You are here: Home » News »

Quote of the day: Clarkson memorial edition

February 7, 2012 9:56 am

Tags:

Share this Article

Someone at Number 10 has “gone Clarkson”. A Downing Street source said:

“Andrew Lansley should be taken out and shot”

That follows on from Alex Salmond’s Nazi attack. But the real news is that a Labour researcher was mean about the Queen. Oh dear…

  • Anonymous

    ”
    “We’re back to square one,” says one exasperated insider. “Andrew Lansley is just a disaster.” Dogged and determined at his best, the Health Secretary is at his worst described as a “law unto himself””

    I don’t feel many of us would disagree with that assessment. I bet Andy Burnham wouldn’t for one.

    As for taking him out and shooting him – that is a bit too harsh. Perhaps there should be a little island somewhere where arrogant politicians (like Lansley and Purnell) get despatched for years  to eventually  bore each other to death. David Miliband could be the ruler

    • Anonymous

      Lets be honest unlike Labour Lansley is a dye in the wool full blown old Thatcherite, of the old Tory camp, set sail and no matter how the wind blows you keep going even if your sinking. 

      But of Course Cameron gave instructions to  flog off the NHS be took the job and carried out his leaders order, but now Cameron who does not really want to upset the apple cart, his welfare reforms was hit so he had to go around by a different route, so now he does not need the NHS problems.

      I suspect Lansley will be chopped and a new Minister put in place with instruction the sell off to the private sector must carry on but with a slower pace, do not let the public know about it, do it when people are not looking like the games or  what ever.

      But lets be honest every leader needs a Lansley to take the blame when things go wrong  but his tail will still be wagging when he is sacked and brought back in a few years time.

      • Anonymous

        Lansley has too many outside interests connected to the private health industry to be credible (but to be fair so did Milburn and Hewitt for New Labour).

        He is just another lightweight who would be far better off working in the private sector, without having to be hypocritical and pretend he is interested in public service for the right reasons

        • Anonymous

          We all know Politics is now seen as a career move, the next step on the ladder to where you want to go, Maybe now that Ed is leader he will have that pension  he wanted or he may well sit in the house of Lords like Prescott. Politics for the sake of Politics died many moons ago Just look at Blair for inspiration or Major……

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            There is a livelier politics going on in sections of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland than in Westminster, where it does actually seem that the perception that the politicians are all in it to snout the trough is an accurate one.

            Nonsense like “Alex Salmond’s Nazi attack”, which is an evident untruth, do nothing to persuade anyone that we have a positive vision, instead of self-aggrandisingfor our own turn at the gravy-train

          • Anonymous

            How long will labour keep winning in Wales thought it’s been close now for three terms, look at Scotland, the labour party is basically seen as being England Scotland Wales.

    • Anonymous

      same question if he is a law unto himself why has he not bee moved, sacked, removed, the problem is we do not know what Cameron is up to. Cameron I have no doubt if he thought Lansley was not going what Cameron wanted he ‘d be gone

    • Anonymous

      It’s called the Isle of Wight.

    • TomFairfax

      Hi Alan,
      If memory serves me correctly, the Duke of Windsor was dispatched to Bermuda during WW2 to keep him out of the way.

      The guys you mention might even want to go there as well, but I think clearly they shouldn’t be allowed to run anything more complex than a Tombola. Not even David.

      • Anonymous

        Hi Tom, I wouldn’t want my political bete-noirs to be comfortable!. Part of the punishment would be very spartan conditions – I was thinking perhaps of one of the rocky  outcrops in the Outer Hebrides. Allowing D. Miliband to be ruler was a little concessionary gesture on my part – given his self importance, I am sure he would enjoy organizing the latrine duties  (I can always picture him in a little blazer with “Prefect” on the top pocket, containing at least 3 pens) and whose turn it was to cut peat for the fire! :-)

        • TomFairfax

          I’m not sure the Nats would want them that close. 

