UK: NHS Reforms

chairman bill · **#1141** by **chairman bill** » Mar 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:No, it shows how vilely personal the attacks on me have been getting.

chairman bill · **#1142** by **chairman bill** » Mar 05, 2012 10:23 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:Crying? Must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.

I've contributed lots to this thread. Mostly reason and perspective. Someone needed to. Quite amazing the emotional reaction some people have to layers of bureaucracy being eliminated from the health service.

Ah yes, the Voice of Reason. FFS, someone pass the sick-bag, I'm going to throw-up

Paul G · **#1143** by **Paul G** » Mar 06, 2012 12:08 pm

I love the fact the "layers of bureaucracy comment being eliminated" comment came just as I posted that chart.

Strontium Dog · **#1144** by **Strontium Dog** » Mar 06, 2012 12:54 pm

What's the chart supposed to prove? People seem to think it sufficient these days to just link to documents or images without explaining their point.

smudge · **#1145** by **smudge** » Mar 06, 2012 1:23 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:People seem to think it sufficient these days to just link to documents or images without explaining their point.

Sometimes documents and images aid in understanding is all.

Strontium Dog"; contributed lots to this thread. Mostly reason and perspective. Someone needed to. Quite amazing the emotional reaction some people have to layers of bureaucracy being eliminated from the health service.

Perhaps you'd like to show us all how things should be done by explaining (with any documents, images, or evidence you care to use) how Lansley's dogs dinner of a bill will improve the NHS? How it will result in "layers of bureaucracy being eliminated from the health service" without diminishing the service provided? Many of us seem to think otherwise. Including, it seems, the bulk of people who actually work in the NHS....

chairman bill · **#1146** by **chairman bill** » Mar 06, 2012 1:37 pm

Here's an idea - Lansley et al's promise of no top-down reorganisation (which we now see was always a lie) should be honoured. We might continue with the ground-up improvements that have always been part & parcel of professional attempts to improve practice & patient outcomes (action learning groups, clinical supervision, clinical research etc), strengthen these, formalise the identification of best practice & sharing thereof, with a particular emphasis on cost-savings (where these have no negative impact on patient outcomes), beef-up NICE & its influence in terms of clinical practices, feeding into the NSFs and so on, tied to certain 'targetting' measures that have been successful in reducing waiting lists from the previous Tory government's 18 months to what was increasingly a couple of weeks under Labour (no regressing way past the 18 week maximum in many cases - well done Lansley), and so on. No need for more bureaucracy, no need for reorganisation, pretty much certain to get approval from all staff groups.

A key feature of leadership is that you need to take your workforce with you. You offer a vision, outline a means of achieving it, convince people it's worth working towards, and involve them in planning & implementation. Lansley has done none of this. His actions have been autocratic, crass & incompetent. He's barely fit to run a dolls' hospital, let alone a health service. He should be sacked & the Bill abandoned.

THWOTH · **#1147** by **THWOTH** » Mar 06, 2012 2:01 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:Crying? Must have me confused with someone who gives a shit.

I've contributed lots to this thread. Mostly reason and perspective. Someone needed to. Quite amazing the emotional reaction some people have to layers of bureaucracy being eliminated from the health service.

So you might think, but when asked to support various assertions you have simply ignored the requests. For example, if the restructuring of UK health and care services were just about reducing bureaucracy you may have a point, but it is not just about this; if it were about limiting GP's pay you might have a point, but it isn't about this either. You may have no particular concerns about diagnostic, treatment and care services disappearing behind a pay-wall, but others do not share you glibness. If you are the only person who is reasonable about this, as you suggest, then perhaps you would do the rest of us the courtesy of addressing the justifications for these specific reforms, along with the challenges and objections raised against them, with evidences rather than rhetoric?

:coffee:

chairman bill · **#1148** by **chairman bill** » Mar 06, 2012 2:31 pm

One outcome from government restructuring - some areas are now limiting NHS treatments based on a revised concent of clinical need, such that those with one good eye & are not offered cataract operations on the diseased eye. I'm sure that saves lots of bureaucracy.

