Torres show their true colours

The cheapest way to run an organisation is efficiently. The second thing, in the case of public services, is that they should not be run for a profit. While many goods will be bought from the private sector, if any part of the NHS is outsourced it should be to an organisation not run for profit, like a charity, not to a commercial company run for profit.

Dinahmo Many, and it may soon be most, who opt for private care do not do have health insurance and pay for it out of savings. They pay for it because the NHS cannot, or will not provide proper care within a reasonable time, for life-containing or very painful conditions and for most these are minor conditions like cataracts, where treating older members of society is considered unnecessary because they do not work and contribute nothing to society to make it worth while.

Delays in such operations as cataracts or carpal tunnel syndrome can have serious repercussions in older people and trip them up into being housebound, lonely and lead to a serious decline in their overall health.

The NHS was set up to provide a universal health service post WW2. Until that time all medicine had to be paid for. At this time, even the Tories agreed it would be a good thing.

As far as I can see from documentation it was not set up just because of infectious diseases but to improve the health of the population. Think back to the 1950s when there was a school nurse, local clinics for maternity and child development etc. Local authorities were to provide preventative medicine whilst the hospital system was to care for all those needing treatment, not just those who could afford it and the deserving poor.

Today, positive preventative intervention may slowly be returning e.g. doctors telling patients to loose weight for their health, take more exercise etc. This is because IMO drugs are not working and are increasingly a drain on the public purse. Diet has long been recognised as a method of improving public health - school milk for calcium, orange juice for vitamin C and cod liver oil for vit A. Before both WW1 and WW2 the health of the man in the street was seen to be poor by army doctors and this was improved by proper rations for the troops and medical care when necessary.

The medical profession and governments have recognised for at least a century and a half that a large number of working people had insufficient nutrients in their poor diets, leading to ill health. Thus a real push post war to improve health and welfare.

Infectious diseases are now again on the increase, with TB resistant to current drugs and low vaccination rates. This of course is not to mention the global spread of other infections because of increased travel.

We certainly need a different model to the drift towards the return of private medicine where only those who could afford it would be treated.

Does anyone actually suggest that private medicine works in the USA where in many hospitals proof of insurance has to be provided before treatment and many are left with no recourse to medical help.

The system in continental Europe (Germany was the forerunner) has been in development since the second half of the 19th century. Private insurance companies have to provide the level of treatment as specified by the government and employers pay a larger percentage than do our employers. All are now covered by this government controlled partnership including those with ongoing health issues. Rather different than our private health companies who can decide to withdraw treatment as already discussed further back in this discussion.

I’m all for better treatment for all but not at the expense of a universal system for all.

The NHS was set up to combat infectious diseases which have largely been eradicated. It was thought , that a healthier population would need less health care, but the opposite has happened. Fewer people dying of infectious diseases, but more living with chronic ailments has led to more demands on the service. I think if we were designing the NHS today, we’d come up with a different model.

ayse and Dinahmo I agree with everything you say. The cost of private provision is bleeding the NHS dry.

Several years ago a friend had a gynae op in a private hospital. She told me that there were no doctors in the hospital at night and, if anyone became too ill for the nursing staff to deal with, an ambulance would be called and the patient would be taken to an NHS hospital.

People use private hospitals if they have insurance cover and can queue jump. What many don't realise is that the cover is likely to run out if the illness is long term. Back in the 70s I audited a private clinic which had a separate ward for geriatric patients. After 10 weeks the insurers stopped paying for the private care and places found elsewhere for those people.

Why do some think that the private sector provides a better service? Private industry rarely provides a service as such. They are in it to make a profit!

An example: The East Coast line has been run by a variety of private companies all of which were divested of the franchise. It has been taken back under state control temporarily and has been run at a “profit” but then is shuffled back to the private sector.

Recently the National Audit Office discovered thousands of letters, not sent out by a company that was employed to do basic admin work that didn’t happen, thus putting patients at risk.