          St Helena has a good record as a destination for small people with big pretensions. It’s as wet as the Western Isles, and it’s a real long swim in any direction.

           Though I’d check that they’ve changed the wallpaper first.

          P.S. What is a Prefect anyway? I thought they only existed in fantasy literature and childrens books. I don’t really like the idea of a Slyverin Milliband with a wand and a cloak.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Tom, St Helena it is – the rougher and more distant the better.

            Prefects- sorry showing how ancient I am. When I was in Secondary Modern school in the 50s the cleverest boy in the class was appointed as a sort of proto-teaching assistant. He was trusted by the master to hand out the textbooks, collect the exercise books, dish out the milk, and if the master had to leave the room for a few minutes the Prefect was left in charge.  Any naughty goings-on would be repeated to “Sir” on his return. As you can imagine this left them a bit-swollen headed. As a mark of their great status they were given a little enamel badge with “PREFECT” written on it. Gold on green if I recall at my school. 

            David Miliband would have made the ultimate prefect !

            The Prefect was also one of a trio of small family cars made by Ford (The Anglia and the Poplar made up the trio) they were rough and ready (and to be fair you can’t say that about DM) they were the cheapest new cars on the market in the early 50s, but probably, where I came from only Ford employees could afford them as they got a discount.

          • TomFairfax

            Hi Alan,
            I gather Ralph Baldwin is trying to get hold of you.

            It doesn’t make good reading, but it shows what he is dealing with.

            If he doesn’t have your email, you can ask Mark F to assist maybe. Alex Smith was rather helpful with that type of thing.

          • Anonymous

            I hope you don’t mind me saying Tom, but personally I’ve tried to avoid the email “circuit” like the plague; I think there is a danger of cliques forming and great misunderstandings.I can’t go into detail via this blog, but Alex asked me to respond to an email request which I declined- but I would have done if most people had requested- it’s just something I prefer to avoid where possible.
            There are one or two people here I’ve really got to know and trust- but I dislike it when there’s any situation or potential for ganging up on people; also politics and online blogging in general can be a minefield.
            I can’t say much more, if you don’t mind-
            but I used to have some great dialogue with C.Cook for example, and he seems to me very guarded these days; whether that’s just about posting on LL in general, or particular posters- I’ve no idea.I just find it a bit sad.
            There were many good people here who made the place vibrant; but sadly too perhaps many trolling types, and it made the whole tone of the forum quite aggressive at times.
            But that sense of community doesn’t seem to exist in the same way; perhaps it will need a whole new crowd over time.
            I know I’ve been able to rely on you and a few others to remain fair and reasonable Tom.

            Signing off now- thankyou.

            Jo

          • TomFairfax

            Hi Jo,
            I understand, but in this case, I think putting a link to the particularly story coming to light isn’t probably a good idea. I’d definitely be accused of helping the Tories out.

            Ralph intended this one for us two because of some comments we made recently that he wanted to reply to positively. Fair doos to him, I wasn’t expecting it.

            Also, the option of asking Mark for Alan’s address and passing it on to Ralph, isn’t one I felt comfortable with.

            The other option of getting it and acting postman is one I’m frankly too idle to do!

            The community thing is still here I think, but with different people as the main catalysts.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Tom,

            Sorry- I’ve not been following thread here, so don’t know to which you are referring- but am not asking either.
            I just caught your last comment on the rolling blogs.
            It’s up to you what you choose to do or how to respond- but I’d suggest maybe it’s best not to ask Mark to be involved in passing on messages as I’d assume he needs to remain impartial as editor of the site.

            As said, that initial scenario caused a problem for me, and reading between the lines on the blogs over a period of time-all kinds of possible assumptions, and in my case- negative commentary directed towards me unwittingly, when I went out of my way not be involved with group email contacts etc- on principle.

            I do think confidentiality is important; also as anywhere online- caution is probably sensible; none of us knows who reads these blogs or how they might be used?

