Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bye bye NHS, welcome Serco?
Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
Pages: 1, 2
Adrian Hollister
Anyone else concerned about the privatisation of Newbury District's health services?


FYI: 38 Degree's have a good write up on the implications on their web site. You can also find local info from the Newbury CCG here.

QUOTE
The government’s plans to privatise and fragment our NHS are taking shape in Newbury.

Local doctors are forming a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for the area. They’re going to get new powers to decide what health services you and your neighbours are able to access and who provides them.

Whether it’s treatment for diabetes, skin conditions, a broken arm or depression, profit-hungry companies like Virgin Care and Serco are circling, ready to bid for contracts by promising to slash costs.

The doctors on your local CCG will be under pressure from the government to hand out contracts to private companies. That could put vital services at risk. But the last thing most doctors want is to carve up our NHS for private profit. Plus, the new CCG has a legal duty to listen to local people.

So right now, we’ve got a big chance to ask local doctors to use their new powers to protect our NHS, not privatise it. Together, we can make sure they hear from hundreds of local people as they make these crucial decisions.

Can you add your name to the petition to your local CCG now?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/CCG-petition

Donations from 38 Degrees members have funded lawyers to prepare robust wording for CCGs to write into their constitutions - protecting our NHS from the worst risks of the government's plans.

If we can get in early, while CCGs are still being formed, we can give doctors a better choice - one based on sound legal advice and the interests of patients, not private companies.

38 Degrees members will be able to work together to persuade their local CCG to write these safeguards into their constitutions. The government and the private health industry probably won’t like it at all, but there’s little they can do to stop people power.

First things first. Can you add your name to the petition in Newbury?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/CCG-petition
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Sep 21 2012, 06:13 PM) *
Anyone else concerned about the privatisation of Newbury District's health services?

Why are the government doing this?
Dodgys smarter brother.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 21 2012, 06:23 PM) *
Why are the government doing this?


Because there's money to be made..

Click Here:
79% Tory
blackdog
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 21 2012, 06:23 PM) *
Why are the government doing this?

Because they believe the NHS is inefficient and some of its services can he supplied by the private sector at a lower cost.

And yes, some of their mates will make a mint.
Andy Capp
So MPs and Lords with financial interest in private health care were allowed to vote for the Health and Social Care bill?
Andy Capp
QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 21 2012, 06:32 PM) *
Because they believe the NHS is inefficient and some of its services can he supplied by the private sector at a lower cost.

And yes, some of their mates will make a mint.

I wonder if it'll be like privatising the railways where the tax payer will continue to under pin it?
Exhausted
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 21 2012, 06:32 PM) *
So MPs and Lords with financial interest in private health care were allowed to vote for the Health and Social Care bill?


Probably but they must 'declare an interest'. If they don't, they could get told off.
Strafin
I don't know what you're on about regarding privatisation, from what I can see the PCT's are just becoming more involved with a local panel of people directly involved in patient services at the sharp end. Sounds brilliant.
Cognosco
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Sep 21 2012, 06:36 PM) *
Probably but they must 'declare an interest'. If they don't, they could get told off.


Yes but still able to keep any future profits! blink.gif
Cognosco
QUOTE (Strafin @ Sep 21 2012, 07:52 PM) *
I don't know what you're on about regarding privatisation, from what I can see the PCT's are just becoming more involved with a local panel of people directly involved in patient services at the sharp end. Sounds brilliant.


PCT's will be abolished from the end of March 2013 along with all SHA's.

The new Commissioning Boards start to take over from the end of September 2012 supervised by the SHA's until March 2013 when they will then take over full responsibility.

The Clinical Commissioning Groups will be responsible for sourcing all treatments and medicines from any source they care to use, this is why there has been a plethora of new medical providers registering with Companies House recently.

