shame that none of our other socialists on the oatcake wish to speak up about it. Hopefully @huddysleftfoot and prestwichpotter can come to the fray and accept they're also misinterperting everything too and wannabee is always right. I'm sure neither are Ultra ideologues and both are willing to privatise the NHS too as our only option.
|
|