Paul G · **#1149** by **Paul G** » Mar 06, 2012 3:58 pm

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... mpetition/

Bad science concerning NHS competition is being used to support the controversial Health and Social Care Bill

Paul G · **#1150** by **Paul G** » Mar 06, 2012 4:05 pm

chairman bill wrote:One outcome from government restructuring - some areas are now limiting NHS treatments based on a revised concent of clinical need, such that those with one good eye & are not offered cataract operations on the diseased eye. I'm sure that saves lots of bureaucracy.

OH's Grandma won't be getting any more treatment on her eye. She'll be half blind without it. Nevermind.

chairman bill · **#1151** by **chairman bill** » Mar 06, 2012 6:55 pm

It's fair, and we're all in it together. Which is fair.

smudge · **#1152** by **smudge** » Mar 06, 2012 7:25 pm

chairman bill wrote:It's fair, and we're all in it together. Which is fair.

Sure.
And those who can afford private health care are doing the likes of 'one eyed grandma' a favour. Keeping themselves off those NHS waiting lists. Bloody good of them I say....

THWOTH · **#1153** by **THWOTH** » Mar 06, 2012 7:55 pm

I'd just like to break the back of a strawman I've noticed being applied to objectors to the coalition's proposals in some quarters of politics, the press, and elsewhere.

Challenging the premises and implementation of these reforms does not mean objectors, like myself, are against any or all reforms to health and care services, or maintain that the NHS is perfect or cannot do better, or that at top-heavy bureaucracy should not be guarded against, or that the NHS should resist all changes, or that a government has no responsibility to strive to make it as good as it can be or should just leave it to do whatever it does, or that the issue of the projected costs associated with an ageing population should not be addressed, or that objectors are necessarily akin to a howling mob of faith-based trotskyites who are ideologically wedded to opposing everything the coalition stands for or does in office, or akin to Nazis peddling propaganda, or anti-science, or are fundamentally anti-capitalist and stand against the very notions and principles of free and fair trade and competition, or are irrationally capricious, erratic or otherwise axiomatically inconsistent in their views, or intentionally deceitful. The function of such strawmen serves only to promote an argument ad hominem and should be dealt within that context.

Just thought I'd make that clear.

:coffee:

edit: clarity and little fixes

smudge · **#1154** by **smudge** » Mar 06, 2012 8:01 pm

Quite so THWOTH, quite so.....

:coffee:

Panderos · **#1155** by **Panderos** » Mar 06, 2012 8:10 pm

I'd like to have an opinion on these reforms but they seem so complicated and the consequences so difficult to predict, where do you even start?

I'd guess I'd start by asking, is there any evidence that these reforms will work? E.g. another country we are copying. There doesn't have to be evidence for me to support it, but it'd be a good start.

Tortured_Genius · **#1156** by **Tortured_Genius** » Mar 06, 2012 9:09 pm

Panderos wrote:I'd guess I'd start by asking, is there any evidence that these reforms will work? E.g. another country we are copying. There doesn't have to be evidence for me to support it, but it'd be a good start.

Whether it will "work" rather depends on your aims don't you think?

If the aim is to make private healthcare providers large amounts money then the reforms can't fail. (Actually they've already suceeded through the dismantling of infrastructure carried out already)

Job done then. :smug:

Paul G · **#1157** by **Paul G** » Mar 06, 2012 9:46 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/polit ... -care-bill

The health and social care bill does not deliver Lib Dems' prescription
I will be advising party activists at the forthcoming Lib Dem spring conference to call for the NHS bill to be dropped

Tortured_Genius · **#1158** by **Tortured_Genius** » Mar 06, 2012 10:59 pm

Paul G wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2012/mar/06/health-social-care-bill

The health and social care bill does not deliver Lib Dems' prescription
I will be advising party activists at the forthcoming Lib Dem spring conference to call for the NHS bill to be dropped

Obviously another Trotskyite automatically knee-jerk opposing coalition policies.

Paul G · **#1159** by **Paul G** » Mar 06, 2012 11:14 pm

He's anti science.

Strontium Dog · **#1160** by **Strontium Dog** » Mar 07, 2012 12:22 am

Tortured_Genius wrote:Obviously another Trotskyite automatically knee-jerk opposing coalition policies.

Some opposition is constructive and principled. Not a single person on this thread has done what Harris has done in that article. And you'll note that even though he ultimately comes down against the reforms as they stand, he still points out that a lot of Lib Dem aims are already delivered, and more could be with minor tweaks.

UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Re: UK: NHS Reforms

Who is online