It will more than likely mean that providers will be fighting one another to submit the lowest quotation possible by cutting corners and quality of care. It will make the G4S Olympic fiasco seem tame by comparison.
It will also probably mean hospitals having to close because they are unable to meet the lowest costs of the corner cutting private sector when they have to abide by certain standards that the private sector do not have to.
Already there are hospitals being run by private companies that are not having to follow the guidelines on numbers of nurses that have to be in attendance that the NHS hospitals have to follow. So patient care is suffering.
The private companies will cherry pick the treatments that they can make a profit from and leave the non-profit treatments to the NHS hospitals who will then be penalised for not breaking even. So you can see that it is going to create havoc to our cherished NHS. Still Cameron had to find somewhere for his lads to make money and aided by the Lib Liars it would seem he has pulled it off! rolleyes.gif

Remember the pledge he made before the election - There will be no top down reorganisation of the NHS!
Along with his yes man Glegg having to say sorry for his broken pledge on tuition fees it would seem as if politics can not sink any lower in the country. angry.gif
On the edge
Strikes me that this is simply putting decision making back in local hands. Hooray!!
Also means we'll have more choice; NHS or nothing. Get this right and we may, just may, get rid of the rich / poor discrimination in health services we have today.

Lets be honest, if push came to shove- who would you rather dispense minor care - Boots or WBC?
JeffG
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 21 2012, 09:00 PM) *
who would you rather dispense minor care - Boots or WBC?

I don't doubt their pharmacy department, but Boots do stock a load of quack medicines like vitamin supplements. (As any sensible person knows, you get all the vitamins and minerals you need from a balanced diet - unless a doctor prescribes something for a genuine deficiency.)
Andy Capp
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 21 2012, 09:28 PM) *
I don't doubt their pharmacy department, but Boots do stock a load of quack medicines like vitamin supplements. (As any sensible person knows, you get all the vitamins and minerals you need from a balanced diet - unless a doctor prescribes something for a genuine deficiency.)

What if you don't have (can't 'afford') a balanced diet?
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Sep 21 2012, 08:36 PM) *
Remember the pledge he made before the election - There will be no top down reorganisation of the NHS!

I do, so it is not just Clegg that is guilty of lying.
On the edge
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 21 2012, 09:33 PM) *
I do, so it is not just Clegg that is guilty of lying.


Thought that was a given laugh.gif
Strafin
I can't see anything bad, this just seems like a good all round idea.
x2lls
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 21 2012, 09:00 PM) *
Lets be honest, if push came to shove- who would you rather dispense minor care - Boots or WBC?



Would that be West Berks Chemists?
Cognosco
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 21 2012, 06:34 PM) *
I wonder if it'll be like privatising the railways where the tax payer will continue to under pin it?


Yes the taxpayer will be underpinning it. The only difference I can see is that the private sector will now be siphoning off a fat wedge of the NHS budget in profits? Or have I got it wrong and the private sector, and a lot of them are American, backed by a lot of MP's are providing services out of the goodness of their own hearts? rolleyes.gif
Cognosco
QUOTE (Strafin @ Sep 21 2012, 09:59 PM) *
I can't see anything bad, this just seems like a good all round idea.


What like PFI's that were used to build nice shiny new hospitals but it has been found that it is costing the NHS so much that hospitals are going broke trying to pay back the huge interest on the yearly payments.
No different than the pay day loan companies that have sprung up recently once you have borrowed money you are hooked for ever? rolleyes.gif
Strafin
You are aware that the NHS doesn't build it's own hospitals, vehicles or machinery right? Private companies already do all that? Plus all the drugs are brought in, as are the bandages and plaster of paris!
JeffG
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 21 2012, 09:32 PM) *
What if you don't have (can't 'afford') a balanced diet?

Sorry, but that's a daft question. A balanced diet is a lot cheaper than stuffing yourself full of expensive pills.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 22 2012, 12:10 PM) *
Sorry, but that's a daft question. A balanced diet is a lot cheaper than stuffing yourself full of expensive pills.

A balanced diet (often used to mean fresh food) you need to shop more regularly, have a place to store it, the wherewithal to prepare it and cook it, and usually costs more.

A bottle of multi-vits for a month is usually less than £5.00.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=258119027


Vitamin A 100% RDA
Vitamin D 100% RDA
Vitamin E 83% RDA
Vitamin C 75% RDA
Thiamin 127% RDA
Riboflavin 114% RDA
Niacin 113% RDA
Vitamin B6 143% RDA
Folic Acid 100% RDA
Vitamin B12 40% RDA
Biotin 20% RDA
Pantothenic Acid 100% RDA
NWNREADER
Going back to the main thrust, as the purpose of the Health Service is to provide health care free at the point of delivery (the state funds, not the patient) does it really matter if the service is provided by a company and not the state service? I know about the profit element, and the risk of decisions being made on cost, not need, but those can be managed within the contract. Even within the totally State-provided system decisions are (being) made on basis of cost.....

