|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 7:48:50 GMT
Then you attempted to derail the thread by introducing a spurious point unrelated to that thread, and then got arsey when people misunderstood you. PFI stands for Private Finance Initiative, a controversial UK government program that involved public-private partnerships to fund and build public assets. That is to say private money borrowed to provide public services. It was the borrowing and the associated poor terms that gave PFI a bad name. Once again NOT the use of existing private health services to catch up on waiting lists. Oh right, so you seriously expect people to believe that PFI was not used to fund services to help play catch up with lagging waiting lists as part of an overall strategy to bring them down? Seriously, is this the level we're reduced to on here? Question, if new hospitals were built because old ones could not cope and were over-capacity - do you think maybe that's because they were oversubscribed and they wanted to offload patients from the waiting lists into the new ones? And the services contracted out at said hospitals were also designed to help the NHS cope to fix the waiting list problem in large part? This is the problem when you try to play 'gotcha' and super pedant, I can do it too You're also defending the use of PFIs and suggesting they should be used again, when they've been a complete catastrophe 2x now with the supposedly reformed PFI2s I just can't believe people will keep repeating the same mistake over and over Getting bored now. You can keep trying to twist my words but they will still snap back to what they meant as soon as you release them. PFI was used as you describe, but what was being proposed on this thread was not PFI. PFI was a long term investment initiative to build and service hospitals, which got its bad name because of the terms negotiated. It was not the temporary hiring of existing private services to shorten waiting lists as raised on this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 7:59:22 GMT
And?
I made a post about Wes Streeting's hypocrisy about the private sector in general and mainly relating to PFIs - because he's invited the architect of PFIs - Alan Milburn - to advise him on matters relating to the NHS
Someone replied after that post, and I replied back.
What more needs explaining about it..?
All the characterisations in my above post about your post are true, that's it. You've defended using PFIs (as long as they are used "properly"), you've defended using private services in the NHS, what more is there to say?
Now explain what part of any of that is untrue?
The majority of people polled would appear to disagree with you
I never, at any point, conflated PFIs with hiring private hospital space, you and others here have simply made that up to make yourselves feel better about being dismissive of the arguments laid out against Lab's disastrous NHS policies
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 9:09:36 GMT
Sigh.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Sept 12, 2024 9:18:29 GMT
Here's the full text of this recent report on the state of the NHS (that Starmer and Streeting have referred to) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66e1b49e3b0c9e88544a0049/Lord-Darzi-Independent-Investigation-of-the-National-Health-Service-in-England.pdfNot happy reading: Dear Secretary of State,
You asked me to undertake a rapid investigation of the state of the NHS, assessing patient access, quality of care and the overall performance of the health system. I have examined areas such as the health of the nation and social care system in so far as they impact on the NHS, although these were outside the formal scope of the Investigation. My attention has also been drawn to some worrying health inequalities that will require further examination than has been possible in the time available, although I do highlight some particular areas of concern. This report contains my findings, which are summarised as follows:
1. The National Health Service is in serious trouble. . . .
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 12, 2024 15:07:44 GMT
I guess this bit needs underlining again.. why new services should involve private companies owning and managing hospitalsOwning and managing are the key words...... you work out the implications of that for yourself and get back to me on your "Janet and John" level replies At the risk of causing offence, let me explain as simply as I can:
There are already private hospitals and clinics owned and managed by private companies with fully qualified medical staff up and running.
One of their benefits is the speed at which treatments can be delivered.
This would appear to indicate that these private establishments have more capacity available than the NHS.
There are also cases of the NHS "franchising" hospitals and care services to the private sector. This is not the same as the PFI initiative for building and maintenance.
Therefore — as the NHS has been facing inadequate planning and chronic under-resourcing for years, resulting in backlogs and lengthy waiting times in both scheduled and emergency treatment — why can't privately-owned and run services be used more to take a greater part of the load off the NHS...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 15:17:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 15:44:38 GMT
We hear your criticism, endlessly. Do you also offer solutions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 16:03:32 GMT
We hear your criticism, endlessly. Do you also offer solutions? Yes, what the experts at the BMJ have offered many times, as well as those who work in the NHS who talk about more investment, more training, less failed schemes like PFIs etc But you won't listen to what they have to say it seems, you are more interested in Lab propaganda
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 16:08:39 GMT
We hear your criticism, endlessly. Do you also offer solutions? Yes, what the experts at the BMJ have offered many times, as well as those who work in the NHS who talk about more investment, more training, less failed schemes like PFIs etc But you won't listen to what they have to say it seems, you are more interested in Lab propaganda I meant now. As in the thing this government is dealing with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 16:15:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 16:28:20 GMT
That's all good stuff, but it wont meet the immediate waiting list problems, it will take time to enact all that. None of it addresses the problem solved by shipping some of the current waiting list to private practices. The BMA say "The Government must develop a credible plan to meaningfully increase NHS hospital capacity" Generally the word develop means not currently available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 16:31:48 GMT
No one will begrudge a short-term measure to use private capacity, but that's already being done and was done under both Tories and the last Lab admin, with no long-term solution to reduce need for private demand. The point is that Lab have no long term plan to fix this stopgap measure and that has been pointed out by respected medical journals too - Lab simply want to expand it
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 12, 2024 17:06:49 GMT
Everything you reply to me and others may, or may not be true. But, whatever the causes, the fact remains that NHS shortages of staff and facilties are real, and are causing backlogs that are dangerous and harmful for many patients (and staff). The need to address these problems is immediate!
Updating and building more facilities, and training for much-needed additional medical staff will take years — a decade has been suggested.
Meanwhile — although perhaps jarring to some NHS supporters — a solution already exists in the private sector to tied the UK's healthcare system over the next few years. By this I do not mean expensive agency doctors and nurses, but ready up-and-running total medical facilities and teams.
Political dogma has been critically damaging the NHS on and off for decades. Labour has very few years to gain cross-party and medical support for a long term plan that won't be subject to stop/start industrial and political interference...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 17:39:07 GMT
Yes, political dogma pushing privatisation as the only way to go has been extremely damaging to the NHS on and off for decades I'm not particularly an "NHS supporter", there are much better systems around the world and the NHS isn't the world's first public healthcare system by any means. Others do it so much better and always have done than in Merry Olde England. I'd simply like to see the best healthcare system possible Looks like Norway has a tiny private health sector, wonder why It makes you wonder if the NHS is so bad after all if it's ranked 4th best in the entire world and why more privatisation is even needed? I agree there's a lot wrong with the NHS though and that makes me suspect the rankings systems quite a bit
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 12, 2024 19:51:01 GMT
No one will begrudge a short-term measure to use private capacity, but that's already being done and was done under both Tories and the last Lab admin, with no long-term solution to reduce need for private demand. The point is that Lab have no long term plan to fix this stopgap measure and that has been pointed out by respected medical journals too - Lab simply want to expand it Well seeing as it was Sir Kier that commissioned the emergency report, its a bit unfair to say they have no plans. My worry is that they scare themselves out of taking bold actions for fear of being seen as profligate.
|
|