Ive been furious with how bad our NHS has been performing over the years, so ive started reading up on the issue, and one thing that confuses me is the amount of opposition to the idea of reforms. More information on reforms can be read here.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/Features/DH_122686

The Nurses just passed a vote of no confidence in Andrew Lansley, and I am left wondering whats next in the chain. Why do you think the reforms are being so heavily resisted?

Im not happy with how the system is at all, it makes me furious. The average NHS worker has 4 times more time off sick than other areas of the public sector, foreign men have had gender reassignment done, tatoos are being removed, boob jobs for dole scum.. the fething works. I dont like the current system at all, so much so that Im starting to wish we had a system more like in the US.

Where do you see the NHS in five years time? Are we REALLY on a path to privatised medicine? Or is this just media scaremongering?

I can't really understand where the nurses are coming from on this. Surely they more than anyone should understand the need for reform? The NHS as it stands now is simply not sustainable, its a funding black hole. There needs to be a serious shake-up of the management and bureaucracy that surrounds it, not to mention some of the loony decisions that have been taken recently.

Take the Queen Alexandra hospital in Southampton, for example. Recently built using a Private Finance Initiative, it was revealed on South Today yesterday that the NHS must pay back something like £43 million per year in a sort of 'mortgage' and that money goes straight to an offshore holding company in Guernsey that pays little or no tax. Absolute nuts.

Wait I thought socialized medicine was perfect? Thats what Obama keeps telling me.

Yet they just stopped doing MRIs for Medicare patients over 70 unless its an emergency situation. Thankfully Medicare Advantage takes care of that-oh wait that was just killed off too. Oh well, who needs seniors anyway. Good thing that death panel thing was just Republican nonsense and seniors weren't going to get hit.

mattyrm wrote:Are we REALLY on a path to privatised medicine?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yeah well thats my point, why arent they fully behind it? My best mates wife is a nurse, and she said they have as many supervisors and managers as they do nurses!

She also is fully behind reforms, which make me cynically believe that this is simply politics and people who support the labour party are not behind this simply because the party that they support do not happen to be in charge.

At the end of the day, the amount of money we have thrown at this issue is ridiculous, and the amount of money some of these "managers" are earning truly beggars belief.

The system aint working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazz, Biccat, Its one of the few things that I agree with American republicans on, and I can find very few British people who think like I do.

In a nutshell, I will always have money for private healthcare, I dont even earn THAT much, but the point is, any adult human should have the fething brains to pay for their healthcare before they buy Iphones or beer or cars etc, and I know I would always have cover.

If it stops me paying for scroungers boob jobs, or Romanian immigrants cocks to be removed, then I am all for scrapping the NHS and going private like in the states.

I would go private already, but our government already charge me for the NHS and ive got no say in the matter, and im not paying for both.

If they would stop making me pay as much tax/NI, i would happily pay for BUPA.

Im socially liberal but I have that much in common with American right wingers, I wish the govenrment would leave me the feth alone frankly. I dont want their dole money, I dont phone the police, I dont need the fire department and I dont like paying tax because a percentage of it goes to doleys, immigrants, lazy no good fethers.

I would be more than happy to give up the right to all government services and take my chances if they would take 20% less tax off me. I think iots pathetic the way everyone in this country wants the government to hold their fething hands all the time frankly.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah well thats my point, why arent they fully behind it? My best mates wife is a nurse, and she said they have as many supervisors and managers as they do nurses!

She also is fully behind reforms, which make me cynically believe that this is simply politics and people who support the labour party are not behind this simply because the party that they support do not happen to be in charge.

At the end of the day, the amount of money we have thrown at this issue is ridiculous, and the amount of money some of these "managers" are earning truly beggars belief.

The system aint working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazz, Biccat, Its one of the few things that I agree with American republicans on, and I can find very few British people who think like I do.

In a nutshell, I will always have money for private healthcare, I dont even earn THAT much, but the point is, any adult human should have the fething brains to pay for their healthcare before they buy Iphones or beer or cars etc, and I know I would always have cover.

If it stops me paying for scroungers boob jobs, or Romanian immigrants cocks to be removed, then I am all for scrapping the NHS and going private like in the states.

I would go private already, but our government already charge me for the NHS and ive got no say in the matter, and im not paying for both.

If they would stop making me pay as much tax/NI, i would happily pay for BUPA.

Im socially liberal but I have that much in common with American right wingers, I wish the govenrment would leave me the feth alone frankly. I dont want their dole money, I dont phone the police, I dont need the fire department and I dont like paying tax because a percentage of it goes to doleys, immigrants, lazy no good fethers.

I would be more than happy to give up the right to all government services and take my chances if they would take 20% less tax off me. I think iots pathetic the way everyone in this country wants the government to hold their fething hands all the time frankly.

Why not still have public health care but you only receive the benefits if it's a life threatening illness/injury and make stuff like vanity privatized.

I have family members in the NHS who get to see the real picture and the reforms aren't what they are presented to be.

Yes reform is needed but Lansley's don't help at all. Basically it does boil down to privatising the NHS, it actively encourages private companies to take patients from what will be left of the NHS.

How are private companies ever going to compete with a government run NHS, they need to make a profit. We need tidy up the NHS and run it like a profit making company but not let private companies make money from our taxes.

The private companies working for the NHS are bad enough already. They charge far more than they should and no one queries it, by letting them take over the medical side it will just get worse.

Currently the company that supplies lightbulbss to NHS facilities sells them at £10 a bulb and no one has any problems. Allowing this across the whole NHS is crazy.

Another issue is all the people that will lose thier jobs. Since huge parts of the NHS will be gone the redundancy cost on the government will be huge.

"I dont like the current system at all, so much so that Im starting to wish we had a system more like in the US."

No you don't, trust me. It's bankrupting us, people end up not paying and the government has to cover it anyway. Any USA resident can tell you the only thing worse than a doctor bill is a lawyer bill.

"I dont want their dole money, I dont phone the police, I dont need the fire department and I dont like paying tax because a percentage of it goes to doleys, immigrants, lazy no good fethers."

The part about the police is and fire department is silly. I'll assume it's a joke or something. I'll ask you to take a look at how much money is actually spent on immigrants and such, and how much is wasted on other things.

Cheesecat wrote:

Why not still have public health care but you only receive the benefits if it's a life threatening illness/injury and make stuff like vanity privatized.

They have cut down quite a lot on managers (the offices above where mine used to be were almost emptied from about 10 managers to about 5).

I agree that a lot of treatment probably should not be done entirely on the NHS (boob jobs - other than for reconstruction after cancer/accidents/etc, gender change, etc).

mattyrm wrote:Ergo, you say "If i dont get my tatoo removed/boobs bigger/cock removed/turned into a man i will kill myself because im depressed"

Jobs done.

That's because you've got a system where the procedures 'covered' by NHS are based on political decisions based on political realities, not on whether it is cost-effective or whether it makes sense to cover the procedures. As long as you have a social welfare based health system, political concerns are going to dominate. If politician X can get group Y to vote for him by supporting the governmente providing Z, he's probably going to do so. Eventually, it will get passed.

If people actually have to pay for the health care they're demanding, they won't ask for nonsensical or cost-inefficient medical procedures.

Edit: I put quotes around "covered" because I'm not sure if there are private physicians available in the UK who will provide services that the NHS refuses.

Frazzled wrote:Wait I thought socialized medicine was perfect? ...

To be fair to the NHS we spend less than half what the USA does on medical care per capita.

biccat wrote:That's because you've got a system where the procedures 'covered' by NHS are based on political decisions based on political realities, not on whether it is cost-effective or whether it makes sense to cover the procedures. As long as you have a social welfare based health system, political concerns are going to dominate. If politician X can get group Y to vote for him by supporting the governmente providing Z, he's probably going to do so. Eventually, it will get passed.

NICE are generally quite good at determining cost effective medical care.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:That's because you've got a system where the procedures 'covered' by NHS are based on political decisions based on political realities, not on whether it is cost-effective or whether it makes sense to cover the procedures. As long as you have a social welfare based health system, political concerns are going to dominate. If politician X can get group Y to vote for him by supporting the governmente providing Z, he's probably going to do so. Eventually, it will get passed.

NICE are generally quite good at determining cost effective medical care.

What is NICE?

biccat wrote:What is NICE?

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or "NICE".

NICE is an independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on promoting good health and preventing and treating ill health.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Ergo, you say "If i dont get my tatoo removed/boobs bigger/cock removed/turned into a man i will kill myself because im depressed"

Jobs done.