Just asking....
Squelchy
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 22 2012, 01:23 PM) *
does it really matter if the service is provided by a company and not the state service?
Just asking....


It's the quality of service that's important. Isn't it?
NWNREADER
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Sep 22 2012, 02:02 PM) *
It's the quality of service that's important. Isn't it?


Fair point. Differentiate private Health Care and NHS Healthcare quality?
Squelchy
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 22 2012, 02:07 PM) *
Fair point. Differentiate private Health Care and NHS Healthcare quality?


Well, have private companies done well cleaning the hospitals? Getting water into your home as cheaply as possible? Running the railways?

I'm sure you'll recall last month it was revealed that private healthcare companies are now offering 'expensive' patients cash sums to go back to the NHS.

Generally profit should not be the overarching issue for a healthcare provider, and the NHS should not be dismantled or sold off.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 22 2012, 02:07 PM) *
Fair point. Differentiate private Health Care and NHS Healthcare quality?

Private Health Care tends to be a value added service. To compare is rather like comparing social and private housing.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Sep 22 2012, 02:17 PM) *
... and the NHS should not be dismantled or sold off...

...unless it was voted for. As it happens, on this, the Tories have plainly lied.
Cognosco
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 22 2012, 02:07 PM) *
Fair point. Differentiate private Health Care and NHS Healthcare quality?


They both have staff to pay, NHS not the highest paid staff in the country, they both have buildings to supply maintain they both have overheads. The only difference that I am able to find is that NHS establishments have minimum standards to maintain the private sector are exempt?

The biggest difference is that private sector need to make a profit where is it going to originate from apart from cost savings- probably reads cost cutting to patient care? blink.gif

Has the other public utilities meant an improvement to services and less cost for the general public has it meant no taxpayer subsidies to the private sector? Has it meant a reduction to the taxpayer either through less taxation or reduced point of service costs? I don't believe so? It has just meant that the private sector has taken a slice of the taxpayers money in profits. unsure.gif
Cognosco
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Sep 22 2012, 02:02 PM) *
It's the quality of service that's important. Isn't it?


And so far privatisation has not even started yet? unsure.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-19665640
Andy Capp
Yes, look at the quality and efficiency experienced in private elderly care homes. NHS services via private care coming to a town near you! We might need some more immigrants mind, I doubt the locals will work for the wages - not with these house prices.
On the edge
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 22 2012, 06:26 PM) *
Yes, look at the quality and efficiency experienced in private elderly care homes. NHS services via private care coming to a town near you! We might need some more immigrants, mind, I doubt the locals will work for the wages - not with these house prices.


That's an interesting point. What has happened there does not show private provision in a good light. Certainly worth another thread on its own - but spot on. Even though I'd suspect other factors at play in this - it ought to be very high up in any consideration about doing more.
Andy Capp
You are right, it is not a like for like. I understand that one of the insidious aspects of the 'new deal' is the passing of responsibility away from those that we can elect to government.
NWNREADER
As with the telephone service, the benefit the private companies offering 'cheaper' service is they have not developed the infrastructure. They can just buy into the existing.
In the Health arena, one of the major costs for the NHS is the provision of drop-in services - including GP surgeries as well as A&E.
Many people after A&E admission cannot be moved to private facilities...... Latching a private ward system onto a 'public' A&E would be a recipe for cost disputes.....
NWNREADER
While this adds fuel to the argument the same charge of fixing targets can likely be laid at the desk of the NHS managers. The difference is the fees on offer as opposed to a personal bonus....
Squelchy
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 22 2012, 02:07 PM) *
Fair point. Differentiate private Health Care and NHS Healthcare quality?


Well. to take one example, that of Cornwall, Serco were awarded a contract to run an out-of-hours G.P. service.

They were told their performance would be audited, they complained this would interfere with their business plan and were thus told they could audit themselves.

Running an out-of-hours service costs money, so to save money they just didn't run one. Well, not a proper one.

Their managers made a total of 252 false reports back to the PCT (with fiddled figures) to show that everything was O.K.

