I doubt it very much - they also much leaner than we are here - i.e. less labour something the unions are constantly fighting against.

In Europe the unions work for the best interest of all stakeholders - in the UK the unions work for the benefit of one stakeholder group - the union

And you point is what? They repay the training by continuing to work in the NHS - how many accountants trained by the big four are still working for them? a tiny fraction.

The same people who mop up the mess when the NHS makes a balls up!!

You are so nieve -

The business is making a profit - it is a very diverse company with a number of differing revenue streams. The possibility remains that if the unprofitable firms continue to lose money it could put in jepordy those businesses that generate profits. Whilst they continue to hemmorage cash it means there is less cash to invest in the other profitable businesses. Despite what you think directors at this level think longer term - they cannot see the market in the products these companies produce improving due to the points I stated earlier so what do they do - keep losing money for the pleasure of keeping the sites open - it just isn't realistic and as I keep saying this is the real world its tough out here.

No, if you read it again you will see that I said it wasn't a scientifically representative sample.
It is however, a real-life example.
My appointments were at times of my choosing on Fridays and Mondays, not exactly the specialist's "own time".


On this we will have to disagree until someone can produce the relevant stats because, in my experience and others who I know, the private treatment has been provided by specialists who worked in both NHS and private and never were their private appointments "out of hours".
There is a view that private practice is generally fitted-in over and above a full working week in the NHS, I'm reluctant to believe this as I haven't heard of anyone being told they'd have to pick a time when the specialist wasn't busy doing NHS work and I don't believe that private patients would tolerate an appointment at 9pm just because the doctor was busy at the NHS hospital during the day.
And, anyway, if there is a need for doctors to work overtime (in your argument, private practice), why should the more affluent get that time? If they can work that extra time, why can't they work it in the NHS?
There is a supply and demand issue here and I think most people who elect for private treatment do so to gain an advantage in supply.
The solution seems to me to be more doctors.
If there were sufficient doctors of the right quality to satisfy the NHS's needs, then the demand for private appointments would drop dramatically and I wouldn't be arguing on this thread.


Let's just leave that there then ... as I'm sure we could disagree widely on exactly what those certain things should be.


How to make life more fair?
In a civilised society we would recognise the duty that the more fortunate have towards those who are not.


I apologise if I have covered the same ground as others have since my last post.
Re : the socialist bit ... there are are many views on what it is, if you'd care to start a thread on it, I'll tell you my version ... but for now, I'll tell you that my view on socialism isn't what you seem to think it is.

Is this the same "real world" where minimum-wage carers get paid expenses and transport costs?
I notice you didn't return to that discussion.

He never returns to points where he's been taken apart.

A good policy to adopt in relation to surgical facilities, I reckon.

Yep, it's also a little strange that he describes El Barbudo's experiences with hospital consultants as not representative bur because it suits his argument is happy to use his own similarly un-representative experiences with the printing industry and print unions as evidence that British unions are somehow far worse than European unions.

The word you want is naive.



You stated earlier that it was a profitable company: is it a profitable company or is it not?



What company are we talking about now? The one you earlier claimed was profitable – or some generalised idea of companies at large?

Let's examine what you posted earlier:



"A" company. Not two, not three – but one.



Different sites – not different companies. Still just one company.



Again – a single company. And it is profitable, according to you yourself.

So what are you talking about when you suddenly wander off in to describing 'possibilities' at "firms", plural? And either this single company is profitable, as you claim, or it's "losing money" and 'hemmoraging' [sic money as you also claim.

Which is it?

And you have also decided to ignore my comments about the income gap, about the problems caused by it, about the cost of living, wages and the need for people to have disposable income.

Did you not read them or couldn't you think of an answer that suited what you want to believe?



Yes, we get the gist about your obsession with 'the real world'. We understand that, to you, schools and hospitals are not 'the real world'.

In my 'not-the-real-world', I have experienced redundancy (more than once), losing my home as a result of redundancy on one occasion, leaving my home and friends and moving most of the way down the country to find work. And then struggling for years to live somewhere decently and earn a decent living; being treated shoddily by more than one employer, being paid -poorly and spending years worrying about bills.

