Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 10:13:51 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10647910gonna cost 7 times more to reorganise nhs "Beaurocracy" than its actually going to save 10 strategic health authorities and 152 nhs trusts being abolished and replaced with 500 gp consortiums, each with its own management and finance structure (the idea that your average gp can manage multi million £ budgets ect is laughable). also, be intersting to see what happens if we get another flu outbreak, as the responce last time was co ordinated by the SHAs. you can always rely on the tories (and their libdem rent boys now as well apparently) to **** up the nhs. and before anyone uses the words "long term savings" i was under the impression from what they have said and done, that cuts need to be made now. also worth pointing out that the £1.7billion this tory vendetor against the nhs is costing is coming from front line services, not from cutting waste, reform, face beaurocrats, mandarins blah blah blah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 10:15:02 GMT 1
Anyone who has dealt with GPs will know how unlikely this is to actually work!
Feel very sorry for my colleagues at the PCT with this news tho
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 10:21:06 GMT 1
Opens up the health service to the market....
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Jul 16, 2010 10:46:25 GMT 1
Opens up the health service to the market.... It already is. But much more efficient for a private health care provider to deal with SHA's to provide a more cost effective solution by providing the service to a larger community. Totally agree with matron, The bureaucrat overhead on GP practices is going to be massive. A total F---- up it you ask me...
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jul 16, 2010 11:00:18 GMT 1
The average GP deals with up to 20,000 people and a turnover of up to 5 million.
When did that qualify you to take charge of 500,000 people and a turnover of 500m?
And while they are doing that: who is going to see their patients?
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 16, 2010 11:03:37 GMT 1
Matron, working in the NHS myself, just to correct you there may not be 500 GP consortia, it's completely unknown how many there will be as there's no limit. There could be just 1 consortia for Shropshire for example as there is with the PCT at present. However, I'd find that unlikely so I can see there being more than 152 at least.
Can't see the reasoning behind this move. The previous government said we needed to make 20% efficiency savings, the new government has said that will continue to be the case and the whole country needs to make massive savings, yet we've now been told that the entire nhs is going to change dramatically over the next few years and that 152 pcts and the sha's will be shutting by april 2013. That change, the redundancy pay that's going to have to be given and the massive change of simple stationary orders, buildings being rented etc is going to cost millions upon millions.
How on earth is the nhs going to have to cope when people have to carry on providing the same quality of service, whilst pcts have to make cuts, can't replace those that leave for other jobs unless they're deemed essential, and it's employees likely to be made redundant have to help set up and train the people who will eventually be replacing them. It's just not going to happen is it. Loads of people who have the skills that are needed to train gp consortia's aren't going to wait around to be made redundant, they'll go elsewhere.
What do GP's know about financial management, negotiating large block contracts etc? It's certainly not on any of their existing training programs.
And of course with this new move, the relationship between patients and their gps is going to change. No longer will gps be able to be the middle man and be able to hide away when treatment is slow / refused - at present they can blame the pcts - now they'll be the ones in control and the patients will know.
And straw poll, the government's made a big thing about how this will mean that patients have a lot more choice about their care - how much of a factor is this for ordinary people??
As a potential patient myself, I'm not medically qualified or an expert in certain areas, if I'm sick or needing an operation I don't know what's best, I don't know which option is best, I want the people who know to advise me and recommend what i should do!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 11:19:39 GMT 1
Matron, working in the NHS myself, just to correct you there may not be 500 GP consortia, it's completely unknown how many there will be as there's no limit. There could be just 1 consortia for Shropshire for example as there is with the PCT at present. However, I'd find that unlikely so I can see there being more than 152 at least. ! its not a reliable source to be fair, but bbc put it at 500 and telegraph put it at 500-600 www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/13/michael-white-nhs-andrew-lansleybut you are correct, it could just be one big one for shropshire, to use your example, in which case the work and budget would be huge requiring a workforce to match, in which case what would be the point? do you mind if i ask where you work, just curious, pm me if its private. and if anyone is interested to look how efficient and well managed gp consortiums are look up SuffDoc and their involvement in the recent german locum doctor drug death scandal.
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Jul 16, 2010 11:24:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stainesr on Jul 16, 2010 11:32:41 GMT 1
Andrew Lansley's wife is a GP and it's an old Tory idea from the 80s-90s. Makes me laugh how the Tories said they weren't going to reorganise the NHS any more....