That's because you've got a system where the procedures 'covered' by NHS are based on political decisions based on political realities, not on whether it is cost-effective or whether it makes sense to cover the procedures. As long as you have a social welfare based health system, political concerns are going to dominate. If politician X can get group Y to vote for him by supporting the governmente providing Z, he's probably going to do so. Eventually, it will get passed.

If people actually have to pay for the health care they're demanding, they won't ask for nonsensical or cost-inefficient medical procedures.

Edit: I put quotes around "covered" because I'm not sure if there are private physicians available in the UK who will provide services that the NHS refuses.

And is this any better or worse then economic decisions based on profit made by private corporations

The NHS does need reform , but balanced reform. There needs to be tighter control on what the money is spent on. Are there too many managers, if there are them they need to be got rid of. Are the medical company's shafting the NHS with costs? I would imagine that's likely to be a whoping 99.9999% certainty. What about general supplies, same again.

One of the things they could also clamp down on are "NHS tourists". People who come here to have operations. If you a non UK visitor you should only be treated for unforceen emergancies, not something you had before you arrived.

Trouble is none of the parties have ever been honest when it comes to what they doing with the NHS, it's always smoke and mirrors.

Might be controversial to say it wolf, but do you not think that fertility treatment shouldnt be paid for either?

I mean, maybe we could subsidise a percentage or something, but i really feel its not important enough to spend what we do on it, and now we are getting 48 year old women qualifying for free treatment!

youbedead wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Ergo, you say "If i dont get my tatoo removed/boobs bigger/cock removed/turned into a man i will kill myself because im depressed"

Jobs done.

That's because you've got a system where the procedures 'covered' by NHS are based on political decisions based on political realities, not on whether it is cost-effective or whether it makes sense to cover the procedures. As long as you have a social welfare based health system, political concerns are going to dominate. If politician X can get group Y to vote for him by supporting the governmente providing Z, he's probably going to do so. Eventually, it will get passed.

If people actually have to pay for the health care they're demanding, they won't ask for nonsensical or cost-inefficient medical procedures.

Edit: I put quotes around "covered" because I'm not sure if there are private physicians available in the UK who will provide services that the NHS refuses.

And is this any better or worse then economic decisions based on profit made by private corporations

I'm not sure what "economic decisions" you're talking about that would be made by private corporations. In a privatized system, an individual has to pay for his or her individual health care. They can buy insurance based on their perceived risk of incurring health care expenses beyond their ability to pay, but that isn't a decision made by a corporation.

So...it would be better.

biccat wrote:I'm not sure what "economic decisions" you're talking about that would be made by private corporations. In a privatized system, an individual has to pay for his or her individual health care. They can buy insurance based on their perceived risk of incurring health care expenses beyond their ability to pay, but that isn't a decision made by a corporation.

So...it would be better.

My understanding is that insurance companies hold vast power over who is and is not insured. Even relatively minor illnesses can discount you from getting certain types of insurance, or jack up the price to the point that most people would struggle to pay the premiums.

4M2A wrote:I have family members in the NHS who get to see the real picture and the reforms aren't what they are presented to be.

Yes reform is needed but Lansley's don't help at all. Basically it does boil down to privatising the NHS, it actively encourages private companies to take patients from what will be left of the NHS.

How are private companies ever going to compete with a government run NHS, they need to make a profit. We need tidy up the NHS and run it like a profit making company but not let private companies make money from our taxes.

The private companies working for the NHS are bad enough already. They charge far more than they should and no one queries it, by letting them take over the medical side it will just get worse.

Currently the company that supplies lightbulbss to NHS facilities sells them at £10 a bulb and no one has any problems. Allowing this across the whole NHS is crazy.

Another issue is all the people that will lose thier jobs. Since huge parts of the NHS will be gone the redundancy cost on the government will be huge.

This. (mostly)

I work for the NHS (when im back from Uni), as does my mum, and my sister has just started a nursing course at uni.
ive worked at 2 hospitals (run by the same trust) for about 5 years now and one thing ive seen ove that time period is that the NHS IS being told to run as if it is a business. However, all this has done is introduce 'Business Managers' and 'Assisstant Business Managers' to EVERY department. They are the ones in charge of the budget for each depratment and all they do is spend all day, every day, in pointless meetings going over random statistics to prove that the money their department is spending is worth it. SO money is being wasted on wages, to prove the money being spent is spent worthwhile-y
My mum is a Team Leader for MDT (multi-disciplinary team - if you dont know what that is, basically, if you have/are suspected of having cancer, its this team that makes sure you are seen and treated and follows your progress), and a ridiculous amount of her time is wasted in meetings, or preparing for meetings, or writing the outcomes from meetings.....etc. etc. etc. And most of the other people in these meetings are 'managers' who spend their entire day/week/year doing this. It has to stop!

My other major quible with this system at the moment is that for every meeting, every person there has to have as paper copy of whatever the meeting is about, so thousands and thousands of copies of THE SAME THING are printed off every day, eevn though all the information is on the computer systems, which (trust me, i worked in IT last year) there are no shortage of computers to access this.

Finally, every private company that is employed by the NHS takes the absolute and pretty much charges what they want with no argument whatsoever (as shown by the quote above, thank you 4M2A). This ranges from everything to lightbulbs, to paper, desks, chairs and (i assume) all the clinical equippment being used as well, its fething stupid! There is no way letting them take control would in any way help matters IMO.

theres plenty of other problems as well, but these are a couple of things that i have personal experience of and always, without fail, get my blood boiling (well, that and Consultants taking home 6 figure salaries and then moaning when they have 17 patients to see instead of 16!!)

Private Finance Initiative costs have escalated rapidly in the past few years.

PFI was a Gordon Brown idea.

Kilkrazy wrote:Private Finance Initiative costs have escalated rapidly in the past few years.

PFI was a Gordon Brown idea.

*sigh*...why am i not surprised?

Ok, so Matty wants to fund his health care and get his money back from the Government. It's an interesting idea that's for certain. Matty strikes me as the type of bloke who dosen't worry about the niceties of health care, so a basic package would probably be ok for him. Having seen my fathers own attempts (an ex marine for the 60's) at home treatments, I can't really see him being around for too long

Anyway in 2003 I got laid off from a job which came with Bupa cover. I enquired about what it would cost to carry it on myself and if I remember correctly it was around £70 per month. So as I was not working I gave it a miss. I've just been on the Bupa site to get an idea of what it cost's nowadays for basic cover. No price, the sneaky gits, but it did show what wasn't covered under the basic package:

Ageing, menopause and puberty

AIDS / HIV‡

Allergies or allergic disorders

Birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes‡

Chronic conditions‡

Complications from excluded or restricted conditions / treatment

Contamination, wars and riots

Convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care‡

Cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment‡

Deafness

Dental / oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage etc)‡

Dialysis‡

Drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use‡

Experimental drugs and treatment‡

Treatment to correct eyesight (eg long or short sight)‡

HRT and bone densitometry‡

Intensive care

Learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems

Overseas treatment and repatriation

Physical aids and devices‡

Pre-existing or special conditions

Pregnancy and childbirth‡

Screening, monitoring and preventive treatment

Sleep problems and disorders

Speech disorders‡

Telephone consultations

Temporary relief of symptoms‡

Unrecognised providers or facilities

Obviously some of these Matty probably dosen't need to worry about .

I just checked some payslips and I'm paying £119 in NI a month. £119, which covers me for everything, including dentist, eyes and going back and having treatment for the same condition if need be. Ok, there could be delays for some of these treatments, but and it's a big BUT, I don't have to worry about it not being "covered".

Don't get me wrong, the NHS does need to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and given a good shake, but for the right reasons and the right results.

mattyrm wrote:Ive been furious with how bad our NHS has been performing over the years, so ive started reading up on the issue, and one thing that confuses me is the amount of opposition to the idea of reforms. More information on reforms can be read here.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/Features/DH_122686

The Nurses just passed a vote of no confidence in Andrew Lansley, and I am left wondering whats next in the chain. Why do you think the reforms are being so heavily resisted?

Im not happy with how the system is at all, it makes me furious. The average NHS worker has 4 times more time off sick than other areas of the public sector, foreign men have had gender reassignment done, tatoos are being removed, boob jobs for dole scum.. the fething works. I dont like the current system at all, so much so that Im starting to wish we had a system more like in the US.

Where do you see the NHS in five years time? Are we REALLY on a path to privatised medicine? Or is this just media scaremongering?

