Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Fluffy

Patient Transfers

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, John Wright said:

Quite right. We need facts. Not misconstrued or mid represented snippets. Possibly being misrepresented for political ends.

So, before dealing with Clatterbridge, tell us, do Broadgreen, Walton, Fazackerly, Aintree or the Royal Liverpool offer private treatment and rooms?

Yes, all of the above, (and the previous different examples that you quoted) offer access to private services offered on site. They also all advertise the services of ambulance chasing lawyers on site.

Now to Clatterbridge. Does the Clatterbridge Clinic operate at all of the Clatterbridge 10 sites, or just on a tiny bit of, about to be redundant, Clatterbridge site on the Wirral, a bit that was no longer used by the NHS Clatterbridge and standing empty.

You  (nobody else) stated that Clatterbridge does not offer private practice - it does, you were wrong, you misinformed this site. You should apologise (you won't).

Does it have its own equipment and staff ( apart from a billing department ). Who owns all the marvellous equipment, Clinic or NHS? Who actually employs the medical staff, who then spend a couple of  sessions a week seeing people from all over the world?

The NHS does not buy the equipment, the taxpayer buys it, when staff are employed on private work, the private company is the employer not the NHS. Sometimes the Hospital chooses to be the employer (Doctor private / Nurse Nobles employed etc.) in which case the hospital is using NHS staff  to earn private income. The marvellous equipment (kindly provided by the taxpayer) is offered as first priority to the NHS, when the NHS has downtime, the (horrific) cost of the equipment and it's maintenance is somewhat offset to the private sector (at a cost benefit to the NHS , and hence the taxpayer) as you later confirm).

Isnt it correct that the Clinic uses ( and pays for ) the NHS provided facilities?

Yes, it is correct that the clinic uses and pays for (Taxpayer provided facilities) that's why the your argument is rubbish, the equipment, and staff, when used privately, are paid from private income, as you indeed confirm!

Isnt it correct, for all the trumpeting, that clinic treats less than 0.1% of cases treated by Clatterbridge as a whole, across its sites? 

You claim later, that it is to "Thats to the detriment of NHS Oncology patients in Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire and  North Wales, as well as the IoM" - What are you trying to claim/? That a 0.1% of cases has a significant detrimental effect? Which way do you want it?

Has it ever treated a Manx NHS patient.

Yes, Me.

And, if Clatterbridge does not not treat IOM NHS (as you claim)  - how can it's alternative uses be to the detriment of the IOM (as you also claim)? You are arguing with yourself as is often the case with Showboating lawyers.

Clinic does not provide all round Cancer care. No soft cancers. Just a few hard cancers. 

True, it's limited to its capabilities, just like Nobles and every Hospital on planet earth. Name me a hospital, anywhere on earth, that has the capability to treat everything. Silly argument.

They may make a profit, half of which goes back to NHS, but to do that they deprive NHS of full time full time access to the cutting edge scanners and treatment and staff.

Really? Do you have an actual example (with lawyers evidence) of that fact? Most, nay all, of the Hospital Managers, Chief Executives, and Politicians that I speak to value private patient income, value the use of otherwise downtime of expensive equipment (out of hours use) and are looking to expand the extra utilisation. Nobles is a prime example and they are looking to expand that use - do you disagree? Have you told them so?

The 'Cutting edge scanners, treatment and staff' on the Isle of Man are currently being provided by Manx Charities not IOMG!.

Thats to the detriment of NHS Oncology patients in Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire and  North Wales, as well as the IoM.

Not if your claim of 0.1% is correct it isn't.  Royal Liverpool, Alderhey, Broadgreen, Aintree, Clatterbridge, Walton, Fazackerly, don't do private according to you - and Clatterbridge is only 0.1% - so, if you are telling the truth, how does no private practice at 6 hospitals and only 0.1% at Clatterbridge lead to a detriment across Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire and North Wales exactly? Again, you make a point and then ague against it.

Need to see what happens when all inpatient treatment ( apart from brain tumours ) moves to the new Clatterbridge, next to the Royal, in central Liverpool, early to mid 2020.

Im not averse to private medicine, on a not for profit basis, as long as its not run by big insurers and their big pharma and other industry buddies, to the detriment of patient care. That’s the badly broken American system.

You are a Lawyer. Are you averse to private legal services? Should all legal stuff be 'not for profit'? No big legal insurers? No legal industry bodies, to "the detriment of client care'? Have you campaigned against this all your life? Have you never taken a private shilling for legal services? Do you have evidence of your campaigns that there should no private paid legal practice? Do you want the 'badly broken American system' to be banned for Lawyers as well as Doctors?

All Lawyers to be flat rate income - say £30-40k?

All Lawyers to be on call 24/7 /365 just like the Doctors in Radiology or ER?

All lawyers appear in front of the Coroner if they lose a case just like a medic does for losing a patient? 

