Tory Country

[Guest TK-421]

There are ways of mitigating against this. Just make sure they only get the full allocation of cash if they provide a sufficiently good service. If they don't meet the required standard, they get fined. This happens already, in fact, so it is very definitely workable.

 

It might be just me, but I wouldn't want to be exposing our health service to these kind of risks. It would depend on the context, but "It's ok, we'll slap them on the wrist and fine them" wouldn't really compensate for an insufficient "health" service. Workable for one thing doesn't mean workable across the board.

 

Mitigating against damage caused by a bad health service just sounds full of wrongness.

[Cardie]

 

Of course, if this news is true, it creates a paradox for certain people. Specifically, those people who assert that the Lib Dems are doing nothing to stem Tory excesses. Because if we're not blunting the Tories, why would any of them be pushing for an election?

 

Because you've served your spineless purpose and now you've taken your kicking the Tories see no use for the rotting carcass?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I know where the hysteria comes from. Quite simply, it's that old Marxist canard about surplus value. Lefties don't like people making money out of healthcare. Somewhere along the way, if someone is making a profit, they believe the end user is inevitably being scammed.

 

For my personal perspective, my trepidation has nothing to do with surplus value.It has to do with a real-world understanding of how business operates and the things it'll do to make money. It's quite often true that somebody is getting scammed, or fucked over. Whether that's in buying a cup of coffee where the farmers are fucked, or at McDuncan's where they're putting plastic into their shakes to bulk them out, or a computer company hiring Chinese kids with small fingers to assemble computer systems, somebody is often getting fucked somewhere down the line.

 

In America, and other nations where private companies have influence over healthcare, it's not infrequent for the patient to be the one getting fucked. I'm sure we can all agree that's a real danger, and it's something we must be very careful to avoid, partizan politics aside. This healthcare system is way beyond party politics and political ideology.

 

 

I'm with you: I really couldn't care whether a provider is "public" or "private" so long as the service is the best it can be and, in the case of something like the NHS, remains free at the point of delivery.

 

So long as the many, many pitfalls of private involvement can be avoided - which involves taking nearly all of the attributes that define privatisation out of private involvement - then I'm not all that fussed either.

 

When pointing at other systems that utilise private companies in their healthcare, we really need to look how much we're putting in when compared to them. There's little point, as we see all the time in these debates, putting a country up as an example of healthcare being marginally better than ours - and claiming it's due to private involvement - when they're spending 50% more on healthcare.

 

Then, when you take into account 'efficiency' measures that are now going to be much higher than before, it is a very worrying sign for the future if the NHS.

 

As a general rule, liberals are not dogmatically tied to the belief that the state or the market is the preferred way of delivering a service.

 

Any belief in Marxism is quite quickly countered by an unwavering belief in the free market. I'm a liberal, but I think liberals can be as dogmatic as the next person. Especially where economic theory is concerned.

 

The bottom line is that we can't fuck this up. It's too important to play games with. It's not like the health service is shit at the moment, despite being woefully under funded. I think evolution, with higher financial input, would create an incredible service. I think revolution with less funding would create a dangerous future for the NHS.

[Albertini]

For my personal perspective, my trepidation has nothing to do with surplus value.It has to do with a real-world understanding of how business operates and the things it'll do to make money. It's quite often true that somebody is getting scammed, or fucked over. Whether that's in buying a cup of coffee where the farmers are fucked, or at McDuncan's where they're putting plastic into their shakes to bulk them out, or a computer company hiring Chinese kids with small fingers to assemble computer systems, somebody is often getting fucked somewhere down the line.

 

I absolutely agree with you on this but just becuase this is what some businesses do to make profit doesn't necessarily mean it is how all efficient businesses have to operate. A balance can be struck.

 

In America, and other nations where private companies have influence over healthcare, it's not infrequent for the patient to be the one getting fucked. I'm sure we can all agree that's a real danger, and it's something we must be very careful to avoid, partizan politics aside. This healthcare system is way beyond party politics and political ideology.

 

The American system is deeply flawed and not one any country should be looking to emulate. Perhaps France's system (which i've read a little about) which mixes both Public and Private is the way to go. It seems to be a good system which works well but they do spend 20% more on theirs than we do.