Nope, just your scaremongering. The NHS needs reform. It's getting reform. Some people are naturally opposed to this because historically turkeys don't vote in favour of christmas.


Next!

There has been a number of NHS reforms in the past 30 years. I am slightly cynical as to why this latest one should succeed where all the others have supposedly failed.

For an example, the GP purchasing scheme sounds similar to the GP fundholder scheme of the 1980s.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm not sure what "economic decisions" you're talking about that would be made by private corporations. In a privatized system, an individual has to pay for his or her individual health care. They can buy insurance based on their perceived risk of incurring health care expenses beyond their ability to pay, but that isn't a decision made by a corporation.

So...it would be better.

My understanding is that insurance companies hold vast power over who is and is not insured. Even relatively minor illnesses can discount you from getting certain types of insurance, or jack up the price to the point that most people would struggle to pay the premiums.

I don't understand this preoccupation with the idea that everyone deserves to have top-of-the-line health care at the expense of taxpayers.

If you can't afford health insurance, you can either pay for your health care yourself, deal with the injury/illness, or appeal to charity. I don't see why I have to be forced to pay for your medical treatment.

We do.

Get it watched, let the hate flow through you. UK only though, I think...

Channel 4: Dispatches

Nationalized health care makes a great deal of sense. People's health and lives are higher priority than corporate profits.

Just like how we don't have a "for profit" military, police, or fire departments (anymore) in the US. Those things are too important for their effective and efficient provision to be second-priority behind profits.

As KilKrazy pointed out, the UK spends less than half of what the US does per capita on healthcare. This is rather strong evidence against privatization being more efficient or cost effective.

Matty, it is rather ironic for you to declare your independence from and lack of need for the government, when it gave you all the job training and pay which put you in the beneficial economic situation you're in. You benefitted from the Marines. You got a lot more out of the system than you've put in, financially. It's like the Libertarians here who say "I don't need the government. You have no right to my tax money." As if totally ignorant to the fact that without publicly-provided roads, police, fire departments, emergency services, and the entire structure of our legal system, they wouldn't be able to make the money that they do. No man is an island.

mattyrm wrote:

In a nutshell, if you tell the doctor that something is affecting your mental health, then they will cover it.

Ergo, you say "If i dont get my tatoo removed/boobs bigger/cock removed/turned into a man i will kill myself because im depressed"

Jobs done.

Words cannot describe how filled with rage I am at this concept.

Mannahnin wrote:No man is an island.

Some exceptions do exist, and are relevant to the thread.

Remember the UK's fattest man and his quest to sue the NHS?

Urge to kill rising... also, too many god damned managers in the NHS.

Firstly, as a transgendered person with one British grandparent, I'd like to say that I take serious issue with some of the derogatory comments and tone used here about immigrants and people undergoing genital reconstruction surgery.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that the NHS has many flaws, but 'it needs to change, these proposals would change it, therefore these proposals are beneficial' is an obvious fallacy.

A number of posters have made points about how private sector involvement in the NHS has in effect turned public health into a money tree for corporations. I'll add a few examples to that.

A large portion of the NHS budget - I recall seeing a figure of 15% - is spent on administering an 'internal market'. The instances of over-managing referred to earlier? For every pound the NHS receives, fifteen pence is spent on trying to make medical and support staff feel like they're working in a business rather than a public service.

The PFI scheme - introduced by New Labour but in effect an extension of the Thatcherite approach of turning public services into state-subsidised businesses where outright privatisation isn't possible to get past the court of public opinion - is an absolute joke. The NHS used to build hospitals with directly employed labour, and own the hospitals. Now, the NHS rents hospital buildings from construction firms, with the total cost massively exceeding the cost of the building works. I've seen firms forecast to make a 200% profit over a thirty year lease, after which the hospital will have to relocate or pay them even more money.

Cleaning services are an absolute joke. They're run by outsourced private contractors, whose race to the bottom has led to my partner being told to just use water on cleaning jobs when the cleansing supplies ran out.

The idea that a reform implemented by the same Tory party that has historically played a major part in causing and exacerbating problems such as these will be anything short of a disaster appears to me to be astonishingly naive. 'We messed up the energy, and fuel, and telecoms, and trains, and busses. Trust us to get it right when we apply the same failed policies to healthcare.'

And thirdly, I'm not going to get drawn into a shouting match with libertarians who didn't get the memo about free markets having a 100% track record of degenerating into corporatist systems run by powerful corporations.

lindsay40k wrote:Firstly, as a transgendered person with one British grandparent, I'd like to say that I take serious issue with some of the derogatory comments and tone used here about immigrants and people undergoing genital reconstruction surgery.

It's whether you're a contributing immigrant or not that matters!

I think the majority of people have no problem with trans-gender operations being carried out on the NHS. Confusion possibly arises when people think of a trans-gender procedure as a solely cosmetic one.

biccat wrote:

youbedead wrote:

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Ergo, you say "If i dont get my tatoo removed/boobs bigger/cock removed/turned into a man i will kill myself because im depressed"

Jobs done.

That's because you've got a system where the procedures 'covered' by NHS are based on political decisions based on political realities, not on whether it is cost-effective or whether it makes sense to cover the procedures. As long as you have a social welfare based health system, political concerns are going to dominate. If politician X can get group Y to vote for him by supporting the governmente providing Z, he's probably going to do so. Eventually, it will get passed.

If people actually have to pay for the health care they're demanding, they won't ask for nonsensical or cost-inefficient medical procedures.

Edit: I put quotes around "covered" because I'm not sure if there are private physicians available in the UK who will provide services that the NHS refuses.

And is this any better or worse then economic decisions based on profit made by private corporations

I'm not sure what "economic decisions" you're talking about that would be made by private corporations. In a privatized system, an individual has to pay for his or her individual health care. They can buy insurance based on their perceived risk of incurring health care expenses beyond their ability to pay, but that isn't a decision made by a corporation.

So...it would be better.

Does a poor person have the right to healthcare, do they have the right to live. What makes one man more worthy of life then his fellow man. Wealth, altruism, strength, power, or do all men have the equivalent right to life.

Well I have an issue with paying for gender reassignment frankly, I don't give a gak if your as British as John Bull, I disagree hugely, I just happen to disagree even more if you have never contributed to the system. The same goes for fertility treatment, if its not life threatening or seriously debilitating, why?!

And you take issue with me?!

We've got kids dying of leukemia but were spending money on sex changes for people who aren't from here, and whose parents aren't even from here.

Do me a fething favour. You played the system like a fiddle and now your the outraged one?

Your living proof the system is broken.

Medium of Death wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

In a nutshell, if you tell the doctor that something is affecting your mental health, then they will cover it.

Ergo, you say "If i dont get my tatoo removed/boobs bigger/cock removed/turned into a man i will kill myself because im depressed"

Jobs done.

Words cannot describe how filled with rage I am at this concept.

Mannahnin wrote:No man is an island.

Some exceptions do exist, and are relevant to the thread.

Remember the UK's fattest man and his quest to sue the NHS?

Urge to kill rising... also, too many god damned managers in the NHS.

Would you base the entirety of national health care on a report in the Daily Mail?!?!?!?!?

Pro-Tip - look at the republic of ireland.

Then do the opposite of what they do

Everyone wins.


It wil create a 2 tier system with the rich having access to much better health care. In Ireland for example you could wait upto 2 years to have an MRI scan unless you went private. Assming you have a tumour somewhere you could die within that time.

In the UK waiting times are a lot shorter. I like the NHS the way it is.

mattyrm wrote:Well I have an issue with paying for gender reassignment frankly, I don't give a gak if your as British as John Bull, I disagree hugely, I just happen to disagree even more if you have never contributed to the system.

It costs the patient around £10,000 in out-of-pocket costs, not to mention the fact that you have to have been a British tax-payer for a certain amount of time. In other words, they pay more for these operations than you pay for Police, Fire Brigade, NHS etc. in several years...

It's not free, neither are breast augmentations. I have a mate who had one - she had to contribute a few grand towards the cost. Still though, a sober assessment of the facts isn't as much fun as RRRRRRAAAAAGE!

We've got kids dying of leukemia but were spending money on sex changes for people who aren't from here, and whose parents aren't even from here.

I'm not sure that the two are linked....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:It wil create a 2 tier system with the rich having access to much better health care.

Why is that a bad thing? Excellent state-of-the art treatment for those who can afford it, perfectly adequate treatment for those who can't. Sounds great.




Wait...we already have that, don't we?

