Is our NHS already lost

I saw a pharmacist saying that she has found that some people are paying to see a private doctor because they are desperate and then turning up at her pharmacy with private prescriptions without realising that they will have to pay the full price of the drugs and none of their exemption certificates or age exemptions will be any use.

Farzanah

There are several private companies running GP practices now, such as Virgin, and also US companies. As mentioned, private companies are not being altruistic helping the beleaguered NHS out, they are in it for profit. If a contract doesn’t prove profitable they simply walk away, as has happened to some large GP practices.

I think the government know their time is up now, so before the next election they will busy themselves having a “fire sale” of the more lucrative Health Service Contracts to private companies, which a future government will be unable to reverse. What the NHS will be left with are the Cinderella services which are not attractive to private companies and too expensive to run. Chronic illness, and geriatric medicine for example.

Not only will this seal the fate of the NHS but also that of an incoming government which will be unable to recover the damage, and ensuring they remain in power for one term only.

I fear you are right, Farzanah.

Farzanah

Yes I think that is very concerning Glorianny and I don’t think a government led by Starmer will do things a whole lot differently.

Why do you say that? Keir is committed to the NHS. His wife works for the NHS and his mother, one of the main reasons why he went into politics, was a nurse. He is far more likely to want to do whatever it takes to provide a health service that provides for everyone regardless of how wealthy they are than a Conservative Party that we’re happy to hand out pandemic contracts to all of their mates regardless of whether or not they could fulfil those contracts.

Yes I think that is very concerning Glorianny and I don’t think a government led by Starmer will do things a whole lot differently.

The providers on the map are all being given NHS money, regardless of what service they are offering. That is public money going into private pockets. It's also obvious that the only way to provide the service and to show a dividend for share holders must be to cut something. In many cases it will be the pay of poorer workers and the provision of things like cleaning.
Any services that it is impossible to make money on will be abandoned. The NHS will be left with those services.
As for MPs any involvement with private health care providers is a conflict of interests.

No. It isn’t lost. They’re just trying to make us think it is so we just accept it in the way we’ve accepted that we have to have private dental treatment. Anyway, wasn’t brexit supposed to save it? What happened to that? Surely the electorate weren’t lied to?

The map is misleading and alarmist, and doesn't bear close scrutiny. I don't have any problem with private companies being selectively brought in to assist an overstretched NHS. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary, but.. need I say more?

There are several private companies running GP practices now, such as Virgin, and also US companies. As mentioned, private companies are not being altruistic helping the beleaguered NHS out, they are in it for profit. If a contract doesn’t prove profitable they simply walk away, as has happened to some large GP practices.

I think the government know their time is up now, so before the next election they will busy themselves having a “fire sale” of the more lucrative Health Service Contracts to private companies, which a future government will be unable to reverse. What the NHS will be left with are the Cinderella services which are not attractive to private companies and too expensive to run. Chronic illness, and geriatric medicine for example.

Not only will this seal the fate of the NHS but also that of an incoming government which will be unable to recover the damage, and ensuring they remain in power for one term only.

Sparklefizz

Last month when I was sitting in a hospital waiting room, a man was brought in wearing chains accompanied by 2 prison officers.

That’s quite usual Sparklefizz, as the NHS provides hospital care for the prison population. When some prisoners are admitted to hospital they have guards outside their room door.

Last month when I was sitting in a hospital waiting room, a man was brought in wearing chains accompanied by 2 prison officers.

Quite, Casdon. I looked only at my immediate area and realised the map totally misrepresents the situation.

I have no problem with healthcare in prisons being provided by a private company. The NHS is stretched enough and I doubt many would be willing to provide healthcare to prisoners on NHS wages. It skews results to show this on the map.
I also have no problem with specialist services such as scanning being provided by companies with expertise in the field.
So what if politicians earn dividends from investments in healthcare companies! UK politicians are poorly paid and may have a very short life in politics. As for quoting what they earn for giving speeches - give me strength. They give speeches, for payment, for all manner of organisations and have to register earnings from outside sources,
Mischief making?

What is misleading Glorianny is that the map shows services, including religious orders, providers of services which have never been available on the NHS, eg cosmetic surgery, hospices, etc., and services which have been providing private care for many years, as opposed to those services which have sprung up to rectify the deficiency in NHS provision which has arisen in the last 12 years. It means nothing in the current form, because there is never going to be an NHS which provides every possible service that people want.
The map is also inaccurate, because I’m aware of other units providing non NHS healthcare in Wales - and it’s a curious mix of physical health and mental health units, with some I know of included, and some not. I wonder if services have self-identified?

I don't understand why it is misleading. If health care in prison isn't provided by the NHS, but a private company, isn't that a step to privatisation? Why shouldn't the prison be identified.
The companies providing these services are not in it to provide good care, their primary objective is paying dividends to their share holders.
And yes the use of private services has been part of the NHS since Blair.
Far more worrying is the involvement of MPs in private companies and the payments they receive
This is from EveryDoctor
As expected, the Conservatives are by far the biggest recipients of private healthcare money - for example, in the year that Lee "We are paid handsomely for the job we do and if you need an extra £100,000 a year on top then you should really be looking for another job" Anderson made his noble pronouncement, he took money from The Cayzer Trust Company which has a 34% shareholding in Caledonia Ltd (an investment fund) which has > 20% invested in the global for profit healthcare sector. In 2020, he took £15,000 from them.