            But generally, all communication online can be fraught with misunderstandings- so I think it’s wise to be cautious.

            Just wanted to add these points Tom- but may decide to delete later, as it’s a bit off topic.

            Always enjoy your blogs and appreciate your general attitude Tom.

            (Apologies to Alan, and Mark-
            this was just something I wanted to discuss with Tom at this point, as regular posters from LL in the past- and not easy to communicate at times!)

            Jo

          • TomFairfax

            Hi Jo,
            Yes, intriguing problem.

            I know in the past some have accused yourself and others in colluding against them, when in fact it seemed to me more a case of like minded people helping each other out with supporting arguments.

            If some people actually wanted to collude, it would be relatively straightforward, without being obvious. I’ll keep my thoughts to myself about how I’d think about doing it.

            Hopefully by my being obvious it makes it impossble for me to do the collusion thing without it being clearly seen for what it would be.

            Of course that only works if others are observant as yourself and also don’t want to see their own contribution diluted, in the face of an organised clique which may represent only a particular interest.

            Please don’t apologise for expressing your concern, it’s clearly a real risk.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Tom, I’d not thought of aspect of “collusion.”
            Mainly I just wanted to say please try to be cautious and maintain some kind of neutrality where possible
            with issues between people.
            Sorry this is getting a bit convoluted!
            As far as this blog is concerned, I’m OK with it, but I do find it sad that many good posters seem to have disappeared, and that’s affected the quality of discussions perhaps.It may be that some have gone to Tw’r and f’book;
            I know when I was there briefly- Shibley R and D.Smith, R.Blogger etc were involved and active on there; also I think Ian R.
            C.Cook seems to post rarely these days.
            But equally I think some great new people and real Labour voices have appeared, which is lively and refreshing.

            For myself I keep meaning to post less, not because I don’t value or want to support LL; it’s just that I’ve probably said much of what I wanted to say- and need to dedicate my time elsewhere.
            My partner isn’t too happy sometimes when he sees me blogging for any length of time-
            it’s amazing how time consuming it can be thinking and writing, let alone what it must be like for
            people like Mark, the writers here ,
            and anyone actively involved in politics!

            Have to stop there Tom, as letters on the
            page appear chopped in half now, and I can’t see properly on the screen.
            Going off topic anyway LOL!

            Goodnight- and thanks again for your thoughtfulness and consideration Tom.

            Jo

          • Anonymous

            Hi Tom, Thanks for letting me know. I am working on making contact

        • Anonymous

          Lots of sheep in the outer Hebrides , sorry but I could not let that happen to the poor sheep.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t worry we could baa them from having any contact with the sheep :-)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

    This is exactly the case where Labour can make “clear red water” between themselves and the Coalition

    We have examples of US healthcare they can point to for how bad this will get

    We can look to the Welsh Health service and the scottish health service for why not all want to go down this route, and they should come out fists flying, standard raised for public healthcare

    But we look lukewarm, like fieldmice, only brave enough to squeak, a very, very, little

    • Anonymous

      red water swear words within the labour party

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

        They shouldn’t be

        • Anonymous

          We had labour singing the Red Flag at conference, and now Ed is trying to rid him self of the Label Red Ed. say a lot more about labour these days.

    • charles.ward

      “We have examples of US healthcare they can point to for how bad this will get”

      Except the system proposed is more like French healthcare than American.  You know, the French system that consistently ranks at or near the top in international comparisons.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

        Atos may be involved but the links to Unum, the meetings with both Labour and Coalition people suggest that this is going more like the US than the French.

        of course, to the modern Labour Party, the US vision of “healthcare” and “workers’ benefits” is a welcome one, so I may be on the wrong side of the argument on this one

        • Anonymous

          You mean this…..

