NHS

Our big general hospital has sold off several of its wards and departments to private health care companies. They undertake treatment of NHS patients and are paid by the NHS for doing so.
This seems a very odd way of going about it, but apparently, the private care company can carry out treatments more quickly and efficiently than the present NHS set-up, AND they make a profit!
I recently had a minor operation there, and I had no complaints at all. It was spotlessly clean ( they have their own hygiene team) efficient, well-staffed and comfortable.
I am not in favour of private medicine, and am a great advocate for the NHS, but how does a situation like this arise? I can only surmise that bad management practices might be to blame.

Gangy5, thanks. You do not have to read all the links, just the ones that sound most interesting.

I thought there was more tax on cigarettes, alcohol and sugar. I do not understand how people can afford to smoke these days.

For over thirty years I have been vegetarian, eaten organic food, walked most days, swam when I could, same as my husband did.
It didn't stop him from dying from a brain tumour, or me having an aortic dissection. Neither of us was overweight. I think we took responsibility for our own health. It's not always black and white.

Sluttygran, private health care companies cream off the stuff that makes them a profit. The NHS is left with the things that the private companies do not want to bid for. When there is no longer an NHS, the private companies will put their prices up.

"Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated but some items are standard-rated, including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water."

I call that a tax on the sort of foods we are not supposed to eat.

You are right about health issues not being black and whit dj and I am really sorry to hear about your husband and your health problem. Our society is a very unequal one and becoming more so. In their book the Spirit Level by Picket and Wilkinson, published about 4 years ago, they show that the more unequal economically a society becomes, the more there is a rise in mental health, and other health issues, as well as other problems, too many to go into here. So it is much more complex than simply taking personal responsibility for our health.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/05/24/why-we-can-and-why-we-should-now-have-a-wealth-tax/

Richard Murphy's latest reasoning on inequality.

nhaspace.com/2016/05/24/open-letter-from-dr-clive-peedell-to-jeremy-hunt-regarding-the-legality-of-the-latest-top-down-nhs-reorganisation/

Interesting. Is the new Simon Stevens reorganisation even legal?

Interesting and good that someone is on the case dj, but no doubt JH will wheedle his way out. I'm feeling quite depressed about the whole thing.

Lazigirl

I am extremely worried about the NHS. The so called "Future Fit" programme want to close an A/E unit in Shropshire leaving only one for a large population that covers quite a chunk of mid Wales. Surely this can't be what those who voted for this government envisaged.

I am puzzled as to why a large number of the Welsh population is using the hard-pressed English NHS. The Welsh people voted for a Labour Assembly (it is not so predominantly Labour since the recent election I grant you). The Welsh Assembly runs the NHS in Wales so what is going wrong there - why is there no hospital to service the people of Mid-Wales? That is unfair on the people of Shropshire whose waiting lists will presumably be longer because of this.

Lazigirl, they need a good lawyer on the case.
If we get too depressed we can end up not trying to do anything about it. In which case the privatisers win.

Historically there has always been an arrangement that people in mid Wales use Shropshire hospitals and this is reimbursed from Welsh budget. A friend who lives in Powys does have a longer waiting time for hospital appointments than we do I think.

All hospitals are 'compensated' for seeing people out of their area.

If you believe everything you read in the press the Duchess of Cambridge had a 23 strong team of specialists of every type each time she gave birth. They all met monthly and then nearer the time weekly, for a planning meeting to ensure everything was covered.
Some peoples NHS seems " to be safe in their hands".

The Lindo Wing at St Mary's Hospital is private Annsixty . If the royals want to pay for 23 people good luck to them. Thank goodness they didn't all want to be in the delivery room at once!
It used to be a requirement that the Prime Minister was present at the birth of the heir to the throne. Presumably to avoid hanky panky with warming pans and smuggled in babies of the correct gender. What a thought - DC or JC or BJ should it ever come to it!!!

Yes the Lindo Wing is private but the staff are NHS employees.

I didn't really suppose they would leave themselves open to the NHS. An article further on in the DT says that a cancer specialist Dr Karol Sikora suggests getting to know consultants receptionists and secretaries and sending them small gifts such as chocolates "to ensure they bag a prompt appointment". That says it all for me. I'm off to Thorntons and expect to get my new knee very very quickly.