You can go private in the UK for some stuff but I've found that you might as well just wait an extra week or two.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Would you base the entirety of national health care on a report in the Daily Mail?!?!?!?!?

No sir, sorry sir.


It was either that or 'The Sun', although option C has now entered the arena 'When choosing between the Mail and the Sun, choose neither and go make tea'

Good old hindsight.

Also, did anyone watch that Dispatches programme? (link one page over) Do eet.

The simple point I am making Alb, is that I see it as what you need and what you want.

The NHS should cover any and all operations you need. But you don't need a breast enlargement, you don't need a sex change, you don't need a tattoo removed, you just really really want one.

I really really want a grey knight army, I don't expect the tax payer to assist me in getting one though.

mattyrm wrote:...you don't need a breast enlargement

The world would be a lot better if it overflowed with larger breasted women. Especially now we are getting towards summer...

"Stuff going to war, I'm going to the beach to check out the babes!"

"You know what, the West may be full of infidels, but look at all the boobies! Lets go and be their friends rather than blowing them up - and we will sell them cheap oil too!"

mattyrm wrote:

I really really want a grey knight army, I don't expect the tax payer to assist me in getting one though.

... I wonder if I could get 40k classified as an addiction...

mattyrm wrote:The simple point I am making Alb, is that I see it as what you need and what you want.

The NHS should cover any and all operations you need. But you don't need a breast enlargement, you don't need a sex change, you don't need a tattoo removed, you just really really want one.

I really really want a grey knight army, I don't expect the tax payer to assist me in getting one though.

and what if someone has a mastectomy? then technically you are having a breast enlargement because you are going from nothing...to having a breast again. Does this fall into your category of 'unnecessary operations'?

Yes.

what about reconstructive surgery/therapy for soldiers? (caused by a multitude of things)

after all they don't need to look normal...

Yeah we shouldn't kick the arse out of that either. We know the risks.

Plus we all got told to take out our own private insurance before we deploy because we know that we can't rely on the system we serve, I could pay for any cosmetics myself.

or anyone who has suffered from an accident? (car crash, industrial accident, vindictive assault etc.)

mattyrm wrote:Well I have an issue with paying for gender reassignment frankly, I don't give a gak if your as British as John Bull, I disagree hugely, I just happen to disagree even more if you have never contributed to the system. The same goes for fertility treatment, if its not life threatening or seriously debilitating, why?!

And you take issue with me?!

We've got kids dying of leukemia but were spending money on sex changes for people who aren't from here, and whose parents aren't even from here.

Do me a fething favour. You played the system like a fiddle and now your the outraged one?

Your living proof the system is broken.

I rather think I covered the issue of funding allocation already, and furthermore it seems quite presumptuous to assert that I've not been a net contributor to the system. I'm sure there's plenty of NHS services that might be of benefit to yourself.

Also, just a quick reminder for you:

Dakka forum rules wrote:Be polite and friendly, even when discussing such hot topics as politics and religion... Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy... If any posted content breaks any of the rules the moderators may take some or all of the following actions, often without warning. Please note that users who repeatedly break these rules will eventually have their account either temporarily or permanently suspended and in extreme cases this may occur without warning... Posts that contain profanity, insults, blatant attempts at baiting a flame war (trolling), racial slurs, etc. will be locked, edited or deleted.

Perhaps it might be advisable to exhibit a little more

mattyrm's sig wrote:boundless love as a Christian

?

Yeah Lindsay, my sig is a quote by Hitler because im sick of hearing Creationists say he was an atheist.

Please dont mistake my argument for a dislike for gay/transgender people by the way, im a very socially liberal person, i genuinelly like gay people and I think that every human should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, I just dont think I should have to contribute towards the cost of whatever people want to do because I ask for nothing from anyone myself!

I mean, regarding the mastectomy, my own mother had one, and she used a "falsie" and had a bag of gel down her bra, Its not like I am a hypocrite and I think that whats good enough for other people isnt good enough for me. Thats pretty much the entirety of my argument, I take nothing from the system, and I think if everyone had the same attitude we would be a good country, we seem to want to mollycoddle everyone and frankly i find it somewhat embarrasing, wheres all the stiff upper lips?

Same with the injured soldiers thing, I dont know if people are aware, but they get very very little, ive never been (seriously) injured in action, but when I was it was no special treatment, it was stiches once and a plaster cast once, and thats it. The bare minumum. We took out or own private policies because we are aware of the inadequacies of the system, and THAT is the attitude the public should have.

I have my flaws, but im a man of integrity and I will never be a hypocrite. I merely ask that people take care of them bloody selves and stop trying to screw the system for self gain, and THAT is why the NHS needs to be looked at, because its getting bled dry.

If our injured veterans are given the absolute minimum service, and have to rely on their own bank balances or charity, then the general bloody public should get the same treatment.

.... this is where you kiss to break the tension BTW

If we could, please, debate the points whilst showing respect for other posters that'd be super.

I take nothing from the system

today anyway eh ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/14/nhs.society
Health Tourism in UK not a serious issue according to Medecins Sans Frontiers report.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/04/21/nhs-gender-reassignment-surgery-rates-triple/
Gender reassignment surgeries triple, from 54 in 2000 to 143 in 2009. That's actually nearer 2.6 than 3x but this was taken from a Daily Telegraph report.

Cost = £10,000 each.


Visitors aren't entitled to free treatment for everything, according to the Citizen's Advice Bureau.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/index/family_parent/health/nhs_charges_for_people_from_abroad.htm

Ironically this precludes British ex-pats on the Costa del Sol from health touristing their way in the UK.

The average NHS worker has 4 times more time off sick than other areas of the public sector (From OP)

Could this be because they work with sick people all day every day

No mate, I think its mainly the good old bad backs and depression.

Its not cos of disease.

Frazzled wrote:Wait I thought socialized medicine was perfect? Thats what Obama keeps telling me

Ah, this must be humor.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Are we REALLY on a path to privatised medicine?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is.

Private healthcare in the US is one of the worst systems in the world.

mattyrm wrote:I take nothing from the system

Yes you do, you just don't want to admit it.

You benefit from the system even if you don't directly use it.

All of the medical staff who treat you in an NHS or private hospital received heavily subsidised education.

I'm not sure how much weight you can afford to put on the 'I don't take from the system' argument when you yourself are (formerly?) employed by the armed forces. Of those who would agree with your opposition to state-funded public services, there are an awful lot who extend this opposition to state-funded armies beyond a small 'night watch' state to maintain public order. And serving in the forces is often sold as a way to receive education funding; there's probably a fair few soldiers who enlist because they want you and I to contribute towards the costs of their A-levels or whathaveyou.

And I'm all in favour of improving aftercare for armed forces personnel. I have friends who served in Iraq who were seriously let down. I think it's too simplistic to dismiss health workers as pulling sickies when they clearly are both exposed to infection risks and also routinely work excessive hours. In any rate, complaining about better organised public sector employees having better conditions is not going to lead to an improvement in forces conditions. I'd sooner see the forces get full union rights rather than have their goodwill continually abused by the government to fob them off with poor aftercare after running them like the East India Trading Company.

It's easy to say you don't take from the system but try living the rest of your life without doing so.

The NHS needs improvement but it's still a very good system. An organisation that large will cost a lot- there is nothing you can do about it but it's undeniable the NHS saves people a lot of money compared to private health care. I would much rather have cheaper health care than the owners of medical companies making millions.

mattyrm wrote:No mate, I think its mainly the good old bad backs and depression.

Its not cos of disease.

I worked in a hospital for over 2 years and while there is a degree of "Yeah, I don't really feel like coming in today" (I know one clinical staff member who was not being paid peanuts who used to do this on an annoyingly regular basis which meant canceled clinics with 20+ people having to be moved to other clinic dates or clinicians), there is a lot of genuine illness because of the proximity to, and exposure to ill people.

^agree,
and as for NHS staff being ill, i am at work right now, i started at 9 and i wont be leavig tll this clinic is finished, so probably 8 o clock or so. This is normal for a Thursday. and i only get paid till 5, but i stay beause peoples lives depend on them getting treatment, and that means they need me to make sure the doctor has all the knowledge he/she needs to make an assessment.

Yeah I think Melissa, Red et al are missing the point of what I am trying to say. Obviously if you are born and raised in any civilised country then something from "the system" has benefitted you. Im not saying never use anything ever, thats ridiclous. Im saying that you should not be able to "play" the system. And our system is far too easy to abuse, abuse for wellfare, council houses, job seekers, NHS cosmetics, etc etc ad nausium.

