Panorama last night
in [UK Diabetes]
|
Prev: arts and images
Next: And Talking of the BBC
From: Trinkwasser on 9 Jul 2008 13:45 On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:14:33 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh(a)hall.nospam> wrote: >I think that a personal budget and individual responsibility in >healthcare would be two very good things. This does not mean that >essential treatments cease to be available but should be part of a >principle that says that the state will provide essential needs and a >good standard of basic healthcare, but also allows individuals to >supplement it should they wish to spend their money on healthcare >rather than other things. No it absolutely does mean that essential treatments cease to be available. See any US-based newsgroup or forum for details. And the bit where if you go private for one thing you are then denied NHS treatment for anything else will almost certainly not change either. And your taxes will not decrease.
From: Andy Hall on 10 Jul 2008 16:27 On 2008-07-09 07:37:17 +0100, Dave A <dave_a(a)NO~SPAMtiscali.co.uk> said: > > The public sector isn't very good or efficient at running complex > expensive health services, That's certainly true, and they shouldn't be attempting it. > but the private sector is much, much worse. That simply isn't true. > And there is at least some slim chance that public services can be > held to account for their mistakes and forced to change their ways. That isn't true either. There is virtually zero chance of holding to account an organisation that actively markets that it is doing its customers a favour and that they should be grateful for what they get, Most NHS bodies have had immunity from prosecution lifted as of last year, but continue to operate as though they are above the law. You already indicated that several private sector firms had been called to account in th courts, and within reason, that is a good thing.
From: Andy Hall on 10 Jul 2008 16:31 On 2008-07-09 18:45:57 +0100, Trinkwasser <spam(a)devnull.com.invalid> said: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:14:33 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh(a)hall.nospam> > wrote: > > >> I think that a personal budget and individual responsibility in >> healthcare would be two very good things. This does not mean that >> essential treatments cease to be available but should be part of a >> principle that says that the state will provide essential needs and a >> good standard of basic healthcare, but also allows individuals to >> supplement it should they wish to spend their money on healthcare >> rather than other things. > > No it absolutely does mean that essential treatments cease to be > available. See any US-based newsgroup or forum for details. I would rather look at properly analysed and published data on that. Personal anecdotes ar interesting but are a data point of one. > > And the bit where if you go private for one thing you are then denied > NHS treatment for anything else will almost certainly not change > either. That is fundamentally wrong. The NHS is being paid by its customers to deliver a service. It should not be empowered to deny treatment based on what else the patient is doing. The notion is ridiculous. Does Tesco refuse to sell to customers because they sometimes shop at Waitrose? > > And your taxes will not decrease. Probably not. However, I would like them to be spent efficiently, and that is by outsource from the public sector.
From: Andy Hall on 10 Jul 2008 16:33 On 2008-07-09 18:41:08 +0100, Trinkwasser <spam(a)devnull.com.invalid> said: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:57:54 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh(a)hall.nospam> > wrote: > >> The actual wasters of the taxpayers funds are the large number of non >> productive public sector employees in NHS management and >> administration. Unfortunately, many are probably unemployable in the >> real world so would otherwise be consuming tax payers money even less >> productively. > > The only thing you got right. There are more managers than nurses and > more clerical than medical staff, this has been true since the 80s or > 90s, can't exactly remember when. > > The New System simply means that on top of them, government money (ie. > our taxes) will also be handed to US companies to inflate their > profits so will not be spent on actual healthcare for entirely > different similar reasons than it isn't today. Two points: - Who do you imagine are the investors in said companies? We live in a global economy. - I haven't excluded not-for-profit private sector organisations
From: Dave A on 11 Jul 2008 00:53
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:27:05 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh(a)hall.nospam> wrote: >On 2008-07-09 07:37:17 +0100, Dave A <dave_a(a)NO~SPAMtiscali.co.uk> said: >> >> but the private sector is much, much worse. > >That simply isn't true. .... according to your free market dogma. The facts argue otherwise. > > > >> And there is at least some slim chance that public services can be >> held to account for their mistakes and forced to change their ways. > >That isn't true either. There is virtually zero chance of holding to >account an organisation that actively markets that it is doing its >customers a favour and that they should be grateful for what they get, > >Most NHS bodies have had immunity from prosecution lifted as of last >year, but continue to operate as though they are above the law. So, just like private sector corportations, in the health sector and elsewhere. Except, unlike with private corporations, there is some slim chance of using the political process to bring pressure to bear on them. > >You already indicated that several private sector firms had been called >to account in th courts, and within reason, that is a good thing. Now you are simply making things up. My post never mentioned private sector firms being held to account by the courts. If I had, it would have been to argue that fines just don't cut it when corportations cause deaths by cutting corners in the chase for profits. |