While reading about Labour's intention to channel 1.7 million operations into the private sector over the next 5 years, I nearly choked on my cornflakes.

Story can be found here (http://www.promotions.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=4CHHBXRVHRNHXQFIQMFSM5OAVCBQ0 JVC?xml=/news/2005/05/13/uoperation.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/13/ixportaltop.html)

How dare they accuse the Conservative Party in the run up to the election of privatising the health service. Mr Howard's plans to offer patients the chance to claim back part of their treatment if carried out privately was met with the usual rhetoric and rubbish from the Labour Party.

Perhaps the public can now see that the Labour Party is composed of a bunch of dishonest hipocrites (read liars if you wish).

Well it's not like you all haven't been warned...
Now we're bloddy stuck with 'em, again !

Surely that should read Labour Party + Health = hippocrates?

The private hospitals are in addition to the NHS arn't they, so more people will get done ?

The silence is deafening me :D

With so may Labourites on here I would have thought that at least one of them could have tried to defend Labours double standards.

To be honest Labour has been tinkering with the NHS for ages in the form of PFIs. Already lots of people work in the NHS but not FOR the NHS - cleaners, hospital porters etc. Meals are franchised out too which is why patients get served such god-awful muck a lot of the time. When Labour announced its mininum for hospital staff who are not nurses or doctors there was a lot of anger because so many people had seen their roles franchised out, so wouldn't benefit.

It’s almost as bad as the time i heard a Labour Mp arguing that top up fees were good because they stopped kids having to pay up front for their education. Well who made them have to pay in the first place?

What will be the next labour slogan? War is Peace. or NHS good, private sector better

Originally posted by Mo
While reading about Labour's intention to channel 1.7 million operations into the private sector over the next 5 years, I nearly choked on my cornflakes.

Wow! What terrific news this is! (No, not Mo nearly choking on her cornflakes). Labour delivering on its election pledges. Patient choice within the NHS. Just think - nearly two million people will be getting speedier operations, and not be hanging around on long waiting lists, or feel forced to pay privately. Sure is good news Mo - thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Originally posted by Mo

How dare they accuse the Conservative Party in the run up to the election of privatising the health service. Mr Howard's plans to offer patients the chance to claim back part of their treatment if carried out privately was met with the usual rhetoric and rubbish from the Labour Party.


Oh come on now Mo, this surely isn't sour grapes on your part - just because the Conservative Party were convincingly defeated at the general election? (Fewer MPs than Labour managed in 1983 under Michael Foot - says it all).

You are quite correct in your statement. Mr Howard's plans were indeed for a Conservative government to allow the cost of some private operations to be met from the NHS budget. Of course, this would have only helped the rich, who could afford the remainder of the cost of going private, or maybe the elderly - who would have been forced to dip into their life savings. Wouldn't have helped anyone else of course.

No wonder Labour rubbished that idea. Quite right too. Patient choice under Mr Howard's scheme would have depended solely on your bank balance. Under this Labour scheme, treatment remains firmly embedded in the founding principles of the NHS - free at the point of delivery. Must say - Labour's new Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, is off to a flying start in her new post. Well done!

people that voted Labour should be hung, old british style. or even better wrapped in a usa flag along with blair and bush and burned at the stake. you people make me sick.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Wow! What terrific news this is! (No, not Mo nearly choking on her cornflakes). Labour delivering on its election pledges. Patient choice within the NHS. Just think - nearly two million people will be getting speedier operations, and not be hanging around on long waiting lists, or feel forced to pay privately. Sure is good news Mo - thanks for bringing it to our attention.



But when the Tories announced similar plans as well as the 50% towards operations costing more privately than on the NHS, the Labour party couldn't wait to tell the electorate how much the Tories would be "taking out" of the NHS and giving to the private sector. In fact, they even launched a negative campaigning poster to illustrate the point. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more patient choice and greater private involvement where it benefits the NHS to do so, but when Labour knocked the Tories so much for the same thing in the election campaign (not to mention the fact that the Labour party is supposed to be all for the NHS and anti-private) it doesn't take long to deduce that they are hypocrites.