If someone has worked for 20 years and he gets made redundant, then of course he should be allowed job seekers allowance, but he shouldnt be allowed to get his cock made bigger on the NHS.

Its not that hard to grasp is it?

Im not saying everyone should be as proud as me and never go to an NHS dentist, live in a council house, get working tax credits or child benefit or any other goddamn state assisted programme.

Im saying that our system is being systematically abused on a large scale. And it needs putting right. We need to make it harder to get benefits, much harder, because everyone knows someone who is milking the system.

gak, i personally know about 6 people who do it, its a big joke in the pub to have a mate who has been on the dole for 6 years. But not to bad tempered Matty it isnt.

But thats kinda OT, lets just stick to the NHS.

I say we ban, pschological treatments unless you are sectioned. That will put a stop to all the fake depression and all the sex changes and boob jobs. If you have to spend 90 days in a nuthouse, i think the boob job requests will go through the floor!

And reds comment was funny, but, how far off the mark is it? If I see a guy in the Daily Mail in a few weeks time who gets state funded GW battleforces due to depression Ill know who it is!

Yeah I don't think people disagree that claiming for completely unneccessary treatment isn't right but thats an issue with what the government is willing to fund rather than the NHS itself.

well as a slight aside, if you know someone who i abusing the system, by law you are culpable for not reporting them.

and it is meant to be very, very difficult to remain on the dole with recent improvements. I dot know if this has been put into effect as of yet, but since my gf and i reported someone who was abusing the system (and nothing was done), we were informed they should be caught soon anyway as the way people are investigated is changing.

I think the problem is greater than the NHS.

All cival servants seem to get away with much poorer performance than most private employees (and don't get me started on teachers Arrrgh!).

Don't get me wrong there are halfwits every where dragging down the average for everyone. Where I am they are either put in position where they are most useful or got rid of. I can see why the Gov't would want to impliment this kind of plan to increase efficiency but they just seem to generate more spinless civil servants and beauracrats.

I did see a good documentry the other day where military personnel we being employed at Head Teachers. The contrast with what had gone before was remarkable. All the office politicking was done away with, problems were identified and addressed. Management speak was banned, no more team leaders or advisers. It was really quite refreshing to see (admittedly rather than the media spun extremes that we probably assume to be the case).

I always disppear at the state of public procurement as well. £10 for a light bulb i the NHS, it was £22 at the MOD in the last couple of months.

Lindsay I was not unsimpathetic with what you were saying right up to the point where you suggested more union membership. Not more unions please!

Out of interest does anyone know of a sound medical reason for gender reassignment? Boob jobs (reductions and reconstruction anyway) I can understand but GR not so much?

Matty don't you work for the council?

notprop wrote:I think the problem is greater than the NHS.

All cival servants seem to get away with much poorer performance than most private employees (and don't get me started on teachers Arrrgh!).

Don't get me wrong there are halfwits every where dragging down the average for everyone. Where I am they are either put in position where they are most useful or got rid of. I can see why the Gov't would want to impliment this kind of plan to increase efficiency but they just seem to generate more spinless civil servants and beauracrats.

I did see a good documentry the other day where military personnel we being employed at Head Teachers. The contrast with what had gone before was remarkable. All the office politicking was done away with, problems were identified and addressed. Management speak was banned, no more team leaders or advisers. It was really quite refreshing to see (admittedly rather than the media spun extremes that we probably assume to be the case).

I always disppear at the state of public procurement as well. £10 for a light bulb i the NHS, it was £22 at the MOD in the last couple of months.

Lindsay I was not unsimpathetic with what you were saying right up to the point where you suggested more union membership. Not more unions please!

Out of interest does anyone know of a sound medical reason for gender reassignment? Boob jobs (reductions and reconstruction anyway) I can understand but GR not so much?

Matty don't you work for the council?

Couldnt agree more, did you see that Panorama I linked a few months ago? I think you will enjoy it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s8kpv/Panorama_Can_I_Sack_Teacher/

And you mentioned work, so I feel an urge to rant.

Yeah I left the corps and joined the city council, I was working one job for them driving a recycling vehicle as I got my HGV licence when VIKING came into play for my last tour in the Gan, this is why my ire is well placed. I think that about 60% of the staff at the council are grossly incompetent, and its hard coming from an elite unit where 99.9% of people were switched on and extremely professional, to a unit where most people are lazy and incompetent.

About 20% of the staff are on long term sick, its genuinelly fething unbelievable. I think if I went into real detail you would think I was making it up.

Anyways, after working for them for about 3 weeks, the head of the open spaces dept (a former prison officer) saw my CV (I didnt even apply for this job) and phoned me to ask if I fancied working for the Parks department as well. So i said I would be happy to help. He wanted me to help them out because he said apprently they were having trouble with "youths" and seeing as I was a former RM he knew Id be just right for this type of work, so i started accompanying some of their full time employees around.

And about 50% of them are useless as well, and half of them are on the sick too.

Its truly unbelieveable. I think the issue could be fixed easily, we should stop all sick pay. Whats statutory? 50% of your wage? Give them that instead. The public sector is being bled dry by "Servants" who rape their masters. At my council you get FULL pay for 6 months, and half of the staff are dutiflly on it for 6 months of the year. Lets scrap it.

Heres my beef, as I said before, Im a man of principle, most people wont vote for anything unless it benefits them, but I will. Ive got a backbone.

I AM a public servant and heres what I want, a lower wage cap, no sick pay, and the unions grinding beneath Camerons heels. The union at my work is ensuring that the monkeys do nothing. They cannot sack the lazy and the incompetent, so they hand one to me and say "keep him out of trouble" so he does no work at all, and they do this because they know I will carry him. All the good guys at my work are being given monkeys to carry, because they know we can handle it. Sack the fethers!

Unions may have served a purpose once, indeed, they were necessary once upon a time, but now they have been perverted, they are now there to stop the incompetent from being sacked, and this hugely affects the hard working 25% morale. Thats why im an anti union tory.

Firemen are overpaid ditch diggers, coppers are useless, and the public sector is being raped by most of the people that work for it, If I was Maggie Thatcher I would have gone a few steps further. The public sector needs treating like the private sector.

In my book, the working man votes conservative. The man who is willing to work hard to better himself. The sick lame and lazy vote Labour and cry about the unions when they get asked to do some fething work for a change.

mattyrm wrote:Im saying that you should not be able to "play" the system.

Then, pardon my bluntness, shouldn't you have said that in the first place...?

Saying you never take from the system has multiple interpretations...

Of course I will pardon your bluntness love, I apologise for not making things more clear.

Mattyrm I agree with you that we need to treat public services like they were in the private sector. A simple change of attitude will do more than all of the reforms.

The structure of most of our services are ok- the problem is the workers lack drive. I'm not just talking about the everyday workers a lot of the people in charge of running services just don't care that much. I know NHS workers who have tried to make a difference and their suggstions are just ignored, when out of everyone they have a good idea of what the problem is seeing as they work in the middle of it.

mattyrm wrote:
If someone has to get his cock made bigger on the NHS.

Its not that hard to grasp is it?

.. Well in this situation I think there's a demonstrable... oh.. I get you.

And reds comment was funny, but, how far off the mark is it? If I see a guy in the Daily Mail in a few weeks time who gets state funded GW battleforces due to depression Ill know who it is!

.. I for one cannot wait to see how they'll blame this one on the muslims ! Think what it'll do to the houseing market !

... we do call it plsatic crack after all eh ?

I'll concoct some sort of sob story : It started off in the usual way, just for kicks with the odd blister pack with friends or a skeleton horde. Then it was tactical squads, battleforces and then before I knew it I was handing over hundreds of pounds for "resin" and spending my time scouring the web for cheaper online suppliers desperate for more, knowing that just one more unit and everything would be fine.

reds8n wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
If someone has to get his cock made bigger on the NHS.

Its not that hard to grasp is it?

.. Well in this situation I think there's a demonstrable... oh.. I get you.

Chortle!

notprop wrote:I think the problem is greater than the NHS.

All cival servants seem to get away with much poorer performance than most private employees (and don't get me started on teachers Arrrgh!).

Don't get me wrong there are halfwits every where dragging down the average for everyone. Where I am they are either put in position where they are most useful or got rid of. I can see why the Gov't would want to impliment this kind of plan to increase efficiency but they just seem to generate more spinless civil servants and beauracrats.