          In November 2001, there was a Labour conference near Oxford on ‘Malingering and Illness Deception’. It was attended by Malcolm Wicks, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work, and Mansel Aylward, his Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Unum (previously UnumProvident) was the driving force and was represented by John LoCascio. Unum in 2002 in the US faced a multi-million class action lawsuit for operating “disability denial factories”. In January 2003, a California jury reached a 1.7 million USD settlement against UnumProvident and two years later, the California Department of Insurance fined the company 8 million USD because it “misinterpreted job classifications, improperly overruled doctors’ opinions and knowingly used incorrect insurance definitions to avoid paying benefits”. Other states received compensation from Unum. Unum allocated between 325m USD and 415m USD to cover the likely costs.
          The work of this 2001 Labour conference resulted in the UK Welfare Reform Act. Unum helped to draw up the rules and regulations. UnumProvident Centre provides funding for Psychosocial and Disability Research based at Cardiff University. The Director of the Centre is Professor Mansel Aylward.
          A medical examination is required by the Welfare Reform Act 2007 as part of the sections that relate to the payment of Employment Support Allowance (ESA).

          UNUM is  now  spending million in Cardiff University, where of cause Alyward works met the chap a few years ago on BBC radio when  we did a program about scroungers.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            exactly that.

        • charles.ward

          French model: Private and public providers, healthcare free at the point of use.

          US model:  Primarily private insurance, limited public healthcare provision (Medicare, Medicaid, emergency care).

          Coalition proposals: Private and public providers, healthcare free at the point of use.

          Same old Labour rubbish about any private involvement in the NHS making it like the US system.

          • Hugh

             The French model’s not free at the point of use.

          • Anonymous

            It is the extent of privatisation and a free market model being applied that is partially in question- which potentially would undermine a consistent level of quality of care delivery.
            Also issues like cherry picking, and care being led by profit not needs based.
            There has long existed an element of private companies complementing the main provider, the NHS, but in my experience- it’s been areas like minor ops- and does not threaten or undermine the whole service, or force competition.
            This is just for starters….

          • Anonymous

            It is a very foolhardy person that tries to demolish a system that has been in place for over 60 years, without making absolutely sure that what you intend replacing it with is solid. 

            The government keep saying “Private companies and charities”, but this I think is bogus. By it’s very definition charities rely on the support of volunteers, who often have other concerns and interests that prevents them from being constantly on call. The government have plainly tacked that on to make it look as if their new system will be totally democratic and “Fair” (how I start to loathe that word!)

            Let’s look at cases:  when the previous government had our local hospital built under the PFI arrangement, the Friends of the Hospital who had a shop selling newspapers, confectionery, a little fruit, drinks and stationery etc were forced to close down, though they had provided that service for decades at the old building, because the PFI provider decided they wanted to run it as a commercial operation, so the Friends, the voluntary group had to make way for Sodexho. They plainly didn’t make enough money, so they opened up (under different names) another coffee bar and a restaraunt in other parts of the new building, which makes it look more like a shopping mall than a hospital.

            This, in microcosm, is what will happen on a larger scale if these current plans go ahead. If a private company fancies doing something a voluntary group is presently doing, they will just use their clout to muscle in.

            Yet again, I think you have to concede that in NHS reform as in welfare, it was sadly New Labour that made the present governments work easier, in that they started this drift towards privatisation.

            It will not guarantee better services in areas where frankly there isn’t much money to be made – I should think mental health services, for one will not be an attractive area for private companies (our local BUPA hospital seems to plug it’s liposuction and cosmetic surgery departments more than anything: as they don’t have to provide A&E they can devote their facilities to being a lard reducing factory)

            So many disciplines in the health service have attacked the governments’s plans, the governmengt look arrogant, foolish and dishonest not to listen to them.

            It will all end in tears, but of course, that won’t matter to Lansley and Cameron because they no doubt have all the medical insurance they need

          • Anonymous

            Hi Alan, thankyou for response here- and I think very astutely observed.
            Can’t disagree with much you say.

