Labour top brass getting down to business

[SydneyRover]

I think most that want change understand the basics of what needs doing, it's just that a few want to see a more rapid change and fail to take into consideration of how something that appears achievable at any point in time can be snatched from ones grasp by a stupid war against a south American country or such like. Building confidence within the electorate and showing that labour can do the job is of the utmost importance.

Understanding the danger of the thread being taken off, off topic he edits the comment

[Ldr]

Not really. NHS work is done for cost. Private work is done for cost + profit. Therefore if the NHS pays for patients to have treatment in private hospitals - they will be able to treat less patients. Or something else will have to be cut-back.

Love to read the source for this given how wrong it is
[/quote]

Not really one source but a very brief summary of a number of things I have read over the years. here's some

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/5378/bma-nhs-outsourcing-report-march-2022.pdf

https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-nhs-market-system-costing/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content

https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/nhs-spend-on-private-healthcare-rose-27-per-cent-in-a-year/7031836.article

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-stops-plan-charge-16548975

Happy to be corrected and have it explained how something which costs more will be cheaper?
[/quote]

Without going into commercial sensitivities, we don’t pay private prices at private hospitals. In the main (and acknowledging that payment mechinismims are currently mainly on block contract due to the pandemic) nhs work is paid at tariff, these can be found on the nhs England website. Each trust will have differing costs so to say it is done at cost is incorrect, it is done for a fixed income. In my area where private work has been contacted from the nhs to alliviate waiting lists it has been done for a (large) % of that fixed income not as a premium over it. In short the trust got little to no income for treating that patient BUT the cost to the NHS budget was no higher than if treated in the trust

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?

[ncRover]

Percentage of total UK income owned by top 1% since end of WW1

https://twitter.com/PplPolPlace/status/1612073326549307397

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional/913c9529.png

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?

That's an argument that works only if you ignore taxation.

What you are actually saying is, if richer people are encouraged to pay less tax, retain their wealth and choose to opt out of social health provision, thereby reducing pressure on the NHS, the position of the NHS would be better than if they'd been taxed and the proceeds put into the NHS.

I'm sure you see the flaw in that argument.

[ncRover]

And of course, an inefficient NHS isn’t fixed for free. It costs us the taxpayer money.

But yes, it does need sorting out. I don’t think private should be vilified and can play a role in helping. This is the way in most European countries through insurance. Our NHS is the outlier in the modern world.

That being said, a healthier population is a happier and more productive one than can make everybody richer.

[ravenrover]

Think it would be interesting to find out how many MPs from all parties use private health care.
Wonder if it is an expense they can claim back?

[SydneyRover]

''The links between private healthcare companies and some high-profile MPs, cabinet ministers and prime ministerial advisors are deeply alarming. How can we expect these people to stop NHS privatisation?''

https://www.everydoctor.org.uk/blog/private-healthcare-politicians

Cannot vouch for the accuracy of this

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?

That's an argument that works only if you ignore taxation.

What you are actually saying is, if richer people are encouraged to pay less tax, retain their wealth and choose to opt out of social health provision, thereby reducing pressure on the NHS, the position of the NHS would be better than if they'd been taxed and the proceeds put into the NHS.

I'm sure you see the flaw in that argument.

Of course, we could tax people and businesses more that's an approach you can make, or you can give people and businesses a bit more choice to spend that if they wish.    I do think seperate to taxation there should always be an option for people to choose the private route if they wish.

[SydneyRover]

But it shouldn't be government driving or creating the conditions for private health to grow.

[ncRover]

https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/

[SydneyRover]

https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/

So as the 6th wealthiest country in the world the UK's health system has not kept up aye?

[drfchound]

People keep singing the praises of Germany, Sweden,Finland and Norway and yet they are behind us in that table.

[SydneyRover]

I'm thinking the length of waiting lists and customer satisfaction are not amongst the parameters used to define the list.

[SydneyRover]

People keep singing the praises of Germany, Sweden,Finland and Norway and yet they are behind us in that table.

who are these people hound?

[SydneyRover]

Is there any wonder that the government are not trusted to maintain, build and modernise the NHS and its staff.

At the first opportunity following a decade of underfunding and negligence a fast lane for cronies was established but hidden from view. Contracts handed out bypassed a virtually brand new purpose built organisation designed to source and supply the NHS. The contract/products purchased via the VIP lane were not scrutinised for either value or whether they were fit for purpose. The government has had to be forced into handing over details of the debacle and the saga continues with a massive cost to store and dispose of the PPE mountain of shame.

And people rightly mone about it

[ncRover]

“Healthcare in South Korea is universal, although a significant portion of healthcare is privately funded. South Korea's healthcare system is based on the National Health Insurance Service, a public health insurance program run by the Ministry of Health and Welfare to which South Koreans of sufficient income must pay contributions to in order to insure themselves and their dependants, and the Medical Aid Program, a social welfare program run by the central government and local governments to insure those unable to pay National Health Insurance contributions. In 2015, South Korea ranked first in the OECD for healthcare access.”