Other Conservatives who have taken money from the same company include Ben Bradley, Miriam Cates, Trudy Harrison, Virginia Crosbie, Simon Fell and Johnny Mercer. The Conservatives' biggest earner from private healthcare in 2023 (so far) is former PM Theresa May who was paid £97,000 for a speech she gave to Apax Partners LLP which is an investment company with $11 billion worth of equity investments in the global for profit healthcare sector.

However, as the title of this email suggests, whilst is is MAINLY the Conservatives taking private healthcare money, it's not ONLY them.
Basically our MPs are being bribed to usher in privatisation.


Is the NHS really safe in Labour's hands?
Labour has put itself forward as the natural party of the NHS, but the register of members' interests suggests otherwise. In the year to March 2023, 10 Labour MPs (3 from the front bench) took money from such interests.

Some names are surprising (and disappointing), some arguably less so.

Top of Labour's list of beneficiaries (in terms of symbolism if not necessarily in terms of absolute amount in 2023) is Keir Starmer himself who accepted money from John Armitage. Armitage is a former Conservative donor and the cofounder and chief investment officer of Egerton Capital, a hedge fund firm with $16 billion under management including $0.56 billion invested in United Health, a US based private healthcare provider that is trying to break into the UK "market".

Yvette Cooper accepted £63,388 from MPM Connect Limited. This company is part of a group of companies that is a vehicle for businessman Peter Hearn to hold his shares in recruitment agency Odgers Berndtson. This agency (via a subgroup called Berwick Partners) helps private healthcare providers recruit healthcare professionals (often attracting them away from the NHS). Dan Jarvis also accepted £50,000 from Hearn's MPM Connect and, arguably most worryingly, Wes Streeting (the Shadow Health Secretary and likely next Labour Health Secretary) accepted £80,325. Streeting has also accepted money from Trevor Chinn who is a senior adviser to CVC Capital Partners which has extensive private healthcare and pharmaceutical/healthcare technology related investments, as well as from Keir Starmer's benefactor, John Armitage.

Any more for any more?

Whilst Liberal Democrat MPs do not feature significantly in 2023's list, in 2020 Tim Farron accepted money from Trevor Chinn (see above) and Sudhir Choudhrie who was previously vice chair of C&C Alpha Group Investments - this is part of his family company (now run by his son) that invests heavily in private hospitals and private dementia care homes in the UK. Alistair Carmichael also accepted funding from Sudhir Choudrie and C&C Alpha Group Investments in the same year.

No, it isn’t already lost, but it sure is failing a lot of the public.
All kinds of factors I realise, and will take a long time to improve.🤒😕

AGAA4

I sincerely hope not but I know people who are resorting to private healthcare rather than wait for treatment. They can afford it but many can't.
I believe this is what the Tories want. For us all to be paying for our care via insurance.

I can understand people resorting to paying for healthcare - who wouldn't, if they could afford it.

Some are paying simply to see a doctor... to see a doctor... enabling them to discuss their health concerns rather than being triaged by a receptionist.

Is this what the Tories want? Well - they don't say, do they? They certainly have not emphatically assured the nation that care will continue to be given at the point of need. And some MPs have been known to mumble about, for example, charges being made for GP and A&E visits ( Sajid Javid); and I think it was Boris Johnson who supported the idea that patients should be charged a fee (£50 was the figure quoted) for calling out an ambulance for something that ultimately turned out not to be serious. He thought there was a "moral and economic justification" for such charges and co-payments. That wasn't on the infamous red bus, was it?

This government believes in a free market economy, with limited public spending, the 'small-state'. I'm sure they want insurance-based healthcare... that's why they keep testing the water every now and then.

And I don't doubt quite a few voters would go along with it - those that could afford it. But they should be wary. Even the best, comprehensive, health care cover can still bankrupt you if you are unfortunate enough to succumb to a complex medical condition - or more than one. And even this type of insurance has add-ons and co-payments...

I mentioned elsewhere that an American friend of mine who had the best health insurance that money could buy for him and his family, contracted a disease, and his son the same hereditary condition, and ended up selling his successful business, his lovely home, and he and his family had to rent a small apartment that was maintained for them by a local charity. He spent his final years before his death arguing back and forth with his insurers about bills and co-payments, writing letters, trying to get medics to back him up by insisting that their procedures were necessary as a diagnostic tools, endless phone calls, emails, letters.

There's no such thing as insurance that's tailored to your purse and your needs - because no-one knows what those needs might be.

Jaxjacky

Three near me, all providing specialist services under contract to the NHS, so Gloriannay for NHS clients.

A very misleading OP.

Many years ago wen we had a Labour Government, my DD was sent to a private hospital by the NHS which seemed to be a fairly routine thing to do then.
Excellent service and free at the point of delivery.

As long as services remain free to the patient some systems are more efficient when run privately.

Same here in my neck of the woods, they are contracted to several GP surgeries.

Three near me, all providing specialist services under contract to the NHS, so Gloriannay for NHS clients.

A very misleading OP.

I certainly don't want to see a system like the US where you have to provide insurance details before they let you through the door. I can see people dying because they can't afford insurance. I hope this doesn't come about in my lifetime, I feel so afraid for my children and grandchildren if this is the future

The map is very misleading and alarmist. For instance in my area two prisons are flagged up as well as my large local hospital which has a contract with a scanning company.

I sincerely hope not but I know people who are resorting to private healthcare rather than wait for treatment. They can afford it but many can't.
I believe this is what the Tories want. For us all to be paying for our care via insurance.