Jump to content

Lansley Heckled


SuperMikey
 Share

Recommended Posts

In 1946 the BMA were oppossed to the setting up of the NHS, so Doctors aren't always the best people to decide how a country should run its health service.

 

Funny how Cameron went on about giving the power to nurses and doctors to run the NHS, yet they don't want it. So now he won't listen to him.

 

Surely if you are given extra responsibilities at work you shoud get a pay rise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how Cameron went on about giving the power to nurses and doctors to run the NHS, yet they don't want it. So now he won't listen to him.

 

Surely if you are given extra responsibilities at work you shoud get a pay rise?

 

They don't need more responsibility, they have enough on their plates as it is. We don't need doctors wasting their time on accountancy, or worse hiring private companies to do it for them. What we need to do is let the doctors get on with doctoring and leave the budget setting to a third party who can do it objectively. The PCT's do this at the moment, and yes they are unpopular because they do this... but we don't want GPs becoming protest points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing of this policy makes me suspect that the Coalition is putting ideological aims above the immediate needs of the country. They're very keen to remind us is up the swanny, yet are actively pushing legislation that they have no mandate to implement. In fact, Cameron explicitly said that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS pre-election. He lied to the electors, in other words.

 

He's managed to weasel out of a load of bad decisions on the grounds of the country's poor financial health, but he can't really pull that trick here. The re-organisation is going to cost 3bn amidst claims that it won't work and won't improve patient care.

 

This bill does nothing on its own, but what it does do is establish structures linking public health care to big corporate healthcare firms. The bill will be a disaster. Instead of refining what we already have, we're sweeping the lot away, and placing the burden of procurement on people who should really be focused on making people better.

 

As Saintandy666 says, they have enough on their plates as it is. Asking them to implement these reforms on top of their normal jobs is unreasonable and unnecessary - compounded by the fact that there is no appetite for it. It'll end in chaos, probably with private healthcare companies swooping in to save the day.

 

And that kids, is how you privatise the NHS without too many people making much of a fuss ( SuperMikey's aforementioned nutjobs excepted, naturally ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this politics is bull5hite

 

BUT , i do enjoy a good protest along with the other nutters. And mostly normal peeps. The thing is that the nutters make

better tv.

Love it when an egg or a cream cake gets planted on some whitehall wqnkers face. They have absolutely no idea what to do or where to turn (se above link). They are all a bunch of cheating t0ssers , far from the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing of this policy makes me suspect that the Coalition is putting ideological aims above the immediate needs of the country. They're very keen to remind us is up the swanny, yet are actively pushing legislation that they have no mandate to implement. In fact, Cameron explicitly said that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS pre-election. He lied to the electors, in other words.

 

He's managed to weasel out of a load of bad decisions on the grounds of the country's poor financial health, but he can't really pull that trick here. The re-organisation is going to cost 3bn amidst claims that it won't work and won't improve patient care.

 

This bill does nothing on its own, but what it does do is establish structures linking public health care to big corporate healthcare firms. The bill will be a disaster. Instead of refining what we already have, we're sweeping the lot away, and placing the burden of procurement on people who should really be focused on making people better.

 

As Saintandy666 says, they have enough on their plates as it is. Asking them to implement these reforms on top of their normal jobs is unreasonable and unnecessary - compounded by the fact that there is no appetite for it. It'll end in chaos, probably with private healthcare companies swooping in to save the day.

 

And that kids, is how you privatise the NHS without too many people making much of a fuss ( SuperMikey's aforementioned nutjobs excepted, naturally ).

 

He broke his promise on no top-down re-organisation, and he broke his promise on no cuts to the NHS as well! Budgets are being cut left, right and centre... often renamed 'efficiency savings'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1946 the BMA were oppossed to the setting up of the NHS, so Doctors aren't always the best people to decide how a country should run its health service.

 

In 1946 the government had a mandate from the electorate to form the NHS. I suggest that this government doesn't have an electoral mandate for its reorganisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He broke his promise on no top-down re-organisation, and he broke his promise on no cuts to the NHS as well! Budgets are being cut left, right and centre... often renamed 'efficiency savings'.

 

I think you give him too much credit by referring it to as promise breaking. This isn't "we couldn't quite do what we said we would do", more like "we're doing the exact opposite of what we said we would do".

 

David Cameron is a liar. I sometimes wonder how apathetic people would be about politics if it were presented to them in such honest terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you give him too much credit by referring it to as promise breaking. This isn't "we couldn't quite do what we said we would do", more like "we're doing the exact opposite of what we said we would do".

 

David Cameron is a liar. I sometimes wonder how apathetic people would be about politics if it were presented to them in such honest terms.

 

I think Cameron is a very weak Prime Minister, and I think the Conservatives could do a lot better than him. William Hague, is just one of the many(was leader at the wrong time really)who would be much better in my opinion, not that I agree with him at all on most things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you give him too much credit by referring it to as promise breaking. This isn't "we couldn't quite do what we said we would do", more like "we're doing the exact opposite of what we said we would do".

 

David Cameron is a liar. I sometimes wonder how apathetic people would be about politics if it were presented to them in such honest terms.

 

Politicians (of all hues) aren't liars per se, they're just very adept at presenting a 'truth' in an oblique way that's then open to various different interpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples?

 

My local hospital is cutting

millions in 'efficiency savings'. A lot of it is welcome, and most is just great

money saving or will just result in hospitals becoming more specialised so you'll just have to travel further for treatment which will provide difficulty for many. Much that isn't like that is affecting waiting times and decisions over how much of what can be done and when. This is all well documented though! Though, in my opinion, it is about time we sat down and worked out what we want and need the NHS to do. Reform of a kind I guess, but not these reforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My local hospital is cutting

millions in 'efficiency savings'.

 

Apologies for not making myself clear, but when I asked for "examples?" I meant specific examples of cuts, not just a general headline figure.

 

All I'm after is some examples of the actual cuts that are being made on the 'shop floor'.

 

For example: "The stroke unit are making do with 3 pairs of scissors rather than the usual 7"

 

Or..."the neurological unit is making do with 4 brain surgeons instead of the usual 6"

 

That sort of specifics. Without focusing on the actual tangible nature of the cuts it's difficult to argue for or against them.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was reported in Private Eye a couple of weeks ago, but check out About Andrew. Basically, if you were in the market for an Andrew Lansley, this would be the spiel.

 

The Eye picked out this juicy tidbit:-

 

Aside from being appointed as the Secretary of State for health, Andrew's proudest career achievements thus far include; running the Conservative campaign for the 1992 General Election (for which he was awarded a CBE), and transforming the public’s view of the Conservative Party’s commitment to the NHS.

 

Yes, Andrew - you most certainly have done that. Before, I simply thought you would massive underfund it. Now I know you'll probably destroy it beyond all recognition.

 

Well I'm a convert. Anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...