Originally posted by redrobbo
You are quite correct in your statement. Mr Howard's plans were indeed for a Conservative government to allow the cost of some private operations to be met from the NHS budget. Of course, this would have only helped the rich, who could afford the remainder of the cost of going private, or maybe the elderly - who would have been forced to dip into their life savings. Wouldn't have helped anyone else of course.


This was only the case where operations cost more in the private sector. When the NHS cost = private cost, the NHS would pay the full amount where required. When the NHS cost was more than the private cost, the NHS would pay 50% what it would've cost them anyway (i.e. saving them half and shortening the queue in the process) towards the patient's operations costs in the private sector. Yes, people who could afford the remainder of the cost would be more likely to opt for it, but by opting for it they are leaving the queue in the NHS, hence benefitting all those behind them in the queue waiting for the same operation. "It's not rocket science, is it?"

Originally posted by DeathAxe
people that voted Labour should be hung, old british style. or even better wrapped in a usa flag along with blair and bush and burned at the stake. you people make me sick.


Well said they never learn do they?:thumbsup:

Originally posted by DeathAxe
people that voted Labour should be hung, old british style. or even better wrapped in a usa flag along with blair and bush and burned at the stake. you people make me sick.

Do I detect a slight tetchiness?

I assume you did exercise your democratic right to vote in the general election? There was always going to be someone who wasn't going to be happy with the result - I had Michael Howard in mind myself..... :huh:....but I must have confused his name with DeathAxe somehow.

Originally posted by redrobbo
There was always going to be someone who wasn't going to be happy with the result - I had Michael Howard in mind myself..... :huh:....but I must have confused his name with DeathAxe somehow.

Or in view of this post....

Originally posted by royjames

Well said ....


.....maybe I confused his name with royjames?

And as I know you voted Roy - you'll just have to get used to the decision of the British electorate.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by t020
This was only the case where operations cost more in the private sector. When the NHS cost = private cost, the NHS would pay the full amount where required. When the NHS cost was more than the private cost, the NHS would pay 50% what it would've cost them anyway (i.e. saving them half and shortening the queue in the process) towards the patient's operations costs in the private sector. Yes, people who could afford the remainder of the cost would be more likely to opt for it, but by opting for it they are leaving the queue in the NHS, hence benefitting all those behind them in the queue waiting for the same operation. "It's not rocket science, is it?"

Whilst I profess that maths was never my soundest subject at school, not even I can be fooled by this arithmetic t020!

The transfer of money from the NHS to fund private operations, at whatever the cost, would leave the NHS poorer. Those with the funds who could afford the extra fees of going private, i.e, the rich, would opt out of the NHS. In effect, they would queue jump.

Those who could not afford the top-up fees to go private, i.e., the poor, would be dependent upon the NHS. They wouldn't be treated any quicker, because the NHS would be depleted of funds. Indeed, those at the bottom of the waiting list would have to wait even longer for their treatment, as NHS money would have been diverted to treat the privileged rich!

Nothing more than a con trick by the Con-servative party, and the electorate rumbled it.

Contrast the rejected Conservative policy with that of Labour -

"Ms Hewitt announced that private providers would be carrying out an extra 1.7 million operations, such as hip and knee replacements, for the NHS over the next five years, at a cost of £3 billion. She said this would help the health service meet its target of no patient waiting longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment by 2008".

Please note: that is an EXTRA 1.7 million operations, which will help the NHS meet its target of an 18 week waiting list for ALL within the next 3 years.

Who could possibly complain about that?

Red ....... I was disappointed by the election result but not sour grapes, believe me :)

Do you not realise that ordinary working people are NOW dipping into their savings for private operations. These aren't rich people, they are folk(often elderly) who have saved as best they could for their old age. They are then faced with enormously long waits for hip and knee operations because they are classed as non-urgent. In the meantime their quality of life is deteriorating and the risks involved in surgery are increasing as they get older.

