UKBouldering.com

2019 December General Election (Read 166128 times)

ali k

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +38/-1
#875 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 08:15:53 am
Of course the water companies could just not make any money/dividends for their shareholders 😱😃

Let’s do the same for the Police. And the fire service. And the Ambulance service.

Or chunks of the NHS - hell why not all of it!!

For anyone that hasn’t seen it I can highly recommend the ITV documentary ‘The Dirty War on the NHS’. Traces the history of the NHS and creeping privatisation under successive governments, and contrasts with the US system which we are moving towards. 1h45mins long but very compelling. Unsurprisingly it wasn’t allowed to be screened before the election.

ali k

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +38/-1
#876 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 08:43:52 am

Privatisation is, as far as I can see, essential to a functional healthcare service. It has been a benefit to reducing waiting lists

Of course this private provision wouldn’t be necessary if the NHS hadn’t been chronically underfunded. Surely this is the core strategy of stealth privatisation? Underfund the NHS. Bring in private contracts to fill the gaps/reduce waiting times. NHS becomes reliant on these companies. Then any increase in spending at a later date will proportionately be diverted to these private companies.

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.

TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#878 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 09:53:57 am

Privatisation is, as far as I can see, essential to a functional healthcare service. It has been a benefit to reducing waiting lists

Of course this private provision wouldn’t be necessary if the NHS hadn’t been chronically underfunded. Surely this is the core strategy of stealth privatisation? Underfund the NHS. Bring in private contracts to fill the gaps/reduce waiting times. NHS becomes reliant on these companies. Then any increase in spending at a later date will proportionately be diverted to these private companies.

I really disagree.  You're ignoring the fact that changes in demographic and social behaviour mean that a model created in the middle of the last century needs to change.  People live longer, further away from their families,  and the amounts of support,  medication and treatment either need to be severely limited,  or some degree of private provision brought in. It's just not feasible,  healthcare is an absolute money pit, there is virtually no limit on the amount of money that it could do with,  and it hasn't interfered with free at the point of delivery healthcare when it's required.  There are things that the NHS is good at like emergency care,  and things its awful at (at least in my experience) like mental health.  Why be so tied to ideology that you use a worse service if a better one can be bought in from a private provider at a comparable cost?

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#879 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:03:16 am
Toby / my experiences of NHS privatisation are not as positive.

I think there are big issues with the regulation and awarding of contracts - and outsourcing also created real issues with the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise (water industry is another case in point). I’ve had two minor ops - both outsourced - both very different to deal with and I was able to cope fine - being (comparatively young and moderately tenacious).  Someone older or less pushy would have shad a far worse experience. It’s also the little things - like at our former nursery (in a hospital) the catering had to be done by serco (because of the trust contract) and let’s put it this way, their options for 2 yo’s were not great.

It can seem easy at first to outsource something - but you need to manage it well and be on top of your suppliers all the time. So lots just slips by....

Privatising 80% of the probation service has been a total disaster too.

webbo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5028
  • Karma: +141/-13
#880 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:11:25 am

Privatisation is, as far as I can see, essential to a functional healthcare service. It has been a benefit to reducing waiting lists

Of course this private provision wouldn’t be necessary if the NHS hadn’t been chronically underfunded. Surely this is the core strategy of stealth privatisation? Underfund the NHS. Bring in private contracts to fill the gaps/reduce waiting times. NHS becomes reliant on these companies. Then any increase in spending at a later date will proportionately be diverted to these private companies.

There are things that the NHS is good at like emergency care,  and things its awful at (at least in my experience) like mental health.  Why be so tied to ideology that you use a worse service if a better one can be bought in from a private provider at a comparable cost?
Yet some of the poorest services are provided by private mental health services and these are often where the vulnerable are abused.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#881 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:19:00 am
A general point about privatisation. There is a distinction to be made between ownership and management.

When water, electricity etc was privatised it was run at arms length by professional managers rather than politicians. This is how it should be. Who wants a showboating politician or an incompetent like Chris Grayling actually running the railways?. However, BITD when the respective Ministers where challenged in Parliament on issues in the utilities they would hide behind the fact they were run at arms length and it was an issue for management. Even if utilities were re-privatised they would be looking to the respective industries for experienced Managers from the sector to run them so the pool of experience/talent would change. So not much would change practically.

Managers/CEOs vary in quality but have a profound effect on the businesses they run. If they are failing to perform then the owners hold them to account. The owners can be similarly variable in quality whether they are institutions such as pension fund managers or cabinet ministers if state owned.