All Lawyers to reach Consultant (GP) level qualification (say 15 years) before they can accept a single penny from the private rather than the public purse?

All Lawyers to agree 10 sessions work (40 hours) to Public law work at before they can earn a single penny at private work just as NHS Consultants do under the NHS Consultant Contract (2002)?

New Clatterbridge should mean all the fancy equipment currently spread over multiple sites is now in one place, able to be more efficiently utilised to diagnose and treat more NHS patients. But possibly not if it’s prostituted out to the highest bidder, part time.

Agreed - and no ambulance-chasing LAWYERS allowed on site. If there is no place for private practice doctors, why should there be a place for private practice Lawyers?

Nobles Consultants receive 33% of private income fees - Nobles takes 66% towards the hospital.

Do Lawyers like you give 66% of their private practice fees to the running of the courts?

If, as you suggest, Doctors should be barred from Private Practice, then presumably you believe that Lawyers should be similarly barred from such private practice income. Do you?

Should you wish to propose this to the Bar Council or similar, I should be very willing to co-sponser your proposal, pay for both our travel costs, and accompany you at your hearing. It will be interesting to hear you plead that Private Practice Lawyers should not be allowed in Publicly funded courts.

No morePartnerships, LLP's, Chambers and the rest - all work by lawyers done either for the state at state pay or pro-bono. Lawyers on call 24/7 including Xmas and Easter. 5 or 8% supplement to basic pay to cover all on call commitment.

Bring it on old bean.

 

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the matter of private practice is a complex one for our DHSS? They don't, for some unknown reason, make a profit on private use of the hospital and its facilities I'm reliably informed. They will not register with the major healthcare providers, who insist on a set rate for treatments and consultations. Instead they charge what they do and the insurer will refer cases to private hospitals and consultants elsewhere. I'm sure that they are missing a trick here, the insured becomes liable for chasing the insurance company for payment of up to six invoices for some treatments, including invoices for the use of DHSS owned facilities. It annoys me tremendously to get phone calls from consultants chasing payments who greedily charge more than the going rate because they won't register with BUPA etc.

Just another indication of the mess our health service is in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I think the matter of private practice is a complex one for our DHSS? They don't, for some unknown reason, make a profit on private use of the hospital and its facilities I'm reliably informed. They will not register with the major healthcare providers, who insist on a set rate for treatments and consultations. Instead they charge what they do and the insurer will refer cases to private hospitals and consultants elsewhere. I'm sure that they are missing a trick here, the insured becomes liable for chasing the insurance company for payment of up to six invoices for some treatments, including invoices for the use of DHSS owned facilities. It annoys me tremendously to get phone calls from consultants chasing payments who greedily charge more than the going rate because they won't register with BUPA etc.

Just another indication of the mess our health service is in!

That is indeed partially correct Max, but there is much, much more to it than that. I shall try to answer your post (and some of your other points made today) in more detail tomorrow.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

The NHS does not buy the equipment, the taxpayer buys it, when staff are employed on private work, the private company is the employer not the NHS. Sometimes the Hospital chooses to be the employer (Doctor private / Nurse Nobles employed etc.) in which case the hospital is using NHS staff  to earn private income. The marvellous equipment (kindly provided by the taxpayer) is offered as first priority to the NHS, when the NHS has downtime, the (horrific) cost of the equipment and it's maintenance is somewhat offset to the private sector (at a cost benefit to the NHS , and hence the taxpayer) as you later confirm)

This is the classic bullshit argument trying to justify the unjustifiable.

It's an attempt to normalise private work being carried out on publicly funded facilities. Hence the nonsense "The NHS does not buy the equipment, the taxpayer buys it" thus the so-called "argument" goes that any taxpayer, but particularly those who can afford private healthcare, should therefore have access.

It falls flat on it's arse when you consider the NHS is using the critical mass of EVERY taxpayer to fund it.

Including those who could NEVER afford private healthcare in a gazillion years.

Next thing we'll get is Fox News sharing air-time with the Beeb is somehow a good idea.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, P.K. said:

This is the classic bullshit argument trying to justify the unjustifiable.

It's an attempt to normalise private work being carried out on publicly funded facilities. Hence the nonsense "The NHS does not buy the equipment, the taxpayer buys it" thus the so-called "argument" goes that any taxpayer, but particularly those who can afford private healthcare, should therefore have access.

It falls flat on it's arse when you consider the NHS is using the critical mass of EVERY taxpayer to fund it.

Including those who could NEVER afford private healthcare in a gazillion years.

Next thing we'll get is Fox News sharing air-time with the Beeb is somehow a good idea.....

As said, 33% goes to the private, 66% goes to Nobles, Nobles management can (and do) justify it.

