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

[Thomas]

It was started by Clarke, but yeah Blair expanded it widely; and this govt replaced it with even worse 'PFI2's... luckily in Scotland you have some control over your health service, whereas us poor sassenachs have themin charge.[/font]

The 1 in 6 figure was based on the cost of running the english nhs , and where the money was going from memory. I think the debt of english pfi was 80 billion .

I will try and dig up the article when i get the chance..

luckily in Scotland you have some control over your health service, whereas us poor sassenachs have themin charge.

FFS dyno sort out your font size and quotes will you?

We in scotland also had labour in charge....remember?

...and they also left us a legacy of debt under their disasterous PFI scheme , around £30 billion .

So we didnt get offf free either from labours prolifigacy either , but thankfully voted them out befre they could do anymore damage.

Your problem in your country is you are still playing labour tory tennis at westminster , and while labour remain the only feasable alternative to the tories , the conseratives have little to worry about.

[Borg Refinery]

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

I think few who now deal with being under the private finance initiative millstone will agree with you...

Hows the welsh NHS doing under the wonders of a labour administration john? Been a while since i heard any negative news , but then again mst of the news has been overshadowed by other events. I dont think anyone in these islands will forgive or forget the labour parties role in privatisation , and their terrible performance in charge of the welsh nhs.Not to mention the tens of billions of PFI debt they have saddled scotland and england with  , never mind wales. I read for every 6 pound spent on the english nhs , 1 pound goes to fund labours PFI debt.

What's the context on that 1 in6 figure?

I agree it is very very bad though.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/pfi-banks-barclays-hsbc-rbs-tony-blair-gordon-brown-carillion-capita-financial-crash-a8202661.html?amp

The total bill for NHS PFI hospitals is ultimately projected to rise above £79bn, way in excess of original build costs of £11.4bn.Many PFI contracts came with strings attached, "facilities maintenance" often subcontracted on a long-term basis as part of the deal. As a result, only specific contractors are allowed to change or fix certain equipment or fittings, such as a plug socket or a light bulb. A Daily Telegraph investigation flagged up several egregious examples but this one really stood out: one hospital was charged £52,000 for a job which should have cost £750.
What's more, PFI payments have been indexed higher with each successive year regardless of a hospital's revenue. Total UK PFI debt for the taxpayer is over £300bn for infrastructure projects with a value of £54.7bn. To put it into perspective, the PFI debt is four times the size of the budget deficit used to justify austerity. PFI, it could be said, underlines that austerity is a political choice rather than a necessity.To look at it another way, a quick calculation reveals that the outstanding PFI payments would cover the pay for all the nurses, full-time consultants and GPs for 10 years. There would still be plenty left over to cover the training of the next generation of surgeons and build 80 state-of-the-art hospitals. If you wanted to keep it simple then the PFI debt would cover the entire NHS budget for over 2 years. Across the NHS, PFI repayments have contributed to hospital mergers, closures and downgrades. Long-time critic of PFI Professor Pollock argues that these mergers will be followed by the final "wave of closures in the run-up to privatisation and franchising out". She astutely points out the great irony that PFI was once hailed as the largest NHS hospital-building programme; in fact it is likely to end up becoming the largest hospital closure programme.[/quote]

It was started by Clarke, but yeah Blair expanded it widely; and this govt replaced it with even worse 'PFI2's... luckily in Scotland you have some control over your health service, whereas us poor sassenachs have themin charge.

Still, we in England voted them in and that's what we want, so that's what we get.

[Thomas]

Well, they left moira to die in the hallway after she fell down the stairs, left me to risk breaking her neck transporting her in my car after a headlong plunge downstairs that broke facial bones, complained I parked in an ambulance bay when I did their job and wouldn't give me a wheelchair to transport her from the car to A&E reception.

I was waiting for them to whinge about her bleeding on the entrance floor.....

so business as usual then?

[johnofgwent]

Hows the welsh NHS doing under the wonders of a labour administration john?

Well, they left moira to die in the hallway after she fell down the stairs, left me to risk breaking her neck transporting her in my car after a headlong plunge downstairs that broke facial bones, complained I parked in an ambulance bay when I did their job and wouldn't give me a wheelchair to transport her from the car to A&E reception.

I was waiting for them to whinge about her bleeding on the entrance floor.....

[johnofgwent]

The effects of privatisation on the NHS, are governed by the ability of any profit company to do the job. Some will perform well, others will not, and are performing poorly. Would it improve without private involvement? Probably not. Because  privatisation is not the real problem, lack of money is. The IFS, tells us we trail other comparable  countries  by some way on money spent per capita . This being the case  privatisation actually suffers because it is  being used  to satisfy  a diminished budget , cost rarely reduces without some lose of quality, sadly that has been the case ,in particular in day to day administration.

