A letter to my MP

[Ajhutch]

Dear Mr Dutto

Thank you for your letter, which we have disposed of. We look forward to your vote in the next election.

Yours sincerely

Hugh Trumpington-Smyth
Intern With Responsibility for Community Engagement for Matthew Warman MP

 

[BeerCat]

Dear Mr Dutto

Thank you for your letter, which we have disposed of. We look forward to your vote in the next election.

Yours sincerely

Hugh Trumpington-Smyth
Intern With Responsibility for Community Engagement for Matthew Warman MP

I nearly spat my beer out. Thats bang on. I have been to my MP's office and met the high quality of people employed there. Heavy sarcasm.
Its a shame *** isnt' my MP though as i heard he does a good line in cheap washing machines.

 

[Sheepish]

Erm, OK. Let's recap.



So, in the example, £10 is given to two organisations per patient with illness 'x'. The same expenditure.

My argument is that I care not how that money is spent, I care only about the outcome. So, if the evil capitalist fat cat apparently has enough spare cash to buy a shiny Ferrari, I care not a jot, as long as his outcomes are superior to giving £10 per patient to the other organisation.

I cannot see how you can dispute that is the same expenditure. Sure, the two organisations have different costs (50p and £9.50 respectively suggesting one is vastly more efficient than the other) but costs are not the same thing, are they?

So, again, how is being only concerned with health outcomes for a given expenditure a flawed idea? I'm interested. Please explain. Explain to me the logical flaw in the example given.

...because your reference point of a better outcome, comes from healthcare systems that costs more ...based on the link you posted.

Or do you have some otherwise undisclosed data that shows a privatised service in the UK has been saving more people for the same money?

 

[marshbrewer]

...because your reference point of a better outcome, comes from healthcare systems that costs more ...based on the link you posted.

Ok, so let's recap again. You asked;

So, quick question, for a given service with equal funding provided by a NHS trust or a profit making private healthcare company, which spends more money on treating patients?

To which I gave the example above. No reference point, just an example of the difference between costs and expenditure. Now, for the final time ~ How is being only concerned with health outcomes for a given expenditure a flawed idea? I'm interested. Please explain. Explain to me the logical flaw in the example given.


Sheepish said: ↑
Or do you have some otherwise undisclosed data that shows a privatised service in the UK has been saving more people for the same money?


Otherwise undisclosed? I'm afraid not no. I don't really do political conspiracy theories, so you've got me there.
I do have some disclosed, publicly available data if you like? Health outcomes in NHS England are superior, £ for £, to NHS Wales. Guess which one utilises some form of private sector, competitive provision, and which one insists on a state monopoly?

 

[Sheepish]

What example have you given? The numbers you just made up in a hypothetical example?

The ONLY way you can prove your point is to post a link to data comparing survival rates for the SAME area pre and post privatisation, where the budget has remained unchanged.

You can not compare England and Wales or even different regions within a country. Since records began there have always been regional variation in life expectancy and the conditions that people die from.

 

[marshbrewer]

Can I compare people wearing different pointy hats, as long as they are the same colour*?



*The hats that is ~ this is a multicultural sarcastic remark.

 

[Dutto]

Dutto i think you forgot to use the words traitor and parasite. Always goes down well.

By now my opinion of Mr. Hunt (I still think they keep spelling his name wrong) are so well known that personal insults are not necessary.

What amazes me is that some people think that my argument is some kind of political comment. It is definitely NOT!

I would voice my disgust about any political party that considered further privatisation of the NHS, even if such privatisation was restricted to UK companies to be provided on short-term contracts.

If all the people who have assumed that my complaint is "political" then I suggest that they read the OP again and tell me exactly where I have indicated that it is in any was a political statement.

I would also like to point out that my letter was sent to my own MP, who happens to be a Conservative and I ask "Does anyone for one moment think I would not have written a similar letter to my MP if he had been from another political Party?"

In my opinion and with no regard for anyone's political persuasion, I am not convinced that the proposed changes will in any way provide better health care for the general population of the UK. That is why I sent the letter to my MP and encourage other people to do the same.

Also, if there is any factual inaccuracies in the OP could someone please point them out to me? :thumb:

 

[Sheepish]

Can I compare people wearing different pointy hats, as long as they are the same colour*?



*The hats that is ~ this is a multicultural sarcastic remark.

I take then that you don't have any like for like data, pre and post privatisation.

 

[marshbrewer]

Errr... that's because you've set ridiculous preconditions for data in order to discount inconvenient real world examples. So let turn this around ~ do you have any like for like data for pre and post monopoly provision, remembering (your) conditions of 'data comparing survival rates for the SAME area where the budget has remained unchanged.' to prove your assertion that competitive provision wouldn't improve health outcomes?

 

[Dutto]

Please let's stop the squabbling about who is right or wrong and admit that the services provided by the NHS has been a massive success for the UK since it's inception in 1948.

