This. I really struggle to understand why politicians need to be involved,
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] The NHS
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
This. I really struggle to understand why politicians need to be involved,
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #22
I'd pay (cannot really afford it but...) to opt out of the NHS.
British Rail?
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #24
Despite the past couple of years, the trains are a much better option than they were 30 years ago.
Oh maybe I've completely misunderstood your point. In private businesses the budget is decided by the business, based on the revenue from the customers - I thought you'd still use our tax to pay for the health, but you're saying stop using our tax and charge the patient (or their insurance). Fair enough. I don't want a system like the US where the poor get no treatment and are left to die.
AmexRuislip
Trainee Spy 🕵️♂️
If you privatise the NHS, you'll get all insundrie charging what they bloody like.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #27
No mate, I didn't, I said still pay our NHS. That gives a budget, the company then knows what they have to play with. The NHS is still a company, even if in public hands, it still has a budget, it still knows what it has to play with. Unfortunately, Govt. have no clue how to run a business, business knows how to run a business.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #28
No, you give them guidelines on how to run it. If we still pay in, we still have a voice. Govt. sets their tasks and they run by it.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Are you talking about the government contracting out the services but still keeping them free or going down a US model where everyone pays for health insurance and hospitals are largely owned and operated by private businesses? The later is the only model where you would remove health from politicians but I can't see the majority of the people in the UK being willing to pay for private health insurance. In the case of the former we already currently do contract out a lot of services to private companies and in my experience these companies tend to do very well at the expense of taxpayers, for example in the case of PFI.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #31
No I really did say we still pay NHI, which gives us all a stake in the business.
AmexRuislip
Trainee Spy 🕵️♂️
Can't see it being as simple as that, always hidden extras!
GT49er
Well-known member
I had several year's first hand, not second hand, experience of NHS admin - plus seven years in Local Government, and twenty odd years in the Civil Service, so I know what I'm talking about too. There are vital jobs in all those sectors, and a lot that aren't needed. Even less would be needed if whole departments weren't there to commission services from profit making firms and manage all the contracting out pallaver.
Anyway, politicians don't run the NHS. They appoint the people who do - exactly as they would have to if appointing private firms to do the job. Of course, a lot of the NHS budget then goes to the shareholders of the companies contracted to deliver services, but hey! - wealth trickles down, doesn't it..........
...............oh.........
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #34
Totally not that easy, but I stick with business running business, politicians are a boil on our arses.
No it doesn't, the politicians would argue about how much that budget is - the right wing would try and keep it down, while the left would say we should increase it so that we get a better service. No amount of money will be enough to give everyone the latest drugs and perfect care for every patient, and with our limited resources politicians would continue to argue about how much to pay, and every few years the amount we pay would go up and down depending on the political landscape. That is nothing like the way a normal private business gets its budget.
And when our politicians hand over the billions, they'd tell the privatised service what they expect in return. Those expectations would be different for different governments, so the health service would still be a political football.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,894
Depends on how you view progress, if you like overcrowded dirty trains running late between bleak unmanned stations with expensive tickets and still subsidised by the taxpayer you are obviously happy with that.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
So I take it you are talking about contracting out the whole NHS to a single company or the whole NHS becoming a shareholder company? No single company would be able to take that on as a whole and even if they could it would never work, imagine we find ourselves in a situation like with southern rail where the services are failing and staff are permanently out on strike, this situation with a rail franchise causes us enough problems but it would be a complete disaster if it was impacting on our health.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #38
I absolutely know where you're coming from, and yes, they appoint people to run the NHS. However, politicians being politicians do not, ever, appoint the right people to do a job. Look at the NHS now, it is at an all time low and offering less and less emergency services. People are dying because an ambulance/medic doesn't turn up. It is happening more and more. We are a 40s service in 2018. It needs business to run it, not politician appointments. It sucks to much of jobs for the boys.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
However much money gets thrown at the NHS it will never be enough.