 

The bolded bit is the crucial thing in your statement for me as to why the NHS is not as good as it could be and a good argument for getting private involvment. It is precisely the party political ideolgy that has dogged the NHS under all governments.

 

It was party politics for example which saw Blair sign up for an NHS system that nobody seemed to want, that was supposed to cost £3 billion but is now upto around £12.7 billion and still not working properly.

 

Would a private company have authorised that kind of spend on something so speculative?

 

Would private companies have had the continuous "reform" and changes that we've seen over recent years?

 

Get the politics and politicians out of something they know nothing about. As you say it's too important.

 

So long as the many, many pitfalls of private involvement can be avoided - which involves taking nearly all of the attributes that define privatisation out of private involvement - then I'm not all that fussed either.

 

When pointing at other systems that utilise private companies in their healthcare, we really need to look how much we're putting in when compared to them. There's little point, as we see all the time in these debates, putting a country up as an example of healthcare being marginally better than ours - and claiming it's due to private involvement - when they're spending 50% more on healthcare.

 

Then, when you take into account 'efficiency' measures that are now going to be much higher than before, it is a very worrying sign for the future if the NHS.

 

I disagree about all the attributes of privatisation having to be removed. It's about striking a balance between commercial practises in removing costs and waste coupled with responsibility.

 

What we've seen under all governments is an inability to sell assets for the right price and to the right people.

 

If private companies could come in and remove the clear wastage that exists (particularly cost and administrative staff increases), improve efficiency (hard to accurately quantify in the NHS i know) and take their profit out of some of those savings, then i'd have no problems in the privatisation of services.

 

It boils down to whether a private company can provide the same or (ideally) better services for the same or less money by being free of the buearuacracy of the Health department.

 

What isn't acceptable to me is if the same usual scavengers come in that have got involved in pretty much every privatisation and milk the thing dry for as much as they can (whose betting that Branson wont try a "Virgin Health" for example).

 

That's where the plan falls down. I have no confidence in any government to sell services properly to the right people and to sell it in a way which the public both benefits and is protected from the more unacceptable faces of capitalism.

 

You are also right on looking at the amount spent, despite the increased spending under labour, we still have a relatively low spend per capita, (in 2007 we were 16th of developed nations spending approx US$3000) in comparison to other major countries.

 

Any belief in Marxism is quite quickly countered by an unwavering belief in the free market. I'm a liberal, but I think liberals can be as dogmatic as the next person. Especially where economic theory is concerned.

 

The bottom line is that we can't fuck this up. It's too important to play games with. It's not like the health service is shit at the moment, despite being woefully under funded. I think evolution, with higher financial input, would create an incredible service. I think revolution with less funding would create a dangerous future for the NHS.

 

Absolutely agree regarding Marxism and capitalism with both extremes equally bad. What you're looking for is something in the middle. Something where people can create wealth for themselves but also contribute to a better society for everyone.

 

It is too important to fuck up. But recent history shows us that money was thrown into the NHS without proper thought as to how to make things genuinely better and how to reform the thing properly.

 

I think we're at the point where all options are worth looking at and examining. I think it's foolish to say " we can't use any private companies in the NHS becuase it will destroy it" without exploring all the options and seeing the benefits and disadvantages of other methods.

 

We can't keep having fundamental changes every few years based on the prejudices and ideas of whoever has been returned to Government. It's this short termism and constant change which is holding real and significant NHS improvements back.

[Section_31]

Loving how militant Tk-421 has become over recent months.

[WaltonRed]

When Maggie does go the country will be split right in two

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I absolutely agree with you on this but just becuase this is what some businesses do to make profit doesn't necessarily mean it is how all efficient businesses have to operate. A balance can be struck.

 

If it's not making money, it's not a successful business. It's their entire raison d'être. If making money is difficult (as it is from public healthcare, which places severe limits on a private operation) they need to look elsewhere to boost profits.

 

It's true that not every business is unethical or amoral, but the businesses operating within acceptable standards often earn so much money from their product that they don't need to look for other avenues to wring money out of. Actually, doing so would damage their bottom line more than it would improve it.

