[Sloper]

Because I don't think they realise how much more it will cost.

The bottom line is this:  The NHS cannot remain free at the point of access in the current world of demand.  To continue, it will have to be paid for like other countries, insurance or whatever.  It is political suicide to privatise the whole thing, so the only way forward is to have a reason to do it - ie the system fails.

At last we agree, the NHS cannot remain FATPOU, all the time, for everything, for everybody.

As such we need to either

1. pour untold billions in (which is impossible given the present position)
2. restrict acces.

2. Is possible but politically risky: as such there needs to be a politically acceptable solution and charging (generally) drunken twats for atending A&E and using the ambulance service to ge there would be I think acceptable to virtually all the mainstream.  Of course it would be the thin end of the wedge and I ahve no doubt that a charge for GP appointments would follow with the 'safety net' that if you needed the appointment the charge would be waived which is slightly more problematic i.e. increasing the risk of late presentation it would do something to control demand.

[Sloper]

Redundancies don't arise due to a lack of funding they arise when the job function is no longer required.

lol

https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant/overview

So unless they business went 'bust' and was not bought as a going concern with TUPE your 'model' is about as helpful as a matchbox car is to get you to work.

[lagerstarfish]

that's what I thought

the norm in subs misuse is to TUPE staff across to the winning organisation and then make redundancies

[Sloper]

Sorry, that doesn't make sense from the NHS's perspective and politically it would be suicide.

So about as sound a plan as my scheme to sell body part options (inter vivos and post mortem)

[GCW]

At last we agree, the NHS cannot remain FATPOU, all the time, for everything, for everybody.

Eh?  I've said that for ages!

[webbo]

that's what I thought

the norm in subs misuse is to TUPE staff across to the winning organisation and then make redundancies

Sorry, that doesn't make sense from the NHS's perspective and politically it would be suicide.

So about as sound a plan as my scheme to sell body part options (inter vivos and post mortem)

However lacking in sense it has been a model in substance misuse since private providers have been allowed to bid for NHS contracts.
You put in a lower bid get the contract, TUPE the NHS staff across. Get rid of the expensive qualified ones, recruit lots of unqualified cheaper staff. Your outcomes(deaths) might be worse but who cares its only Alkies or Junkies.

[Sloper]

At last we agree, the NHS cannot remain FATPOU, all the time, for everything, for everybody.

Eh?  I've said that for ages!

And I don't think I've ever disagreed with you.

[Sloper]

that's what I thought

the norm in subs misuse is to TUPE staff across to the winning organisation and then make redundancies

Sorry, that doesn't make sense from the NHS's perspective and politically it would be suicide.

So about as sound a plan as my scheme to sell body part options (inter vivos and post mortem)

However lacking in sense it has been a model in substance misuse since private providers have been allowed to bid for NHS contracts.
You put in a lower bid get the contract, TUPE the NHS staff across. Get rid of the expensive qualified ones, recruit lots of unqualified cheaper staff. Your outcomes(deaths) might be worse but who cares its only Alkies or Junkies.

I'm not an employment lawyer but that sounds like a flagrant breach of TUPE to me!

Further as for the politics, pleasant or not people regard the treatment of substance misuse as categorically different to GPs.  I would imagine that if you conducted a survey 995 would say that GP services should be publically funded and I would not be suprprised if a majority said that addiction services should not be publically funded.

[GCW]

At last we agree

 

[webbo]

I'm not sure about employment law either but in the NHS if your job is put at risk, you can be offered a post at a grade lower with 18 months protected pay. Then you go down to the lower pay scale. I think its the same for local goverment staff.
The young peoples substance misuse service here in Dull was run by the city council with addtional seconded NHS staff. In the cuts they down graded all the Social workers who then left, the NHS were put at risk and moved to other posts. It is now staffed by unqualified care workers.

[lagerstarfish]

staffed by unqualified care workers.

 

they're even training us triage monkeys to take bloods

[lagerstarfish]

I wonder whether those NHS redundancy/redeployment rights go with you if you get TUPEd into a non-NHS organisation?

