Wear something red on Fridays...

[El Pibe]

"bring back singing the national anthem at every gathering of 500+"

"bring back hunting land mammals with dogs"

"Stop motorcyclists driving cars"

"Allow all those wanting to do a nvq 3 to do just that "

"return indicators to cars"

These are all open btw.

[Brendan]

Is there a ?Ban e-petitions? one yet?

[*Bob*]

We should retire the number 11 shirt in English Football in honour of Ryan Giggs (when he's retired obviously)

Ban nude bathing on beaches that is clothing optional

Bring Top Totty back to Strangers bar

Renaming of 'Good Friday' to 'GREAT Friday'

HELP PLEASE

[steveo]

I have to use ointment on a nasty little problem I have, which costs me seven quid on the NHS.

I stumbled on a site which details the cost to the NHS of such ointment and lo, it is ?86

I now use it less liberally

And it still works

I think we should be told

[Brendan]

Who in the government can I send a monthly letter to telling them exactly how much the NHS has cost me that month?

[*Bob*]

I'd just go with 'to whom it may concern', Brendan.

[Chippy Minton]

Steveo - wait until Philip Lee MP gets his way, then we'll know how much stuff costs. Trouble is, we'll then have to pay that ;-)

[????]

That's quite easy Brendan just look at your monthly tax and NI payment and times it by 17%, that's how much the NHS has cost you last month....that's not counting the share of the 19% of govt spend for pensions that goes to NHS pensioners either.Don't get me wrong I'm happy about this (the NHS bit) before I get jumped on, but it's a fair old wack!

[Undisputedtruth]

According to this Guardian article, the NHS is extremely cost effective.

[Chippy Minton]

Lots of evidence of its cost effectiveness e.g. BMJ study or the King's Fund

[Undisputedtruth]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd just go with 'to whom it may concern',

> Brendan.

Signed, I'm alright Jack!

[Marmora Man]

UDT & CHIPPY:

Your different links point to the same research which broadly lauds the state funding "free at point of delivery" aspect of the NHS and the fact that British citizens do no need to pay directly for the service(s). This is not, and has never been, in question under the proposed reforms. The references are irrelevant to the argument.

The NHS can, and does, promote and provide equity of access to care & treatment between those with wealth and those without. However, this does not preclude it being inefficient and not fully fit for purpose.

Equal access to a poor service is no great boon to mankind.

[Chippy Minton]

I would argue it is irrelevant - the King's Fund link is to a section surrounding myths associated with the HSC Bill. Is it the crux of the agruement? No. Is it relevant? Yes, but anyway...as you well know, I've never said the NHS doesn't need reforming and neither have most of the Royal Colleges, Associations, charities, patient groups etc that are opposing the Bill.

Thankfully the NHS is still "free at the point of delivery," but if the Bill does go through it will be the first step on the road to creeping NHS privatisation - a two tier system for those that can afford to pay and those that can't.

Obviously the Tories deny this, but just look at what's happened with NHS dentistry. I wonder how many people no longer go to a dentist regularly (or even ever) because they a) can't find a NHS dentist or b) can't afford to go.

[Huguenot]

And this is the problem with the NHS, because every time anybody tries to reform it, a bunch of crazies leap up screaming about it being the first step to privatisation and removal of healthcare for all.

This is why these people don't get invited to reform consultations, because they have nothing constructive they're prepared to add.

They've got plenty they could add, but they simply won't.

[Marmora Man]

Thankfully the NHS is still "free at the point of delivery," but if the Bill does go through it will be the first step on the road to creeping NHS privatisation - a two tier system for those that can afford to pay and those that can't.

Where is your evidence for this?

Why would you oppose the private sector, third sector (aka charities) and social enterprises taking on responsibility for delivering NHS services if they can deliver the same, FREE, service more effectively?

Or do you fear that a massive state run monopoly and its equally massive unionised workforce might be shown up as less efficient and effective than the propagandising myths that surround this ageing monolith aver?

[Undisputedtruth]

There are many reasons for opposing the reorganisation of the NHS by the Tories.

Firstly, the Tories lied in their manifesto when they said there'll be no top down meddling of the NHS. Well, look what's happening now. Hardly a trust building exercise, is it not?

Secondly, the Tory reforms have no buy-in from the Doctors, Nurses, and support staff. Recipe for disaster, surely.

Thirdly, even the Tory MPs do not understand the reforms themselves which makes it difficult to explain or defend.