South Korea have an older population than us also. France also ranked higher on that list.

We can make the NHS work, but does it’s model need modernising? I don’t know enough about national healthcare to make one argument or the other, but it’s clear there that a completely public healthcare model isn’t the only way to do it.

UK demographics far older and fatter than they were when the NHS was founded.

[SydneyRover]

There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?

That's an argument that works only if you ignore taxation.

What you are actually saying is, if richer people are encouraged to pay less tax, retain their wealth and choose to opt out of social health provision, thereby reducing pressure on the NHS, the position of the NHS would be better than if they'd been taxed and the proceeds put into the NHS.

I'm sure you see the flaw in that argument.

Of course, we could tax people and businesses more that's an approach you can make, or you can give people and businesses a bit more choice to spend that if they wish.    I do think seperate to taxation there should always be an option for people to choose the private route if they wish.

Isn't that what working people want, enough money to be able to make that very choice pud? Although having to make a choice to either heat or eat is a worse one.

When happens to ppl with work linked health insurance when they lose their job or retire? oooh that's a bit expensive innit? and it goes back to the tied cottage system (or land system, being a bit Scottish you should be across that one pud)

sorry sir, yes sir three bags full sir or you're out of a job and home.

This was happening in my lifetime.

[albie]

Keith came out with a cracker to LauraK today, self referrals for internal bleeding;
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-gp-referrals

Bloody hell, blue skies thinking there.

[SydneyRover]

Keith came out with a cracker to LauraK today, self referrals for internal bleeding;
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-gp-referrals

Bloody hell, blue skies thinking there.

He's on the right track though, if you have a chronic illness that is not going away ever, why do you have to keep going to get an annual referral can't it be at least every 5/10 years? It's an area to look at, but yes if you have obvious internal bleeding refer yourself to emergency.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's a serious debate to be had here about the whole GP system.

It is based on the assumption that GPs who are GENERAL practitioners, not specialist experts, are capable of separating serious problems from trivial concerns, within a very short time.

I have had several experiences of this simply failing. The worst one was the death of my father 20-odd years ago. He went to the GP with chest pains. He was sent home with a bottle of Gaviscon. Two days later he died of a massive heart attack.

If there'd been a mechanism for him to get to see a specialist, rather than a not very competent GP (part of whose job is to limit access to specialist care) he might have survived.

I myself had a debilitating but non-life threatening problem that confined me to bed for three months, ten years back. The GP told me I just needed to rest. In my frustration, I researched my issue online, self diagnosed and found a treatment that cleared things up in days. Having a non-expert GENERALIST as the gatekeeper to the treatment process, who didn't even know what my problem was, extended my incapacitation for many weeks.

As I say, there is a serious debate here. But some folk will just want to play political games with it.

[Ldr]

Think your spot on Billy

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ldr.

I have a very good friend who emigrated to the UK from Russia 25 years ago. He doesn't have many issues on which he thinks our society is worse than Russia's but he's horrified by our GP system. In Russia they don't have GPs acting as blocks to getting expert treatment. Every town has a large polyclinic, staffed by subject experts. If you attend with chest pains, you get seen by a cardiologist, not a GP who hasn't the skill to separate an impending heart attack from acid indigestion.

[roverstillidie91]

Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.

I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.

It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.

No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.

I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.

& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.

[albie]

Keith came out with a cracker to LauraK today, self referrals for internal bleeding;
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-gp-referrals

Bloody hell, blue skies thinking there.

He's on the right track though, if you have a chronic illness that is not going away ever, why do you have to keep going to get an annual referral can't it be at least every 5/10 years? It's an area to look at, but yes if you have obvious internal bleeding refer yourself to emergency.

I agree that there should be an open debate on how to access specialist services, but for Starmer to choose internal bleeding as an example seems very strange.

The danger with self referral is that the worried well will consume a much higher percentage of specialist time, just as that resource is in limited supply. It is clear that some groups will be more assertive of their needs without a clinical diagnoses.

There is a need for a gatekeeper to screen medical needs as a first base, when we are not talking about emergency care.
The BMA were very clear in their response to Starmer.

The case BST sets out shows a weakness under the current system, but how do you speed access to the appropriate professional if you do not have a system of priority referrals?

[drfchound]

Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.

I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.

It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.

No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.

I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.

& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.

I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.

[scawsby steve]

Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.

I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.

It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.

No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.

I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.

& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.

I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It make it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.

As I said on here the other day, mate, Labour will win in spite of Keith, not because of him.

No party can be as bad as this government, but I'm not expecting the major changes that need to happen, to be forthcoming when Labour gets in.

[SydneyRover]

But you didn't explain why other parties are not doing so well aye Steve?

[roverstillidie91]

Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.

I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.

It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.

No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.

I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.

& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.

I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.

it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.

these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account

[drfchound]

Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.

I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.

It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.

No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.

I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.

& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.

I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.

it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.

these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account

So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91.  It would be good to know.