            I don’t understand all the in’s and out’s of why PFI was set up in the first place- other than apparently a long waiting list for people needing surgery when Labour came to power.
            (CF said this on QT a few months back.)
            The intention might have been good, and practical in some ways- but the result
            reported as expensive and controversial.
            Perhaps in the long run- this has come about because of lack of resources and funding,
            considering the constant demands on the NHS?

            But exactly as you say- this model of care delivery- if anything- should be a warning sign
            that’s not the way forward.

            I don’t think staff in the NHS would be against “reform” in principle, but that case has always existed, and can be led and evolved in many different ways. NOT top down by politically driven beauracrats and tendering out services to vested interests for pure profiteering.

            I also have some criticism of the medical profession in some quarters, historically;
            they have had enormous power and influence,
            and I think it possible in this case there could have been some lobbying or even collusion of agenda for future plans for the health service
            over time.

            It’s that kind of institutionalized power set up that actually needs reform in my view;
            it’s been too hierarchical- perhaps a bit like the army.

            Successive govts also probably act opportunistically, and have their own agendas; sometimes may even collude.

            My argument is-all of this process has to be above board and fundamentally about what is in the public interest; how can frontline services be maintained and protected; how can the real needs be met- particularly those with debilitating long term illnesses, which require a high level of skill, resources and commtment to support.
            I cannot see the private sector ethos fitting in with that, unless people are able to pay enormous sums over time.

            As for what I read in the Press last night about DC/AL pressing ahead regardless, and all the gumph about professional staff organizations-
            it sounds as if the PR and spin has stepped up several gears, and this may be a battle of will.
            (Eg NT in the T’graph- good article- but a whole load of stuff about organizations like the BMA; it’s the usual “anti union” rhetoric;
            but I think-deliberate spin.)

            I can say hand on heart from many years experience, staff are not interested in politics
            or game playing- they just want what’s best for their patients, and to be able to do their jobs without excessive inteference.
            They have rarely intervened or complained, despite successive reforms over time.
            But now it’s gone too far IMO, and maybe people feel compelled to stand up for what they know and believe in.We are also advocates on behalf of patients.
            (How is their voice being heard??)

            But the fact that so many highly regarded professional groups and research bodies/journals have spoken more or less with one voice, as well as cross party peers and MP- speaks volumes.

            They have no choice but to take this seriouslyIMO, and need to consider the consquences of trampling all over expert views and the public mood by just pushing ahead, possibly more to limit political damage
            and reputation than a genuine desire to work with ALL staff groups and patient representatives, protecting the NHS long term, and not breaking up into fragments;
            tendering chunks of it out to private profiteering and a free market system to the highest bidder.

            I think it may be all part of the “rolling back the state” agenda ultimately- or whatever they deem to be so.We see it elsewhere too, perhaps under the cover of the cuts agenda.
            But this kind of stuff had already started in the 80′s; it’s probably a long term ambition.

            If Labour does anything during this time-
            reversing the likely effects of this Bill
            will be a great service to the public.
            Not just to oppose for its own sake- but to seek solutions through a collaborative approach.
            Apart from PFI, I think have a good track record in support, giving resources, and commitment.

            What I do think particularly needs cross party consensus on is the “social care” side of leglslation; but from memory- I think Andy B had already made some excellent suggestions.
            All hands on deck are needed, all expertise, public bodies;(not private vested interests,)
            to seek solutions and good practice for the burgeoning needs of population.
            This has to be multifaceted and integrated-
            not a one size fits all approach or mere partisan politics applied.

            What I’m also saying is, this is such a vast area for debate and of such importance- it surely needs a wider public discourse, involving
            many people on the ground, and recipients of services.

            Just passing this complex and technocratic Bill in a top down fashion without prolonged consultation is not a recipe for success.
            If anything it could totally disrupt and undermine the fabric of a service already under great pressure, and demoralize its staff-
            which could have effects on quality of care for
            patients.

            All of this is, my own personal view-
            but remarkably similar opinions seem to be being shared by so many.