I suppose the biggest weapon in the armoury of the anti privatisation lobby is the 'look at the USA' argument

Of course the problem with that is the problem there is not the privatisation, but the fact they do not allow lawyers to be hunted with hounds or exterminated as the vermin they truly are.

When my best mate in uni and I started our courses back in 76 the most an insurance company paid out for a road accident in which you died was £1000. Same for amputations or loss of an eye.

When a 32 tonne coking coal article slammed into my mini because I had stopped for a red light and the lorry driver was too pised to notice, I got 3 months in agony, a month in hospital, and a lifetime of not being able to turn my head round as far to the right as I can tobthe left.

How much compo did I get ??

f**k all.

Because I did not die and nothing was chopped off

In the 80s maggie started allowing lawyers to tout for business.

As a result, I had to form my own ltdco to freelance on weapon systems, radars, nuclear power and the London underground.

Because nobody would give indemnity insurance to an sole trader in those areas.

We are not QUITE as bad as yankland where my insurance premium for a week cruising off the US coast was was FIVE times the premium for a two week holiday in Mexico with NO entry to the USA a year or three earlier, and TEN times the premium charged for a week in Zante....

But my mate in Uni who graduated as I did, who then went on to use that to enter a medical degree course in the USA is now an Ohio neurosurgeon.

He makes in a week what I make in a year.

But he pays in indemnity insurance almost five times what I make in a year ...

So to be clear, you think it's perfectly right and proper that you received no compensation for what happened to you?

Its not the first time I missed out on a handout because the situation changed between me being at the shitty end and others being in the same place.

I was pointing out that until we gave lawyers the right to make money from ambulance chasing, nobody got anything like what they got now, but nobody paid anything like they do now.

And if this goes on, we will all be paying american sized premiums.

[Javert]

The effects of privatisation on the NHS, are governed by the ability of any profit company to do the job. Some will perform well, others will not, and are performing poorly. Would it improve without private involvement? Probably not. Because  privatisation is not the real problem, lack of money is. The IFS, tells us we trail other comparable  countries  by some way on money spent per capita . This being the case  privatisation actually suffers because it is  being used  to satisfy  a diminished budget , cost rarely reduces without some lose of quality, sadly that has been the case ,in particular in day to day administration.

I suppose the biggest weapon in the armoury of the anti privatisation lobby is the 'look at the USA' argument

Of course the problem with that is the problem there is not the privatisation, but the fact they do not allow lawyers to be hunted with hounds or exterminated as the vermin they truly are.

When my best mate in uni and I started our courses back in 76 the most an insurance company paid out for a road accident in which you died was £1000. Same for amputations or loss of an eye.

When a 32 tonne coking coal article slammed into my mini because I had stopped for a red light and the lorry driver was too pised to notice, I got 3 months in agony, a month in hospital, and a lifetime of not being able to turn my head round as far to the right as I can tobthe left.

How much compo did I get ??

f**k all.

Because I did not die and nothing was chopped off

In the 80s maggie started allowing lawyers to tout for business.

As a result, I had to form my own ltdco to freelance on weapon systems, radars, nuclear power and the London underground.

Because nobody would give indemnity insurance to an sole trader in those areas.

We are not QUITE as bad as yankland where my insurance premium for a week cruising off the US coast was was FIVE times the premium for a two week holiday in Mexico with NO entry to the USA a year or three earlier, and TEN times the premium charged for a week in Zante....

But my mate in Uni who graduated as I did, who then went on to use that to enter a medical degree course in the USA is now an Ohio neurosurgeon.

He makes in a week what I make in a year.

But he pays in indemnity insurance almost five times what I make in a year ...

So to be clear, you think it's perfectly right and proper that you received no compensation for what happened to you?

Well the post seems to be an opinion that the reason privatisation is so expensive in the US is because lawyers get too much compensation for people and lawyers should not be involved. 

JOG mentions in it that he had a big accident where he received no compensation, but presumably thinks he would have received some in the US.

If he doesn't think we want the US system, and lawyers should be chased out of town, presumably this means he agrees with the fact that he got no compensation for that accident?

[Borg Refinery]

The effects of privatisation on the NHS, are governed by the ability of any profit company to do the job. Some will perform well, others will not, and are performing poorly. Would it improve without private involvement? Probably not. Because  privatisation is not the real problem, lack of money is. The IFS, tells us we trail other comparable  countries  by some way on money spent per capita . This being the case  privatisation actually suffers because it is  being used  to satisfy  a diminished budget , cost rarely reduces without some lose of quality, sadly that has been the case ,in particular in day to day administration.