 

The American system is deeply flawed and not one any country should be looking to emulate. Perhaps France's system (which i've read a little about) which mixes both Public and Private is the way to go. It seems to be a good system which works well but they do spend 20% more on theirs than we do.

 

I've not checked, but I'd wager that the true figure is nearer 30%. However, even at 20%, that's a genuinely massive amount of money. One could argue that putting the 20% extra into health - without giving any of it away in profit to companies - could make our healthcare, which is already one of the best, the single best system in the world. We're talking about a huge amount of money that could go a very long way to taking us to the top of the pile.

 

I'm not arguing against any change at all, but I see private involvement as pretty much unnecessary. If it's needed in some areas, on a contractually basis, then those situations need to be looked at. Again, small tweaks rather than unwanted revolution.

 

The bolded bit is the crucial thing in your statement for me as to why the NHS is not as good as it could be and a good argument for getting private involvment. It is precisely the party political ideolgy that has dogged the NHS under all governments.

 

It was party politics for example which saw Blair sign up for an NHS system that nobody seemed to want, that was supposed to cost £3 billion but is now upto around £12.7 billion and still not working properly.

 

You seem to be making my argument for me here, Al. I'm saying the NHS is beyond party politics. Well, I'm saying it should be. That includes silly spending in areas that don't need it, just as much as it means Tory meddling that, to quote you, nobody seems to want.

 

Would a private company have authorised that kind of spend on something so speculative?

 

Would private companies have had the continuous "reform" and changes that we've seen over recent years?

 

That would depend entirely on who was to profit. The decision like that won't be made by private companies, they'll be sold by them to the government. If they stand to profit massively from that action, then of course they'll be in favour of it.

 

Get the politics and politicians out of something they know nothing about. As you say it's too important.

 

Well, that's just over-generalising, to be honest. Many politicians are very knowledgeable in that area. They're also advised by leading experts.

 

I disagree about all the attributes of privatisation having to be removed. It's about striking a balance between commercial practises in removing costs and waste coupled with responsibility.

 

In all my years involved with politics, I've never had an acceptable answer to why a private company is needed to cut costs and waste?

 

What we've seen under all governments is an inability to sell assets for the right price and to the right people.

 

If private companies could come in and remove the clear wastage that exists (particularly cost and administrative staff increases), improve efficiency (hard to accurately quantify in the NHS i know) and take their profit out of some of those savings, then i'd have no problems in the privatisation of services.

 

It boils down to whether a private company can provide the same or (ideally) better services for the same or less money by being free of the buearuacracy of the Health department.

 

What isn't acceptable to me is if the same usual scavengers come in that have got involved in pretty much every privatisation and milk the thing dry for as much as they can (whose betting that Branson wont try a "Virgin Health" for example).

 

I agree. I think a question that we need to ask is 'why else would people get involved if not to try to make lots of money?' - the types of business that have the ability to get involved on the scale needed are, generally speaking, profit grabbing corporations that are in it for nothing more than the percentages.

 

That's where the plan falls down. I have no confidence in any government to sell services properly to the right people and to sell it in a way which the public both benefits and is protected from the more unacceptable faces of capitalism.

 

Well, quite. This is why I'm talking about removing the privatisation parts of privatisation (code for no privatisation, thanks all the same). I don't mind the usage of private companies to provide a service, if the cost is right and the service can't be suitable produced by the NHS. I just can't see those two things happening very often.

 

As for trust in the government, I don't trust the Conservative party at all. The PM admitted that he does favours for friends; I've got almost no doubt in my mind that he does favours for friends and acquaintances who donate to the party.

 

You are also right on looking at the amount spent, despite the increased spending under labour, we still have a relatively low spend per capita, (in 2007 we were 16th of developed nations spending approx US$3000) in comparison to other major countries.

 

My view is this: Some tweaks and modernisation, coupled with more money put into the NHS, and we've got a very good, very cost efficient service.

 

As it stands, we offer fairly great results for the money we put in. We spend relatively little and achieve relatively high standards, even with any waste - and there will always be waste.

 

Absolutely agree regarding Marxism and capitalism with both extremes equally bad. What you're looking for is something in the middle. Something where people can create wealth for themselves but also contribute to a better society for everyone.

