"... ideological attack on NHS values which I believe is the case by some on the right"
I don't know, Big John, what are these NHS values. From where I sit the NHS is there to provide the best treatment to whoever needs it free at the point of treatment are regardless of the ability to pay. Yet the NHS has for donkeys years been unable to fulfil that basic mission-statement. It can't; demand is infinite resources ain't. There has to be choice in who gets treated with what. Of course the more efficient the system is the more money for patient care is available and so not so many people have to suffer and/or die before their time.
Who is employing the person that is operating the machine is entirely irrelevant to me the patient. If giving ABC Health Company Ltd the contract to run my local hospital and as a result n% more people get treated, then that's fine by me. Your argument, is think, NHS direct employee = good, NHS indirect employee = bad, might make sense from the interest of the NHS employee it makes no sense at all from the point of view of the patient.
If outsourced services are so bloody awful for patients then you are going to have to explain Hitchinbroke.
"... ideological attack on NHS values which I believe is the case by some on the right"
I don't know, Big John, what are these NHS values. From where I sit the NHS is there to provide the best treatment to whoever needs it free at the point of treatment are regardless of the ability to pay. Yet the NHS has for donkeys years been unable to fulfil that basic mission-statement. It can't; demand is infinite resources ain't. There has to be choice in who gets treated with what. Of course the more efficient the system is the more money for patient care is available and so not so many people have to suffer and/or die before their time.
Who is employing the person that is operating the machine is entirely irrelevant to me the patient. If giving ABC Health Company Ltd the contract to run my local hospital and as a result n% more people get treated, then that's fine by me. Your argument, is think, NHS direct employee = good, NHS indirect employee = bad, might make sense from the interest of the NHS employee it makes no sense at all from the point of view of the patient.
If outsourced services are so bloody awful for patients then you are going to have to explain Hitchinbroke.
The problems at Hichinbrooke were financial rather than clinical. It remains to be seen if Circle Health are running a viable hospital or a loss leader to get other contracts.
The argument that an NHS nurse can earn 30% more by working for an agency has not been shot down as it is true. It is also true that an agency shift can cost £1000 and even after all on costs an agency shift will ALWAYS be bad VFM for the taxpayer.
Lets talk NHS more with the electorate.
May 2015 would be excellent timing.
Agency rates do not include holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay or superannuation so the headline rare appears better. They can be good value ways of covering short term gaps in staffing, particularly if the absence of agency staff closes a ward or operating theatre.
One particularly bad aspect of the Labour restructuring of medical careers is that it has made health service Locums impossible to appoint, as there is no viable career for these doctors anymore.
Dear BigJohnows - you are saying the NHS is in deficit and unsustainable. The French NHS is in deficit. It continues to exist. The German NHS is in deficit. Or it was in 2010 when they put up mandatory insurance premiums. I suspect it still is. And it was not a few hundred million - it was about 11 billion euros.
"... ideological attack on NHS values which I believe is the case by some on the right"
I don't know, Big John, what are these NHS values. From where I sit the NHS is there to provide the best treatment to whoever needs it free at the point of treatment are regardless of the ability to pay. Yet the NHS has for donkeys years been unable to fulfil that basic mission-statement. It can't; demand is infinite resources ain't. There has to be choice in who gets treated with what. Of course the more efficient the system is the more money for patient care is available and so not so many people have to suffer and/or die before their time.
Who is employing the person that is operating the machine is entirely irrelevant to me the patient. If giving ABC Health Company Ltd the contract to run my local hospital and as a result n% more people get treated, then that's fine by me. Your argument, is think, NHS direct employee = good, NHS indirect employee = bad, might make sense from the interest of the NHS employee it makes no sense at all from the point of view of the patient.
If outsourced services are so bloody awful for patients then you are going to have to explain Hitchinbroke.
"... ideological attack on NHS values which I believe is the case by some on the right"
Who is employing the person that is operating the machine is entirely irrelevant to me the patient. If giving ABC Health Company Ltd the contract to run my local hospital and as a result n% more people get treated, then that's fine by me. Your argument, is think, NHS direct employee = good, NHS indirect employee = bad, might make sense from the interest of the NHS employee it makes no sense at all from the point of view of the patient.
If outsourced services are so bloody awful for patients then you are going to have to explain Hitchinbroke.
Correct and the committment to more privatisation was in laboiur's 2010 manifesto. The left looked the other way - but it had to be there because Labour knew that the NHS needed it and they would have had to bring it in if re-elected.
Comments
I don't know, Big John, what are these NHS values. From where I sit the NHS is there to provide the best treatment to whoever needs it free at the point of treatment are regardless of the ability to pay. Yet the NHS has for donkeys years been unable to fulfil that basic mission-statement. It can't; demand is infinite resources ain't. There has to be choice in who gets treated with what. Of course the more efficient the system is the more money for patient care is available and so not so many people have to suffer and/or die before their time.
Who is employing the person that is operating the machine is entirely irrelevant to me the patient. If giving ABC Health Company Ltd the contract to run my local hospital and as a result n% more people get treated, then that's fine by me. Your argument, is think, NHS direct employee = good, NHS indirect employee = bad, might make sense from the interest of the NHS employee it makes no sense at all from the point of view of the patient.
If outsourced services are so bloody awful for patients then you are going to have to explain Hitchinbroke.
The problems at Hichinbrooke were financial rather than clinical. It remains to be seen if Circle Health are running a viable hospital or a loss leader to get other contracts.
One particularly bad aspect of the Labour restructuring of medical careers is that it has made health service Locums impossible to appoint, as there is no viable career for these doctors anymore.
In a very tight election, the NHS can easily swing the election towards Labour - the intelligent PB Tories in their heart of hearts know this.
Think the civilised amongst us from all political allegiances will raise a glass when the Stockton South result comes in as a Labour gain.