Tories voted down amendement to protect NHS from any form of control outside the UK

SirGalahad said:
It wasn't even the first item on the list.
Click to expand...

It was the most expensive, that's why I checked it, but as I also pointed out, nobody's paying that figure because of the generic version. As I said, you're enough to make a Russian blush.
 
Sponsored Links
This clause from the proposed amendment that was not passed, new clause 17, "(a) explicitly excludes application of any provision within that agreement to publicly funded health or care services" would effectively shut down parts of the NHS that already operate today.
So fully managed MRI and CT scanner services of which the NHS has 20%, fully managed by the manufacturers for example would be excluded from providing publicly funded services because they are German or Japanese. Nobody in their right mind should have voted for NC 17 to be passed, it is extremely fortunate that it was quite rightly voted out by the Conservatives because it would have serious consequences for services provided that The U.K has little or no expertise in.
 
SirGalahad said:
Come off it Benny - that is way off the mark. What would you have instead then?
Click to expand...
it’s not fit for purpose.
the wage bill is unjustifiably , nay astronomically, nay biblically off the scale, and unsustainable, particularly when a large percentage taking the money are doing next to nothing for it.
it’s a dated concept that worked - in it’s day. set up to cater for a fraction of the numbers and employment and immigration figures meant everybody contributed.
i’d immediately rename it the national death service, direct all future money into the paramedic and first responders. reduce national insurance across the board and charge set fees at the point of use , like the dentist. splitting the cost between contributions and payment will deter timewasters and freeloaders when they realise they actually have to put their hands in their pockets.
id set up a seperate thing completely, centred around mental and physical well being instead of death , disease drug abuse alcoholism self abuse and misery.
promoting wellbeing , fitness , holistic therapies positivity and healty living and lifestyles.
 
NHS is actually good value for the money you pay into it when compared to private systems like the American healthcare industry.
The problems of the NHS have only really started since successive governments have adopted a policy of creeping privatisation.
 
Sponsored Links
fillyboy said:
It was the most expensive, that's why I checked it, but as I also pointed out, nobody's paying that figure because of the generic version. As I said, you're enough to make a Russian blush.
Click to expand...

Hahah more BS.

The FDA has only approved the Generic version in March - now can you tell me how many pills have been sold at the generic price?

Lol you are Putins useful idiot.
 
bennymultifinish said:
it’s not fit for purpose.
the wage bill is unjustifiably , nay astronomically, nay biblically off the scale, and unsustainable, particularly when a large percentage taking the money are doing next to nothing for it.
it’s a dated concept that worked - in it’s day. set up to cater for a fraction of the numbers and employment and immigration figures meant everybody contributed.
i’d immediately rename it the national death service, direct all future money into the paramedic and first responders. reduce national insurance across the board and charge set fees at the point of use , like the dentist. splitting the cost between contributions and payment will deter timewasters and freeloaders when they realise they actually have to put their hands in their pockets.
id set up a seperate thing completely, centred around mental and physical well being instead of death , disease drug abuse alcoholism self abuse and misery.
promoting wellbeing , fitness , holistic therapies positivity and healty living and lifestyles.
Click to expand...

What do you mean the wage bill is unjustifiable? The US as a percentage of GDP spends twice as much for pretty much the same outcomes - that's the private system you seem to want to emulate.

Taking money and doing nothing? Where you get that from?

Paying for health via taxes is way cheaper and more efficient than having it private. In the US 25% of the costs are spent on administration - the UK its lower at around 7% I think.

I think you have bought the lie that the NHS needs to be totally privatised so supposed time wasters wont be seen.

Well sorry to tell you in the US they have huge costs due to people who cannot afford treatment finally get taken into A&E where they are then treated - instead of treating preventable and manageable diseases these people come in and cost thousands -when a few hundreds spend in prevention would have saved thousands.

You really need to end this idea that private healthcare will be beneficial rather than a national health service.

It seems a repeated justificaiton that the NHS is being overwhelmed by timewasters and freloaders when in fact the biggest users are the elderly - the ones who have contributed the most.

You really should read up about healthcare provision and its actual costs.

If you want to deal with alcholism etc you cannot do that in isolation - a great deal of that has to do with the economy and rising inequality.
 
There is no doubt that the NHS does represent good value especially when local services such as Gp's are factored in, I would agree with Sir Galahad on that even if I disagree on some of the provisions in Clause 17. I had sepsis and a very lengthy stay in a Critical Care Unit in 2008 and the treatment and scans since would probably render me un-insurable for healthcare in some countries. However it is because of some of the specialist scans I have had that I believe that some parts of the NHS should be allowed to outsource even if the company is foreign owned.
 
bennymultifinish said:
it’s not fit for purpose.
the wage bill is unjustifiably , nay astronomically, nay biblically off the scale, and unsustainable, particularly when a large percentage taking the money are doing next to nothing for it.
it’s a dated concept that worked - in it’s day. set up to cater for a fraction of the numbers and employment and immigration figures meant everybody contributed.
i’d immediately rename it the national death service, direct all future money into the paramedic and first responders. reduce national insurance across the board and charge set fees at the point of use , like the dentist. splitting the cost between contributions and payment will deter timewasters and freeloaders when they realise they actually have to put their hands in their pockets.
id set up a seperate thing completely, centred around mental and physical well being instead of death , disease drug abuse alcoholism self abuse and misery.
promoting wellbeing , fitness , holistic therapies positivity and healty living and lifestyles.
Click to expand...

I see you are using the old trope of blaming immigration and unemployed.
You must be a Daily Mail reader.
 
Notch7 said:
I see you are using the old trope of blaming immigration and unemployed.
You must be a Daily Mail reader.
Click to expand...
not blaming, but population unemployment and immigration is undeniably a factor.
 
bennymultifinish said:
not blaming, but population unemployment and immigration is undeniably a factor.
Click to expand...

Our unemployment rate was low before this coronavirus - about 3%.

Our population has increased but so has Government revenue - there are more people working and paying taxes.

Immigration? The NHS would cease to function if it wasn't for all the foreign drs. About 47% of the consultants are foreign.

You have it all back to front and wrong.

But lets say we went with your suggestion of privatising it. Well compare it to something you understand - your car insurance.

Health insurance requires massive amounts of data to assess your risk - pages upon pages of forms. These forms then have to be scored and weighted and policies need to be written - this is done by an army of actuaries - Actuaries easily earn over £100k a year. On top you need an army of lawyers and admin staff.

Yet no a penny has gone on your healthcare. We are still at the admin stage. On top these companies will spend money on marketing and advertising- which ultimately is added to your policy premium.

Still not a penny spent on your healthcare. Finally after assessing you they can reject you for insurance as you are too old or have pre existing health condition.

But lets say you do get insurance and now what?

Well how does insurance work. Everybody pays in and some people then get a payout when needed. You spread and share the risk. To spread risk and share costs - you can only do that at scale. This is why you have over time have mergers of health insurers - they get bigger and bigger. It becomes hard for new companies to enter as the costs are prohibitive - so you get less competition.

So now you are left with a few very powerful health providers and competition dries up.

Anyone who is arguing for a private health system is not thinking really about what they want.
 
fillyboy said:
It was the most expensive, that's why I checked it, but as I also pointed out, nobody's paying that figure because of the generic version. As I said, you're enough to make a Russian blush.
Click to expand...
Tory apologist.

Tory MPs stand to make plenty of money from opening up NHS to US market -its lucky they have plenty of the public like you that are easily manipulated into applauding them do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top