When the S hit the F the PCT looked into the affair, told Serco to start fulling it's contact and released a statement to the effect that the service would now be "fundamentally safe and effective". I wonder.
JeffG
Deleted (NWNREADER has already provided the link to Squelchy's source).
NWNREADER
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 23 2012, 12:33 PM) *
Helpful link to the BBC News item that Squelchy is apparently quoting from, so others can read it.


As posted by my good self above!! (Post 35)
JeffG
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 23 2012, 12:35 PM) *
As posted by my good self above!! (Post 35)

As edited before you posted in humble recognition of that fact.
Squelchy
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 23 2012, 12:33 PM) *
Deleted (NWNREADER has already provided the link to Squelchy's source).


Nope, this was my source..

Shame

Same story though.
NWNREADER
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 23 2012, 12:39 PM) *
As edited before you posted in humble recognition of that fact.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
JeffG
QUOTE (Squelchy @ Sep 23 2012, 12:42 PM) *
Nope, this was my source..

Shame

Same story though.

Ah ok. However I prefer the BBC News to some tabloid web site.
Cognosco
QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 23 2012, 01:56 PM) *
Ah ok. However I prefer the BBC News to some tabloid web site.


Then of course we have the private companies carefully looking after our elderly and vulnerable patients so well?
Too many reports of abuse to posts links but I think you get the picture from all the news reports?

But again it is all down to the problem of making a profit from Health Care.
As the lousy Bankers have made a mess of the system of raking in money the poor shareholders need somewhere they are able to make a profit from? They need to easily make a small bob or two and of course the NHS, probably the next largest pot of money laying around that can be pilfered from, sprang to mind and hey presto Dave and Lansley provided! rolleyes.gif
NWNREADER
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Sep 23 2012, 02:09 PM) *
Then of course we have the private companies carefully looking after our elderly and vulnerable patients so well?
Too many reports of abuse to posts links but I think you get the picture from all the news reports?

But again it is all down to the problem of making a profit from Health Care.


There are very few NHS/Local Authority care homes, and the monitoring funding is way too low.

Also, there is a social issue on why families do not care for their elderly members......
Andy Capp
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 23 2012, 02:15 PM) *
There are very few NHS/Local Authority care homes, and the monitoring funding is way too low.

Also, there is a social issue on why families do not care for their elderly members......

But that is where the government want to put the NHS without asking the electorate,
Cognosco
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 23 2012, 07:11 PM) *
But that is where the government want to put the NHS without asking the electorate,


The government could not care where they are put providing it does not have to pay for them. The only other consideration would be if they could make money from them? rolleyes.gif
On the edge
It almost looks as if they are trying to roll back to the Tory 1945 view. Essentially, Beverage lite, a pseudo universal health care system based on local provision topped up by friendly societies for the 'nice to have' bits. Wonder what our man from Brimpton (Nye Bevan) would make of it?
NWNREADER
QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 23 2012, 09:36 PM) *
It almost looks as if they are trying to roll back to the Tory 1945 view. Essentially, Beverage lite, a pseudo universal health care system based on local provision topped up by friendly societies for the 'nice to have' bits. Wonder what our man from Brimpton (Nye Bevan) would make of it?



well, if the electorate want every single item of healthcare to be free to the patient then the taxes will have to increase to fund that open-ended spend.

Is the wish to have the State decide how the elderly should be cared for, or for the extended family to take responsibility? Should the level of state care be subsistence, or higher?
Nothing is free, and everything the State supplies has to be paid for - service, buildings, equipment etc.....

I'm not sure the want and need has been cross-referenced.
NWNREADER
And.......

Fail to turn up for a private appointment and expect a bill.

Fail to turn up for an NHS appointment and you are just a statistic.

The cost to the organisation is pretty much the same

Here
On the edge
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 23 2012, 09:46 PM) *
well, if the electorate want every single item of healthcare to be free to the patient then the taxes will have to increase to fund that open-ended spend.

Is the wish to have the State decide how the elderly should be cared for, or for the extended family to take responsibility? Should the level of state care be subsistence, or higher?
Nothing is free, and everything the State supplies has to be paid for - service, buildings, equipment etc.....

I'm not sure the want and need has been cross-referenced.


Trouble is we never got round to defining exactly what was supposed to be delivered; not just NHS but whole of Welfare State. Its been the electoral equivalent of an gold reward card. If we had implemented an 'insurance; based scheme things would be a lot clearer. Agree it isn't free and even if it was no reason to be inefficient or uneconomic.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.