[Huguenot]

I'm surprised by your prioritisation UDT, 'you can't change things because you said you wouldn't' is hardly the complaint of an adult is it?

Your second point is simply untrue, and you bring nothing to the table if you can't be bothered to be honest about the situation. You're simply grandstanding. In reality, responses from the healthcare community range from mild unfocused anxiety to full blown paranoia, and challenges to the plan range from isolated nitpicking to complete outright dogmatic rejection.

Finally it is ridiculous that anyone should know evertyhing about everything, apart from you with your boundless expertise in finance, premiership footballing, hifi, gardening and much much more.

That not all Conservative MPs can recite the details of the healthcare plan is no reason not to implement it, I'd expect them to leave that to the appropriate department and get on with their own jobs.

[Marmora Man]

There are many reasons for opposing the reorganisation of the NHS by the Tories.

UDT - your choice of words reveals the reason behind your opposition - Tories.

Why characterise the reforms as Tory reforms? In many ways the coalition are extending, taking to a logical conclusion and improving on changes and reforms commenced by the Labour government. You weren't so vocal in opposition to these measures but, once a change can be labelled Tory, your visceral hatred of anything Tory rises to the fore.

Try objective analysis, true experience and contributing ideas to a debate instead of jumping in with Student Union level sloganeering and you might, just might, find that people pay some attention to your arguments.

[Chippy Minton]

Where is your evidence for this?

I'm put more faith in the the Royal College of GPs which states: "Competition, and the opening up our of health service to any qualified providers will lead not only to fragmentation of care, but also potentially to a 'two tier' system with access to care defined by a patient's ability to pay" over what Andrew Landsey states.

UDT is absolutely right -

there is no unconditional buy in from any body representing specialists in the NHS.

And these groups are highly skilled, knowledgeable specialists like the BMA, RCGP and other Royal Colleges - hardly raging trots from the Crow and Sawatka mold. You even worked for AOMRC yourself ;-)

The BMJ, HSJ and Nursing Times are right - its an unholy mess!

[Huguenot]

And the problem with your analysis Chippy is that you don't actually read what you post.

Let's have a look shall we?

The RCGP only expressed concerns - a perfectly reassonable response to change. I'm always concerned to cross the road, it's not a disaster because I do. And what they are concerned about is a 'potential' outcome - not an actual outcome.

The RCA worry about the impact of 'unfettered competition' - that's not what's proposed, so it's not exactly relevant is it? The point about cost and distraction is hardly impressive - every change involves costs and distractions, the question is whether the outcome is an improvement.

The RCO talk about 'risks' not consequences - this is hardly a substantive objection.

Others complain about reductions in funding for their key area - no great surprise, and to protest this is not calling into question the validity of the bill, it's just a funding demand by a single issue group.

Yet others say that it's their members that decide - and in that case how well informed are these members, and what is the insurance that these members aren't simply voting for their own personal interests?

The point is Chippy, you can't answer these observations.

At the foot of these objections are either the self-interests of the practitioners, or understandable concern about change in general.

Neither of those are substantive.

[Undisputedtruth]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> UDT - your choice of words reveals the reason

> behind your opposition - Tories.

Oh dear MM, is that the best you can do in the face of widespread objection to the NHS reforms by the Tories. You're just as bad as Hugo.

[Chippy Minton]

MM - I agree the Labour government started this reform process, which as I've repeatedly said, I agree is necessary, but the Health and Social Care Bill itself is a Tory reform is it not? The Lib Dems are clearly not behind this. Clement-Jones, Simon Hughes et al and even Nick Clegg have made that pretty clear.

[colville09]

Whatever position you take about how it could be improved, all of us hold the idea that a National Health Service is precious. Otherwise we will become America where profit dictates if you get any healthcare at all. I don?t want to see it sold off or to line the pockets of others. Unless politicians of whatever stripe realise that people really care they will continue to disregard any sensible views or discussion of common good. Unless they know their careers are in danger and the anger that we all feel is visible, they will spin and twist for whatever agenda they have. We are all helping this happen by staying quiet. My question is how do we make this anger apparent? There may be days of protest but these can be ?spun? as being ?trade union activity? and can be managed news wise. If you take part, you can give your lungs a good workout but won?t get them quaking. Agent provocateurs easily hijack direct action. My idea of wearing something red on Fridays sounds very sad and yes, the government is still standing, the red buses are still running after a week but use your imagination ? what if it grew to epic proportions? Went viral? Could be fun even for beautiful/handsome red heads, so email your mates, lets go viral and see how far it gets.