 

That's certainly not something I'm looking for. I don't believe profit should come from healthcare, other than wages for individual doctors, nurses and other staff, of course. Heathcare, in my opinion, should be almost entirely separate from 'wealth creation'.

 

It is too important to fuck up. But recent history shows us that money was thrown into the NHS without proper thought as to how to make things genuinely better and how to reform the thing properly.

 

I think we're at the point where all options are worth looking at and examining. I think it's foolish to say " we can't use any private companies in the NHS becuase it will destroy it" without exploring all the options and seeing the benefits and disadvantages of other methods.

 

We can't keep having fundamental changes every few years based on the prejudices and ideas of whoever has been returned to Government. It's this short termism and constant change which is holding real and significant NHS improvements back.

 

I don't know anybody who is making that argument or has said those words you've quoted, so I won't comment on them. I do think the government has made significant improvements, but I think more money is needed for more improvements.

[VladimirIlyich]

Private companies are solely interested in making money,they have to to survive as a business and as a patient that scares the shit out of me.

At least with a health service there is an element of responsibility needed as its public money being used and the government is accountable for how that money is used.

As for 'overspending' we are never told where that overspending comes from,its never itemised if you like.

Only once ive seen that would i then be willing to criticise.

Maybe the 'overspending' is increasing life saving operations and thats money well spent for me.

[Section_31]

In fairness I think there probably is some scope for the private sector in the NHS, things like cleaning for example. I think if you let firms bid for cleaning contracts but only paid up if they kept dangerous infections under control that could possibly produce a positive outcome. Anything front line though, where cost could come above patient care, drugs or treatment, is a firm no for me.

[Guest TK-421]

In fairness I think there probably is some scope for the private sector in the NHS, things like cleaning for example. I think if you let firms bid for cleaning contracts but only paid up if they kept dangerous infections under control that could possibly produce a positive outcome. Anything front line though, where cost could come above patient care, drugs or treatment, is a firm no for me.

 

My problem with that would be corporate civil and criminal accountability. Especially the latter. If they mess it up, who is at fault? Much easier to sue or hold accountable an NHS trust, I reckon. Access to justice comes cheap and easy to a big company, not for the ordinary Joe.

[Einch]

My problem with that would be corporate civil and criminal accountability. Especially the latter. If they mess it up, who is at fault? Much easier to sue or hold accountable an NHS trust, I reckon. Access to justice comes cheap and easy to a big company, not for the ordinary Joe.

 

True. We tend to follow the USA in certain areas related to crime and law by several years so it should make most people here shudder when you look at how the Supreme court in the States is making it more difficult for corporate interests to be sued by class action or just in general. Oh and we now have a Supreme court as well. It would not surprise me to see the civil jurisdiction of this body support corporate interests above the good of the common man as time progresses. Imagine several families trying to sue a company for repeated medical negligence and being told they could not. Well that's what we probably have to look forward to.

[dennis tooth]

I'm always shy of the kneejerk 'if they win...' reaction, but I'm leaning that way myself to be honest. I own a place abroad, but don't particularly enjoy the area.

 

I am looking at the situation and the way I see it the Tories must be very tempted as the alternative threatens to be a dead end to their holy grail NHS reforms provided the Lib Dems find their spines in time or get the public to prop them up like a dummie. Then a possible resurgent Labour may arise with cuts biting and the economy crumbling, whereas if they strike now it's all or nothing but a 50% chance of winning.

Sadly so far Red Ed has all the passion of a dying dog and I've seen a lot of dying dogs sigh that sigh.

[dennis tooth]

There are ways of mitigating against this. Just make sure they only get the full allocation of cash if they provide a sufficiently good service. If they don't meet the required standard, they get fined. This happens already, in fact, so it is very definitely workable.

 

I can't believe you pay a sub for that shite.

Anyway I can't read it but anyone knows such 'authorities' are useless against massive institutions who make more money each day than the people meant to police them and such fines are not considered a deterrent but an operating cost to be expected as a matter of course by big corporations full of well connected people.

[dennis tooth]

My problem with that would be corporate civil and criminal accountability. Especially the latter. If they mess it up, who is at fault? Much easier to sue or hold accountable an NHS trust, I reckon. Access to justice comes cheap and easy to a big company, not for the ordinary Joe.

