bridge too far

You need to see an optician, love, to get your tunnel vision corrected. The original plan for Hinchingbrooke was for the company eventually selected to provide the services on a 'not for profit' basis (see the link ). However, with the privatisation being planned by the current government, such providers will operate on a profit-making basis. Understand now? The only parts of the NHS privatised (with profit making partners) were non-clinical services, a few of which I listed. Many of these services have been brought back in-house because the private providers didn't provide the required service level.

You obviously haven't read the link from the hospital trust itself that I took the trouble to provide. It is to be a NOT FOR PROFIT set up - if it gets the go-ahead. My money would be on it not going ahead on that basis, but rather that the provider WILL be able to make a profit for its shareholders on the back of sick people. Disgusting. Oh, and the only parts of the NHS service to be 'privatised' by Labour were support services such as salary payments, some soft and hard FM, some procurement.

It hasn't been 'sold' yet. It was out to tender with the private partner due to be chosen once the ITT is in. This will be informed by the outcome of public consultation and this isn't due to end until mid August. Then, if the scheme is still to go ahead, the ITTs will be submitted and shortlisted and then the process to select a preferred bidder will be undertaken. That will take about 6 months minimum. So it hasn't been sold. Read the link I posted above - it explains the process.

It's wrong - as is the setting up of Independent Health Centres which are the precursor to this. I can't be bothered to go into detail about what IHTCs do so I suggest you Google it. Even the consultants are against them (apart from the ones that have a vested, or should I say investment, in them). You will see from the fact sheet provided by Hinchingbrooke itself that it is a not-for-profit business that is out to tender. I'm not sure how the current government's plans for the NHS will impact on this process: http://www.strategicprojectseoe.co.uk/feedback_hinchingbrooke.php?id_sec=96 There were, and still are, lots of howls in the Labour Party about any privatisation of the NHS. However, to my knowledge, private healthcare companies have not made 'donations' to the Labour Party as they have, allegedly, to the Conservative Health Minister's funds.

Trousers Thoughtful post - well it's got me thinking! I've worked in the NHS (in a non-clinical capacity) for many, many years. I can remember the drab, shabby buildings when I started and I compare those to the beautiful hospitals built in the past few years. I can remember the long, long waiting lists just to get an Outpatient appointment and contrast that with, for example, Mr TF getting his knee operated on within 6 weeks of seeing his GP this year. I came into the NHS just as the purchaser / provider split was introduced (in 1991) and the upheaval it caused at the time. These days, I question the necessity of both the Strategic Health Authority AND the Primary Care Trust but I do think some sort of regional body needs to be retained and I'm not sure at all about the wisdom of passing on the budgets down to GP level. All the economy of scale savings will be lost and there is the risk that my local GP or yours will not have the experience or nous to run the whole service at a local level. All that the NHS needs is good local care - patients, in the main, don't want choice. They want the best available, close to home. Bring in competition and shareholder influence and there's a real risk that some services will just not be available any more if they don't produce the right outcome. This will be judged on the bottom line and not on clinical outcomes. I can see that relatively affluent areas will be well served but that, potentially, deprived areas will lose out. After all, deprived areas (or even areas with a high elderly population) will cost more and if the service is judged on profit per square foot then cost cutting in those poorly performing areas will be curtailed. As you rightly say, let's see where we are in 5 years time. But, worryingly, it's always easier to dismantle something than it is to put it back together again.

This is very scary. There are some things in life that should not be governed by the profit motive and health is one of them. Strange that, at a time when private healthcare is suffering a drop in income because of the recession, up pops a way of ensuring the continuance of private healthcare providers. Some of us remember only too well what happened when non-clinical services in the NHS were market-tested / outsourced. Dirty, poorly maintained hospitals and a huge rise in MRSA. Thankfully many of these services were brought back in-house and things started to improve. Let's hope the private providers don't treat patients like buses, i.e. if a service doesn't pay it gets axed.

criticism

Robert

Or to 12 year old girls being forced to marry men old enough to be their grandfathers (in some countries).

welsh

hatches

Wasn't that their original objection. They tried to show that AA wasn't independent of Chanrai but lost. But, with everything that's happened since, I reckon they could easily demonstrate that he is working for Chanrai and not for the creditors.

We should sing 'The Red Flag' IMO

Nah - not LoHaG - far too many references to religion and the 'Empire' for my liking: Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free, How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee? Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set; God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet, God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.

lamp

brighter

olives

Hey that's great! I think I'm moving to Sweden

Berliner

Nein

shawl

Alan

bolshie

Yeah I was wondering that too 'cos I posted my post ages ago and it was deleted.

polo mints into coca-cola