[Sloper]

At last we agree

 

Once you get used to it, you'll feel a lot better  although there are side effects.

[Sloper]

I'm not sure about employment law either but in the NHS if your job is put at risk, you can be offered a post at a grade lower with 18 months protected pay. Then you go down to the lower pay scale. I think its the same for local goverment staff.
The young peoples substance misuse service here in Dull was run by the city council with addtional seconded NHS staff. In the cuts they down graded all the Social workers who then left, the NHS were put at risk and moved to other posts. It is now staffed by unqualified care workers.

that's called suitable alternative employment as an alternative to redundancy, but again not an employment lawyer and the question would be politics rather than law.

[webbo]

It may be alternative employment as alternative to redundancy but it's a real pisser when you actually wish for redundancy.

[Sloper]

Yep, I was talking to someone at **** bank before Christmas and he was fuming that he wasn't being offered redundancy as he was already planning to leave and be a consultant, hard to feel sorry for a banker though

[GCW]

There's an election looming. Labour will make me work 7 days. Tories are already screwing me over. Lib Dems plans are just as bad. Who can I vote for?.

You gotta give it to them, they know a target market 

[Sloper]

The Tories, because they won't fuck up the economy and without a strong economy the NHS will always suffer.

[GCW]

[Offwidth]

that's what I thought

the norm in subs misuse is to TUPE staff across to the winning organisation and then make redundancies

One of the very very important but very understated aims of this govenment is to move activities from the public to private sectors arrangements . 'TUPE and forget' is much much cheaper than redundancy and ongoing expensive pension liabilities. Slope's argument about voting tory is bollocks as there will be nothing left to save in the NHS with the OK economy if this keeps going for much longer. I'm not even convinced their economics is so hot from a capitalist perspective as they seem to rely too much on a limited subset of ideology. Plus of course the right wing govenments got as royally screwed as the left wing governments in the worldwide crash which was triggered under the republicans in the US (labour must be too blame (as maybe Gordon Brown international super hero rescued them all wrong).

[Sloper]

Steve, did you read the Kings Fund debunking the myth of privatisation & etc? They're hardly Monday Club nutters are they?

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/health-privatisation
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/evolutionary-reforms

There is no credible basis for saying that a Conservative government will lead to significant damage to the NHS let alone its wholesale destruction, privatisation or the like.

Why do you continue to peddle such dishonest and moronic nonsense?

As for the implication in your post, viz. that Gordon Brown had nothing to do with the crash, that's simply a moronic lie.  Gordon brown instituted the failed regulatory regime overnight and ran a deficit in the boom years.  As such not only was he partially responsible for the bust he was wholly responsible for having nothing to hand to deal with the bust when it occured. 

[GCW]

Why would the NHS having driven all GP's to be centrally contracted on say a scale of £80-100k (insert more realistic numbers I'm just guessing) and owning the estate, having centralised HR & IT systems then pay more for a profit making (if not distributing provider) provider?

Slightly different, but look at Circle.  Private provider takes on running the trust.  Once demand increases and income falls a bit, it's not a viable business.  The rest of the system is running under the same increase load and reduced income.

"Its franchise to operate the trust was not sustainable" - I think that's quite a damning statement for the whole system as is.

[tomtom]

Why would the NHS having driven all GP's to be centrally contracted on say a scale of £80-100k (insert more realistic numbers I'm just guessing) and owning the estate, having centralised HR & IT systems then pay more for a profit making (if not distributing provider) provider?

Slightly different, but look at Circle.  Private provider takes on running the trust.  Once demand increases and income falls a bit, it's not a viable business.  The rest of the system is running under the same increase load and reduced income.

"Its franchise to operate the trust was not sustainable - I think that's quite a damning statement for the whole system as is.

Was listening about this on the radio this morning. The MD (or whoever) of Circle said demand for A&E had gone up 30% since they took over - hence not viable under the payment system they had. So the company can just walk away eh..

[GCW]

Yeah, but if you aren't a private company you don't have that luxury......

[tomtom]

Yeah, but if you aren't a private company you don't have that luxury......

Indeed.. (sorry my 'eh' was meant to convey that)...