            Finally, one last point.
            I didn’t see or hear coverage of PMQ’s today,
            but did hear the bit via the news about “95%”
            of GP’s already rolling out reforms in primary care.I’m not directly involved at the current time- but have read via some knowledgable blogs that GP’s may have had little or no choice; so hardly a vote of confidence in itself. Also- why has this been enacted before legislation and consensus has been agreed and passed through?

            Apologies for length of comments here-
            but there is so much to question about content and process.

            It could have real political implications,
            eg about competence and judgement;
            also issue of trust for the public.
            I don’t think it’s worth the risk on many levels.

            Thanks, J.

            (I may edit later due to length.)
             .
             

          • charles.ward

            “It is the extent of privatisation and a free market model being applied
            that is partially in question- which potentially would undermine a
            consistent level of quality of care delivery.”

            Quite the opposite.  At the moment there isn’t a consistent quality of care across the country or even between hospitals in the same area.  Which catchment areas would private providers target?  The areas with poor service of course.

            Currently if your local hospitals are poor there is not much you or your doctor can do about it.  With competing private providers at least you have an option.  This will drive up standards in areas with poor service first, making quality of care more consistent not less.

          • Anonymous

            Why am I not able to reply via system please Mark? I’m quite OK with this.

            Is it due to length of previous comments-
            I don’t mind editing further.

            Thanks, Jo.

      • Anonymous

        Then do it stop playing political games come out tell us what you intend to do, but knowing labour if they change  anything it will be toward the American model as they did with  New Deal, pathways, workfare, it’s all American.

        Labour had a love affair with Blair Bush and the American way

      • Dave Postles

        ‘

        Top up Insurance or Polices Complémentaires/mutelles

        Even when you are affiliated to the French system a fundamental
        principle of healthcare funding in France is the element of personal
        contribution. To make up the difference between what the state pays and
        the cost of treatment, most French residents take out an insurance
        policy to cover the difference (complement). This is called a police complémentaire or mutuelle.’

        http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197

        • Peter Barnard

          @ Dave Postles,

          And, according to OECD, in 2009 total healthcare costs were 11.9 per cent of GDP in France, and 9.8 per cent of GDP in the UK.

          As Charles is so fond of asking, “Where’s the extra money going to come from?”  so that the UK model matches the French model.

          Private sector costs were 2.63 per cent of GDP in France, and 1.56 per cent of GDP in the UK.

          • charles.ward

            I was not saying that the new model will jump us to the top of the healthcare league table, only that moving a bit closer to the French model will not destroy the healthcare system in this country, neither will it drive costs up to the level of the USA (17.4% of GDP).  Also we will not have the situation where if you don’t have health insurance and fall ill you can go bankrupt, like in the USA.

            Frankly if we moved to the French system I would be perfectly happy to pay the extra money (either out of general taxation or through additional small personal contributions) if it gave us the best healthcare in the world.

            My main point was that allowing private providers to compete with NHS hospitals will not drive costs up to US levels or produce US type inequalities of access.  To suggest that it will is pure scaremongering.

            The proposals will not make UK healthcare like it is in the USA.

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Charles W, 

            You may well be right, Charles, but it would need good management (i) to ensure that the outcomes are on a par with the French model if indeed the French system does deliver superior outcomes, and (ii) to ensure that private providers don’t “fill their boots.”

            If I remember correctly, BUPA and AXA/PPP  had to reduce their charges when some South African private providersarrived in the UK a few years ago?

            Personally, I would go via the route of funding by general taxation – just about everyone pays taxes in one way or another … the goose doesn’t hiss as its feathers are plucked …

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Charles W, 

            You may well be right, Charles, but it would need good management (i) to ensure that the outcomes are on a par with the French model if indeed the French system does deliver superior outcomes, and (ii) to ensure that private providers don’t “fill their boots.”

            If I remember correctly, BUPA and AXA/PPP  had to reduce their charges when some South African private providersarrived in the UK a few years ago?

