Can the Tories be trusted with OUR National Health Service

Does anyone know when hospital cleaning services were first contracted out? I'm asking because when my brother was in the JR in Oxford for quite a long time, my parents, who only knew very clean-looking hospitals in Lancashire at the time, commented on how dirty the stairwells were. That would be 1989.

For the sake of argument:

Do people think the health services in other, equivalent European countries are worse than our NHS? If they are as good or better it does illustrate, does it not, that there are other good ways to provide health care than our model? And since our model seems beset with problems, perhaps it's no longer the best model.

I don't think its problems are all down to underfunding though it seems we are trying to achieve what costs more in similar countries.

Prediction: some people won't understand the phrase "for the sake of argument" and will jump to politically biassed conclusions about my views on the NHS. This will be amusing.

Surely if something is broke you try and fix it and you can only do so by looking at what works well and what does not.

The problem with the NHS it is a sacred cow and it is used as a political football.

I never understand the mantra that the NHS is a 'free' service. No it's not!. I think that view is part of the problem as to why there is abuse of the system.

Just come back from my gorgeous Portuguese dentist. In Portugal since the crash they have decided to charge people a nominal sum for each time they use the service with the stated intention to get back to no charge once the country is back presumably out of deficit. I couldn't find anything else out as I didn't want to take up my gorgeous mans time.

bags we looked at all the European models a while back. I came to the conclusion that our NHS would be far better out of the governments (any governments) hands or at the very least held at arms length.

I was extremely impressed with some of the models especially the Swiss and German.

This conversation needs to be had urgently imo.

Yes I do think that the NHS is less secure in Tory hands, but that does not mean that I think it should remain as the current model. We can all argue that Labour will spend more and that it is a political choice as to how much is spent, but my argument is that it is too fundamentally important to trust our health care to any government whim.

Joelsnan not sure that you mean "white elephant" - and I agree that there have been systematic bed reductions.
But where do you get the idea that the problem of increasing older people is not also a significant issue.
Of course there area a lot of very healthy older people around. However if we also have a lot of unhealthy ones with multiple health problems - dementia for instance.
Cancer too, is predominantly a disease of older people.
Half of all cancer cases are in the over 70s (ref Cancerresearchuk)
So if the numbers of over 70s year olds go up every year, the amount of cancer treatment will increase in proportion.
www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics#heading-Zero

JessM
There have always been a lot of unhealthy older people, that is just a fact of life and their health conditions often appeared earlier in life than they do nowadays often due to workplace ailments, chest conditions etc. Dementia is not a new phenomenon and yes 1/3 of us will probably die of cancer, but again these are not new conditions, they have always been there and have always previously be dealt with as normal Not something extraordinary and something to blame the elderly for.
What we must realise is not that we have an ageing population, maybe we do have a lower birth rate than in the 1950s but the large number of new residents to the country through immigration negates this argument.
All this blame fog is just to hide the underfunding process crippling the service until everyone agrees that privatisation is the only option.

No joel privatisation is not the only option. All the health models in Europe will testify to that. The are so many options, we do not need to throw in the towel and allow our hard earned cash go to the profit mongers

My worry about the current government is its ideological bias towards privatising public services. Theresa May talks a good talk and I wish she'd demonstrate greater practical commitment to her expressed with to ensure the NHS is safe in her hands. I would like to see hard cash put into e.g. CAMHS so that children and young people can be treated, on a residential basis where necessary, close to their home address.
From friends who live in France or Germany, it seems their health services work well. I accept that in France, there is a small fee to see your family doctor. I do believe that cost effectiveness is important but I don't see making a profit as being helpful to health services.
Rosesarered suggests that the OP is odd because all tory voters would say yes, all labour voters would say no, the NHS isn't safe in the hands of the current government. I suspect that isn't entirely accurate as the recent polls I've seen all suggested the vast majority of those asked saw the NHS as safer with the Tories than with Labour. I'm traditionally a Labour voter but sadly, wouldn't trust JC and his trusty MPs with walking my dogs, never mind anything more serious.

Well said Iam

Whitewave I agree that privatisation us not the only option, but the government appears to be railroading the service towards this. Currently the NHS branding is being used as an umberella to a myriad of private for profit organisations that are actually providing the services. Unless something is done to reverse this process and bring these services back in house the costs will continue to rise, the services will decline and we will reach the point of no return in the drive towards privatisation.

