Saving the NHS!

[Otta]

Here is an online petition. I'm not going to argue the toss about this. If you think the proposed bill stinks, please click and sign. If you like the bill, don't.

[Huguenot]

No UDT, you're trying to move the goalposts (what a surprise).

My complaint was against a campaign of persecution, defamation and smear based on snide insinuation.

That is wrong in itself, regardless of who pursues it.

The fact that it's driven by unions reflects on them. It is not union involvement that makes me think it's toilet politics.

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> My complaint was against a campaign of

> persecution, defamation and smear based on snide

> insinuation.

So says the master of this despicable tactic.

Using the unions as a barrier to the NHS Bill seems like a simplistic type thinking, drawn from the Tory's chest of excuses. Are you seriously telling me that our Doctors,up and down the country, are unable to think for themselves without union help?

[Huguenot]

Still trying to move the goalposts UDT?

I'm saying that the Mirror's list of supposed evidence of insider trading behind the new NHS bill is a campaign of persecution, defamation and smear based on snide insinuation.

It is toilet politics, and being exploited as usual by the unions.

I imagine that people in the health service are influenced by a number of thoughts on this issue, not least will be the convenient idea that somehow the people creating a situation that doesn't appear to be in their interest are being dishonest thieves.

The tactic is not to make people believe that all conservatives are thieves, but instead to sow confusion (in much the same way as climate change denialists did) and hope that the confusion heightens anxiety, discontent and protest.

The one thing this tactic is not designed to do is promote rational assessment.

But then UDT, you're only likely to talk a lot of rubbish now, so why I bother highlighting these facts I know not.

[Undisputedtruth]

May I remind you, Hugo, it was you who moved the goalpost by introducing the unions into this debate. I can't see a connection with the Mirror and the unions over the NHS Bill. So my advice to you is to get over your union phobia.

If you want to promote rational assessment then by all means argue your point without mentioning the unions. I suppose this would be difficult for you as you can't do rational debate. :))

[Huguenot]

The reprint from the Mirror was circulated on union websites by union representatives and sympathisers, as it was by Chippy Minton on this one (the first to mention it on an earlier thread IIRC).

My reference to union propaganda was based entirely on this observation. I can't think of a better one?

[Marmora Man]

I would further add that I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum that LordshipLang the OP (2 posts - single subject) was inspired by a union flyer, website or meeting to raise the subject. Travelling the country I've seen a number of "Save our NHS" campaigns using surprisingly similar phrases and arguments - arguments taken from Unison and other anti change literature.

I've made my argument in favour of the Bill (now passed into law) but the various opponents have not been able to muster a case - apart from the fact that a lot of vested interest groups are against it and that, with no evidence or rational argument, they believe private sector involvement in healthcare to be wrong.

[Chippy Minton]

You'd be willing to bet! Well no kidding! Not a particularly a long shot when the OP actually provided a link to Unison's website is it!

[Marmora Man]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

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

> You'd be willing to bet! Well no kidding! Not a

> particularly a long shot when the OP actually

> provided a link to Unison's website is it!

Indeed - but LL did not acknowledge his union affiliation, has not presented any evidence for his claims, posed as a regular EDF user wanting to discuss when in fact he wanted to propagadise a one sided view held by vested interests opposed to change. Classic infiltration tactics so often used by the left to mask their real agenda and skew debate.

Noise and volume do not a debate make.

[Undisputedtruth]

The lying scums, known as the Tory party, hardly do debate, MM.

Anyway, perhaps you'll get some extra money your way and build more Marmora manions.

[Marmora Man]

UDT - your standard of debate maintains its usual mixture of abuse and lies. In common with your fellow travellers you seem unable to present an argument setting out your case for blocking reform.

As I have said before I have no financial interest in the outcome of the Bill. I do have an interest in seeing an improved and more efficient NHS. Your continued insinuation that I am motivated by money is insulting, boring and libellous.

[StraferJack]

My opposition to the bill is not some anti-private ideology. There are things private sector does much better, some public sector and in many cases a mic of the two. Whatever works best

I can outline my concerns about the outcome of the bill but I can't "prove" them. Like an advert or a sales brochure we are being sold the ideal, but the reality will be different

You might disagree with my concerns or you might agree they will happen and think "so what", but anyway

Everyone should be suspicious however about how something so radical has happened so quickly without any warning from incoming government or any attempt at persuasion of the public. Already I smell a rat

I believe MM when he says he wants a better and more efficient NHS. He has had close workings with the infrastructure (although I would imagine not much coalface experience)

But I don't think he will get it. I think what we will all get is an (irreversible - one of the worst aspects of this bill) increasing cost, more fractured service and with many more people excluded from treatment

This won't happen on day one, but in 5-10 years time if we were to all sit down again I'm reasonably confident that will be the case

The NHS is it's current state is not ideal. In years to come when the disasters come thick and fast people will say "ah back in the old days" as if nothing bad ever happened in the NHS. Like romanticising British Rail, to go that far is just wrong.

PPP deals, tube line privatisation, rail privatisation - all rely on huges subsidies and result in buck-passing inefficiencies and with several examples of unworkability. All were foreseen and complained about as well - and all were derided as so much union rhetoric

I don't mind being wrong on any of this - if we have that conversation in 5 years and I have to hold my hands up I'll do so happily. A small price to pay for a better and more efficient health service after all

[steveo]

Every patient's experience is wildly different. People will still moan or praise the system whether it's better or not. The cost will increase either way. It's all too big to measure.

[Chippy Minton]

Yesterday was a sad day for the NHS, but the Tories have already been introducing changes for the last 18 months or so. Thousands have already lost their jobs which has meant restructuring was already underway.