I understand the impulse to ‘take back control’ but in general I would rather the utilities were in private ownership with the State controlling the utilities via overseeing bodies such as OFWAT etc but my reasoning only really rests on that whoever owns the utilities is unlikely to make much practical difference to their running and I’d rather the State concentrates it’s efforts on other aspects of government that can’t be sub contracted.

TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#882 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:22:17 am
Toby / my experiences of NHS privatisation are not as positive.
...

Conversely,  I had an operation in the summer at a private hospital as an NHS patient,  and it was an excellent experience,  closer to where I live than the NHS equivalent, and the staff and facilities were excellent. 

Yet some of the poorest services are provided by private mental health services and these are often where the vulnerable are abused.

Can you give precise examples? I'm not saying that it always works,  and definitely not arguing for widespread privatisation.  But I don't think valuing ideology above pragmatism in wanting to provide the best possible care given available resources is the way to go. 

TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#883 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:25:04 am
A general point about privatisation. There is a distinction to be made between ownership and management.

When water, electricity etc was privatised it was run at arms length by professional managers rather than politicians. This is how it should be. Who wants a showboating politician or an incompetent like Chris Grayling actually running the railways?. However, BITD when the respective Ministers where challenged in Parliament on issues in the utilities they would hide behind the fact they were run at arms length and it was an issue for management. Even if utilities were re-privatised they would be looking to the respective industries for experienced Managers from the sector to run them so the pool of experience/talent would change. So not much would change practically.

Managers/CEOs vary in quality but have a profound effect on the businesses they run. If they are failing to perform then the owners hold them to account. The owners can be similarly variable in quality whether they are institutions such as pension fund managers or cabinet ministers if state owned.

I understand the impulse to ‘take back control’ but in general I would rather the utilities were in private ownership with the State controlling the utilities via overseeing bodies such as OFWAT etc but my reasoning only really rests on that whoever owns the utilities is unlikely to make much practical difference to their running and I’d rather the State concentrates it’s efforts on other aspects of government that can’t be sub contracted.

I agree. If healthcare decisions are made by fuckwits like Matt Hancock,  the NHS will collapse under his enthusiasm for health check apps, online consultations and treating the worried well.

andy popp

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#884 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:43:37 am
Answering Shark. Public vs. private ownership is about much more than which form of ownership might lead to "better" management - many people simply do not believe that something that could be regarded as a public good (and water is a good example) belongs in private hands, particularly where the scope for genuine market-based competition is inherently limited and the scope for the emergence of monopolies is real. Private profit from a public good is an ethical issue. And the profit motive and "competition" are not necessarily good for the consumer. Healthcare as a proportion of GDP in the US is approximately double the same figure in Germany and yet millions are still left without access to healthcare (and having dealt with the bureaucratic nightmare that is the private US healthcare insurance industry I can assure you privatisation does not guarantee leanness and efficiency).
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 10:51:01 am by andy popp »

TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#885 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:50:00 am
On a more specific election point, I've noticed that both among people who I know,  and on media reports,  that there seems to be an embarrassment to having voted conservative.  People either seem not to admit it, or to be very sheepish about it. 
I wonder how rock solid their majority is in reality,  they will have to do awfully well in the next few years to retain it is my guess.  Brexit would have to be a success and tangible improvements made to the areas that voted conservative in the old industrial north and Midlands. 
People who voted for other parties  seem to  be rather prouder about their decision,  as a point of interest. 

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#886 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:59:21 am
Tom, surely we’re of a similar age (I’m 49 on the 29th).
Do you not remember how things were when civil servants ran these things?

Your food choices would have been three day old spam sandwiches or something which might, or might not, be tomato soup.

Civil services, the world over, are pretty good at administering governments and populations. They are shite at looking after individuals, even worse than Trusts and contractors are. At least contractors have to worry about losing their contracts.

galpinos

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2114
  • Karma: +85/-1
#887 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 11:18:13 am
Auxiliary services such as catering, cleaning, maintenance and equipment provision seem better suited to smaller specialist services and companies, allowing trusts to concentrate (in theory...) on improving front line healthcare.

Funnily enough, my wife works in two South Manchester Hospitals, one who outsource auxiliary services, and one who direct hire more of their staff. The one who direct hires more, generally has those services delivered at a higher standard and, as the auxiliary staff are probably the people in patients come into contact with most, it improves the patient experience. No idea on the cost differential.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#888 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 11:19:19 am
Yes - we’re ignoring the crooked awarding of contracts - ‘iffy’ tendering processes - friends of friends - former workers etc... of course this happened in the union days too (friends of the shop steward etc..).