Whatever else may be wrong with the NHS, the fact that it might use some private services isn't, as a matter of course, the wrong option. Our local Trust pays local private hospitals for certain services which, for example, allows NHS patients access to scanners whichbitherwise wouldn't be available at all - unless the trust built entirely new scanning units with the eye watering coasts involved. And to suggest that the aging population has no significant impact on NHS costs is just ridiculous. Funding is clearly one issue, and this might be partially fixed by a dedicated tax for health provision. I also like the idea of taking ownership away from the Govt.

Fitzy54 we already have a dedicated tax for health orovision it is called National Insurance. No one has suggested that elder care has no significant impact on NHS costs what was said was that this was always the case, but previously this was considered normal not as now where the cost suddenly appears to be an issue. What do you suggest, euthanasia at 50? Don't forget the elders who may require the help of the NHS are those who have paid the most in NI contributions.
Those who applaud the use of private hospitals fail to understand that the cost to the NHS of using these facilities could go some way in providing those services to all. Again this is a ploy by the government to underfund the NHS so that the scanners etc. you mention are unaffordable. I know in my own home town the scanner was paid for by public fundraising. Incidentally this large general hospital is under threat of closure because the health authority it was merged with brought with if a massive unsustainable debt to private investors for building work done. This debt is so tightly written into the contract that it cannot be paid off early or renegotiated so the alternative is to close a much needed hospital to save costs and service this debt.

NI doesn't go direct to the NHS thought does it? It just goes into the Treasury 'pot'.

Fitzy54
Do a little research into bankruptcies in the US and you will find the majority are as a result of medical costs...do you want this for UK?

www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

This is a useful article from a reputable source. Funding is an issue and its no good saying how good the French, Swiss etc systems are compared to ours when they spend more as a % of GDP. As for NI- it only pays for 20% of the NHS costs - the vast majority comes from general taxation and a small amount from co- payments like dental, optical and prescription charges. POGs I think most of us on here understand the phrase free NHS to mean free at the point of use ( with of course a few exceptions). It's not a mantra - it's a fundementally principle of how it was was set up. Some may not agree with the fact that it is mostly free at the point of use but that's a point to be discussed

Joelsnan,

NI is not a dedicated health provision tax. It's just thrown in with all the other tax revenue. What I think people would accept is a tax rise (and. Not just a soak the rich tax, but, of course, the better off would pay more) where then extra money is to be used solely for healthcare.
As to the elderly, the cost of treating them has increased hugely. It isn't just a case of the same cost always having been there. This is a point made not just by the govt. but by all the experts asking for more funding.
My example of the private hospital scanner and the cost of an NHS replacement was not getting at the cost of the hardware itself (though that let are not cheap) but the cost of providing and staffing a full time unit to run it - absolutely huge. If, for example (I'm making up some figures but you will get the idea) an NHS hospital has scanning facilities which cater for only 90% of its needs, it might be much more efficient to take up some available slack in a local private hospital than buy another scanner, build a new unit to house it, and pay full time staff to operate it. I'm not saying private provision of services is always right- but there are instances where it will be.

Apologies for all the typos!

My DH is on a woodworking forum, the majority of whom are American. One chap has recently had to sell his house in order to pay for a heart operation. Another can't afford the operation he needs. In my view the poor in A Merida are no better off than people in developing countries.

Another point I would like to make. In the dentists waiting room today a man came in asking for antibiotics as he'd had toothache for a couple of days. I was astounded to hear him say that he had gone to A&E last night because of toothache!!!!!! What a wimp. They are the sort that should be charged for wasting good time.

thatbags I thought it was Virginia Bottemly who first brought in outside cleaning services, but I could be wrong.

whitewave if the guy was asking for antibiotics it was probably an abscess rather than 'just' toothache, Saying that, today I've had a tooth removed after a night or two with 'just' toothache. No trip to A&E, but blooming agony.

The US system is extreme. Great for those who have expensive insurance cover, very poor for the rest. Very different to the use of some private services by NHS hospitals, at no charge to the NHS patients.

Joelsnan there is no point in denying something that is a known fact. This is a quote from the Office of National Statistics, relating to their analysis of census data:
"In 2011, 9.2 million residents were aged 65 and over, an increase of almost 1 million from 2001 with 8.3 million. Results show that just 50% of those aged over 65 reported their health to be “very good” or “good”, compared with 88% of the rest of the population."
This number is set to continue to rise because of more people being born in the 1950s. Everyone has known this for decades.
It is also well known that immigrants are disproportionately young and healthy compared to the UK population so make fewer demands on the NHS on average than non immigrants.

So why is the media always blaming the UK's 'ageing population' for the NHS crisis?