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 16, 2010 11:38:33 GMT 1
It may well have benefits long term, but the problem as I say is the timing. If we've got to make so many savings immediately now and for the next few years, and have to stop doing some of the things that will prevent things in the long term, then why on earth announce something that will have a massive massive cost?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 12:42:33 GMT 1
I meant to add "more" onto the end of my post.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Jul 16, 2010 13:32:39 GMT 1
as one of the PCT "bureaucrats" whose job is already formally "at risk", people need to know that the disinformation from Lansley & Cameron is breathtaking.
They talk of getting rid of targets. On page 23 of the White Paper it talks about NICE will produce 150 quality standards, and each one will have a set of 5-10 associated measures. I make that between 750-1,500 measures (or targets by another word). Who will collect the information, analyse it, ensure that lessons are learned and progress is made, who'll hold GP consortia to account if they don't improve quality etc? If you believe Lansley, it will just happen. This new regime will not only cost more, but will actually produce much more bureaucracy!
Sure there is plenty of waste in the NHS and also of cost-cutting measures could be adopted, but this is all about smoke and mirrors designed to con the public by attacking management by calling them "bureaucrats".
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 16, 2010 14:29:32 GMT 1
Have any of the politicians who make these decisions ever run a large organisation - or an organisation of any sort?
I doubt it as decisions appear to be made based on dogma rather than any rational analysis of their effect.
My nephew is one of the 'bureaucrats' whose job is in jeopardy.
Basically he acts as PA to a group of cancer specialists, orgainising their calendars, transcribing patients' notes, taking the minutes at meetings and acting as the acting as liason between various departments in the hospital, the consultants and the patients.
Who will do all this when he is made redundant?
He says the sugeons are brilliant at cutting out cancers, but not very good at paperwork.
|
|
|
Post by creature on Jul 16, 2010 21:33:41 GMT 1
as one of the PCT "bureaucrats" whose job is already formally "at risk", people need to know that the disinformation from Lansley & Cameron is breathtaking. They talk of getting rid of targets. On page 23 of the White Paper it talks about NICE will produce 150 quality standards, and each one will have a set of 5-10 associated measures. I make that between 750-1,500 measures (or targets by another word). Who will collect the information, analyse it, ensure that lessons are learned and progress is made, who'll hold GP consortia to account if they don't improve quality etc? If you believe Lansley, it will just happen. This new regime will not only cost more, but will actually produce much more bureaucracy! Sure there is plenty of waste in the NHS and also of cost-cutting measures could be adopted, but this is all about smoke and mirrors designed to con the public by attacking management by calling them "bureaucrats". There have been some pretty insidious noises coming from the Tories of late. Quite simply this is all part of an ideological campaign against the public sector and has nothing to do with the deficit. The strategy is quite simple - belittle some aspect of the public sector, eg I'm terrified at the prospect of finding state schools for my kids, then announce cuts or "restructuring". Sod progress, by the time the Tories leave office I dread to think what will be left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 21:51:15 GMT 1
I'm also one of the so called PCT "bureaucrats".....I've worked for the NHS for 18 years and been with my local PCT for 8 years. I've worked bloody hard bringing about change in my community over this time....I get paid for 37 hours yet I regularly work 48 - 50 hours a week. The NHS gets an extra day + a week from me and it costs them NOTHING! I'm not after brownie points, I work long hours for my PCT because I'm a health professional who wants to make a difference. BUT, the Tory/Libs couldn't care less about me, they are happy to get rid of me and many other hardworking and dedicated NHS staff and hand the NHS over to the market...
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 17, 2010 14:16:13 GMT 1
Health, education, the BBC etc, the headline of the following article is the Tory's ideology and endgame writ large: Austerity Drive Will Hand Billions to Private Sector. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/16/austerity-drive-billions-private-sectorOf course there are some whose default position is to defend every barsteward trick these ****ers try to pull, but it's the truth. The state this country will be in, in five, ten, fifteen years time doesn't bear thinking about. It's pure Darwinian, sink-or-swin, survival of the fittest stuff and makes me sick to my stomach.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 17, 2010 15:07:01 GMT 1
This Government has not wasted any time targeting its enemies, first the NHS, then the BBC.
The BBC is a predicatable target following Dave's endorsement by Rupert.
Jeremy Hunt says the BBC needs to change "the huge number of things it does". In other words, Rupert wants his reward in the form of less competition and taking over profitable BBC enterprises.
I love the quote from BSkyB when calling for the BBC Trust "to reduce the burden on the licence fee payer."