(I know this is an old response. Sorry. Busy...)

webbo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5028
  • Karma: +141/-13
#889 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 11:25:47 am
Toby / my experiences of NHS privatisation are not as positive.
...

Conversely,  I had an operation in the summer at a private hospital as an NHS patient,  and it was an excellent experience,  closer to where I live than the NHS equivalent, and the staff and facilities were excellent. 

Yet some of the poorest services are provided by private mental health services and these are often where the vulnerable are abused.

Can you give precise examples? I'm not saying that it always works,  and definitely not arguing for widespread privatisation.  But I don't think valuing ideology above pragmatism in wanting to provide the best possible care given available resources is the way to go.
Winterbourne View.

galpinos

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2114
  • Karma: +85/-1
#890 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 11:29:16 am
Will mentioned the YWS profit; I remember pointing this out whenever (last year?) there was a 'dry weather event' in the NW (N.B. don't call it a drought when working for a water company or on their behalf) and everyone was kicking off about profits / wages for upper management and the fact they hadn't fixed whatever leak joe public had already pointed out to them etc.; that kind of money simply doesn't go far.

When it's 30% of operating costs I imagine it would go pretty far? The difference not mentioned is that is the operating profit and the reported profit for the year was £75 million.

Pre buy out, my company did a lot of work for UU and the manner in which the funding was released put massive inefficiency into how the work was done and really pushed costs up.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#891 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 11:35:19 am
Answering Shark.

 :wave:

Quote
Public vs. private ownership is about much more than which form of ownership might lead to "better" management - many people simply do not believe that something that could be regarded as a public good (and water is a good example) belongs in private hands, particularly where the scope for genuine market-based competition is inherently limited and the scope for the emergence of monopolies is real. Private profit from a public good is an ethical issue.

Ethics not really my forte (ladders etc) so you'll have to explain further why the 'public good' manufacture and supply of food is ethically different from treatment and distribution of water.     

Quote
And the profit motive and "competition" are not necessarily good for the consumer. Healthcare as a proportion of GDP in the US is approximately double the same figure in Germany and yet millions are still left without access to healthcare (and having dealt with the bureaucratic nightmare that is the private US healthcare insurance industry I can assure you privatisation does not guarantee leanness and efficiency).
'
Yes - I obviously wasn't making myself clear. There are plenty of examples of well run state utilities and well run private utilities. My point was that because ownership isn't of itself the driver of efficiency then, all other things being equal, I'd rather the State was less distracted by its ownership obligations to concentrate on things of greater ethical concern such as the justice system, relations with other nations etc.

galpinos

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2114
  • Karma: +85/-1
#892 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 11:50:14 am
Rail piqued my interest (mainly because my father in law kept telling me how it couldn't be achieved as it was against EU regulations; it turns out this is inaccurate). I commute ~50mins by car to Preston. The train isn't a viable alternative really as I need to get the 1Mi to the station, take a train to Blackburn, change and then get a train to Preston (this one takes some time out on the journey). It takes 1H20 ish which is an hour a day extra. When combined with my need to go to site from time to time and working from home once a week the passes don't stack up as viable. Therefore, I choose the car. It struck me that such measures might convince more people to use the train which has other benefits (financially and green). However, I fully admit I fall into your earlier "can afford it" category.

Rail is a tricky one to get a clear picture on. As gme syas above, "there isn't much profit in it". That's the media line but how true is it? It's pretty hard to tell and the cap and collar system of target revenue* doesn't exactly incentivise quality performance yet despite this, there still a reported £0.25billion of dividends up for grabs a year. Add to that Network rail is nationalised and have to pay quite a lot to the Train Operating companies (TOCs) due to being underfunded and impacting on train service reliability it's a pretty cloudy picture.

East Coast Rail ran well during it's brief "nationalisation" despite Chris Grayling so it shows that there is a model to follow. It is also an easier path to nationalisation that water, as all the expensive bits* (the infrastucture) are already nationalised and they can take over the TOCs as their franchises expire.

*Obviously the fact all the rolling stock is owned by three private companies is a fly in the ointment.

*Part of the Franchise deal is a target revenue for the TOC. If they exceed it by a certain proportion, they have to pay it back to the Government. If they drop below it, the government subsidises them.

The bigger picture, however, is that moving one 80kg person about in two tonnes of private vehicle, regardless of the energy source, is not the way forward, especially in urban areas. So, public transport and active travel options need to improve to allow this change to happen.

Focusing on public transport, we need an integrated public transport system as seen across most of the rest of Europe. What exists in London (common contactless ticketing, centrally controlled public transport across the entire combined authority area, integrated systems) needs rolling out to other cities across the country. Manchester is currently attempting to start this process.

