Help Shape the NHS in Lewisham & Penge

[Bazman76]

The government’s plans to privatise and fragment our NHS are taking shape in Lewisham West and Penge.

Local doctors are forming a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for the area. They’re going to get new powers to decide what health services you and your neighbours are able to access and who provides them. [1]

Whether it’s treatment for diabetes, skin conditions, a broken arm or depression, profit-hungry companies like Virgin Care and Serco are circling, ready to bid for contracts by promising to slash costs. [2]

The doctors on your local CCG will be under pressure from the government to hand out contracts to private companies. That could put vital services at risk. [3] But the last thing most doctors want is to carve up our NHS for private profit. Plus, the new CCG has a legal duty to listen to local people. [4]

So right now, we’ve got a big chance to ask local doctors to use their new powers to protect our NHS, not privatise it. Together, we can make sure they hear from hundreds of local people as they make these crucial decisions.

Can you add your name to the petition to your local CCG now?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/CCG-petition

Donations from 38 Degrees members have funded lawyers to prepare robust wording for CCGs to write into their constitutions - protecting our NHS from the worst risks of the government's plans. [5]

If we can get in early, while CCGs are still being formed, we can give doctors a better choice - one based on sound legal advice and the interests of patients, not private companies.

38 Degrees members will be able to work together to persuade their local CCG to write these safeguards into their constitutions. The government and the private health industry probably won’t like it at all, but there’s little they can do to stop people power.

First things first. Can you add your name to the petition in Lewisham West and Penge?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/CCG-petition


Thanks for being involved,

Becky, Marie, Robin, Ian and the 38 Degrees team

[dickp]

Heh, the fact that gps are already highly-paid private sector contractors seems to pass people by, in the debate about whether these reforms amount to the 'privatisation' of the nhs. But never let the facts get in the way of a good debate....

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Bazman76]

Hi Dick who to you mwan by gps? GP's i.e. general practitioners plural?

[Voyageur]

Heh, the fact that gps are already highly-paid private sector contractors seems to pass people by, in the debate about whether these reforms amount to the 'privatisation' of the nhs. But never let the facts get in the way of a good debate....

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Doesn't alter the debate at all. My bro's a GP and he is firmly behind the NHS and the 38 degrees campaign.

[Bazman76]

Indeed I believe the vast majority of the medical profession are against it:

http://bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/n ... flawed-act

Privatisation in the railways has been a disaster for the consumer, I really hope the NHS does not go the same way.

[dickp]

Having once had the misfortune to work at the bma headquarters (and also the law society headquarters who are just as bad), i long ago realised that what a trade union leadership says their members believe, and what the profession actually believes are two completely different things.

Fundamentally, the bma is against freedom of patients to choose which gp they use, and which hospital they go to, because that would result in crap ones going bust.

Well, tough. Thats like saying residents should be only allowed to shop in one locally-designated shop, and no where else. A completely bonkers position to take, which the bma seems wedded to.

Same with the bma's opposition to the national health database, which had feck all to do with patient confidentiality and everything to do with the fact that it would have cost 'local' gps half their business, if patients could use a gp nearer to their work, cos their records would be remotely accessible.

Fundamentally, the bma are a luddite trade union, like most professional associations.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Voyageur]

The NHS database was a disaster, I am reassured by my medical records not flying off to all and sundry.

You clearly have a beef about the BMA, but the privatisation issue is one that concerns many - not just some GPs.

[Bazman76]

Hi dickp,

As I understand if you are free to pick which GP you want? Also you are pretty free to go to any hospital you want?

Make no mistake these proposals are the start of privatisation of the NHS, if you support that then of course you are entitled to your opinion. But I would say to you this, look at the USA they have by far the most expensive health care system in the world and is it the best? No not by a long shot see below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heal ... th_systems

Lansley's bill is a complete mess, plus ask yourself this whay did the Conservatives deny there would be no "top down reorganisation" of the NHS (and that is exactly what this is) before the election. If they had confidence that they had a new system that would benefit patients why not tell voters? The central part of the plan it to cut costs (for the government) so will either lead to reduced services (which we are alrady seeing) and/or the patient having to pay.

The only people who will benefit from this are the private healthcare companies certainly not patients quite the contrary.

[dickp]

As long as the health service remains free at the point of use, i don't give a fig who provides the service - profit making or otherwise.

[Bazman76]

But that is the point most firmly believe that this is the thin end of the wedge, and will ultimately lead to patients having to pay for treatment.

Plus even the bill in its current form is all about saving money not about improving services. Fine if there were tax breaks to go with it but there aren't so in effect you are paying the same to get less.

Correct me if I am wrong but there are no positives for patients in the bill and a host of negatives.

[dickp]

Really? Profit-making contractors take away our rubbish, and repair our roads. Do we pay for them directly, or do they merely supply services to councils, which we pay for indirectly out of tax? What about manufacturers of drugs, or healthcare equipment? Do we pay for those directly? No. The same model of purchaser and supplier applies.

If GPs weren't already highly-paid private sector contractors to the NHS, I'd (just about) care more about the "threat" of privatisation. But they are - so what they are guilty of are scaremongering, hypocrisy, and being downright misleading about what is planned, and what already exists. Basically, they are scared that new providers will come along (be that Virgin or otherwise), and offer a better service than them - taking away their captive market.