I agree largely with what SJ says, although I do hope he is wrong that the Bill (or at least some of it) is irreversible.

These changes are huge and, as such, can only be introduced gradually. For example, private sector involvement, whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing, will not increase overnight - it's likely there won't be any significant rise for a number of years. And now matter how much some people refuse to admit it, there is no buy-in from the professionals that work within the NHS, which will inevitably affect implementation.

At this point in time, the Labour Party is pledging to repeal the Bill if it was re-elected. Of course, no one knows when this will happen and politicians have been known not to keep their pre-election policies ;-) but it is conceivable that Labour could regain power in three years time and could repeal some aspects of the Bill in that Parliament.

[StraferJack]

I think that the cost, even if Labour were commited to repealing the bill (which I'm not convinced they would be) would be prohibitive. Plus a whole bunch of contracts will be in place which makes the whole thing impractical to untangle

[ultraburner]

Straferjack: nail---->head

[Chippy Minton]

I think the hope would be that the momentous changes that are being proposed won't have had a chance to get too embedded.

[Marmora Man]

I believe MM when he says he wants a better and more efficient NHS. He has had close workings with the infrastructure (although I would imagine not much coalface experience)

How close to the coal face do you want me to be?

In the NHS I've managed IT, complaints, contracting, GP practices, Nursing Homes inspections, patient transport, Clinical directorates (Cardiac, General Surgery, Urology etc), Sterile Services, medical records, been responsible for the Trust estate and HSAW, project managed major developments and been a Director on a Trust Board.

In the private sector I've managed two hospitals directly, been a regional director respopnsible for the clinical and financial performance of 17 hospitals, led a project to build a hospital overseas, been a director on a number of PFI SPV Boards, overseen the management of 4 hospitals in the Middle East, been a Non Exec director for a company providing FAcilities Management to 85 hospitals in Malaysia. I have spent much of the last twenty years working with nurses, doctors of all grades from trainee to Consultants and academic professors to improve services to patients.

I am neither a nurse or a doctor but armed with the above experience, I can take the temperature of most hospitals I walk into and gauge their effectiveness, the quality of services and the calibre of management very quickly.

Believe me - I do want a better and more efficient NHS, mostly because I know how inefficient it really is.

[Undisputedtruth]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> UDT - your standard of debate maintains its usual

> mixture of abuse and lies. In common with your

> fellow travellers you seem unable to present an

> argument setting out your case for blocking

> reform.

>

> As I have said before I have no financial interest

> in the outcome of the Bill. I do have an interest

> in seeing an improved and more efficient NHS. Your

> continued insinuation that I am motivated by money

> is insulting, boring and libellous.

There is nothing libellous in what I'm saying, Marmora Man. It is not unreasonable to think that you could benefit from the changes in the NHS. The NHS reforms are about increasing the private sector involvement.

[El Pibe]

AS substantive criticisms go, there are quite a few placed in this article.

Worth reading: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5058

including an organogram from the FT

before

http://www.dcscience.net/nhs-prev-s.jpg

after

http://www.dcscience.net/nhs-new-s.jpg

and describes the growth of NHS statutory organisations from 163 to 521 (not sure where the streamlining and cost saving are to be found there)

These two points from a linked to Telegraph article also seem to cause concern:

"The power to determine the services that make up the NHS will be transferred from the Secretary of State to newly created Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which are unelected. Members will include GPs but also company chief executives who can, if they wish, outsource decisions about the appropriate level of services offered to companies with commercial interests. This is what the Government means when it says it is handing GPs ?60 billion of NHS money. ?

?Monitor. This quango is composed of unelected and unaccountable individuals. It will not have overarching responsibility ? which the Government does currently ? to ensure that everyone?s health needs are met.? ?It will have the power to decide, on purely financial grounds, if an area loses its existing range of hospital services, such as A&E departments, with no duty to consider alternative provision."

I can't help but feel that the Tories are just trotting down the privatisation route with no particular strategy or purpose in mind.

It can't be to save money as this certainly looks more expensive to me.

Of their road strategy announced the other day I simply couldn't work out how Cameron was justifying that we would get 'more for our money' when he's clearly proposing privatising the supply of roads without an introduction of tolls.

'our money' will obviously be going to feed profits, so how on earth are we getting more for it than now, and we can certainly kiss goodbye to provision according to a national strategy rather than having a few companies providing improvements or even competitive services for on few choice trunk routes.

Sounds daft to me.

Forgive me if i alight from the fence on the side of the naysayers on this.

This just sounds like another expensive PFI deal to me that the tax payer will be footing the bill for god knows how long to come.

[El Pibe]

Hmm, and whilst some of these are tenuous, taken as a whole it begins to hum a little.

[Chippy Minton]

I hear tonight there's going to be a Freedom of Information request to ask how many cabinet members have associations with health care companies.

No doubt there won't be a quick answer, but it should allow people to see just how strong that hum is!

[nashoi]

I think there should be FOI request to find out if Andrew Lansley appeared in Footloose

[Undisputedtruth]

Ministers lied to push through NHS reforms, Labour peer claims

[Loz]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> Hmm, and whilst some of these are tenuous, taken as a whole it begins to hum a little.

Tenuous doesn't even begin to describe some of them - I mean, 'has shares in Vodaphone group'? Whoopee doo.

I went through the 62 Tory lords listed (couldn't be bothered to do them all) and only 18 I would count as having anything approaching a meaningful relationship with the companies listed, based on the information given.

My favourite, which was used twice, was "Shares in Diageo plc an alcohol drinks company who have been awarded money to teach midwives in England and Wales on the dangers of alcohol. No, you can't make it up." Ironically, I think that is pretty much what the article authors did, if they think that is a serious enough link to sway a lord's voting intention.