I did see a good documentry the other day where military personnel we being employed at Head Teachers. The contrast with what had gone before was remarkable. All the office politicking was done away with, problems were identified and addressed. Management speak was banned, no more team leaders or advisers. It was really quite refreshing to see (admittedly rather than the media spun extremes that we probably assume to be the case).

You do realize that military personnel are government employees/AKA civil servants, right? It's not whether you're part of a private or public organization. It's about the standards and practices of that organization.

The idea that private industry is more efficient and effective than public/governmental workers is simply false. As evidenced by the US spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as the UK does.

mattyrm wrote:Im not saying everyone should be as proud as me and never go to an NHS dentist, live in a council house, get working tax credits or child benefit or any other goddamn state assisted programme.

You seem to be avoiding the issue that your time in the armed forces also constituted a state-funded activity. And arguably, both the government and the private healthcare companies abused your goodwill and patriotism to turn your aftercare into a way of funding more sports cars for BUPA (or whomever)'s shareholders and execs.

Did you do any arms promotion work in your time in uniform? The arms trade receives a state handout of £10K-15K per year per employee, in the form of direct subsidies, free underwriting on exports, and free labour from forces personnel promoting British products at arms fairs.

mattyrm wrote: I say we ban, pschological treatments unless you are sectioned.

That's basically how the US system works: if someone has a low income, wait until their condition becomes very serious before Medicare will treat it.

As a result, minor complaints go untreated and become more serious, more expensive complaints. This is a big part of why the US government proportionately spends more on health care than the NHS does. You want to save a penny of prevention then spend a pound on cure?

And that's not taking into account the other costs incurred when you take people with mental health problems and do absolutely nothing to help them until they become a demonstrable threat to themselves and others. Take away the support given to people who have not yet become violently unstable or started stealing to fund drug habits and watch what happens to the violent crime rate - and the accompanying change in enforcement costs.

This is why the 'small state' libertarian philosophy is inherently flawed; remove the state's obligations to do anything other than maintain law and order, and the additional strain on maintaining law and order skyrockets.

And your impression of gender dysphoric people as simply deciding that they want a winkie or boobies is completely contradictory to the medical consensus on the issue.

mattyrm wrote:Im saying that our system is being systematically abused on a large scale. And it needs putting right. We need to make it harder to get benefits, much harder, because everyone knows someone who is milking the system.

I see you complaining a lot about the behaviour of people at the bottom of an economy with far more people seeking work than there are vacancies, yet you've not said anything about very wealthy people who avoid paying tax and receive state handouts for their failed businesses and avoid being drawn into answering points about the role such individuals play in depleting the NHS budget. Restricting your attacks only to the poor and mentally ill does not give you the appearance of seeking a more just system.

mattyrm wrote: Im not saying everyone should be as proud as me and never go to an NHS dentist, live in a council house, get working tax credits or child benefit or any other goddamn state assisted programme.

...but you do realize that you are likely to need at least some governmental services at some point, right? In the US young healthy guys with attitudes very much like yours frequently don't bother with health insurance, and complain about having to pay for services for other people. It's the same lack of perspective. It's like if one of the guys in your squad got shot, and you were one of the guys carrying the stretcher, and you complained about the fact that he was lying down and you were carrying him! At some point, it's practically guaranteed, you WILL be sick and need care. Don't bitch at the guy who ate a bullet just because you haven't been hit yet. You'll be happy you're part of the system if you catch a bullet (metaphorically, of course; literally I mean: get badly sick or injured) later, and someone is there to carry you in the stretcher.

mattyrm wrote: Im saying that our system is being systematically abused on a large scale. And it needs putting right. We need to make it harder to get benefits, much harder, because everyone knows someone who is milking the system.

I can totally get behind you here. The abuses you describe at the council are pretty egregious and ridiculous, and more reform is clearly needed.

A lot of people would be surprised at the amount of slackness, stupid bureaucracy and waste in big companies.

There is no magic spell of privatisation or evil curse of public-isation. Everything is done by people working within systems. Good people tend to create good systems, which in turn select and train more good people. The opposite is also true.

Lol. Seem to be ignoring the fact? Its such a bad point I didnt even think about it, Im not ignoring it. I seem to recall someone once using the same argument when I said im against socialism.

State funded activity? Really? Maggie Thatcher was paid by the taxpayers as well, is she a socialist?

We need a military, we have a long proud military history and we will always have one, if we didnt have the Royal Marines, we would be hiring a company like Blackwater and I would have joined them instead. Simples.

Seriously, thats not a sensible point.

The rest of it is however, and while i tend to act rash, I am only half serious, while I am of course in favour of sweeping NHS reform, Im not actually unaware that mental health issues are not a trivial thing, or that people with gender issues dont deserve some measure of repect and assistance.

Im in the middle of a wow raid so we can talk later.

Kilkrazy wrote:A lot of people would be surprised at the amount of slackness, stupid bureaucracy and waste in big companies.

I hope I have made it abundantly clear in certain other threads that I am not one of those people

mattyrm wrote:State funded activity? Really? Maggie Thatcher was paid by the taxpayers as well, is she a socialist?

Mannahnin wrote:

notprop wrote:I think the problem is greater than the NHS.

All cival servants seem to get away with much poorer performance than most private employees (and don't get me started on teachers Arrrgh!).

Don't get me wrong there are halfwits every where dragging down the average for everyone. Where I am they are either put in position where they are most useful or got rid of. I can see why the Gov't would want to impliment this kind of plan to increase efficiency but they just seem to generate more spinless civil servants and beauracrats.

I did see a good documentry the other day where military personnel we being employed at Head Teachers. The contrast with what had gone before was remarkable. All the office politicking was done away with, problems were identified and addressed. Management speak was banned, no more team leaders or advisers. It was really quite refreshing to see (admittedly rather than the media spun extremes that we probably assume to be the case).

You do realize that military personnel are government employees/AKA civil servants, right? It's not whether you're part of a private or public organization. It's about the standards and practices of that organization.

The idea that private industry is more efficient and effective than public/governmental workers is simply false. As evidenced by the US spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as the UK does.

Yeah thanks for the diamond bullet to the brainbox. The military has resposibilty and duties that mean that any slacking is dealt with there and then, this is not the case in the civil service.

The fact is that if you are slacking in a private company and are caught you will be sacked, in the public services this will almost defintely not be the case. Re training more likely. For example of the 3000+ teacher charged with incompetance over the last 5 years only approx 200 were sacked or paid off. This seem very low, especially when I here exactly how many teachers perform from Mrs notprop who works at the local senior school.

The US healthcare system is only evidence of the stagnet mess that is US politics and the fact that big business er I mean the two presiding parties have some how managed to convince the majority of voters that giving a toss about one another is a bad thing. The fact that the US is bent over and still gets a poor service is neither here nor there.

While I agree with Matty on more than a few things, I do differ in that I am quite happy to pay more into the system than I use (I even have private medical ins.) but refuse to accept the lack of resposibility that is indemic in the civil services.

notprop wrote:The fact is that if you are slacking in a private company and are caught you will be sacked

This is SO not true, as I would know from personal experience.

notprop wrote:[The fact is that if you are slacking in a private company and are caught you will be sacked, in the public services this will almost defintely not be the case.

Have you never worked for a private company? I have. I've fired people. And I know how many hoops we jumped through, and how many notices we gave, and how many warnings, and Action Plans. The idea that "private sector = more efficient" is a myth.

mattyrm wrote:Ive been furious with how bad our NHS has been performing over the years, so ive started reading up on the issue, and one thing that confuses me is the amount of opposition to the idea of reforms. More information on reforms can be read here.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/Features/DH_122686

The Nurses just passed a vote of no confidence in Andrew Lansley, and I am left wondering whats next in the chain. Why do you think the reforms are being so heavily resisted?

Im not happy with how the system is at all, it makes me furious. The average NHS worker has 4 times more time off sick than other areas of the public sector, foreign men have had gender reassignment done, tatoos are being removed, boob jobs for dole scum.. the fething works. I dont like the current system at all, so much so that Im starting to wish we had a system more like in the US.

Where do you see the NHS in five years time? Are we REALLY on a path to privatised medicine? Or is this just media scaremongering?

Is the hate speech really necessary?

Yes, because it's on the NHS, so the tax-payer who has been living here their whole life and working their knuckles to the bone is now rewarded by paying for some randomer from XYZistan who's got the bare minimum to qualify for NHS treatment to have ridiculous operations. Obviously Britains have it as well, but at least they partially paid for it through taxes.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah I think Melissa, Red et al are missing the point of what I am trying to say. Obviously if you are born and raised in any civilised country then something from "the system" has benefitted you. Im not saying never use anything ever, thats ridiclous. Im saying that you should not be able to "play" the system. And our system is far too easy to abuse, abuse for wellfare, council houses, job seekers, NHS cosmetics, etc etc ad nausium.

