Hazel Grove News

A Suburb in Stockport

10 10 / 10 from 9 Reviews

Poor old William Wragg

<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>
 
Artie_Fufkin
Villager

Artie_Fufkin
Re: Poor old William Wragg
16th February 2016 at 9:55PM
stukaville Wrote:

Artie_Fufkin Wrote:


Does it matter. Let's assume it works out cheaper, otherwise the NHS would not choose it over an in-house solution. Your father was happy with the job done?

My business supplies the NHS with clean room audio. We compete with a few other businesses and we also supply Germany, France, Russia and others. The NHS can make the stuff themselves but to be honest, why bother, it will not be as good as ours and cost more. Why should this not apply to medical services?

The thing is, when it's our own money, we behave differently. When my wife's friend wanted to fix her wonky teeth and the work wasn't available on the NHS, she didn't book her NHS doctor to do the private work, she was off to Budepest where they are better at cosmetic dentistry than here and 1/4 of the price. The NHS has to operate in a similar way, get the best deal for us the tax-payer



Ofcourse it matters. Let's not assume it works out cheaper, lets follow simple logic here. Private companies exist to make a profit. The NHS is there to provide universal free health care. You cannot save money by introducing another layer of cost. Your own business is a poor example because you are providing the NHS with expertise that you wouldn't expect to be in the medical profession. Ive no problem with the NHS buying in I.T solutions if they decide they dont want their own I.T staff, but I'd fully expect it to have its own salaried heart specialists, audiologists all working for decent pay, not charging per patient.

If you were offering heart surgery I would expect the NHS to do the job cheaper because they are paying staff by the hour, where as you would be paying your staff by the hour plus charging the NHS/tax payer per operation, and looking to provide a return to your investors. Ive seen examples of surgeons being paid far more than what they earn with the NHS, operating on 'NHS patients' in private hospitals like Bupa to lower waiting times. Recuiting more staff is the answer, not paying the same staff three times more via BUPA and the like.

Your wife's friend is another poor example. That is cosmetic surgery and something the NHS was never intended for. By all means have companies provide services not covered by universal health care but lets not underfund the NHS to deliberately destroy it, then claim its broken and has to be changed.

I think I can see what is really happening here. The NHS is being deliberately underfunded
so services have to be reduced. Waiting times go up and the government tells us the NHS is no longer fit for purpose. Then private companies appear and the NHS is forced to spend money on operations etc because it has lost capacity and has been given targets it cannot meet.

When the NHS has been sufficiently weakened I can see national insurance being lowered and people being encouraged to take out private medical insurance. The NHS will end up being a second rate dumping ground for costly patients the private sector doesn't want to know unless they can pay. As for my dad, he needs further treatment and was happy enough with his Optegra appointment but the service used to be provided in Stepping Hill 2 miles from him. Now he has to go to Manchester 7 miles away. Common sense tells me that Optegra will end up costing more. Tax payers just want a service, investors want a return for their money. What do you suppose is cheaper, paying a contractor to do a job (NHS) or paying the same contractor(NHS) to pay other contractors(BUPA, Optegra, Virgin) to do the jobs?

Eventually the narrative will be, 'Why pay the NHS to pay these other companies, why not let the public pay their own medical insurance and shop around. Then we can look forward to the poor not affording health insurance and falling by the wayside. I'm all for free markets, but somethings were never meant to be all about profit and the cheapest costs.


I can't see why it matters, your father got the treatment and if the NHS can outsource the work and get more for less, then all the better. If another company can create a more efficient solution than the NHS can, surely that's good?

I don;t think thee needs to be an ideological need to have an NHS only service if the service is going to be more expensive or not as good.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
stukaville
Villager

stukaville
Re: Poor old William Wragg
19th February 2016 at 1:51PM
Artie_Fufkin Wrote:



I can't see why it matters, your father got the treatment and if the NHS can outsource the work and get more for less, then all the better. If another company can create a more efficient solution than the NHS can, surely that's good?

I don;t think thee needs to be an ideological need to have an NHS only service if the service is going to be more expensive or not as good.


You can't see why it matters because your basing your view on unfounded assumptions. You are assuming the NHS is automatically getting more for less. Usually you tend to get less for less but I'll be logical here and assume the NHS is getting the same, for alot more. Hear is my logic. The doctor my father saw in Stepping Hill said that the test used to be done at Stepping Hill. He used to carry the the test out. All he would need to keep on doing this test is the equipment that he must of had originally. Based on what I have seen, I would say that in a good deal of cases contracts are being formed with private healthcare providers for 'ideological' reasons. That is being a tad kind at best. It wouldn't suprise me if some of these contracts were more about who was mates with who, who owns shares in what etc.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
Artie_Fufkin
Villager

Artie_Fufkin
Re: Poor old William Wragg
21st February 2016 at 10:54PM
stukaville Wrote:

You can't see why it matters because your basing your view on unfounded assumptions. You are assuming the NHS is automatically getting more for less. Usually you tend to get less for less but I'll be logical here and assume the NHS is getting the same, for alot more. Hear is my logic. The doctor my father saw in Stepping Hill said that the test used to be done at Stepping Hill. He used to carry the the test out. All he would need to keep on doing this test is the equipment that he must of had originally. Based on what I have seen, I would say that in a good deal of cases contracts are being formed with private healthcare providers for 'ideological' reasons. That is being a tad kind at best. It wouldn't suprise me if some of these contracts were more about who was mates with who, who owns shares in what etc.


Well, if the 'buyer' at the NHS is choosing the more expensive option then he should be sacked so I'll assume the 'buyer' is not incompetent (imagine that in the public sector?)

However, if the doctor you saw carries out the test, he's earning £70k a year, + employes NI, + generous pension + generous holiday allowance then absorb all training cost then you compare that to someone who can do the test for a Min wage, I'd be demanding my taxes spent to get that doctor working with the high level cases and the simple tests be carried out at the most economical level.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
Sevenmilesout
Townsperson

Sevenmilesout
Re: Poor old William Wragg
10th March 2016 at 11:37AM
Possibly an idea for poor old William?

Peter Bone......Tory MP and wife used taxpayer-backed Help to Buy loan to snap up new constituency house.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-wife-used-taxpayer-7449766
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
Mozza
Townsperson

Mozza
Re: Poor old William Wragg
19th March 2016 at 9:03AM
Maybe William Wragg will take over from Ian Duncan Smith.

Let me appraise you of the lovely Williams voting record, direct from the official records..for everyone who voted for this man.

Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

Consistently voted for raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax

Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life

Consistently voted for reducing central government funding of local government

Consistently voted against measures to prevent climate change


0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>
 

Part of..

Related Discussions

No related discussions found.

Tagged With..

No tags added