[Tim Lund]

But that is the point most firmly believe that this is the thin end of the wedge, and will ultimately lead to patients having to pay for treatment.

Thin end of the wedge arguments are almost always wrong - they depend on an audience which is scared that either (1) the other side is inherently wicked, so will never listen to reason, or (2) that as reasonable an argument for its point of view cannot be made as for its opposite. They are a favourite of the unscrewed right.

The thin end of the wedge re privatisation of the NHS was inserted by Nye Bevan in 1946 when he "stuffed GPs mouths with gold"

Plus even the bill in its current form is all about saving money not about improving services. Fine if there were tax breaks to go with it but there aren't so in effect you are paying the same to get less..

It's about trying to set up a structure in which more efficient uses will be made of the budget, and comes against the background of general public sector cuts. You may doubt - like me - whether this change in structure will be beneficial, but it is not true to say it is all about saving money.

For what it's worth, this is what I wrote in a thread earlier this year when the Bill was going through the Lords

it's not too hard to think of profit driven companies - appropriately regulated - which can and do provide value as NHS suppliers. You don't have to think everything is wonderful about the NHS as it is either to think that another complete reorganisation is not what it needs - probably better to let those currently trying to manage it work where it can be made to work better, e.g. by merging smaller, less efficient units. Instead, this bill trades on the romantic Tory idea that everything is done better if decentralised - so put the GPs in charge.

[Bazman76]

I just don't see the advantage of getting private companies in? Why not employ the employees direct. The private companies make their money by paying minimum wages and compromising service (case in point the cleaners that have about 7 seconds to clean a room as shown in a Panorama program a few years back), or the whole debacle over olympics security, the fact that train prices keep rising above inflation which is already high) while the service is at best flat or falling. I can go on.

We do pay indirectly for drugs and equipment but till now most of that in centrally managed by the NHS and makes them a powerful negotiator given their buying power. There is a danger this power will be greatly reduced in the new set up.

And Virgin if you have used their trains you will know are hardly a byword for quality?

Really? Profit-making contractors take away our rubbish, and repair our roads. Do we pay for them directly, or do they merely supply services to councils, which we pay for indirectly out of tax? What about manufacturers of drugs, or healthcare equipment? Do we pay for those directly? No. The same model of purchaser and supplier applies.

If GPs weren't already highly-paid private sector contractors to the NHS, I'd (just about) care more about the "threat" of privatisation. But they are - so what they are guilty of are scaremongering, hypocrisy, and being downright misleading about what is planned, and what already exists. Basically, they are scared that new providers will come along (be that Virgin or otherwise), and offer a better service than them - taking away their captive market.

[Bazman76]

But that is the point most firmly believe that this is the thin end of the wedge, and will ultimately lead to patients having to pay for treatment.

Thin end of the wedge arguments are almost always wrong - they depend on an audience which is scared that either (1) the other side is inherently wicked, so will never listen to reason, or (2) that as reasonable an argument for its point of view cannot be made as for its opposite. They are a favourite of the unscrewed right.

Well I feel that the conservatives have been very underhand in their handing of the NHS. We went from no top down reorganisation to the biggest reorganisation seen in decades, and they wonder why noone trusts them on the NHS?

Plus can you eloborate on your thin edge of the wedge statement?

The thin end of the wedge re privatisation of the NHS was inserted by Nye Bevan in 1946 when he "stuffed GPs mouths with gold"

Plus even the bill in its current form is all about saving money not about improving services. Fine if there were tax breaks to go with it but there aren't so in effect you are paying the same to get less..

It's about trying to set up a structure in which more efficient uses will be made of the budget, and comes against the background of general public sector cuts. You may doubt - like me - whether this change in structure will be beneficial, but it is not true to say it is all about saving money.

Well again Tories went from no cuts to NHS (prior to the election) to no cuts to front line services, and now it seems front line cuts are inevitable. Of course the Tories are trying to distance themselves by hiding behind the new structure in which doctors are responsible for budget decisions. True but with a reduced budget cuts to services will follow.

For what it's worth, this is what I wrote in a thread earlier this year when the Bill was going through the Lords

it's not too hard to think of profit driven companies - appropriately regulated - which can and do provide value as NHS suppliers. You don't have to think everything is wonderful about the NHS as it is either to think that another complete reorganisation is not what it needs - probably better to let those currently trying to manage it work where it can be made to work better, e.g. by merging smaller, less efficient units. Instead, this bill trades on the romantic Tory idea that everything is done better if decentralised - so put the GPs in charge.

I theory yes, but the history of private companies, impotent regulators and overly generous politicans (generous with out money that is), is not a happy one.

I think the whole notion that private is automatically is automatically better, is pretty much dead, even had a tory MP say am much last week (sadly I forget which one might have been Gove).

[Tim Lund]

the history of private companies, impotent regulators and overly generous politicans (generous with out money that is), is not a happy one.

I think the whole notion that private is automatically better, is pretty much dead, even had a tory MP say am much last week (sadly I forget which one might have been Gove).

Any more than the idea that public sector is automatically better? If impotent regulators and overly generous politicians represent the public sector, maybe not.

[Bazman76]

I think the key problem at the moment is that many of these fat contracts with the favourable terms and lax regulation go to companies that have close ties to government, indeed many ministers end up taking at least non-executive posts with these companies.

So it's not so much incompetence that is the problem, as self-interest of the political class not being aligned with the interesets of the electorate.