If someone has worked for 20 years and he gets made redundant, then of course he should be allowed job seekers allowance, but he shouldnt be allowed to get his cock made bigger on the NHS.

Its not that hard to grasp is it?

Im not saying everyone should be as proud as me and never go to an NHS dentist, live in a council house, get working tax credits or child benefit or any other goddamn state assisted programme.

Im saying that our system is being systematically abused on a large scale. And it needs putting right. We need to make it harder to get benefits, much harder, because everyone knows someone who is milking the system.

gak, i personally know about 6 people who do it, its a big joke in the pub to have a mate who has been on the dole for 6 years. But not to bad tempered Matty it isnt.

But thats kinda OT, lets just stick to the NHS.

I say we ban, pschological treatments unless you are sectioned. That will put a stop to all the fake depression and all the sex changes and boob jobs. If you have to spend 90 days in a nuthouse, i think the boob job requests will go through the floor!

And reds comment was funny, but, how far off the mark is it? If I see a guy in the Daily Mail in a few weeks time who gets state funded GW battleforces due to depression Ill know who it is!

Canada has public healthcare as well but it's partially or doesn't cover things like prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Also the UK doesn't spend as much on healthcare as much as many other "westernized"

countries (mind you I'm shocked on how much is spent in the US compared to other countries).

mattyrm wrote:Lol. Seem to be ignoring the fact? Its such a bad point I didnt even think about it, Im not ignoring it. I seem to recall someone once using the same argument when I said im against socialism.

State funded activity? Really? Maggie Thatcher was paid by the taxpayers as well, is she a socialist?

We need a military, we have a long proud military history and we will always have one, if we didnt have the Royal Marines, we would be hiring a company like Blackwater and I would have joined them instead. Simples.

Seriously, thats not a sensible point.

The rest of it is however, and while i tend to act rash, I am only half serious, while I am of course in favour of sweeping NHS reform, Im not actually unaware that mental health issues are not a trivial thing, or that people with gender issues dont deserve some measure of repect and assistance.

Im in the middle of a wow raid so we can talk later.

Nobody's calling you a socialist for working for the state. But it is being noted that you are perfectly happy to earn a wage other people are forced to pay.

And whilst Maggie was definitely not a socialist in the traditional meaning of the word to refer to an egalitarian tradition, she was certainly prepared to massively extend the state in an attempt to emulate Pinochet's feats in making the rich richer, virtually militarising police with massively extended powers that had nothing to do with law and order and everything to do with violating civil liberties.

Mannahnin wrote:

notprop wrote:[The fact is that if you are slacking in a private company and are caught you will be sacked, in the public services this will almost defintely not be the case.

Have you never worked for a private company? I have. I've fired people. And I know how many hoops we jumped through, and how many notices we gave, and how many warnings, and Action Plans. The idea that "private sector = more efficient" is a myth.

It's strange how the free marketeers in this thread aren't saying anything about the billions being thrown at failed private sector banks who managed to lead the charge in smashing up the world economy, isn't it?

Requia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Im not happy with how the system is at all, it makes me furious. The average NHS worker has 4 times more time off sick than other areas of the public sector, foreign men have had gender reassignment done, tatoos are being removed, boob jobs for dole scum.. the fething works. I dont like the current system at all, so much so that Im starting to wish we had a system more like in the US.

Is (transphobic) hate speech really necessary?

Avatar 720 wrote:Yes, because it's on the NHS, so the tax-payer who has been living here their whole life and working their knuckles to the bone is now rewarded by paying for some randomer from XYZistan who's got the bare minimum to qualify for NHS treatment to have ridiculous operations. Obviously Britains have it as well, but at least they partially paid for it through taxes.

GRS is not a 'ridiculous operation'. Furthermore, the fact that a transgender person whose parents didn't have the good sense to breed within British jurisdiction might have been able to qualify for a couple of grand's worth of treatment* in no way overrides the Dakka-wide rule against hate speech.

Feel free to ask the mods to make an exception permitting users to post hateful comments about minorities so long as the targets are very poor transfolk for whom English is a foreign language, but you're unlikely to meet much success on that count.

And I'll reiterate that companies supplying the NHS can make triple figure profits on their contracts (and these unsourced transgender immagrunts might have a bit more funding for public healthcare in their countries if the 'proud military history' of the UK didn't have so much bandit imperialism stealing wealth from less developed countries and creating template authoritarian states).

If anything, blaming poor people using the NHS for NHS budget problems makes the NHS budget problems worse by helping the government misdirect attention away from the massive amounts of money being taken out of the NHS by PFI.

In 2009, 143 people had gender reassignment surgery (GRS) on the NHS at an average cost of £10,000 each. (I had no idea it was so cheap!)

I don't know how many were foreigners. According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau it would have been none since GRS isn't emergency treatment.

I appreciate that mattyrm would rather the figure had been zero, however it is incorrect to suggest that GRS on foreigners or natives is an important drain on NHS resources. The NHS budget for 2009 was £107 billion.

Kingston Hospital's car parking fees alone would cover half the bill for GRS.

Let's look at some real issues.

Yeah I suppose its not that huge a cost issue, it still shouldn't be happening though.

Here's a real issue then, degenerates suing the NHS. That must cost us billions right?

How about we make patients sign a waiver so they can't sue what is effectively just the tax payer? And some other system can be put in place to punish slovenly service on the NHS part, but doesn't reward people with cold hard cash.

If you want the right to line your pockets after unsatisfactory service, go pay for BUPA.

Kilkrazy wrote:In 2009, 143 people had gender reassignment surgery (GRS) on the NHS at an average cost of £10,000 each. (I had no idea it was so cheap!) ...Kingston Hospital's car parking fees alone would cover half the bill for GRS.

Is £10,000 the cost for the actual pre-op/surgery/aftercare (assessment time, surgeon time, theatre time, admin costs, clinic costs, etc), or is that the out of pocket cost for the person undergoing GRS?

It seems that £10,000 is the average paid by the NHS for people to have gender reassignment surgery in private clinics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6806530.ece

An account here (from year 2000) says the cost done by a surgeon within the NHS was a bit under £5,000, compared to a totally private cost of £9,000. The difference is explained by the higher cost of rooms in private hospitals.

http://tgmeds.org.uk/downs/grsterry.pdf

Mannahnin wrote:

notprop wrote:[The fact is that if you are slacking in a private company and are caught you will be sacked, in the public services this will almost defintely not be the case.

Have you never worked for a private company? I have. I've fired people. And I know how many hoops we jumped through, and how many notices we gave, and how many warnings, and Action Plans. The idea that "private sector = more efficient" is a myth.

Really? I've done it a few times and not found it that difficult to get the desired result. Are you sure you tried hard enough? You were being nice and fair weren't you?

It sound to me that you are following the Civil Service route that we have here. Personally I don't have unionised staff so don't have my hands tied when dealing with people, of course this is extremely rare as we tend to employ people that want to get on (a waste of a degree otherwise isn't it). All the labour I use is subcontracted, if they don't do the work to programme or to standard then they meet the cost of the remedy. I hardly have to to do this as again, people want to get on and build relationships for more work.

The system works well for the construction/services industries. This is the same sort of system that the Gov't has tried to implement with privatised element of the NHS, the problem being that they are not procured correctly, managed on a local level correctly or punished for failings. This seems to be common across many Civil departments ergo the £10/£22 light bulbs.

Now I am not suggesting that all private companies are efficient as you assume. But if a private company can provide a service and produce a surplus at the end then there is no reason that a Gov't department can not do the same (or at least attempt to). In reality all people really want to see is an end to the waste and profligacy that currently exists within the system.

Anyway, If you are not efficient then this must surely show in your results, why is your boss letting you get away with this Mannahnin?

Construction is an industry where effort and output are relatively easy to measure. An easy example -- you can count the number of bricks laid per hour. If the lines are level and the mortar is good, the job's done well.

Measuring productivity like this is harder to do in many office type jobs.

lindsay40k wrote:It's strange how the free marketeers in this thread aren't saying anything about the billions being thrown at failed private sector banks who managed to lead the charge in smashing up the world economy, isn't it?

This has no relation to the topic at hand, so why would anyone bring it up? Besides, throwing billions of dollars at failing banks has absolutely no place to a free market.