The Consultants could stay at home, they would not get 33%, Nobles would not get 66%, the machines would lie idle but have the same capitol and maintenance costs - would that make you happier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

As said, 33% goes to the private, 66% goes to Nobles, Nobles management can (and do) justify it.

The Consultants could stay at home, they would not get 33%, Nobles would not get 66%, the machines would lie idle but have the same capitol and maintenance costs - would that make you happier?

Not surprised you ducked the "facility" funding issue because the reality is it's funding the whole facility by the NHS that is the only thing that makes any of this possible.

Plus with the queues for treatment growing ever longer your "machines would lie idle" is facile at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, P.K. said:

Not surprised you ducked the "facility" funding issue because the reality is it's funding the whole facility by the NHS that is the only thing that makes any of this possible.

Plus with the queues for treatment growing ever longer your "machines would lie idle" is facile at best.

I didn't duck the issue, I ducked 'you' because you are an idiot at the best of times - dialogue with you at 1am? No thanks.

How many MRI or CT scanners at Nobles worked continuously over the Easter weekend? I know, do you?

Waiting times are going down not up, teams from Radiology are visiting UK and Ireland assessing (choosing) new machines as we speak, additional Consultants in Radiology are signed up and arrive on Island shortly. But of course, being P.K. you knew all this already (not).

As I said, we need an open public dialogue based on facts not falsehoods.

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for deigning to communicate with an idiot like myself. Naturally I will remain eternally grateful.....

JW has already posted up how Nobles are increasing the scope of the service they provide in the oncology department.

Good. I would far rather public money was spent on healthcare than unnecessary vanity projects or the Public Sector Pension farrago.

My concern, as ever, is the service levels provided to the less fortunate in our society. Something of a rarity on here I know.

I spent the last 25 years of my working life covered by a private healthcare plan as a benny from the company. Of course, I'm not so naive as to think they had my best interests at heart rather than their own. I only had to use it the once, thank goodness, and it made me very aware of how the "system" if you like is so easily circumvented if you are prepared to pay up front. The company quack referred me to a consultant. According to the consultant I needed a small operation and as if by magic it happened almost too quickly for me to organise work cover and so forth.

So what happened to queues for treatment etc under the NHS?

The consultant I saw had already booked a slot in a hospital for various others and to maximise it's usage he tacked me on the front end of it. This put the anesthetist under time pressure so he came into the ward to hector the nurses to get a move on as he had a very busy morning. Twat. As he was about to put the needle in to put me under he said something like "You'll only feel a little prick" to which I replied "Don't do yourself down like that" or similar. On reflection very unclever.

Anyway, if you have money and need something done just pay for a consultancy and queues for treatment will be a thing of the past.

The worry for me is that the resources, both in expertise and equipment, may be being unfairly distributed to favour the better off...

Incidentally MA if you could explain what you swanning around The New Territories has to do with the rise in knife crime in UK inner cities then this idiot would be grateful, thanks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, P.K. said:

Thank you for deigning to communicate with an idiot like myself. Naturally I will remain eternally grateful.....

JW has already posted up how Nobles are increasing the scope of the service they provide in the oncology department.

Good. I would far rather public money was spent on healthcare than unnecessary vanity projects or the Public Sector Pension farrago.

My concern, as ever, is the service levels provided to the less fortunate in our society. Something of a rarity on here I know.

I spent the last 25 years of my working life covered by a private healthcare plan as a benny from the company. Of course, I'm not so naive as to think they had my best interests at heart rather than their own. I only had to use it the once, thank goodness, and it made me very aware of how the "system" if you like is so easily circumvented if you are prepared to pay up front. The company quack referred me to a consultant. According to the consultant I needed a small operation and as if by magic it happened almost too quickly for me to organise work cover and so forth.

So what happened to queues for treatment etc under the NHS?

The consultant I saw had already booked a slot in a hospital for various others and to maximise it's usage he tacked me on the front end of it. This put the anesthetist under time pressure so he came into the ward to hector the nurses to get a move on as he had a very busy morning. Twat. As he was about to put the needle in to put me under he said something like "You'll only feel a little prick" to which I replied "Don't do yourself down like that" or similar. On reflection very unclever.

Anyway, if you have money and need something done just pay for a consultancy and queues for treatment will be a thing of the past.

The worry for me is that the resources, both in expertise and equipment, may be being unfairly distributed to favour the better off...

Incidentally MA if you could explain what you swanning around The New Territories has to do with the rise in knife crime in UK inner cities then this idiot would be grateful, thanks.

 

 

It's nice to see you posting a half-serious response for a change P.K. 

I'm very busy at the moment, but hopefully I will have time to post a rational explanation of Consultant private practice and it's relationship to the NHS service shortly.

I am sure that you and JW will find sufficient brain space to set aside your pre-conscieved political ideologies to give my input a fair hearing.

It's a serious subject, dear to us all, so let us hope so eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...