Report shows how NHS privatisation played role in ‘turning C19 into utter disaster’

[patman post]

There is no NHS anymore,free at the point of delivery? depends on your postcode,too many fools of politicians interfering over the years,should be dealt with by across the board consensus rather than who won the election.

That surprises me. Doctors' appointments are free. Medications for over sixties and others in England and elsewhere are free. The rest is down to decisions of local trusts. The obvious way out is to make NHS national again. AND replace incapable managers with real business aware operatives...

[cromwell]

There is no NHS anymore,free at the point of delivery? depends on your postcode,too many fools of politicians interfering over the years,should be dealt with by across the board consensus rather than who won the election.

[Borg Refinery]

Well, the French & German health systems use more private provision and have better outcomes than ours does.



It's incompetence and corruption; bribes & backhanders that's the main problem. Even in the nationalized industries, the same type of corruption exists - the same Old Boys enrich themselves and their pals at the country's expense, and appoint their friends into positions of power.



Privatization is just an easier way of paying off your pals and enriching oneself.

[B0ycey]

F@@@ me. Privatisation doesn't have any success stories. Rover went bust but was quite efficent when it was Leyland DAF, BT wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Internet because who the F@@@ phones from a landline anymore,  Royal Mail rely on them having a legal entitlement to have no competition is general post and still have stamps tripling in price every few years and Rail franchises rely on government handouts. A privatised healthcare would run like a business. That is it will create vast profits so would function efficiently, but Joe public will either pay significantly more either in tax or insurance so the shareholder can have his profits just like the Yanks.

[Borg Refinery]

Well just run through this



https://www.google.com/search?q=royal+mail+scandal&oq=royal+mail+scandal&aqs=chrome..69i57.5332j0j7&client=ms-android-h3g-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/search?q=royal+m ... e&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/search?q=royal+mail+scandal&oq=royal+mail+scandal&aqs=chrome..69i57.5332j0j7&client=ms-android-h3g-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8



and explain the wonders of PO and RM privatization.



Then we can run through the report which details (with ext. sources) the non stop failures of NHS privatization.



Or this



"It's the cost of the NHS 'market' itself. Administering the hugely expensive artificial 'marketplace' created by successive governments to allow both NHS and private 'providers' to compete with each other to offer services to NHS and other 'purchasers'.



No-one knows the exact cost of this bureaucratic 'marketplace'. A recent estimate by rebel Lib Dems put the figure as high as £30billion a year. Dr Jacky Davis and other doctors and campaigners including the National Health Action Party have put it at £10billion a year. The Centre of Health & the Public Interest put it at a 'conservative' £4.5billion a year.



Even the most conservative of these estimates is a yearly amount which would, if re-directed away from useless market activities, fund both the £2billion annual NHS shortfall and free critical social care to everyone, which the Kings Fund's Barker Commission recently said would cost  'substantially less' than £3billion a year.



Despite fierce urging from expert MPs to look at what the 'market' costs the NHS more closely, the government, mainstream media, think tanks and policy makers have dismissed, ignored and even suppressed this information, with unevidenced assertions that 'modern healthcare systems' need vastly expensive bureaucracy, market or no market."



IMHO the argument in favour of privatizatiin is a non-starter, and BT covered themselves with exorbitant fees and horribly unfair monopolization practices effectively forcing people to buy from them; in a cronyist corrupt deal with the govt in an artificially closed off marketplace .

[patman post]

Where I live it has been a complete disaster and most of what was privatised had been taken back "in house."

I can find no good thing to state about the privatisation that took place here especially when the contracts were given to known iffy companies like SERCO and Mitie.

If the NHS had competent management and contract admin there'd be less likelihood of work being outsourced to under-performing third parties. On the other hand, NHS facilities reclaiming work that had been outsourced when circumstances show it would now be better done in-house could be a sign of able management...

[papasmurf]

I've never understood how those who claim the NHS is being privatised, support their argument that it's a bad thing.

Where I live it has been a complete disaster and most of what was privatised had been taken back "in house."

I can find no good thing to state about the privatisation that took place here especially when the contracts were given to known iffy companies like SERCO and Mitie.

[patman post]

I've never understood how those who claim the NHS is being privatised, support their argument that it's a bad thing. In fact they seem to go into anti-privatisation rapid fire at whatever national institution identifies efficiencies to be gained by outsourcing to non-state suppliers.

Royal Mail still operates, but now on a reduced income, even though Luddites claimed it was being sold too cheaply. The vast majority of Post Offices have always been privately operated, and the recent trend to sell off Crown Offices has improved service. Communications have progressed in leaps and bounds since BT was digitised, privatised and lost its monopoly. Public Transport has improved beyond all recognition in recent years. GPs are mostly not employed by the NHS but are either independent contractors or employed by other GPs or commercial companies.

The NHS is never going to become the BT of health (ie, privatised, maximising profit, and leasing services to — often pseudo — competitors).

NHS could be more efficient. It has dedicated and skilled medical staff. But it needs more-competent management, who are not just bureaucrats and/or political appointees. The NHS should remain a state-owned service, but be at arms length from whatever political party is in power — have it operating under a Royal Charter, perhaps. Buying in supplies and specialised services from outside when that improves efficiencies and patient outcomes makes sense. As does operating some ancillary services in-house, if that does the same.

Covid-19 has shown how the NHS can rise to the occasion when required, but it has also shown how political horsetrading over the years has left it vulnerable...

[Borg Refinery]

Actually the report is detailed and interesting, and is worth reading, I'll finish it later.

[papasmurf]

:thup:



No need to read it. America have proven that profits over health results in a piss poor healthcare system.

Precisely.

[B0ycey]

:thup:



No need to read it. America have proven that profits over health results in a piss poor healthcare system.

[Borg Refinery]

https://weownit.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Privatised%20and%20Unprepared%20-%20The%20NHS%20Supply%20Chain%20Final.pdf">https://weownit.org.uk/sites/default/fi ... 0Final.pdf">https://weownit.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Privatised%20and%20Unprepared%20-%20The%20NHS%20Supply%20Chain%20Final.pdf



It looks like an interesting report, I read about 10 pages of it and the main parts.



It documents so many private sector failures and appears to prove that the past 5 govts have really messed things up with respect to privatizing components of the service.