What's so special about the NHS?

[Earl Aelfheah]

That depends what you mean by 'the left'. Basically, if you want it to mean someone who is on the extreme left, then of course, yes, by definition they will be dogmatic. But I'm talking about the mainstream parties who broadly stand on opposite sides of the political divide. If I use your logic then 'the right' are all fascists.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You are right about Lloyds (my mistake), but I didn't mention Northern Rock/Bradford and bingley and as I said, it's not particularly relevant to my point. You can knock down straw men if you like, but the point that I was making is that the Tories take a dogmatically ideological position with regards privatisation, rather than a pragmatic one.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think that is your biased observation. You

> seem

> > to be saying that when Labour do a bad

> > privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the

> > Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the

> > evidence for that statement?

> >

> > > You couldn't turn that around and accuse

> Labour

> > of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity.

> >

> > I would say there is little, if no difference,

> > between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory.

>

> > NHS, council housing, utilities have all been

> > privatised, prepared for privatisation or

> listed

> > for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In

> > fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such

> a

> > hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e.

> post

> > Thatcher/Major) there was little to no

> > privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had

> > changed markedly, especially though PPI.

> >

> > Can you list a few areas that Tories have

>d?

>

> You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the

> private sector for service delivery. Whether one

> agrees with where and how they've chosen to do

> this is another debate. The point is, they are

> willing to accept private sector involvement or

> not, depending on the case. My point was that The

> Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state

> should commission services, not run them (a point

> you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a

> position which basically says, the state should

> not be involved in running services regardless of

> circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely

> ideological.

So Loz, rather than trying to debate the merits of individual privatisations, whats your respnse to my main point?

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> > You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the private sector for service delivery. Whether one

> > agrees with where and how they've chosen to do this is another debate. The point is, they are

> > willing to accept private sector involvement or not, depending on the case. My point was that The

> > Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state should commission services, not run them (a point

> > you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a position which basically says, the state should

> > not be involved in running services regardless of circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely

> > ideological.

>

> So Loz, rather than trying to debate the merits of

> individual privatisations, whats your respnse to my main point?

My response is that you are again looking at Labour privatisations through rose-coloured glasses and your 'point' doesn't bear deeper scrutiny. The pace of privatisation did not at all slow during the Blair/Brown administrations (and, indeed, went where Major feared to tread). I cannot recall Labour ever reversing a Tory privatisation by policy, only when forced to by circumstances (i.e. Network Rail). The history of privatisation in the UK just does not support your view.

[mark88]

Forget politics - I have terminal cancer , I have been treated by the NHS since 2007 when the fabulous surgeons at The Royal Marsden Hospital removed a 4 kg tumour.Sadly it came back 2 years ago and now I am on palliative chemotherapy ,my treatment could not have been better and that's all I have to say .If you have an ingrowing toe nail and feel a bit underwhelmed by your treatment then thats tough, get over it OR GO PRIVATE !

For 9 months I was on a trial drug that cost ?190 / day to the NHS and it didn't cost me a penny, had I had private health insurance it would have only covered me for 3 months on this drug hence I may not have been around to type this !

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[aquarius moon]

What a heartless post. Unbelievable.

If you bothered to read the post by mark88 properly you would know that he isn't recovering at all.

But you are obviously too busy bickering with Loz & talking politics (yet again)

I feel so sorry for you mark88. I do agree with you about the NHS and am pleased that you've been happy with the treatment you received.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I apologise, I misread Mark88's post.

Edited to add: I've removed my previous two posts as it was not my intention to upset anyone.

[NewWave]

mark88 Wrote:

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

> Forget politics - I have terminal cancer , I have

> been treated by the NHS since 2007 when the

> fabulous surgeons at The Royal Marsden Hospital

> removed a 4 kg tumour.Sadly it came back 2 years

> ago and now I am on palliative chemotherapy ,my

> treatment could not have been better and that's

> all I have to say .If you have an ingrowing toe

> nail and feel a bit underwhelmed by your treatment

> then thats tough, get over it OR GO PRIVATE !

> For 9 months I was on a trial drug that cost ?190

> / day to the NHS and it didn't cost me a penny,

> had I had private health insurance it would have

> only covered me for 3 months on this drug hence I

> may not have been around to type this !

The NHS saved my life, and Prolonged my mothers who survived 7years after her diagnosis thanks to blood transfusions,Plasma exchange, and Chemo.

Yes-along with many other people I get angsty when I find it hard to get a GP appointment or wait months for a physiotherapy referral but when you really really need them the NHS is incredible-we are so lucky to live in a country where such a health service exists.

And Mark88 stay strong and god bless.

[aquarius moon]

NewWave, I so agree with you.

mark88, very courageous of you to post here and what NewWave said, stay strong and God bless x

rahrahrah, you did the right thing. It was nice of you to remove the posts.

[PeckhamRose]

Over ten times my life has been saved from acute asthma attacks by the NHS.

However, I know someone with severe mental health illness and the NHS is not able to help sufficiently. If you have a broken bit of body they're there for you till it's fixed. If your mind is broke, the NHS can't cope. The Community Mental Health teams are overworked to the max with high staff turnover and so there's rarely any continuity of care which is important in mental health care. I think this area of the NHS is shameful. And it's not helped by a government that punishes the sick with no benefits if they fail ATOS tests, which means they are often in more need of health care because they can't afford it. I know this is the East Dulwich Forum and not many of you will know of this side of society (she said, maybe sounding patronising without meaning to), but I promise you this happens. The NHS does waste money without a doubt. Management structures are out of control, and the Complaints System is woefully inadequate. The GP practices (and this was on the news this morning) are now all well over capacity with many GPs retiring and not enough wanting to fill the vacancies.

What's so special about the NHS? It has a great history, and it maybe once was the best in the world, but society's problems are also the NHS problems. I also fear for its future.

[indiepanda]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> However, I know someone with severe mental health

> illness and the NHS is not able to help

> sufficiently. If you have a broken bit of body

> they're there for you till it's fixed. If your

> mind is broke, the NHS can't cope.

This is so true. I've seen my mother's life destroyed by mental health issues, and in the process, my dad's too. It seems mental health services have always been hopelessly underfunded. I do wonder what would happened if she'd access to talking therapies when she was much younger but all that was on offer for many years was drugs, which in most cases at best control symptoms but don't offer a cure.

She's now old enough that even when help has been offered (after a lengthy stay in hospital) she's become too entrenched in her ways to be willing to engage with it. The one real respite my Dad was getting from caring for her was the one day a week she went to a day centre for people with mental heath issues - lasted a couple of months and then the centre closed and the service wasn't offered elsewhere.

I do wonder whether some of the priorities in the NHS aren't just a bit screwed. My nan when in her late eighties was treated for bowel cancer, with no prospect of a cure, and the extra months she got were all spent in hospital with some unpleasant side effects that it appears they'd failed to make clear before they started treatment. She said before she died if she had been told about the poor quality of the extra life she'd be given by the treatment she'd have said no thanks. I don't like to imagine how much money was spent on this - felt like they were more concerned about prolonging life at any cost than allowing her to die with some dignity.

[Jeremy]

Well... I had a tumour when I was a child, and the NHS treatment probably saved my life too. But to be blunt, this is missing the point. Just because we benefitted from life saving/prolonging treatment doesn't automatically make our system better than other western european countries.