These are people who have paid into the system all their life and then are having to pay again. That Red is not fair.

I went private for an operation several years ago. I am far from wealthy but having a potentially life limiting illness which needed investigation and with a new baby and a toddler dependent on me, I did go private. What it meant Red was that we didn't have a holiday for 2 years afterwards.

The black/white way which you see the issue is far from how it really is Red.

It may surprise you that I am a fervant believer in the NHS. If I had my way it would be so good that nobody would want or need to go private but at the same time they shouldn't be denied that choice.

I fail to see how Labours plans would not involve money transferring to the private sector from the NHS but the tory plans would. This is totally illogical.

Under the tory plans the cost to the NHS would be no more than if the treatment was carried out under the NHS whilst under Labour's plan, the cost would be whatever the private hospital deemed to charge.

I'm sorry Red but your Party must think that the British people are simple

:P

Originally posted by DeathAxe
. or even better wrapped in a usa flag along with blair and bush and burned at the stake. you people make me sick.

You better start sewing that flag now, it’s going to have to be very big.

Psycho

Originally posted by redrobbo
Whilst I profess that maths was never my soundest subject at school, not even I can be fooled by this arithmetic t020!

The transfer of money from the NHS to fund private operations, at whatever the cost, would leave the NHS poorer. Those with the funds who could afford the extra fees of going private, i.e, the rich, would opt out of the NHS. In effect, they would queue jump.

Those who could not afford the top-up fees to go private, i.e., the poor, would be dependent upon the NHS. They wouldn't be treated any quicker, because the NHS would be depleted of funds. Indeed, those at the bottom of the waiting list would have to wait even longer for their treatment, as NHS money would have been diverted to treat the privileged rich!

Nothing more than a con trick by the Con-servative party, and the electorate rumbled it.

Contrast the rejected Conservative policy with that of Labour -

"Ms Hewitt announced that private providers would be carrying out an extra 1.7 million operations, such as hip and knee replacements, for the NHS over the next five years, at a cost of £3 billion. She said this would help the health service meet its target of no patient waiting longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment by 2008".

Please note: that is an EXTRA 1.7 million operations, which will help the NHS meet its target of an 18 week waiting list for ALL within the next 3 years.

Who could possibly complain about that?

But the transfer of money from the NHS to the private sector is exactly what Labour are going to do anyway. They Tory plans meant that people with the money could leave the NHS queue and save the NHS 50% of the cost that IT WOULD HAVE COST THEM ANYWAY (i.e. they're not actually taking money out of the NHS since the NHS would've had to pay twice this amount for the operation on the NHS). With people leaving the queue, people further down the waiting list all move closer towards their operation. Queues would move faster and waiting lists would fall as a result. If you say that any transfer of money from the NHS to the private sector (even if it is to spend on NHS patients) is taking money AWAY from the NHS, then that's also what Labour are going to do.

Originally posted by Mo
Red
Do you not realise that ordinary working people are NOW dipping into their savings for private operations. These aren't rich people, they are folk(often elderly) who have saved as best they could for their old age. They are then faced with enormously long waits for hip and knee operations because they are classed as non-urgent. In the meantime their quality of life is deteriorating and the risks involved in surgery are increasing as they get older.

These are people who have paid into the system all their life and then are having to pay again. That Red is not fair.


Hi Mo -

I fully agree with your sentiments. The Labour government recognise these issues as well, and the new Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has wasted no time since her appointment by announcing how she intends to tackle this situation.

The demand on the NHS for routine surgery is such that Labour will invest £3 billion in the private sector to carry out an extra 1.7 million operations (e.g., hip and knee replacements), for the NHS over the next five years.

This is not taking money away from the NHS, which will still receive agreed funding. It is EXTRA investment, and will help reduce NHS waiting time to a maximum of 18 weeks over the next 5 years.