How about the trillions that have been thrown at failed public sector banks who created the economic "smash up"?

I would respectfully disagree KK, but then I'm just a simple Quantity Surveyor.

If you are counting bricks or in the case of the NHS equivelent counting immunisation injections administered/band aids applied then you are looking at it far too closely (we can leave micro management to GW I think).

For example:

Is the hospital ward clean or unclean?

If not the contractor with the responsibility for this should be in the first instance given a clear-up/non-compliance notice (making it nice and legal). The next is to charge the offending company for time lost and appointments cancelled (prehaps the cost of sending the affected patients to private care?). Dealt with like this contractors soon start to adopt professional attitudes to their duties, problems will be identified before they affect patient care, ultimately a partnering attutude will be developed between Hospital and contractors. Wastage and unforseen costs will be minimised.

These issues need to be identified and put into place when the contracts are procured. This does not seem to be the case. If I can procure multiple millions of pounds worth work designing and buiding hospitals with no risk to the NHS (for I have in the past) why can they not procure someone to clean or maintain them - the answer is Gov't procurement is for the most part a joke.

All of this does put the onus on good management. These managers are the Nurses/Doctors/Teachers/whomever accepting the responsibility and working towards the goals fo providing better services.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

lindsay40k wrote:It's strange how the free marketeers in this thread aren't saying anything about the billions being thrown at failed private sector banks who managed to lead the charge in smashing up the world economy, isn't it?

This has no relation to the topic at hand, so why would anyone bring it up? Besides, throwing billions of dollars at failing banks has absolutely no place to a free market.

How about the trillions that have been thrown at failed public sector banks who created the economic "smash up"?

I think that there might be some confusion between the UK meaning of Public/private and the US.

Uk public = Gov't

Unless that is a clever jole on the take over of private banks by Gov'ts. In which case well done.

notprop wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

notprop wrote:[The fact is that if you are slacking in a private company and are caught you will be sacked, in the public services this will almost defintely not be the case.

Have you never worked for a private company? I have. I've fired people. And I know how many hoops we jumped through, and how many notices we gave, and how many warnings, and Action Plans. The idea that "private sector = more efficient" is a myth.

Really? I've done it a few times and not found it that difficult to get the desired result. Are you sure you tried hard enough? You were being nice and fair weren't you?

<snip>

Anyway, If you are not efficient then this must surely show in your results, why is your boss letting you get away with this Mannahnin?

I would let some of them go faster, in some cases, but was required to follow a slower procedure by my superiors and HR department. This is an Employ At Will state, where under employment law we can let anyone go for any or no reason, at any time, with no notice. But that's not what companies typically do. Especially if the position is not easily filled, and the training time significant.

Good that you can off them imediately if you wish to, better that you have alterantives I suppose.

Saw this today as an example of what I am getting at.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13096124

BBC Wales wrote:

Llandrindod teacher Penelope Haddon drank in class

A teacher suspected of drinking white wine from a water bottle in class has been found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.

Penelope Haddon drank alcohol at Llandrindod Wells Church in Wales Primary, Powys but was not under its influence, a disciplinary panel ruled.

The General Teaching Council for Wales told Miss Haddon, who was not present, to take an alcohol awareness course.

She no longer works at the school and had denied the claims.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

I was concerned for the children”

End Quote Andrea Burton Student on placement

Miss Haddon was accused of bringing alcohol into work on two consecutive days in May last year and being under the influence of alcohol on those days.

The panel found she brought the alcohol into work and drank it on one day but rejected the other allegations.

The chair of the panel Helene Mansfield said: "Miss Haddon had not shown any insight into her failing".

She said she had not demonstrated an awareness of the issue of drinking in the classroom.

Witnesses told the hearing earlier that she had smelled of alcohol.

Andrea Burton, a student on placement from Coleg Powys, said: "She was quite stumbly, walking around the class."

Miss Burton told the panel that Miss Haddon smelled of alcohol, as did the empty bottle which she later recovered from the classroom bin.
Bottle residue

She said: "I was concerned for the children."

Senior teacher Janice Baynham said she also smelled alcohol on Miss Haddon's breath, and was aware that she had had worries about the health of her parents at that time.

The hearing was told that deputy head teacher Colin Williams had tasted residue from the bottle and believed it to be white wine.

Huw Roberts, presenting the case, said the serious allegations had been backed up by "consistent and compelling witnesses".

He said: "It doesn't bear thinking about what could have happened."

The disciplinary panel suspended Miss Haddon from teaching in maintained and non-maintained special schools until 31 August, on condition she takes an alcohol awareness course.

Drunk in charge of children in class. Take a course and work at another school - BS

Yeah that is pretty bad- However it's easy to look at the bad examples. Being public sector all the bad decisions get shown to world, when the same thing happens in the private sector (which it does) no one knows or cares.

notprop wrote:I would respectfully disagree KK, but then I'm just a simple Quantity Surveyor.

If you are counting bricks or in the case of the NHS equivelent counting immunisation injections administered/band aids applied then you are looking at it far too closely (we can leave micro management to GW I think).

For example:

Is the hospital ward clean or unclean?

If not the contractor with the responsibility for this should be in the first instance given a clear-up/non-compliance notice (making it nice and legal). The next is to charge the offending company for time lost and appointments cancelled (prehaps the cost of sending the affected patients to private care?). Dealt with like this contractors soon start to adopt professional attitudes to their duties, problems will be identified before they affect patient care, ultimately a partnering attutude will be developed between Hospital and contractors. Wastage and unforseen costs will be minimised.

These issues need to be identified and put into place when the contracts are procured. This does not seem to be the case. If I can procure multiple millions of pounds worth work designing and buiding hospitals with no risk to the NHS (for I have in the past) why can they not procure someone to clean or maintain them - the answer is Gov't procurement is for the most part a joke.

Doesn't work that way, at least in the states. If a contractor gets hit with a fine or get payed less by the client because they screwed up, they try to make up the profit somewhere else, lowering wages, cutting training budgets, layoffs etc. This results in the company doing an even *worse* job because morale is low, experienced employees start quitting left and right (I've seen turnover hit 200% a year when this happened at one job), and new employees (if there even are any) haven't been properly trained.

Contracting out long term gigs is a freaking disaster, it's only a matter of time before a company start to try and increase profits by cutting quality of service.

Requia wrote:

notprop wrote:I would respectfully disagree KK, but then I'm just a simple Quantity Surveyor.

If you are counting bricks or in the case of the NHS equivelent counting immunisation injections administered/band aids applied then you are looking at it far too closely (we can leave micro management to GW I think).

For example:

Is the hospital ward clean or unclean?

If not the contractor with the responsibility for this should be in the first instance given a clear-up/non-compliance notice (making it nice and legal). The next is to charge the offending company for time lost and appointments cancelled (prehaps the cost of sending the affected patients to private care?). Dealt with like this contractors soon start to adopt professional attitudes to their duties, problems will be identified before they affect patient care, ultimately a partnering attutude will be developed between Hospital and contractors. Wastage and unforseen costs will be minimised.

These issues need to be identified and put into place when the contracts are procured. This does not seem to be the case. If I can procure multiple millions of pounds worth work designing and buiding hospitals with no risk to the NHS (for I have in the past) why can they not procure someone to clean or maintain them - the answer is Gov't procurement is for the most part a joke.

Doesn't work that way, at least in the states. If a contractor gets hit with a fine or get payed less by the client because they screwed up, they try to make up the profit somewhere else, lowering wages, cutting training budgets, layoffs etc. This results in the company doing an even *worse* job because morale is low, experienced employees start quitting left and right (I've seen turnover hit 200% a year when this happened at one job), and new employees (if there even are any) haven't been properly trained.

Contracting out long term gigs is a freaking disaster, it's only a matter of time before a company start to try and increase profits by cutting quality of service.

or even worse, quality of materials (in the case of builders)
e.g. saltwater being used in the manufacture of cement which leads to weak, crumbly buildings. Can you imagine that for a hospital scary stuff...

With regards to the public sector you have to expect a worse work ethic, slacking off and such..
are
Often reforming such or cracking down on malpractice just creates *more bureaucracy* and the quagmire deepens.

Frankly, I think people need to understand that despite this, the NHS functions as a safety net: If something bad happens to you, you are GUARANTEED to get healthcare.

If OP wants an "American system" he should open his eyes and look around him; this is a mixed economy, go to BUPA... you can still get health insurance and a lovely private clinic to sort you out.