If the gov was genuinely concerned about nicotine, alcohol and sugar they'd do more about it than simply loading taxes on them. This is a money maker.

We have to accept that smokers are addicts so they need support to give up but we also need to make it harder for new smokers to become hooked. Addicts should register with their GP and get their cigarettes from a pharmacy. Addicts should have some sort of registration card and without it no one should be allowed to buy cigarettes. The new vapour things are a nightmare imo. No one really knows what the smoke is doing to the smoker or the passive smoker.

Alcohol is a different problem. People drink for a variety of reasons and it's a drug that society accepts. I don't drink because I hate the sensation of being drunk and, due to ex, drunk people scare me but I accept that a lot of people enjoy the odd glass of wine or g and t. DD2 works in a bar. She has to decide if someone has had too much to drink but it's a subjective decision. She may refuse to serve someone but they simply go to another bar and get served there. Perhaps we should ban people who cause trouble when drunk from firstly going into any pub and if they continues to drink and cause trouble we should ban them from consuming any alcohol. Rather than ban the substance ban the people who abuse it and cause trouble.

Sugar is a natural substance. You can't tax something that exists in a multitude of forms. I like a nice apple. At the moment fruit is zero rated but it contains natural sugars. Should fruit be taxed? Sugar isn't the cause of obesity. We're in the very fortunate position of being able to access lots of food and not have to do heavy work which burns off the calories. A lot of people simply eat too much. There are many reasons why this happens Sugar isn't to blame.

I think you will find that the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, disagrees with you VQ as she clearly states in her latest annual report on the state of the public’s health that sugar is a large part of the problem.

I'll go with her considered and expert opinion based on statistics I think.

nhap.org/nha-issues-warning-about-selling-nhs-blood-plasma-supplier-to-chinese-company-creat/

This is worrying.

I'm not going to argue about tobacco and alcohol taxes, but vq has a point about sugar tax. If a sugar tax on fizzy drinks leads to lower consumption, it's not a bad thing, but what about the sugar in fruit juices, tinned fruit (including tomatoes) and so-called natural yoghurts, etc?

I hope people aren't lulled into a sense of false security by the sugar tax. The body doesn't know whether the source of sugar is a can of coke or a bunch of grapes. The only advantage the grapes have is that, if eaten with their skins, they have some fibre and will keep you feeling fuller for longer. A big bowl of fruit salad or a handful of dried fruit is likely to have as much sugar as a fizzy drink and be just as calorific. Orange juice has more sugar than the equivalent amount of coke.

Oh dj not more bad news I can't bear it and the only way I can think of to draw attention to all this is for a few militant grandparents to travel to Dept of Health in Whitehall and stage a NAKED protest outside! It will at least raise awareness! Anyone for it? Perhaps wait til weather's a bit warmer, it's quite chilly today.

If the gov was genuinely concerned about nicotine, alcohol and sugar they'd do more about it than simply loading taxes on them. This is a money maker.
No government is going to do much more than tut, tut, put warning notices on packs of cigarettes and keep taking the tax vq.
Nicotine is a drug, alcohol is a type of drug but I am sorry - sugar is a food.

No Lazigirl, although it would clear Whitehall
I suppose if I had a spray tan first

Daphne It's not true that the sugar in whole fruit is as damaging as the sugar in fruit juice. Nor are the sugars in plain youghurt harmful.
When fruit is macerated to make juice, the fructose is released from the cells and when you drink it, the fructose is immediately absorbed and goes straight to the liver where it is converted into fat.
With whole fruit, the fructose is contained within the cells and much less of it is absorbed.
The sugar in milk and plain yoghurt is lactose and is not harmful.

@janeainsworth

I disagree with you. I am diabetic and I have experimented with BG testing strips after eating fruit, fruit juice and spoonfuls of sugar. Some fruits and fruit juice raise my BG levels just as much and as quickly as plain sugar.

Some scientists think that fructose is worse than sucrose. Glucose and fructose are absorbed directly into the bloodstream.

Daphne I can't comment on your diabetes and the effect it has on your metabolism, but a medium-sized orange contains about 12 g of fructose, compared to a 200ml glass of orange juice which contains 20g.
That alone means that eating oranges as whole fruit is less harmful than consuming it as juice.
Apples vs apple juice is similar.