I agree with anyone who will listen that the NHS is far from perfect and in need of many changes, but I maintain that:

1. It can never be improved by making it a profit orientated service.
2. The changes being proposed by the current Secretary of State for Health will make the NHS a profit orientated organisation and tie the UK into long-term contracts with overseas based companies that will cost the UK millions of pounds.

I request that you read the attached link before deciding whether or not the current proposals have any validity. It is a history of the NHS. The latest data states:

"Commonwealth Fund publishes update to the 2010 Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall report
In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund declared that in comparison with the healthcare systems of 10 other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the US) the NHS was the most impressive overall. The NHS was rated as the best system in terms of efficiency, effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care, patient-centred care and cost-related problems. It was also ranked second for equity."

The Secretary of State for Health has starved the NHS of funds since his appointment in 2012. I suggest that he should not be allowed to destroy the NHS before he moves on to his next job.

https://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/thenhs/nhshistory/pages/the-nhs history.aspx

 

[Sheepish]

Errr... that's because you've set ridiculous preconditions.

You mean comparing like for like?

...in order to discount inconvenient real world examples.

You mean anecdotal hearsay, with no basis in fact.

...and the burden of proof lays with the person making the wild unsubstantiated claims...

...soz Ditto, but this country seem to have descended into a mass of myths and fairy tales with people believing any old **** and bull they chose to make up to suit their errant world views...

 

[simon12]

1 instance I personally experienced, I have had quite a few MRI scans over the years at St Georges hospital one time it was done by a private company in the back of a lorry. The private time they had me lined up ready to go in the second the last person was finished and my scan started while the last person was still putting there shows on, I estimate they could get in about 3-4 times more scans in a day than the ones in the hospital. It did feel a bit rushed by I preferred it as I don't like spending more time in a hospital than I need to. No idea what it cost the NHS compared to them doing it but the main point is they could at least triple there capacity at no cost by getting people in and out quicker.
I don't really know but I think the NHS needs reworking from top to bottom and they need to get rid of alot of pointless middle management but so many people are so resistant to change I can't see it happening and its all to political. Another example of its issues are when a court ruled it had to prescribe that medication to protect people from aids even though its not even that good and costs a fortune to anyone who wants it.

 

[-Bezza-]

The Secretary of State for Health has starved the NHS of funds since his appointment in 2012.

Careful with the facts - NHS spending has increased in every year since 2012. What is slowing is the rate of those increases in spending but that's still an increase on what has already been committed each year by previous governments.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

Frankly I just get confused by all of this. Where on earth is the money going?

I don't know anywhere near enough to meaningfully comment on whether the NHS will be better off with privatised contracts or not. But here's a teaser for you....

It costs the NHS £3.23 to provide Paracetemol. Private companies provide that for 20p or so.

 

[Saisonator]

1 instance I personally experienced, I have had quite a few MRI scans over the years at St Georges hospital one time it was done by a private company in the back of a lorry. The private time they had me lined up ready to go in the second the last person was finished and my scan started while the last person was still putting there shows on, I estimate they could get in about 3-4 times more scans in a day than the ones in the hospital. It did feel a bit rushed by I preferred it as I don't like spending more time in a hospital than I need to. No idea what it cost the NHS compared to them doing it but the main point is they could at least triple there capacity at no cost by getting people in and out quicker.
I don't really know but I think the NHS needs reworking from top to bottom and they need to get rid of alot of pointless middle management but so many people are so resistant to change I can't see it happening and its all to political. Another example of its issues are when a court ruled it had to prescribe that medication to protect people from aids even though its not even that good and costs a fortune to anyone who wants it.

Also the person could stock up with condoms before they decide to go with any old Harry or Larry.

 

[Dutto]

Careful with the facts - NHS spending has increased in every year since 2012. What is slowing is the rate of those increases in spending but that's still an increase on what has already been committed each year by previous governments.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/

...

Sorry but on phone as Broadband still down!

The Chart in the link showing NHS spending is a great asset in supporting my statement. :thumb:

If you compare the % increase of funds to the NHS (which rises slightly) with % inflation plus the % increase of UK population (which both rise at a greater rate) from 2012 to present day, you will see that the NHS gets less real money than before.

I too don’t know where the money goes, but, as I pointed out in the OP, I can see no merit in giving it to overseas based multinational companies on 15 year contracts; which is what the Secretary of State for Health is trying to slide through Parliament without a debate.

Ask yourself “What was I doing fifteen years ago?” and if life was better back then please support the petition. :wave:

 

[-Bezza-]

Sorry but on phone as Broadband still down!

The Chart in the link showing NHS spending is a great asset in supporting my statement. :thumb:

If you compare the % increase of funds to the NHS (which rises slightly) with % inflation plus the % increase of UK population (which both rise at a greater rate) from 2012 to present day, you will see that the NHS gets less real money than before.