            Personally, I would go via the route of funding by general taxation – just about everyone pays taxes in one way or another … the goose doesn’t hiss as its feathers are plucked …

          • Anonymous

            ageing, menopause and puberty; AIDS/HIV; allergies or allergic disorders; birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes; chronic conditions; complications from excluded or restricted conditions/ treatment; convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care ; cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment; deafness; dental/oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage, etc); dialysis; drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use† ; experimental drugs and treatment; eyesight; HRT and bone densitometry; learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems; overseas treatment and repatriation; physical aids and devices; pre-existing or special conditions; pregnancy and childbirth; screening and preventive treatment; sleep problems and disorders; speech disorders; temporary relief of symptoms.[30] († = except in exceptional circumstances)All the above are excluded from even Frances private insurance and are treated free.Also France is closing hospitals and is actually looking more toward the USA style of Medicare, as is the rest of the EU.Free healthcare  use to be a right now it’s a political battle ground  and when I hear  labour state we will return it back to what it was, I do do not believe word of it, once changed labour would do as it always had done and say the changes cannot be altered due to cost or ability or some crap.I paid for BUPA through my company I had my accident and they cancelled my insurance saying the accident I had and the treatment needed would be best done on the NHS.That why UNUM Provident ran into trouble in America.But we are heading for the American model which Blair loved so much, Blair came out and was shot down with his idea we should pay a fee to our GP, this according to him would stop people from cancelling appointments.

          • Anonymous

            In the mid eighties I was involved in work for the NHS (non-medical capacity) and it happened to be in the area of GUM (Genito Urinary Medicine, or “special clinics” as they were euphamstically known). I got to know a few of the doctors and they all told me of the lack of funding, for a variety of reasons, but the most obvious being the somewhat “sleazy” image such clinics had within management. V.D was hardly the glamorous side of medicine – (I worked at two NHS hospitals and in both cases the GUM clinic was an embarrased little building isolated from the main complex (one of them was actually housed in a wooden shed-like annexe, which, apart from anything else raised privacy and confidentiality issues). Then in 1985 when the HIV/AIDS issue became more acute, and therefore financially interesting to drug companies (Wellcome finally developed AZT the first “HIV drug”, and suddenly money was thrown at the previously “sleazy” clinics, as the drug companies fought to develop better drugs. They suddenly become glamorous, and the status of the staff working in them raised considerably. And deservedly so, IMO.

            The problem is there isn’t the same amount of money or kudos in working in geriatrics or mental health, and other areas you mentioned  so private companies will be less interested in investing money and resources. It is a dangerous and worrying situation.

        • charles.ward

          The FAQ link from that page gives more detail about the personal contribution.  You have to pay part of the cost for prescriptions and dental care (like we do).  You also might have to pay a small amount for appointments with your doctor and an even smaller percentage for surgery (possibly nothing at all).  Also if the cost to you would be over 91 Euros you pay 18 Euros (usually).  Long term hospital stays and treatment for lots of common chronic illnesses are free.

          It is unlikely you will go bust from being ill in France (unlike the USA) and it should be noted that in England healthcare is not completely free at the point of use either (e.g. prescriptions and dental care).

          • Dave Postles

            http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=43816

            Moreover, in France, it is not free at the point of use; you pay and then recover some of the cost, it seems.

          • Hugh

            No, for the most part you pay by handing over your Carte Vitale (health card) which covers the majority, and then you pay the remainder (less than a third if memory serves). Most people have a mutuelle policy, though. If you’re on benefits of course it’s free.

  • Mr Chippy

    Maybe we could raise some money for the NHS by running a lottery for places in the firing squad?

  • Anonymous

    What is worrying is that as bad and hopeless as he is Andrew Lansley is about ten times more intelligent and capable than Iain Duncan Smith. This being the case shouldn’t hopeless dross like IDS be put up against the wall first before he has a chance to wreck even more harm? Fair’s fair!