 

Yeah and you just end up with a load of different Polish workers everyday who wouldn't know what Salmonella was instead of regular old English hag cleaners who don't fuck around with a bottle of Jif.

[Sugar Ape]

I can't believe you pay a sub for that shite.

Anyway I can't read it but anyone knows such 'authorities' are useless against massive institutions who make more money each day than the people meant to police them and such fines are not considered a deterrent but an operating cost to be expected as a matter of course by big corporations full of well connected people.

 

The article is from 2003 Dennis so it can be viewed, anyway I'll copy and paste it.

 

May 20, 2003

Firm fined £2m for criminal record fiasco

By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

THE company at the centre of the shambles that has engulfed the Criminal Records Bureau has been fined almost £2 million for its failings.

 

Ministers disclosed the figure last night after the Liberal Democrats complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman over the Government’s failure to provide details of the penalties paid by Capita, the private company.

 

The penalties include more than £1.1 million for Capita’s failure to meet the three-week turnround time in processing crucial criminal checks for teachers and others working closely with children and vulnerable adults.

 

Matthew Taylor, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: “The fact that ministers have already clawed back £1.8 million in penalties shows what a monumental failure the Criminal Records Bureau has been.

 

“This contract was a botched job for which the Government and private sector must share equal blame. To make matters worse, the contract and penalties incurred under it have been shrouded in secrecy. Taxpayers deserve an apology from the Home Secretary and from Capita for the thousands of criminal record checks that have been delayed or lost and the misery that has been caused to so many people.”

 

The decision to disclose the penalties came after the Home Office had repeatedly refused to provide any information on the ground that it was “commercially confidential”. But Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, the minister with responsibility for the Merseyside-based bureau, has decided that it is no longer in the public interest to keep the sums secret.

 

The disclosure is the latest blow for Capita, which has been at the centre of controversy since the bureau’s catastrophic launch. A huge backlog of applications built up which led to tens of thousands of applications being sent for processing to a firm in Madras.

 

The scale of the crisis forced the Government to abandon indefinitely plans to introduce criminal record checks for the ten million people who change jobs each year.

 

Even if the basic check is introduced, it is expected to cost up to three times the current £12 because ministers are to drop plans to allow the public to apply directly for a check. Instead, applications will be processed by an organisation such as an employment bureau or chamber of commerce. A summary of a report into the bureau said that it soon became clear after the much delayed March 2002 launch date that “both the systems and processes were inadequate to cope with demand, and a backlog of applications built up. Operational difficulties were aggravated by pressures of vetting all new teachers prior to the start of the new school year.”

 

A recovery package will include renegotiating the £450 million contract with Capita. There is speculation that the company may pull out altogether.

[jacco maccaco]

In fairness I think there probably is some scope for the private sector in the NHS, things like cleaning for example. I think if you let firms bid for cleaning contracts but only paid up if they kept dangerous infections under control that could possibly produce a positive outcome. Anything front line though, where cost could come above patient care, drugs or treatment, is a firm no for me.

 

I currently work in a Brand new £300m PFI Hospital, It looks great, However it was built by the lowest bidder.

Likewise the cleaning of this state of the art hospital, cheapest cleaning materials used, minimum wage paid.

The Cleaners were all tupe'd across from the NHS to the company responsible.

My Hospital is seriously under threat of closing or merging or being run privately.

Its barely a year old in its rebuilt guise.

We have efficiency savings we can barely meet, and we are losing staff.

We barely made it through the winter flu-epidemic due to staffing levels.

If we close it will leave a 250,000+ patient black hole that no neighbouring hospital can possibly hope to fill.

I apologise if the above seems like bullet points but I've been drinking and I'm seething with rage over what will become of Hospitals like mine, and beleive me I've spoken to others in the region and its the same story.

25 years of working in the NHS and the worst cancer we've ever come across is blue in colour.

[Vincent Vega]

Nobody was duped. Nick Clegg said in the event of a hung parliament, the party with most seats and votes should get first crack at forming a government. That happened to be the Tories. I would suggest instead of blaming Nick Clegg for keeping to his word, you direct your anger at the 10.7m people who voted Tory.