So kindly don't keep telling me that only you know about 'the real world' – an assertion based on nothing other than your preconceived guesswork and prejudices about what you imagine I do and have done and experienced.

The thread is about the NHS, not print companies or accountants.

[size=200NHS[/size - it is writ large right at the top of the thread. Now be a good lad and try to keep on topic, rather than your continual wandering off into blaming all the ills of the world on trades unionism

Anyway, before the election, Cameron promised [umore money[/u for the NHS and [uno top-down reorganisation[/u. Indeed, take a look at this poster, still on the Conservative website --> conservativehome.blogs.com/theto ... -nhs.htmlm "We can't go on like this, I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS". What are we seeing? A huge reduction in funding and a top-down re-organisation of a scale never seen since the NHS was first set-up. Thatcher began the dismantling of the post-war settlement and Cameron is out to finish the job off. Lansley's plan's are so opaque and, now, fragmented, that the public in general hasn't a clue what's going on ... and that's great for him, what better smokescreen could he have? Andy Burnham has noted Tory peers (some with links to private medical providers), who haven't been to the house in eons, now turning up solely for the debates on the NHS. And let's not forget that Lansley himself was funded by a private medical provider when in opposition. All very murky indeed.

Anyway, before the election, Cameron promised [umore money[/u for the NHS and [uno top-down reorganisation[/u. Indeed, take a look at this poster, still on the Conservative website --> conservativehome.blogs.com/theto ... -nhs.htmlm "We can't go on like this, I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS". What are we seeing? A huge reduction in funding and a top-down re-organisation of a scale never seen since the NHS was first set-up. Thatcher began the dismantling of the post-war settlement and Cameron is out to finish the job off. Lansley's plan's are so opaque and, now, fragmented, that the public in general hasn't a clue what's going on ... and that's great for him, what better smokescreen could he have? Andy Burnham has noted Tory peers (some with links to private medical providers), who haven't been to the house in eons, now turning up solely for the debates on the NHS. And let's not forget that Lansley himself was funded by a private medical provider when in opposition. All very murky indeed.

Its OK, this is not a "top-down reorganisation of the NHS, its a bottom-up reorganisation, you're starting from very basic principles when you fire the people in charge and put a new company in to run it.

And in any case, its not the Tories anymore, its "The Coalition" thats doing all this and anything that the Tories promised pre-election is trumped by "We didn't know how bad it was until Gordon gave us the keys to the filing cabinets".

Quote ="El Barbudo"Anyway, before the election, Cameron promised [umore money[/u for the NHS and [uno top-down reorganisation[/u. Indeed, take a look at this poster, still on the Conservative website --> conservativehome.blogs.com/theto ... -nhs.htmlm "We can't go on like this, I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS". What are we seeing? A huge reduction in funding and a top-down re-organisation of a scale never seen since the NHS was first set-up. Thatcher began the dismantling of the post-war settlement and Cameron is out to finish the job off. Lansley's plan's are so opaque and, now, fragmented, that the public in general hasn't a clue what's going on ... and that's great for him, what better smokescreen could he have? Andy Burnham has noted Tory peers (some with links to private medical providers), who haven't been to the house in eons, now turning up solely for the debates on the NHS. And let's not forget that Lansley himself was funded by a private medical provider when in opposition. All very murky indeed.'" Tories have never liked the idea of the NHS.

Quote ="El Barbudo"Anyway, before the election, Cameron promised [umore money[/u for the NHS and [uno top-down reorganisation[/u. Indeed, take a look at this poster, still on the Conservative website --> conservativehome.blogs.com/theto ... -nhs.htmlm "We can't go on like this, I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS". What are we seeing? A huge reduction in funding and a top-down re-organisation of a scale never seen since the NHS was first set-up. Thatcher began the dismantling of the post-war settlement and Cameron is out to finish the job off. Lansley's plan's are so opaque and, now, fragmented, that the public in general hasn't a clue what's going on ... and that's great for him, what better smokescreen could he have? Andy Burnham has noted Tory peers (some with links to private medical providers), who haven't been to the house in eons, now turning up solely for the debates on the NHS. And let's not forget that Lansley himself was funded by a private medical provider when in opposition. All very murky indeed.'" Tories have never liked the idea of the NHS.