No doubt that changes need to be made. Private hospitals should all have to be equipped with emergency facilities rather than shipping patients back to the NHS for urgent treatment, such as heart attacks. I was shocked when a friend told me of this experience. He had not previously been a supporter of public medicine.

This week, my DH, having been referred for a hearing test to Specsavers in a particular location. He arrived with his letter at the appointment, only to find he was not on their list and had been transferred to another centre in 2 weeks time. How is this customer service. He is not particularly mobile and had to take the bus. I was disgusted!

As for the Libdems, the are a centrist party and nothing they do surprises me anymore.

Our social welfare system is being demolished piece by piece, to fill the pockets of big business; care organisations who close when profits disappear leaving many older people in difficulty; pharmaceutical companies who sell us drugs we don’t need (statins for all) etc. I’m sure some of you that are on the same page as me can give plenty of other examples.

Private industry is dog eat dog and I for one do not see the benefit to society that others see.

Oldgoat her voting record is appalling. I was shocked when I read about it.

Jo Swinston's voting record on the 'They work for you' website reveals that she:-

Almost always voted for reducing housing benefits,

Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits,

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits,

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over a long period for those unable to work due to illness or disability.

Not quite the 'Ms. Nice guy' then?

Haha BradfordLass72! I thought it was about Fernando Torres, a rather handsome Spanish footballer who used to play for Liverpool and Chelsea!

You'll have a deputation of Torres Islanders on your doorstep any moment

Jeremy Corbyn
@jeremycorbyn

An amazing effort by Luis, his mum Christina and everyone who's campaigned to ensure patients with cystic fibrosis get the medicine they need on the NHS.

twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1187737082585894912?s=20

Patients' lives must not be held to ransom by pharmaceutical companies' greed.

@ThisMorning
#ThisMorning

I am glad that the LibDem abstention is not as bad as it first appeared. It gave a very bad message though, and was not a clever move politically.
I used to think that the LibDems were o.k. and would be natural coalition partners for Labour, but the actions of Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and now Jo Swinson have made me see them differently. Their voting record, particularly Jo Swinson, has just been so right wing. I find this worrying and disappointing.

As regards the NHS, a few posts on here demonstrate, I think that a sort of pick and mix of treatments is just never going to work because different people see different conditions as not needing to be treated. I.e. some say don't treat foreigners before they can prove an ability to pay, some say don't treat infertility, others object to drug addicts or alcoholics being treated. Who could we trust to make these judgements? Everyone has their own bias in these matters.

Another thing that I think is worth remembering is that there are some conditions that the N H S now never or very very rarely has to treat, say TB, diphtheria, scarlet fever etc. Diseases that have almost been eradicated, in part because of the NHS.

It is ridiculous to talk about the NHS as if it were a big black hole into which money simply disappears. Most of the money put into the NHS goes to the private sector in that every single item of equipment, every cleaning cloth, every item of food etc. etc. is supplied to the NHS by the private sector. Even staff wages are spent mostly in the private sector. So the private sector benefits enormously already. And most of the money the state invests in the NHS comes back to them by way of taxation.

What narks the private sector is that they have limited opportunity to profit from providing NHS services. There is no compelling reason why they should be given a free rein to do so.

The government documents Five Year Forward View, their so-called Sustainability and Tranformation Plans and the Ten Year Plan are nearly the last pieces in the jigsaw of their privatisation polices. The first was presented at Davos at the Workd Economic Forum, apparently. It has been claimed the STP stands for Slash, Trash and Privatise or Secret Tory Plans. I gather in an effort to make it seem there is agreement they now call now partenerships instead of plans. And another name change to integrated care systems, then Integrated Care Providers! They really do think the public are stupid to be fooled by that old tactic.

You heard the late great Professor Hawking. They didn't call him a genius for noting. It wasn't his field but he was spot on. He summed it up on a sentence. The NHS is being replaced by forty-four US-style insurance-based private organisations. No question.