If you're going to throw such claims out there, I'm going to check them you know :no: :thumb:

From the Kingsway link, NHS spending is currently averaging 1.2% over inflation. So we need to see whether the UK population is growing by more than 1.2% per year.

This resource may or may not be reliable, but I see no particular reason they would lie about the stats. What do they say? UK population is currently growing by about 0.6%. So that still means NHS budgets are increasing in real terms.

What is interesting is that when we had inflation + 4% NHS budget growth, UK population growth was often lower, so those increases would have gone a long way.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

The NHS seems to be a cash vacuum whatever way you look at it so I think we can only attribute that to how their costs are increasing beyond the normal rate of inflation (to be clear, the notion that funding is being cut would appear to be completely false based on the information I have been able to find). You therefore have to question efficiency, whether the procurement process is effective as it currently stands (Paracetemol costs might be an exception or they might be suggestive of wider issues), decision-making ability (I know lots of NHS people and they say it's a nightmare to get any non-routine decisions made, even where they can demonstrably save money). The aging population really doesn't help though - there are more old people than before and these cost the NHS a lot of money.

I can see no merit in giving it to overseas based multinational companies on 15 year contracts; which is what the Secretary of State for Health is trying to slide through Parliament without a debate.

I agree in part. A 15 year contract seems a long time. I also agree that any decisions need to be properly debated in parliament, such that they are made public and we can understand whether we are making them for the right reasons.

What I potentially disagree with is whether fundamentally outsourcing contracts is an issue. Whether the company is "overseas" or "multinational" is moot - the question should only be whether it improves the NHS. That must hinge on how those contracts are negotiated.

Continuing the paracetamol example further. If it currently costs the NHS #3.23 to procure, would you object to a contract that fixed the price at #1.00 a pop for the next 15 years? That's a 70% saving, despite the private company still making a large profit (vs the 20p it might cost them). I would imagine that there will be a lot of people pitching for the contracts though, and it's that competition between providers that could help to deliver savings.

Of course the contracts could cost the NHS more, but my point being that there may be plenty of good examples where outsourcing is better.

I don't like the idea of outsourcing any front-line care contracts, i.e. doctors and nurses etc. The post-natal community health stuff (I forget the name) was outsourced to Virgin Healthcare (oh the irony) and I'm not sure that was for the better. But then again, does all care need to be provided by the NHS? What about care homes - outsourced private contract that takes the elderly out of hospitals an into appropriate private facilities. Dunno.

References to elderly is not intended as an attempt to bash old people, btw!

Anyway, despite me playing devil's advocate for no real reason than I'm bored and this is the internet so what the hell, I admire and commend you for standing up for what you believe in and taking the time to raise this with your MP. I would do similar, only my local MP is..... Jeremy Hunt.

Ask yourself “What was I doing fifteen years ago?” and if life was better back then please support the petition. :wave:

I was almost certainly down the pub every day, with very little in the way of responsibilty or commitment. In many respect, that made life a lot better!!

 

[Duxuk]

Many of us have personal experience of the NHS scenario where 10 people stand round your bed. 1 talks, 1 nods and the other 8 stand there wondering if anyone's noticed they're playing Candy Crush. I saw a guy cleaning chairs. He went to a cupboard many times to get a single sheet of tissue, cleaned for a bit then laboriously unlocked the cupboard down the corridor to get a clean tissue. I can only imagine he was obeying the system so no one lost their job. My wife's brother gets "only" 9 and a half weeks holiday a year as a nurse.
Anecdotal, I know. But tell me where this would go on in private enterprise?
Staffing is the NHS's biggest expense. They need to start by flaying the fat off in this area. Better service for half the price is a realistic start.

 

[simon12]

I just remembered a documentary from years ago where a neuro surgeon who once operated on me was working for free in Ukraine. In it they talked about a valve used when people are under general anaesthetic in the UK its thrown away after 1 use while in the Ukraine they replace them annually. There is no reason to only use them once as there designed to be reused. Looking at the numbers from memory these valves cost about £50 the NHS performed 1.64 million non emergency operations in 2016 if only half of these use one of these valves it would save 41 million a year.

 

[-Bezza-]

I just remembered a documentary from years ago where a neuro surgeon who once operated on me was working for free in Ukraine. In it they talked about a valve used when people are under general anaesthetic in the UK its thrown away after 1 use while in the Ukraine they replace them annually. There is no reason to only use them once as there designed to be reused. Looking at the numbers from memory these valves cost about £50 the NHS performed 1.64 million non emergency operations in 2016 if only half of these use one of these valves it would save 41 million a year.

I would imagine that's an issue with how the legal system has evolved in cases of negligence and the willingness to sue the NHS. That's a whole other topic of debate.

 

[simon12]

Just found a few short videos on his opinion of the NHS