    • Anonymous

      I can’t disagree with you there, Jeff. IDS is a special case. It might wipe that smug grin off his face once and for all.

  • Anonymous

    I think those who oppose the Bill-
    (probably 99.99% of health professionals and public,)
    need to be careful to keep the arguments sane and rational-
    not fall into the trap of providing futher PR ammunition
    to be used at the likes of PMQ’s etc.

    Eg about union members being in the minority or who’s being “nasty”
    or not…..it’s all a big distraction and could undermine genuine attempts
    to reverse this damaging, wrong headed and ideologically driven “reform.”

    What’s striking is that this has attracted cross party consensus,
    and so many profesional organizations representing a vast range
    of allied professions, and research journals; not to mention
    wide public view.

    This is not about PR however, which may be what DC cares about the most.
    It is about the fundamental principle and morality of whether these reforms
    are fit for purpose, in the public interest, and bringing on board professionals
    and patients.It is no small matter dismantling and fragmenting the most valuable
    service we have in this country and tendering out parts of it to the highest bidder.

    Reform and improvement is and has always been possible from within;
    there a myriad of ways to approach.But it has to be led by a broad range
    of professions, staff and patient representatives and real expertise-
    eg in clinical research and independent bodies such as the K.Fund?
    NOT led by a small powerful lobby of selective and politically motivated
    people and vested interests behind closed doors- which is the strong impression given.
    Also- the NHS or any part of it, is not for sale, and it should not become part
    of some giant market led system.Public services, and meeting the needs of the nation,
    is something the UK can be justifiably proud of-other countries have looked up to us
    on our acheivements in the NHS.

    Considering it is a huge organization with massive demands, and many specialities-
    it still delivers highly efficient service and quality.
    I think the private sector would love to get their hands on it;
    it’s ripe for cherry picking.But if that happened wholesale, the likelihood
    is- would pick out the easiest bits to make profit.
    The NHS potentially could be left with the most chronic and costly
    conditions to deal with, and a fall back when things might go wrong?
    Eg look what happened with the breast implants saga;
    what protection and regulation was available to patients
    - where were the ethics and expertise to address on a larger scale? 

    Mr L says all this is justified on the grounds of an increasing ageing population,
    as one example.How would these reforms address meeting those needs-
    which has always been an issue anyway?
    Yes- bridging the gap between the health and social sector
    has been needed for some time; but that can be done without
    this huge disruption to the whole service and fundamentally changing
    the whole fabric and ethos, turning it into a competitive market system.
    Besides which, the impression is given so few staff have been consulted
    throughout stages of planning- only perhaps a selective pilot project
    of GP’s, who are unlikely to represent the vast majority view.

    Why is there such a lack of transparency; why were the public and professionals not warned; why were we told the opposite:”no top down reorganzation,”
    no political inteference; and yet it’s been said- this was about 7 years in the planning
    by AL? DC must have known about this- these things don’t happen in isolation.
    It’s cynical and patronising that the public were not told clearly this was
    their plan at last election.And yet too- did not win a majority mandate
    to carry out these reforms.

    Why should any of us allow this to happen- when the NHS belongs to all of us-
    and this is about its long term future; when this govt will be long gone?
    Once the damage is done- it will probably push things so far down the road-
    almost impossible to reverse.
    That’s why action has to happen now in my view.
    The more people that look into this and get involved-
    the greater the pressure.

    Many thanks- I know from reading so many blogs, campaigns and speaking to people
    this is a majority view.I also feel extremely passionate as an NHS professional
    of many years that this service must be preserved and protected for future generations,
    and in the past has been considered world class.Innovation and cost savings can be acheived without destroying its fabric- and bringing all staff and patient groups on board.

    Jo 

  • Anonymous

    I’ve just tried to reply in full, but for some reason not getting through.

    Mark, I would like to reply to thse points please?

  • Anonymous

    Mark- could I reply to points made please?

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →