Britain to Reform Health Care System

[Bob Hubbard]

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/17/britain-to-make-healthcare-changes/?test=latestnews

British Prime Minister David Cameron says he plans to open up the National Health Service to competition.

Cameron's plans to shake up Britain’s universal health care system-- known as NHS -- will transfer much decision making authority to general practitioners, and thus bypassing administrators to cut out bureaucracy.

“We need modernization on both sides of the equation," he said in a major speech defending public sector reforms. "Modernization to do something about the demand for public health service, and modernization to make the supply of health care more efficient, which is about opening up the system, making it more competitive, cutting out waste and bureaucracy.”

According to Cameron, it’s not, in these times of austerity, that “we can’t afford to modernize. It’s that we can’t afford not to modernize.”

Skeptics are already accusing him of taking a “wrecking ball” to one of the finest institutions in the country. Some doctors, nurses and union leaders wrote a letter to the editor of the London Times. Among the concerns expressed, was that bringing in competition could mean bringing down quality, because, doctors would, presumably, go for the cheapest service options in order to save money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12208322

The scale of health reforms being made in England has taken the NHS by "surprise" and could threaten its ability to make savings, MPs say.

The Commons health committee has criticised the "significant policy shift" of scrapping primary care trusts and passing control of budgets to GPs.

It said the NHS had not been able to plan properly for the reforms.

The latest criticism of the changes comes after David Cameron said public service reforms could not be put off.

In a speech on Monday, the prime minister said he wanted to "do right" by public sector workers but arguments he should stick with the status quo were a "complete fiction".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/18/nhs-reforms-risky-select-committee-warns

MPs today warn that the government's decision to go for rapid, root-and-branch restructuring of the NHS has made its plans for health reform both more risky and more expensive.

The report on changes in NHS commissioning from the all-party Commons health select committee says: "The committee broadly shares the government's policy objectives, so it therefore welcomes the fact that these are substantially unchanged. It does not believe, however, that the approach adopted by the government represents the most efficient way of delivering those objectives."

Central to the government's health reforms, says the committee, is the challenge laid down in 2009 by the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, to make efficiency savings of 4% per year from 2011 to 2012 – effectively £15bn-£20bn.

 

[billc]

How do you reform the perfect system?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It reads as if there is a perception this is a spur of the moment poorly thought out move. I saw a number of other links, but grabbed these 3 for starters.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, it is poorly thought through and hurriedly implemented - that's pretty much a Tory policy trade-mark. That and wielding a big axe with abandon on things that don't hurt their supporters.

Their supporters do well enough of course as they have seven figure bank balances, so cuts don't even register on them. The rest of us try to ride out the worst of it until 'the'y are out of power again - naturally we don't really count as we are poor and noone of any consequence is poor.

 

[Archangel M]

It may very well "work great" by the perception of the average citizen. But like anything else, it has to be PAID FOR!

 

[billc]

Before Rush Limbaugh went on vacation for christmas, he said he was at a party with a British diplomat who told Rush that the NHS is in a lot worse shape than has been let known. They are in real trouble.

 

[Sukerkin]

And it (the NHS) can be paid for if the supposedly subsidury industries that supplied the drugs and equipment didn't unnaturally inflate their prices and if people took a little responsibilty for their own health.

From my own families recent experiences, Billchiak, aye, things are in dire straights. Of course, we can't get rid of those useful bureaucrats and managers, so we'd better cut nursing staff and employ people from Ungobungo-land who will work for two beans a day (but not actually care if someone is lying in their own filth all day).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So Suk,
Obviously cutting costs and reigning in expenses and waste is important for any care system. But some of the things they look to be cutting, don't strike me as 'optional'.
Is this a 'done deal' or is it just proposed in the works?

 

[billc]

Human nature is a bear isn't it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just to clarify, I didn't post this to bash the system or the Brits. but to look at the issue at hand. Lets stick to that please. Thanks.

 

[billc]

I apologize. And will curb the comments.

 

[Sukerkin]

I fear that the wheels are already turning on this one, Bob. Some things may be 'massaged' to give the appearance of responding to public and political pressure but such reform drives tend to push on through right past the point where their unmittigated failure was long evident.

Reform of the NHS was tried not so long ago by the Labour government and, as is par for the course, made things worse and cost more money. All we want is clean wards with nursing staff who care if you live or die, managed by matrons who know what is needed and can guide over-worked young doctors towards the right medical decisions.

The system used to work fine and then the politicians started poking the machine and selling off bits of it that they didn't think were necessary. The embracing of 'private' medicine (under the Tories, who else?) was a big nail in the coffin of the NHS. The private companies are funded by subscription and insurance, won't take on people who are too ill and, wonder of wonders, use NHS resources to provide their 'service'.