Originally posted by Mo

I fail to see how Labours plans would not involve money transferring to the private sector from the NHS but the tory plans would.

As I stated above, The £3 billion is EXTRA investment. It does not involve any transfer of money from the NHS to the private sector.

Originally posted by Mo

Under the tory plans the cost to the NHS would be no more than if the treatment was carried out under the NHS whilst under Labour's plan, the cost would be whatever the private hospital deemed to charge.

I have answered this point in a previous post (in a reply to t020). Bulk purchasing from private sector providers means savings, due to economy of scale. Thus you get more value (i.e., more operations) for your money.

Originally posted by redrobbo
[B
As I stated above, The £3 billion is EXTRA investment. It does not involve any transfer of money from the NHS to the private sector.
[/B]

Then why not invest the extra £3 billion INTO the NHS and then you won't be involving the private sector at all? The money will be invested for the ongoing development and provision of service within the NHS.

Originally posted by Mo
Then why not invest the extra £3 billion INTO the NHS and then you won't be involving the private sector at all? The money will be invested for the ongoing development and provision of service within the NHS.

Good question Mo. Pleased you asked it.

The Labour government has been investing in our hospitals, year on year since 1997. New hospitals, new facilities, new A&E departments, etc. Also new systems, which will provide greater choice. For example, I was referred by my GP only yesterday for an X-ray (I'm suffering with a suspected kidney stone at the moment). Instead of waiting for an appointment to be sent to me through the post, I rang up the hospital department using a green reference card the doctor gave me, and hey presto! - I'm booked in for next week (on a date and time that suits me). Much better system I think.

But the investment in training doctors, nurses and specialist staff (radiographers, etc.) takes time - 7 years for a doctor. Whilst this investment is indeed happening, there are still folk on waiting lists. The private sector can assist in the interim, which will reduce waiting times, and offer patients greater choice and flexibility.

Mrs Thatcher once famously said that the NHS was safe in her hands. Hardly anyone believed her. The investment by Labour proves that the NHS is indeed safe in their hands. In the interim, Labour are tackling waiting list times by some investment in the private sector.

What can possibly be wrong with ensuring that patients receive the treatment they need? Let's ditch political dogma, and ensure that patient's needs come first. Then you Mo, and everyone else, will not feel the need to spend your hard-earned savings by paying to go private.

Redrobbo ...........We'll all be fighting to stay at the bottom of the waiting list so that we can have a luxury ensuite room at the Thornbury rather than a poxy MRSA filled ward at the Northern Gen :hihi:

This was going on all last year wasn't it? Alliance Medical and MRI/CT scanning?? Personnaly I would rather have the Northern.. the surgeons most probably go straight from a 7 hour op in that 'MRSA filled' hospital, to the carpeted Thornbury! At least the Northern can get a good wash!

Just to clarify..... Tory plans to spend 50% of the operation cost in private sector = taking money out of the NHS. Labour plans to spend 100% of operation cost in private sector = not taking money away from NHS. Are you thinking what we're thinking? :hihi:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Mrs Thatcher once famously said that the NHS was safe in her hands. Hardly anyone believed her. The investment by Labour proves that the NHS is indeed safe in their hands.

How safe are our hospitals though? They're not even cleaned properly any more, so you might go in with a broken leg and come out with MRSA.

As the Tories asked on one of their posters..."How hard is it to clean a ward?"

The NHS receives a lot of adverse publicity. I have been in hospital twice this year for several weeks (in the RHH) and on both occasions received excellent treatment. The wards were very clean, the staff wonderful, the equipment state of the art and the food very good. The fact is that positive expereinces such as mine (and I am sure there are very many) don't make news, whereas negative stories do.

Oh really! This is so silly, you only had two choices at the last election - vote for someone who you didn't want in power or not vote at all. It was the same in the U.S. As for burning them at the stake, that would have been a waste of time and energy, the devil and his disciples are not effected by fire!