The Accounable Care Organisations were conceived in the USA. They involve government and private insurers awarding contracts to commercial providers to run and provide services. That is total privatisation. They are non-NHS bodies. They decide which services are available, who gets them and what to now make people pay for. Quality is generally worse, and costs higher. There has been no public consultation. They suck in social care, which of course is means-tested so this has far reaching implications for the availability of free health care. They won't allow a debate on this either. The Integrated Care Prividers frontba network of private companies, private providers and insurance companies.

This is some of what I have copied down from a book written by Dr Paul Hobday who was so worried about what is happening to our NHS that he wrote The Deceit Syndrome catch 69

All profits from sales go to people fighting to save our NHS

In brief
Claim
19 Liberal Democrat MPs refused to support a motion to stop privatisation of the NHS.
Conclusion
The motion in question would not have stopped privatisation in the NHS, nor would it have necessarily repealed the Health and Social Care Act.
Yesterday parliament voted against a motion brought forward by the Labour party to express regret that the Queen’s Speech didn’t include a pledge to repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.
All Liberal Democrat MPs abstained from the vote, and viral tweet subsequently claimed that “19 Liberal Democrat MPs refused to support a motion to stop privatisation of the NHS”
The motion would not have stopped the “privatisation of the NHS”. To describe the motion and the Liberal Democrats decision not to support it as such is misleading and excludes important context.
The tweet was deleted after publication of this article.
Thanks varian I must admit to being shocked when I first heard about it but I'm relieved that my faith in the LibDems has not been broken.

Fullfact is an independent factchecker. The tweets which suggested that the LibDems were supporting the Tories on this have since been deleted.

It’s misleading to claim the Lib Dems refused to support an end to NHS privatisation

The motion in question would not have stopped privatisation in the NHS, nor would it have necessarily repealed the Health and Social Care Act.

The motion would not have stopped the “privatisation of the NHS”. To describe the motion and the Liberal Democrats decision not to support it as such is misleading and excludes important context.

fullfact.org/health/liberal-democrat-nhs-privatisation/

lemongrove Totally agree with your post.

The NHS was founded in different times, it is stagnating and badly managed, they pay far more for paracetamol and plastic gloves then major supermarkets which is a ridiculous situation.

The NHS needs a total overhaul from top bosses to cleaners and everything in between.

If you have the misfortune to falll ill or have an accident abroad before any treatment you are asked for a credit card or insurance details (EHIC covers basics in EU countries), not so in the U.K. for tourists.

These details could be asked for/confirmed during the "booking in" process.

WishIwas....the NHS was set up to deliver health care at the time it was set up, there was no infertility treatment, no real hope for prem babies, no heart transplants, no laser surgery to get rid of port wine stains etc etc etc.People didn’t travel here from other countries to avail themselves of free surgery either.The population was nothing like today.In short, times have changed.The NHS will have to change.

What about not treating any conditions related to ageing ladymuck ageing is not an illness either. That would save a lot more money than the amount spent on infertility.

ladymuck Is infetility not a 'genuine health problem'? I would be interested to hear what else you consider to come under that banner.

The NHS was originally set up to provide basic health care for those who could not afford it. As usual, people were not content with that and now expect it to provide far more than its original purpose.
The NHS should go back to providing treatment for genuine health problems and charge people for non-medical problems (such as infertility). Then the whole thing might be run more efficiently, be more cost-effective and it would pay for itself.

Ilovecheese; I'm still trying to find out more about the LibDems abstaining but I think it was because the vote meant taking away part of the current legislation but not replacing it with anything better.

I think something of the sort will happen here eventually Joelsnan.After all, 70 years ago when the NHS was set up, things were very different, it’s not credible that things can continue as they were.

I think what will probably emanate from this would be an NHS based in co-pay which many EU countries have already. I understand France has this type of system and it appears to work well.