If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I have always said that the NHS is not for sale.

I've also said that the NHS requires further funding, which doesn't involve putting more money into the privately owned GP services.

Never heard you say the EU 27 health services are poor models and the UK one is much better.
I guess you are a bit shy.
After all, some-one might be monitoring this conversation and you could be black balled from the EU acolytes' club.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

Never heard you say the EU 27 health services are poor models and the UK one is much better.
I guess you are a bit shy.
After all, some-one might be monitoring this conversation and you could be black balled from the EU acolytes' club.

Some other systems aren't the best, but do have some good things about them. I think the NHS is a world class model for healthcare, and if we renationalised the GPs and pumped some proper funding into other areas of it, it would be even more so.

Whether I agree with a fully privatised health system is a completely different issue to whether I agree with the fundmental benefits the EU offers the UK. Look at the mess that was caused at Hinchingbrook.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Some other systems aren't the best, but do have some good things about them. I think the NHS is a world class model for healthcare, and if we renationalised the GPs and pumped some proper funding into other areas of it, it would be even more so.

Whether I agree with a fully privatised health system is a completely different issue to whether I agree with the fundmental benefits the EU offers the UK. Look at the mess that was caused at Hinchingbrook.

I didn't know the EU was proposing a fully privatised health system : another good reason to leave asap.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

I didn't know the EU was proposing a fully privitised health system : another good reason to leave asap.

It isn't to the best of my knowledge.

The point I was making was specifically with regard to the Hinchingbrook incidents as an example of why privatising it at all is not a good idea.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

It isn't to the best of my knowledge.

The point I was making was specifically with regard to the Hinchingbrook incidents as an example of why privatising it at all is not a good idea.

do you always generalise from one single incident?
what conclusions have you come to about the role of the private sector?

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

if we renationalised the GPs and pumped some proper funding into other areas of it, it would be even more so.

Doesn't seem much of a plan. Far too simplistic.

People with money have a choice. There'll always be private practices. Working in the public sector we have access to private services.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you always generalise from one single incident?
what conclusions have you come to about the role of the private sector?

No, but I do know that privatising something and bringing a profit-making company into it doesn't save money in the long run, no matter what your Tory mates may think.

Presumably the contracts will be dished out to the cheapest rather than the best quality, presumably as it'd end up costing more.

I also know that a lot of the time when something is run for profit on a 'cheapest wins' basis corners start to be cut and quality starts to decline if it is to save money as the government want. That's fine in some areas, however would you want someone to cut corners and give poor quality healthcare?

I definitely know I wouldn't, and the only harm is going to be to the patient in this case.

masterwilde

CKhalvashi

you are wrong on so many levels.

private business rarely go for the cheapest, they go for the value. governments used to go for cheapest as they failed to correctly scope a project, nowadays they are learning and often are simply over charged as that is the new way for business.

privatisation of any given industry has had mixed results. some have been very successful (water industry, BT etc) , others have failed spectacularly (many of these can be named, rail, steel etc)

masterwilde

as for healthcare, its simple really, its takes 1) money lots of it and 2) a complete feasibility study in the modern age, and then a complete full spectrum investigation into the scope of the problems.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

No, but I do know that privatising something and bringing a profit-making company into it doesn't save money in the long run, no matter what your Tory mates may think.

Are Nationalised industries any better? Certainly weren't in the UK. Though you'll have no knowledge as well before your time.

Nor is the NHS efficient.