 

I have nothing but contempt for the greedy bastards that vote for the Tories, but acting as a crutch for them so that they can impose their right wing agenda makes me equally contemptuous of the Lib Dems. Had I and many others known that this would be considered I'd never have voted Lib Dem in the first place. I voted for the Lib Dems as they had the best policies of the three major parties for the last election, I did not vote for a situation where we get 10% Lib Dem policy and 90% Tory.

 

One of the most ignored stats in politics is the fact that 99% of Tory members rely on the NHS as their primary healthcare provider. I guess because it doesn't fit the narrative that asserts the Tories want to destroy the NHS.

 

That may be the case but it didn't stop them running the NHS into the ground in their last stint in charge to the point that it was in intensive care by the time Labour came into power.

 

I have major concerns about even the smallest privitisation in the NHS, private companies do what is best for their shareholders and not what is in the interests of the public. How long before we got "you smoke and have cancer, tough shit", "you're over 80 and have had a stroke, it doesn't make fiscal sense to give you this expensive treatment", "had a heart attack? you shouldn't be so fat"? An exaggeration maybe but I do not trust Cameron and Clegg on this with their silver spoon upbringings.

[Kevin D]

I do often wonder if, because of the time I spend on here(a forum that was described by one senior state-department official as "a hotbed of extremism"), I've got a false impression of the country's political stance.

 

Wondering this again as our foreign Secretary stands with a war criminal celebrating another war criminal who was greatly responsible for the financial crisis. The fact that's not seen as worthy of comment is, again, worrying.

[Chairman Meow]

a forum that was described by one senior state-department official as "a hotbed of extremism"

 

What? When did this happen?

[TheBitch]

 

Wondering this again as our foreign Secretary stands with a war criminal celebrating another war criminal who was greatly responsible for the financial crisis. The fact that's not seen as worthy of comment is, again, worrying.

 

Yeah. I heard this on the radio and instantly thought.

 

Hang on. Regan was a cunt. What's to celebrate?

[Guest The Chimp]

Much the same as you TB, I was watching BBC World before and saw that a statue to Ronnie Ray Gun had been unveilled in London at the US embassy. WTF was my immediate and involuntary reaction. Man was a cunt.

[dennis tooth]

I hope someone shots the head off that statue, ASAP. Where are the anarchists or even a pink floyd band members son will do.

[Section_31]

Something I've been thinking about for a while and wondered what other people's thoughts are?

 

Watching an episode of Questiontime the other week and Germaine Greer said something along the lines of how Thatcher realised the working class of England weren't left wing, but right wing.

 

I mentioned this to a Scottish mate of mine who's involved with the SNP and he agreed with her. He reckoned the reason was that the English working class still felt they were beneficiaries of the 'age of Empire', even though they weren't, whereas the Irish, Scottish and Welsh working class didn't, which is why they had more left wing views.

 

I suppose in a more basic, vulgar sense this comes across in football, and when you go abroad, and the English - regardless of where they're from or even their class - CAN have a sense of smug, misplaced self-superiority.

 

It got me wondering whether 'left wing' has ever truly existed in England. My uncle used to tell me how he could never get a job down the docks or Ford in the 70s and 80s because the unions had made it 'jobs for the boys', and that if you were nobody's son you were pretty much fucked - which made me wonder, are unions only militant when it suits their own personal gain? Do they really take action for the betterment of their fellow workers and their community, or do they only do it when their individual pockets or their kids' employment prospects are threatened? Are they right wing but only left when it suits them?

 

The left wing as we know it now is basically just a lazy term for the liberal middle class isn't it?

 

Thoughts?

[zigackly]

One thing I do know is that if Scotland ever does become independent we'll be stuck with the Tories forever.

[Sugar Ape]

On my phone Sec so just a quick point but my dad got a job in Fords in the 80's and has worked there ever since. He didn't know anyone who worked there, he got sent for an interview by the job centre and got offered the job as did one of his mates. It probably helped to know someone who worked there like a lot of jobs but I don't think it was necessary.

 

Where I work now in the civil service nepotism is strife. There are whole families working there, mum, dad, 2 sons and one daughter. I don't think it's anything too sinister in most cases, they've probably just informed family members when jobs come up and given them advice on what to say on the application form/interview.