The licence fee costs £12.12 per month, with exemptions for older people etc, while the most basic subscription to BSkyB costs £19.00 per month(with no exemptions) + installation +box + expensive engineer call outs when the box fails-which is quite often in my experience.
On that basis, how much would BSkyB charge for the range of TV and radio broadcasts available from the BBC?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 17, 2010 18:15:35 GMT 1
Valid point about BSkyB regarding costs but what about quality of programmes and of course quantity.
I wonder if the issue is with wages of BBC bosses and hosts - staff.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 17, 2010 18:44:26 GMT 1
This Government has not wasted any time targeting its enemies, first the NHS, then the BBC. The BBC is a predicatable target following Dave's endorsement by Rupert. Jeremy Hunt says the BBC needs to change "the huge number of things it does". In other words, Rupert wants his reward in the form of less competition and taking over profitable BBC enterprises. I love the quote from BSkyB when calling for the BBC Trust "to reduce the burden on the licence fee payer." The licence fee costs £12.12 per month, with exemptions for older people etc, while the most basic subscription to BSkyB costs £19.00 per month(with no exemptions) + installation +box + expensive engineer call outs when the box fails-which is quite often in my experience. On that basis, how much would BSkyB charge for the range of TV and radio broadcasts available from the BBC? good post, the bbc represents some of the best value broadcasting in the world. looks to me as if we have a government that wants to keep us uninformed, dumbed down and unhealthy. Look what the free market has done for football, with sky helping widenthe gap between the rich and poor. that is what the tories want for the rest of the country, a very small group of mega rich people controlling the rest of us, whilst the majority keep them in a manner to which they are accustomed. Small govt should read big business. Labour may have been far from perfect, but they did some good, which the tory party will reverse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2010 10:25:19 GMT 1
Valid point about BSkyB regarding costs but what about quality of programmes and of course quantity. I wonder if the issue is with wages of BBC bosses and hosts - staff. so what about quality and quantity. we have the extra large virgin cable package, so we get sky 1 2 and 3. i loose count of the number of times we spend forever scrolling through the menu pages trying to find something to watch. over 200 channels and there is jack s**t on. what is on are 90% of the time repeats. sky (and virgin for that matter) are very good at making us think we need things we dont. instant replays of live tv. s**t how have i managed 44 years without it. ironically, wasnt one of the reasons sky where allowed into the market in the first place because of the lack of competition? odd then that that is exactly what the tories and there lap dogs want to hand to sky. with regards bbc bosses and celeb wages. yeh ok, i could feel a little bitter that tossers like jonathon woss get multi million pound salaries for being stupid and in my opinion, unfunny. but a lot of people do like him and if the bbc didnt pay him these large amounts, murdoch would and the people who do like him would need to fork out a hell of a lot more than the licence fee to see him. bbc bosses? i guess i should file "bbc bosses" alongside "whitehall mandarins" "faceless civil servants" and "nhs beaurocrats". another phrase being used to white wash the british minds. i would much rather pay whoever it is £1 million pound a year to run the great british institution that is the bbc, then see slimey aussie murdoch add another yatch to his fleet with it. as has been mentioned already, this is all about political revenge and dogma, and nothing to do with the quality and value of the bbc.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 18, 2010 12:49:38 GMT 1
Thing is Pab which media we watch is down to our own personnal choice.
I don't have Sky Sports or Virgin whatever because I dont want to. Yet I have to pay the BBC whether I watch it or not.
What does the BBC bring to the table that many other competitors do not ? People ( I will use Ross as he is an easy target) have to pay Ross's wage, why should they ?
For me it should be about freedom of choice, if that means dear old auntie loses out so be it.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 18, 2010 13:02:20 GMT 1
Thing is Pab which media we watch is down to our own personnal choice. I don't have Sky Sports or Virgin whatever because I dont want to. Yet I have to pay the BBC whether I watch it or not. What does the BBC bring to the table that many other competitors do not ? People ( I will use Ross as he is an easy target) have to pay Ross's wage, why should they ? For me it should be about freedom of choice, if that means dear old auntie loses out so be it. Blue planet and other natrual history programming, the best news service in the world,childrens educational programmes, some of the best comedy in the world (black adder, monty python, the office, extras, fawlty towers), local radio that brings you our beloved STFC for absolutely nothing, the world service that means that this country has a voice all over the world, some of the best sports coverage(check the viewing figures of the world cup, compared to ITV). need i go on? you dont have to pay for the bbc if you dont have a television, but you get the radio stations and the website for free . You pay for ITV if you dont have a television though, assuming that you buy at least some of the products that pay for advertising. if you dont have sky or virgin, what do you watch? seems a pretty poor argument to be fair? you do have the choice, get rid of your television.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 18, 2010 13:57:24 GMT 1
Not a poor argument at all Marcus, although I may not get the point across with the clarity an dvision of others.