I suppose the biggest weapon in the armoury of the anti privatisation lobby is the 'look at the USA' argument

Of course the problem with that is the problem there is not the privatisation, but the fact they do not allow lawyers to be hunted with hounds or exterminated as the vermin they truly are.

When my best mate in uni and I started our courses back in 76 the most an insurance company paid out for a road accident in which you died was £1000. Same for amputations or loss of an eye.

When a 32 tonne coking coal article slammed into my mini because I had stopped for a red light and the lorry driver was too pised to notice, I got 3 months in agony, a month in hospital, and a lifetime of not being able to turn my head round as far to the right as I can tobthe left.

How much compo did I get ??

f**k all.

Because I did not die and nothing was chopped off

In the 80s maggie started allowing lawyers to tout for business.

As a result, I had to form my own ltdco to freelance on weapon systems, radars, nuclear power and the London underground.

Because nobody would give indemnity insurance to an sole trader in those areas.

We are not QUITE as bad as yankland where my insurance premium for a week cruising off the US coast was was FIVE times the premium for a two week holiday in Mexico with NO entry to the USA a year or three earlier, and TEN times the premium charged for a week in Zante....

But my mate in Uni who graduated as I did, who then went on to use that to enter a medical degree course in the USA is now an Ohio neurosurgeon.

He makes in a week what I make in a year.

But he pays in indemnity insurance almost five times what I make in a year ...

So to be clear, you think it's perfectly right and proper that you received no compensation for what happened to you?

[Javert]

The effects of privatisation on the NHS, are governed by the ability of any profit company to do the job. Some will perform well, others will not, and are performing poorly. Would it improve without private involvement? Probably not. Because  privatisation is not the real problem, lack of money is. The IFS, tells us we trail other comparable  countries  by some way on money spent per capita . This being the case  privatisation actually suffers because it is  being used  to satisfy  a diminished budget , cost rarely reduces without some lose of quality, sadly that has been the case ,in particular in day to day administration.

I suppose the biggest weapon in the armoury of the anti privatisation lobby is the 'look at the USA' argument

Of course the problem with that is the problem there is not the privatisation, but the fact they do not allow lawyers to be hunted with hounds or exterminated as the vermin they truly are.

When my best mate in uni and I started our courses back in 76 the most an insurance company paid out for a road accident in which you died was £1000. Same for amputations or loss of an eye.

When a 32 tonne coking coal article slammed into my mini because I had stopped for a red light and the lorry driver was too pised to notice, I got 3 months in agony, a month in hospital, and a lifetime of not being able to turn my head round as far to the right as I can tobthe left.

How much compo did I get ??

f**k all.

Because I did not die and nothing was chopped off

In the 80s maggie started allowing lawyers to tout for business.

As a result, I had to form my own ltdco to freelance on weapon systems, radars, nuclear power and the London underground.

Because nobody would give indemnity insurance to an sole trader in those areas.

We are not QUITE as bad as yankland where my insurance premium for a week cruising off the US coast was was FIVE times the premium for a two week holiday in Mexico with NO entry to the USA a year or three earlier, and TEN times the premium charged for a week in Zante....

But my mate in Uni who graduated as I did, who then went on to use that to enter a medical degree course in the USA is now an Ohio neurosurgeon.

He makes in a week what I make in a year.

But he pays in indemnity insurance almost five times what I make in a year ...

So to be clear, you think it's perfectly right and proper that you received no compensation for what happened to you?

[johnofgwent]

The effects of privatisation on the NHS, are governed by the ability of any profit company to do the job. Some will perform well, others will not, and are performing poorly. Would it improve without private involvement? Probably not. Because  privatisation is not the real problem, lack of money is. The IFS, tells us we trail other comparable  countries  by some way on money spent per capita . This being the case  privatisation actually suffers because it is  being used  to satisfy  a diminished budget , cost rarely reduces without some lose of quality, sadly that has been the case ,in particular in day to day administration.

I suppose the biggest weapon in the armoury of the anti privatisation lobby is the 'look at the USA' argument

Of course the problem with that is the problem there is not the privatisation, but the fact they do not allow lawyers to be hunted with hounds or exterminated as the vermin they truly are.

When my best mate in uni and I started our courses back in 76 the most an insurance company paid out for a road accident in which you died was £1000. Same for amputations or loss of an eye.

When a 32 tonne coking coal article slammed into my mini because I had stopped for a red light and the lorry driver was too pised to notice, I got 3 months in agony, a month in hospital, and a lifetime of not being able to turn my head round as far to the right as I can tobthe left.

How much compo did I get ??

F@@@ all.

Because I did not die and nothing was chopped off

In the 80s maggie started allowing lawyers to tout for business.

As a result, I had to form my own ltdco to freelance on weapon systems, radars, nuclear power and the London underground.

Because nobody would give indemnity insurance to an sole trader in those areas.

We are not QUITE as bad as yankland where my insurance premium for a week cruising off the US coast was was FIVE times the premium for a two week holiday in Mexico with NO entry to the USA a year or three earlier, and TEN times the premium charged for a week in Zante....

But my mate in Uni who graduated as I did, who then went on to use that to enter a medical degree course in the USA is now an Ohio neurosurgeon.

He makes in a week what I make in a year.

But he pays in indemnity insurance almost five times what I make in a year ...

[Good old]

The effects of privatisation on the NHS, are governed by the ability of any profit company to do the job. Some will perform well, others will not, and are performing poorly. Would it improve without private involvement? Probably not. Because  privatisation is not the real problem, lack of money is. The IFS, tells us we trail other comparable  countries  by some way on money spent per capita . This being the case  privatisation actually suffers because it is  being used  to satisfy  a diminished budget , cost rarely reduces without some lose of quality, sadly that has been the case ,in particular in day to day administration.

[Thomas]

Labour cannot be trusted with the NHS. Just look at their abysmal record in Wales

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/10/labour-cannot-trusted-nhs-just-look-abysmal-record-wales/

Why are Welsh Labour politicians pretending they don't run the NHS in Wales?

https://nation.cymru/opinion/why-are-welsh-labour-politicians-pretending-they-dont-run-the-nhs-in-wales/

A&E waiting times in Wales hit worst-ever levels

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50073839

Perhaps the single most striking feature of everyday non-constitutional Scottish politics is Labour's constantly-recurring habit of highlighting some supposedly unsatisfactory statistic about the Scottish Government's performance, only for it to be revealed that it's vastly better than the comparable figure for Wales, where Labour has been in power ever since the Assembly was created in 1999.

A moment of honesty is required - New Labour began the dismantling of our NHS

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ournhs/moment-of-honesty-is-required-new-labour-began-dismantling-of-our-nhs/

Labour accused of 'hypocrisy' over Welsh NHS privatisation

Plaid Cymru have accused Labour in Wales of 'hypocrisy' over NHS privatisation following attempts to privatise a major NHS service.

Last week, Welsh Labour had said it wouldn't allow the Welsh NHS to be on the table in the event of post-Brexit US-UK trade negotiations.

Now a health board under the direct control of the Labour Welsh Government has been accused of a second attempt to privatise a major NHS service in north Wales.

Last year, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board shalved plans to privatise the dialysis service in Wrexham and Welshpool after protests by nursing unions and Plaid Cymru's Llyr Gruffydd AM.

Now it's under fire once again for turning to private companies to run hospital pharmacies in Ysbyty Gwynedd, Wrexham Maelor and Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

The Welsh NHS is a devolved issue under the control of the Labour Welsh Government.

https://nation.cymru/news/labour-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-welsh-nhs-privatisation/


whatever your beliefs for or against the privatisation of the english nhs , and the blame attached to the past 5 governments or so , its clear the answer isnt the return to power of the labour party and their hypocrisy over the nhs in england and wales.

[Thomas]

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

I think few who now deal with being under the private finance initiative millstone will agree with you...

Hows the welsh NHS doing under the wonders of a labour administration john?

Been a while since i heard any negative news , but then again mst of the news has been overshadowed by other events.

I dont think anyone in these islands will forgive or forget the labour parties role in privatisation , and their terrible performance in charge of the welsh nhs.Not to mention the tens of billions of PFI debt they have saddled scotland and england with  , never mind wales.

I read for every 6 pound spent on the english nhs , 1 pound goes to fund labours PFI debt.

[johnofgwent]

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

I think few who now deal with being under the private finance initiative millstone will agree with you...

[Good old]

The obvious way out is to make NHS national again. AND replace incapable managers with real business aware operatives...

Only when we get a government that doesn't constantly put the exchequer in front of best practise will the NHS return to, even the level it was at twelve years ago. Private interests can play a part, If their efficiency Is not measured only in cutting cost.

Instead of reducing beds to a record low ,and considering it adequate , as a trolly in a corridor will do for surplus patients. Accept the fact that without the tools and materials, no ,"Pigs ear", can be a silk purse. It's a bad manager that thinks otherwise.

[cromwell]

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...

Which basically is much of what I said.........unsurprisingly