The solution for more rural communities, especially those that have turned blue, is a lot less clear. Interestingly, the Times had an OpEd/Leader yesterday calling on Johnson to nationalise buses.

gme

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1805
  • Karma: +147/-6
#893 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 12:54:13 pm
Rail piqued my interest (mainly because my father in law kept telling me how it couldn't be achieved as it was against EU regulations; it turns out this is inaccurate). I commute ~50mins by car to Preston. The train isn't a viable alternative really as I need to get the 1Mi to the station, take a train to Blackburn, change and then get a train to Preston (this one takes some time out on the journey). It takes 1H20 ish which is an hour a day extra. When combined with my need to go to site from time to time and working from home once a week the passes don't stack up as viable. Therefore, I choose the car. It struck me that such measures might convince more people to use the train which has other benefits (financially and green). However, I fully admit I fall into your earlier "can afford it" category.

Rail is a tricky one to get a clear picture on. As gme syas above, "there isn't much profit in it". That's the media line but how true is it? It's pretty hard to tell and the cap and collar system of target revenue* doesn't exactly incentivise quality performance yet despite this, there still a reported £0.25billion of dividends up for grabs a year. Add to that Network rail is nationalised and have to pay quite a lot to the Train Operating companies (TOCs) due to being underfunded and impacting on train service reliability it's a pretty cloudy picture.

East Coast Rail ran well during it's brief "nationalisation" despite Chris Grayling so it shows that there is a model to follow. It is also an easier path to nationalisation that water, as all the expensive bits* (the infrastucture) are already nationalised and they can take over the TOCs as their franchises expire.

*Obviously the fact all the rolling stock is owned by three private companies is a fly in the ointment.

*Part of the Franchise deal is a target revenue for the TOC. If they exceed it by a certain proportion, they have to pay it back to the Government. If they drop below it, the government subsidises them.

The bigger picture, however, is that moving one 80kg person about in two tonnes of private vehicle, regardless of the energy source, is not the way forward, especially in urban areas. So, public transport and active travel options need to improve to allow this change to happen.

Focusing on public transport, we need an integrated public transport system as seen across most of the rest of Europe. What exists in London (common contactless ticketing, centrally controlled public transport across the entire combined authority area, integrated systems) needs rolling out to other cities across the country. Manchester is currently attempting to start this process.

The solution for more rural communities, especially those that have turned blue, is a lot less clear. Interestingly, the Times had an OpEd/Leader yesterday calling on Johnson to nationalise buses.

https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-operating-companies-earn-massive-profits/
They dont make massive profits by any stretch of the imagination. They make secure profits though but they are capped.
I am aware that profits and dividends are not the only thing and the top boys could be overpaying themselves.

My beef with the whole nationalisation thing is how its portrayed to the public and feel thats why its so well supported. All people really want is a brilliant rail network, free for user NHS, clean water when they turn on there taps and fast broadband. I dont think they are particularly bothered how that is gained.
The only issue is that they think they will get all of that just by nationalising everything and taking the profits of the fat cats which just isn't the case.

Like everything there will be a middle ground that needs a bit of both. The German and dutch rail systems are used as examples all the time and, despite what we are told, they are not Nationalised in the manner Labour proposed, but are a mix not that dissimilar to what we have with the government running the network but not the trains, they are just better at it than us.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#894 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 01:41:51 pm
A quick scooby has failed to turn up rates of pay for Chairman of the British Board of Railways (or whatever it was called), but I remember the various Chairmen of the nationalised industries begin treated almost like royalty.
Were they actually so much closer in earnings to the buffet car attendant than the various CEO’s are today?

I’m at work, so not free to do a serious check.

I’m not pro privatisation, or anti-nationalisation, a little like Shark. I think there’s a balance to be struck.

Strategically, I favour the actual commodity (where there is one, such as water) to remain in public hands. I should be a little concerned when a private company or individual could legally deny another individual or the nation a staple of life.
There are similar reservations around “power” and vital infrastructure, in my mind.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#895 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 02:50:07 pm

Conversely,  I had an operation in the summer at a private hospital as an NHS patient,  and it was an excellent experience,  closer to where I live than the NHS equivalent, and the staff and facilities were excellent. 


You were one of the lucky majority. Pilger's NHS documentatry featured a guy who said his private hospital looked lovely but had the same problem as most... when the operation went badly wrong, it nearly killed him, the NHS were left to fix things as the private hospital rarely have that cost covered (to maximise profits.......  running a hospital like a hotel is important to the private health market.... yet they don't care about a selection of on call expensive emergency consultants when the NHS will step in). If you look at costs, NHS operations are nearly always cheaper than the private ones to the point when NHS capacity is exceeded.