Quote ="Dead Man Walking"Tories have never liked the idea of the NHS.'" neither did certain members of the previous labour government it seems ? www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... e-provider and this little gem doesn't exactly help...... www.political-facts.co.uk/health ... Labour.htm

Quote ="Dead Man Walking"Tories have never liked the idea of the NHS.'" neither did certain members of the previous labour government it seems ? www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... e-provider and this little gem doesn't exactly help...... www.political-facts.co.uk/health ... Labour.htm

Quote ="sanjunien" and this little gem doesn't exactly help...... www.political-facts.co.uk/health ... Labour.htm'" Oh aye, if you are gonna use a site like that to back up your argument I'd quit mate.

Quote ="sanjunien" and this little gem doesn't exactly help...... www.political-facts.co.uk/health ... Labour.htm'" Oh aye, if you are gonna use a site like that to back up your argument I'd quit mate.

Quote ="Big Graeme"Oh aye, if you are gonna use a site like that to back up your argument I'd quit mate.'" so how about the £12 BILLION disaster that was : www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... mme-today/ just imagine how many hospitals £12 BILLION could have helped !

Quote ="Big Graeme"Oh aye, if you are gonna use a site like that to back up your argument I'd quit mate.'" so how about the £12 BILLION disaster that was : www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... mme-today/ just imagine how many hospitals £12 BILLION could have helped !

Tony Blair's government foisted a number of top-down reorganisations onto the NHS (plus continued privatisations - see NHS Logistics as but one example), hence David Cameron's pledge to strop such reorganisations. Now seen as the lie it was.

Quote ="sanjunien"so how about the £12 BILLION disaster that was : www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... mme-today/ just imagine how many hospitals £12 BILLION could have helped !'" It is indefensible, just as indefensible as you trying to pass off www.political-facts.co.uk as a reputable source.

Quote ="sanjunien"so how about the £12 BILLION disaster that was : www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... mme-today/ just imagine how many hospitals £12 BILLION could have helped !'" It is indefensible, just as indefensible as you trying to pass off www.political-facts.co.uk as a reputable source.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/12/care-private-company-nhs-hospitalCircle admits care could suffer in drive for profits.[/url

Its terribly naive of me I know - but how can a hospital funded by the taxpayer make a profit ?

You charge the taxpayer £X for managing the hospital, you make sure you spend (a lot) less than £X providing the service.


(look at the history of Independent Treatment Centres under the last government - contracts stipulated that the centres would be paid for a minimum number of procedures, whether they actually carried them out or not, so the NHS ended up paying private companies for operations that were never carried out)

Your bit in brackets highlights the perfectly ludicrous scenario of trying to make profit from healthcare, a rather unique industry where the provider, and wage-payer, does not know what is going to walk through the door in the next five minutes but has to be prepared and able to cope with armageddon within those five minutes.

Which obviously makes a company that has so far managed to rack up year-on-year losses from running a designer "hospital" in Bath, the perfect vehicle to deliver superb A&E services and general healthcare in a hospital in Cambridgeshire. At least both are used to running at a loss, I can see the synergies

You could put the whole GDP into the NHS and it still would not be enough. Somehow you have to decide how best to use the resources available. This moral dilema will divide everyone on here and in country depending upon their personal circumstances.

It is possible to make profits from private hospitals where procedures are chosen, planned and financed appropriately, BUPA and Nuffield seem to make these work. However in a situation where you are obliged to undertake anything that makes things more difficult. A&E is an issue due to the abuses it suffers, how you stop that I am not sure but if people can wait 4 hours to be seen that doesn't seem to be an emergency?

But if £x is less than the hospital was costing previously this is a win win for all.