 

[Tez3]

I apologize. And will curb the comments.

Well, you do know that the present government who are doing the 'reforms' are the Conservative party, the Right wing lot ie your people?

The other thing I don't think people realise nor want to realise is how much Afghanistan is costing the NHS, how many people are being bumped out of their beds because they are needed for injuried service people. I don't think the general public actually want to know how many service people are injured, they only see the deaths. We have no military hosptials anymore so Birmingham is taking the brunt but all over the UK the injured are in hosptials and specialist units. Our brigade had hundreds wounded in their six months so every year you are looking at thousands of injured personnel. Many are in the hospitals for a very long time, some may never leave. They fill up the intensive care units on a regular basis.
Many of the hospital and medical units in Afghan are manned by TA staff who's usual jobs are in hospitals here, the units are arranged by area so you could have a good many staff going off for six months at a time leaving the NHS to employ locums.

This isn't a righteous war, it's costing too much in lives taken, lives ruined and the monetary cost is astronomical.

 

[ballen0351]

Well, you do know that the present government who are doing the 'reforms' are the Conservative party, the Right wing lot ie your people?

The other thing I don't think people realise nor want to realise is how much Afghanistan is costing the NHS, how many people are being bumped out of their beds because they are needed for injuried service people. I don't think the general public actually want to know how many service people are injured, they only see the deaths. We have no military hosptials anymore so Birmingham is taking the brunt but all over the UK the injured are in hosptials and specialist units. Our brigade had hundreds wounded in their six months so every year you are looking at thousands of injured personnel. Many are in the hospitals for a very long time, some may never leave. They fill up the intensive care units on a regular basis.
Many of the hospital and medical units in Afghan are manned by TA staff who's usual jobs are in hospitals here, the units are arranged by area so you could have a good many staff going off for six months at a time leaving the NHS to employ locums.

This isn't a righteous war, it's costing too much in lives taken, lives ruined and the monetary cost is astronomical.

Do you have military doctors? Do you have clinics on base say for simple check ups or is it all done thru your NHS?

 

[Tez3]

Do you have military doctors? Do you have clinics on base say for simple check ups or is it all done thru your NHS?

Most of the military doctors are in Afghanistan, back from there or training to go there. Each battalion has a military doctor attached to it, each camp has a medical centre to treat things that a normal GP would treat but all specialist medical care is NHS.

 

[ballen0351]

Most of the military doctors are in Afghanistan, back from there or training to go there. Each battalion has a military doctor attached to it, each camp has a medical centre to treat things that a normal GP would treat but all specialist medical care is NHS.

Has it always been that way or is that a more modern thing? I can see the benefits to one system for both military and civilian that as well as drawbacks.

 

[billc]

I know on the things I post I really do not care where they lead, so if my going on a tangent bugs someone here I'll start another thread.

Tez, You are against the war in Afghanistan, leaving out Iraq for the moment. Not to put you on the spot, and I know that you don't have to have any or all the answers to a complex problem like this, I ask, with respect, what would you do instead? this, given that this is the area that the terrorists launched their attack on the twin towers from. If you don't really know how to resolve this, that's fine as well. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on the issue.

 

[CanuckMA]

Bill, I can't answer for Tez, but I can give you the Canadian view, which is not that far apart.

We want our troops home. It's been too costly for the achievements.

After 9/11, we were happy to there with you. There was a focus. Get to the 'Stan, destroy Al-Queda, capture or kill Bin-Laden.

Then came Iraq. The feeling here is that the US just got bored and bailed out. Then got pissed at allies who did not back them on Iraq. Afghanistan lost focus. At this point the war is pointless. No gains are being made. Karzai is talking to the Taliban about forming a government. As soon as the troops leave an area, the Talibans come in.

 

[billc]

So, you just want the troops pulled out. Okay. But, then what. If someone isn't there, what do you do when the terrorists begin their training camps, with no interference? No hostility in this, just looking for your views.

 

[ballen0351]

So, you just want the troops pulled out. Okay. But, then what. If someone isn't there, what do you do when the terrorists begin their training camps, with no interference? No hostility in this, just looking for your views.

I agree with CanuckMA pull the troops out. This was our war we cant expect our allies to keep fighting forever with us.

Then just keep a close watch and everytime a small camp pops up blow it into the next century. I dont care if people like us or not we have to protect ourselves and these people are beyond nuts and will never stop until they kill us all so we need to be the same way. Each time we blow up a camp the bombs get bigger and bigger until the afghans finally say enough and throw the terrorists out or they have no country left.