Whilst I agree Blue Planet is excellent it is not only the beeb that could produce the programme.
Your mistaken Marcus the radio stations are not free they are built soley on licince payers money, ergo once again you are tied into them by virtue of a channel you may not wish to watch yet stil have to pay for.
Back to the point, no one in this country has a choice, if I get rid of my TV I cant watch ITV, 4 or 5 yet if I want to watch them I have to pay the BBC ergo my hand is being held behind my back. Its crazy.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 18, 2010 15:54:07 GMT 1
Not a poor argument at all Marcus, although I may not get the point across with the clarity an dvision of others. Whilst I agree Blue Planet is excellent it is not only the beeb that could produce the programme. Your mistaken Marcus the radio stations are not free they are built soley on licince payers money, ergo once again you are tied into them by virtue of a channel you may not wish to watch yet stil have to pay for. Back to the point, no one in this country has a choice, if I get rid of my TV I cant watch ITV, 4 or 5 yet if I want to watch them I have to pay the BBC ergo my hand is being held behind my back. Its crazy. not mistaken windsor, the radio stations are free at the point of use, that doesnt mean that they dont have a cost, but if you choose not to watch the television and dont have to pay for your license as a result, they are free. you have missed my point, which is that even if you dont have a television, you have to pAY FOR COMMERCIAL TELEVISION(oops caps knocked on), which constitutes a complete lack of choice. its quite easy to see what the bbc provides, education and entertainment for the masses, it is not so easy to see the benefits of commercial television. maybe any broadcaster could have made the blue planet , but the fact is that they wouldnt because they appeal to what the advertisers want for people(usually the lowest common denominator). you and i pay for xfactor and big brother every time we go to the shops, absolutely no choice for you there. its the same with sky, i have to pay for it as they carry adverts that are paid for with money we have paid, i cant opt out of paying the cost for adverts at the till in the supermarket. so the bbc actually represents a better choice because you can opt out of watching television altogether and pay nothing. just out of interest, if you dont use the nhs, why do you have to pay for it?because that isnt the way the country works, we all pay for things we dont use because of the greater good. i dont want to live in a country that pulls up the ladder because jack is alright. i know you are only saying what your party tells you to think, but that is the problem with party politics. people cling to what they are told because of some bizzare loyalty to a particular party. try questioning what you are told, you may find that Dave and co make no sense at all on some matters.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 18, 2010 16:11:32 GMT 1
i know you are only saying what your party tells you to think. You are incorrect again Marcus my view is independant of the Government, please try and understand that.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 18, 2010 16:14:53 GMT 1
i know you are only saying what your party tells you to think. You are incorrect again Marcus my view is independant of the Government, please try and understand that. sorry chap, your the one who goes on about the tories all the time, easy mistake to make. as you havent addressed my other points, i will assume you agree.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 18, 2010 17:31:33 GMT 1
Apology accepted, I was having my dinner...or is it tea ? Whatever I am now going to settle down and watch the open.....
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 18, 2010 18:11:36 GMT 1
Apology accepted, I was having my dinner...or is it tea ? Whatever I am now going to settle down and watch the open..... worth an apology to see you reject the tories
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2010 19:39:43 GMT 1
i know you are only saying what your party tells you to think. You are incorrect again Marcus my view is independant of the Government, please try and understand that. pretty sure pike isnt a member of any political party to be fair, he just sures the ideology and dogma of blue rince thatcherite tories.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 18, 2010 21:13:43 GMT 1
I'm very grateful to my fellow citizens for paying their BBC licence fee and thereby allowing me to enjoy the range of fine programmes the organisation produces.
The ridiculous remuneration of a talentless twerp like Ross is an annoyance, but times are changing and the like will not be happening again in the foreseeable future.
What irritates me is the hypocrisy of the BBC's rivals, I've tried to find out what the head of Sky is paid but the information does not appear to be available. I have found that the head of the Mirror newspaper group is paid £1.7m, or more that twice as much as the top BBC executive. I believe that the controller of Channel 5 is paid over £1m.
I don't defend these astronomic salaries, but the BBC appears to be paying executives less than people in similar positions in rival organisations.
|
|