NHS Consultant Contract / Private Practice.

[Uhtred]

This is a good thread and pretty well every poster is commenting on matters that are to be bang at the heart of the imminent final report from Sir Jonathan Michaels due to be submitted in May. (Although his interim report published in January made it clear that he’s going to have some pretty powerful remarks about structure and governance as well as the delivery of services). I’d therefore encourage all contributors to this thread to make sure they read the Michaels report and if you like what he says lean hard on your MHK to support the recommendations, because those lightweight chancers will swerve the controversial ones given half a chance. Especially Quayle and COMIN. 

[The Lurker]

48 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

You must admit, your idea does have a whiff of Gosplan about it?

I admit nothing of the sort and get a bit annoyed that whenever anyone suggests fair and progressive ideas people behave as though it’s the second coming of Stalin. 

Do you want things to continue as they are where the majority of the population are denied access because they can’t afford it? 

Are you OK with the NHS being systematically run down in preparation for privatisation? 

[dilligaf]

2 minutes ago, The Lurker said:

I admit nothing of the sort and get a bit annoyed that whenever anyone suggests fair and progressive ideas people behave as though it’s the second coming of Stalin. 

Do you want things to continue as they are where the majority of the population are denied access because they can’t afford it? 

Are you OK with the NHS being systematically run down in preparation for privatisation? 

I think you be grea full for what we get in healthcare, for the little we pay in.

Take a look at what people pay in Europe or America th3n see how good we have it.

 

[The Lurker]

Just now, dilligaf said:

I think you be grea full for what we get in healthcare, for the little we pay in.

Take a look at what people pay in Europe or America th3n see how good we have it.

 

I agree and would be happy to pay more. Trouble is if they put taxes up it would in all likelihood be spent on vanity white elephants rather than on anything meaningful. 

[dilligaf]

8 minutes ago, The Lurker said:

I agree and would be happy to pay more. Trouble is if they put taxes up it would in all likelihood be spent on vanity white elephants rather than on anything meaningful. 

Yes, I agree. I would pay more for quicker service, but as you say, paying more into the big pot is no good. It would have to be totally separate or we may as well just go for paying at point of delivery. But then the poorer would suffer or be subsidised yet again and that would piss the rest off again. 

I hope there is an answer out there somewhere. 

Could wrighty or one of his colleagues who post on here give some direction or make clear what is going wrong.?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, MrPB said:

2 hours ago, The Lurker said:

Alternatively; enforced nationalisation of private hospitals and legislate. 

Pretty much what you are advocating is communism where the state alone decides who should live or die. 

Well if the alternative is that decision is based on how much money you have (and it might need to be an awful lot for some conditions) I suspect most people would prefer to trust the state  - which if you think about it has the power of life or death over us anyway.

A bigger objection to the nationalising and abolition of private health care, so as to force the wealthy elites to support them properly. is that the rich will just travel to buy their healthcare while doing everything to undermine what is provided for ordinary people  if they can profit from it.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

he NHS being systematically run down in preparation for privatisation? 

Do you have any publically available figures to back up that idea?

[Bobbie Bobster]

1 hour ago, The Lurker said:

Are you OK with the NHS being systematically run down in preparation for privatisation? 

Bit of a "do you still beat your wife" sort of question.

Both centralised state planning and unfettered market forces have proved to be inappropriate social models over the ast 100 years.  Mayb there's a third way?

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

You wouldn't have to measure it to find out.

I was on a waiting list at Nobles for something that had the potential to be sinister. After nearly a year without any contact, I decided to pay across rather than wait for something to become inoperable and to be decent, wrote to the Consultant to say that. Letter by return "'you are no longer my responsibility". 

My place would therefore have been taken by someone else, no?

Your place on the island would have been taken by someone else yes.

But you may well have stalled the queue in the UK while you received your treatment.

The length of the waiting lists on the island is clearly a disgrace. To me it smacks a bit like legalised blackmail to wit "Either go private or please wait forever...."

I also wonder about the influx of wealthy retirees from the UK. Here to take advantage of the tax breaks, particularly death duties. After spending their working lives contributing to the NHS they pitch up here at the time when they will probably need healthcare more than ever before. Having contributed nothing towards it.

Mind you I'm feeling somewhat mellow atm. So that could be bollox....!

[paswt]

One wonders if these 'wealthy retirees' from the UK may , if presented with a long wait for a medical procedure  , and aware that the waiting time may represent a large percentage of what time  they have left would opt for paying to go private .

I would venture to suggest that a "wealthy retiree" may well be a net contributor to the Manx economy.

just saying

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, Uhtred said:

This is a good thread and pretty well every poster is commenting on matters that are to be bang at the heart of the imminent final report from Sir Jonathan Michaels due to be submitted in May. (Although his interim report published in January made it clear that he’s going to have some pretty powerful remarks about structure and governance as well as the delivery of services). I’d therefore encourage all contributors to this thread to make sure they read the Michaels report and if you like what he says lean hard on your MHK to support the recommendations, because those lightweight chancers will swerve the controversial ones given half a chance. Especially Quayle and COMIN. 

As the Lord Lisvane visit demonstrated all too clearly this lot would ditch the lot as established practice.

Sir Jonathan Michaels:

The report notes we spend 23% more per head of population on health and social care than the NHS in England.

But it says there are some areas where we are paying significantly more than elsewhere with medical consultant salaries 20%-30% higher, pharmaceuticals 33% higher and spending on agency staff higher as a proportion (13% compared to 6% in England).

Waiting times at Noble’s are relatively long, with targets relating to two week cancer referrals and treatment within 52 weeks of referral not being met.

[Neil Down]

I have no problem with private health care if the person can afford it. I do however have a problem that on the island the private patients are/were being treated at Nobles using the staff normally employed for NHS work. The other major problem is that no matter what your thoughts are on the current NHS. X amount is being collected yet XXX is going out. Do the maths

[asitis]

8 hours ago, Neil Down said:

I have no problem with private health care if the person can afford it. I do however have a problem that on the island the private patients are/were being treated at Nobles using the staff normally employed for NHS work. The other major problem is that no matter what your thoughts are on the current NHS. X amount is being collected yet XXX is going out. Do the maths

I would have no problem with ring fenced additional taxation specifically to boost funding for the NHS here. Of course it would have to be properly ring fenced to keep Governments grubby fingers away from it ! I do however wonder just how much more could be used to boost the service were it not for the profligacy of our elected buffoons on various vanity projects and stuff which makes no financial sense  whatsoever.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

I would have no problem with ring fenced additional taxation specifically to boost funding for the NHS here. Of course it would have to be properly ring fenced to keep Governments grubby fingers away from it ! 

I think most of us who have been lucky enough to have reached senior years will readily recognise how valuable the NHS is and (in my case anyway) has assisted us to get this far. That said,  the largely unaltered 70 year old model cannot reasonably continue in its present form. Never mind Nobles for a few seconds, I have had three changes of GP in a year due to recruitment issues.

It's often a good idea to check if other jurisdictions have a better system and I think they might. A part insurance based system could automatically ring fence funds and before anyone points to the USA as a poor example of this system, there are ways to limit the issues caused by insurance company cherry picking..

 

[craggy_steve]

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/public-consultation-on-private-healthcare/