Roy Lilley (an ex health  advisor to Thatcher) used to point out regularly in his blogs that most private care profit needs cannot be met through current core NHS funding... he said quality will suffer in most core private providers (compared to the NHS) but this will only be picked up by the quality bodies later on... he warned about Circle and co before their services collapsed. His blogs are not anti private as such but are pro reality. People can sign up here:

https://ihm.org.uk/roy-lilley-nhsmanagers/

On Will's point, I think some quality, risk and continuity guarentee issues in core services are almost as important as the medical services........  hospital cleaning in particular. It was no coincidence in my view that the fast spread of outbreaks of mrsa etc.   correlated with the obsession on NHS savings from contracted out cleaning.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-12-21-nhs-hospitals-outsource-cleaning-‘linked-higher-rates-mrsa’


mark20

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 874
  • Karma: +128/-0
#896 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 07:56:00 pm
Pilger's NHS documentatry featured a guy who said his private hospital looked lovely but had the same problem as most... when the operation went badly wrong, it nearly killed him, the NHS were left to fix things as the private hospital rarely have that cost covered (to maximise profits.......  running a hospital like a hotel is important to the private health market....
My girlfriend worked on the Critical Care ward at the Northern General for a couple of years. I was quite shocked to hear one day that a patient was rushed in from a simple operation gone wrong in a private hospital, (they hadn't checked if the patient was haemophiliac and was therefor bleeding uncontrollably), they just phoned for an ambulance and leave the NHS to sort it out. But apparently things like that are not uncommon.  :slap:

mark20

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 874
  • Karma: +128/-0
#897 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 07:58:48 pm
Also, Will / Labour people, if I join the Labour Party will I be able to vote in the leadership election in March? Or did they change it so that only people who have been members for >6month can vote? I can't remember what became of that idea or if I just imagined it
Thanks

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#898 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:24:40 pm
Mark, I think you have till sometime in January. Can't remember where I heard that.

I'm not able to check in and respond to this as often as I'd like but a couple of points that jumped out at me:

A quick point on Matt's point about private companies being able to deny access to the bare necessities. No water company can (nor would it want to) disconnect your water supply. Access to clean drinking water is a human right and a public health issue. I believe unpaid bills are treated as either bad debt (refusal to pay) which is pursued through the courts, or other debt (inability to pay) where the company helps people put together more affordable payment plans (I'm afraid I have no idea what the detail around that is).

Offwidth, are you sure you're not conflating private hospitals like Bupa where people can pay to go private (and get a private room etc) and privatised services within the NHS? Either way it's a rum do when electively private hospitals are fucking up and calling in the NHS cavalry when they do.

Sharks devil's advocate about food: there are lots of people who can grow food. Realistically in most areas there is only one body big enough to supply water and sanitation on a meaningful scale, hence the need to regulate. If there was one umbrella food conglomerate that could set prices, I suspect the CMA/government would quickly legislate to regulate.



This has been really interesting so far. What's coming through most clearly is that privatisation doesn't come in one form, it can be many many different things to fit what exactly the service is. Each model will have its own risks.

With regards health, what regulation is put in place to control costs? The CQC must still regulate the treatment, but are there rules or price caps or the like in place to prevent trusts from getting ripped off? Or is it all left for the market to sort out?


TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#899 Re: 2019 December General Election
December 19, 2019, 10:37:45 pm
Pilger's NHS documentatry featured a guy who said his private hospital looked lovely but had the same problem as most... when the operation went badly wrong, it nearly killed him, the NHS were left to fix things as the private hospital rarely have that cost covered (to maximise profits.......  running a hospital like a hotel is important to the private health market....
My girlfriend worked on the Critical Care ward at the Northern General for a couple of years. I was quite shocked to hear one day that a patient was rushed in from a simple operation gone wrong in a private hospital, (they hadn't checked if the patient was haemophiliac and was therefor bleeding uncontrollably), they just phoned for an ambulance and leave the NHS to sort it out. But apparently things like that are not uncommon.  :slap:

I appreciate that, and very infrequent mistakes must happen in any system in routine operations. But it's not two totally different systems, the private provider hospital won't have an a+e department anyway. Many consultants work privately and for the NHS, and both sets of patients get exactly the same thing. I'm not saying private provision is a great thing per se, just that it seems like a useful adjunct to a functioning healthcare service.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal