advertisement


Stephen Hawking Is Taking Legal Action Against Jeremy Hunt

jackbarron

jackbarron

Chelsea, London
Stephen Hawking has decided to join a campaign against the privatisation of the NHS, according to the Cambridge News: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...238?service=responsive#ICID=sharebar_facebook

Hawking announced his decision via Facebook on December 8th.

He said: "I have decided to join Dr. Colin Hutchinson, Professor Allyson Pollock, Professor Sue Richards and Dr. Graham Winyard in bringing a legal action against the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, and NHS England, to stop the introduction of accountable care organisations (ACOs) without full public consultation and parliamentary approval.

"I am concerned that ACOs attack the fundamental principles of the NHS.

"The NHS must be protected from those who want to privatize it."

These 'Accountable Care Organisations' (ACOs) are a concept conceived in the US twelve years ago. They are not recognised in any Act of Parliament. It is commericalisaton by the not so back door by Hunt, who has edited book in favour of the privatisation of the NHS.

Good for Prof Hawking.

Jack
 
This is good news and should be embarrassing for the current Government but they do seem immune to 'embarrassment' at the moment I fear.
 
I've never heard of Accountable Care Organisations, so I read a couple of articles about them (The National Health Executive precis is quite helpful). Seems to me its aims are generally laudible, given the intention is to integrate the various organisations supplying all levels of care to groups of the population. Maybe they could be used as a vehicle to introduce greater privatisation to the NHS, so proper consultation & approval is a good idea. My concern is that, should the idea be implemented, it would be yet another reorganisation, at enormous cost and disruption, and end up with the usual NHS dog's breakfast.

'We tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion inefficiency, and demoralisation.'
 
I spent the last 20 years working on Dialysis systems for both NHS and private contractors all over the country,whilst the ground level staff in both cases always did there best,the NHS management were tossers and would invariably take no notice when I made any recommendations as to what was needed to keep the systems running within the required parameters.

At a large Essex based hospital NHS run ward I advised that the RO membranes needed replacing within the next month or they would exceed the required quality levels,the cost was circa 8K,this they didn't do and a couple of months later I had a consultant on the phone as the RO unit was alarming on quality,I referred him to my last report and he asked me if it was safe to carry on treating the patients my reply was that that was a clinical decision not for me to take,unfortunately this was by far an isolated case.This would never had happened in a contractor run clinic.

At a contractor run ward in south Wales I advised that the Endotoxin filter needed replacing as the count's were getting high,cost was 14K and required a shutdown of 24 hr's,this was quite a logistical problem as this system was for a transplant clinic and the patients would still require treatment 24/7.The contractor organised and supplied portable systems whilst we carried out the work,the whole thing went off without any problem's at all within 2 weeks of my report.

Many NHS staff have defected to these contractors,not just due to the better salaries and conditions,but due to the dire management and general apathy that seems endemic in parts of the NHS.
 
These are my personal views.

Lots of 'vehicles' could be used to 'privatise the NHS'. There is nothing inherent about this one that aims to do so. The fundamental principle is connecting up primary and secondary care (GPs and hospitals basically). The idea is that it provides better care pathways - especially for our growing population of frail older people.

This was not Jeremy Hunt's idea, or is even being driven by him. It's the wonks at NHS England, and it's a worthwhile one. It originally comes from the healthcare system actually in Valencia (which yes, IIRC is run by a private company).

The NHS system now is just too fractured with an increasingly absurd set of legal and contractual mechanisms trying to stitch it together such as the tariff - most of which were designed in a different age when everyone was desperately trying to drive secondary activity so as to cut waiting lists and times.

Tony is quite right about endless reorganisations, but we really are going to have to come up with a better way. My money's on abolishing commissioning and the tariff, creating ACOs (or at the very least ACSs), and funding them through weighted allocations, perhaps with some earned autonomy. Short sharp Bill, abolishing key parts of 2012 Act (and others), etc. Practical problem is there is precisely zero Parliamentary time because of the Brexit Bills.

The 'privatisation' conspiracy is based on an idea that's been pushed by some commentators for over two decades - namely that successive Governments (of New Labour, coalition, and current Tory varieties) deliberately intends to ultimately abolish the NHS and somehow replace it with 'an American style system'. Hasn't happened. Won't happen - not least because it's obviously political suicide.

There is an elision involved here around what 'privatisation' means. In principle (and no, I'm not advocating it), you could have an NHS which is entirely provided by the private sector, but which remains free at the point of use, available to all, and funded from general taxation. The BBC, by way of comparison, commissions a high proportion of its programming from private production companies without that threatening the license fee model. There is nothing inherent in Bevan's founding principles for the NHS which requires provision within them to be by the state. But for a long time now, people have quietly slid straight from the fact of some level of private provision, to the accusation of a complete dumping of those founding principles for an American model.

One of the great ironies about this case is that I suspect it may be based on a Counsel's opinion which was itself very quietly commissioned by a part of the private sector who were interested in stopping ACOs, because they saw them as a threat to their business. At root (and the ironies multiply), that opinion seeks to use specific provisions of Part 3 of Andrew Lansley's 2012 Act (namely the legal duty to set and operate a tariff) against a perfectly well-intended model whose intention is to improve service integration.

I suspect everyone - especially patients - would be better served by thinking through clearly, but pretty quickly, what kind of long term financial stability we want to secure for the NHS and how we could go about securing it in principle - whether as a share of GDP, increasing taxes by X in return for service offer Y, or anything else. None of the spending plans of any of the three main parties (including Labour) at the last general election would have given the NHS (let alone social care) what it needs in the long term.
 
jackbarron said:
Stephen Hawking has decided to join a campaign against the privatisation of the NHS, according to the Cambridge News: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...238?service=responsive#ICID=sharebar_facebook

Hawking announced his decision via Facebook on December 8th.

He said: "I have decided to join Dr. Colin Hutchinson, Professor Allyson Pollock, Professor Sue Richards and Dr. Graham Winyard in bringing a legal action against the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, and NHS England, to stop the introduction of accountable care organisations (ACOs) without full public consultation and parliamentary approval.

"I am concerned that ACOs attack the fundamental principles of the NHS.

"The NHS must be protected from those who want to privatize it."

These 'Accountable Care Organisations' (ACOs) are a concept conceived in the US twelve years ago. They are not recognised in any Act of Parliament. It is commericalisaton by the not so back door by Hunt, who has edited book in favour of the privatisation of the NHS.

Good for Prof Hawking.

Jack
Click to expand...
Black holes, the theory of everything, a quite brilliant depiction of our universe packed into one book of such importance it blows your mind yet this is without doubt the most important thing he has achieved to date.

Go Stephen, brilliant.
 
Ragaman said:
Black holes, the theory of everything, a quite brilliant depiction of our universe packed into one book of such importance it blows your mind yet this is without doubt the most important thing he has achieved to date.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, as it happens, but hey, that's your opinion.
 
Ragaman said:
Black holes, the theory of everything, a quite brilliant depiction of our universe packed into one book of such importance it blows your mind yet this is without doubt the most important thing he has achieved to date.
Click to expand...


Not so. I'm sure he was in an episode of TNG. Let's try to keep some perspective...
 
Alan Brown said:
Not so. I'm sure he was in an episode of TNG. Let's try to keep some perspective...
Click to expand...
Aha, I must admit to not following Mr Hawking outside the realm of all things universe.

I'm more a Voyager man myself, TNG passed me by :eek:

Thankfully most here have a sense of humour, the deleted one needs to get one, sharpish (yes I did catch it you little imp)
 
Tim Jones said:
These are my personal views.

Lots of 'vehicles' could be used to 'privatise the NHS'. There is nothing inherent about this one that aims to do so. The fundamental principle is connecting up primary and secondary care (GPs and hospitals basically). The idea is that it provides better care pathways - especially for our growing population of frail older people.

[Large 'snip']

I suspect everyone - especially patients - would be better served by thinking through clearly, but pretty quickly, what kind of long term financial stability we want to secure for the NHS and how we could go about securing it in principle - whether as a share of GDP, increasing taxes by X in return for service offer Y, or anything else. None of the spending plans of any of the three main parties (including Labour) at the last general election would have given the NHS (let alone social care) what it needs in the long term.
Click to expand...

Tim, I willingly bow to your greater knowledge and understanding of the machinations of the NHS 'system'. I also understand your theoretical propositions, such as an entirely privately provided NHS, free at the point of use and funded from taxes.

I also recognise the difficulty of coming up with a funding plan which can be 'sold' to the majority of the electorate.

However, my issue with the whole pantomime as it is currently being played out, is the quiet, but seemingly extremely persistent lobbying by those whose interests lie not with delivering an improved, or even a workable service, but in accessing the huge sums of cash involved.

Add to this the number of politicians of various colours who have clear links to, and interests in, commercial healthcare companies, and we surely have a recipe for some very inappropriate decision making, not to say huge potential for corruption?

My concerns in this area are of course stoked by the undeniable fact that the present administration seem to operate a strange blend of 'ideology' and simple bloody minded obtuseness, in their quest to privatise anything and everything, no doubt eventually including the Downing Street cat.

Mull
 
Your last sentence can be pointed at you as being a "bloody minded " person who can only see state control as being the only answer regardless of the efficiency and cost of total state control.
 
Derek Wright said:
Your last sentence can be pointed at you as being a "bloody minded " person who can only see state control as being the only answer regardless of the efficiency and cost of total state control.
Click to expand...
I don't see why.

It seems clear enough that there are some things which should be under the control of the state (police, armed forces, machinery of government, for starters) and somethings which can be reasonably entrusted to private hands (though evidence is growing that many of those that one might have supposed could fall within this set haven't turned out as well as might have been expected). Commenting on the undesirability of privatising everything, in the interests of ideology, is not the same as advocating state control of everything. If it looks the same to you, perhaps it would be helpful to look a little closer.
 
Derek Wright said:
Your last sentence can be pointed at you as being a "bloody minded " person who can only see state control as being the only answer regardless of the efficiency and cost of total state control.
Click to expand...

Only if you start from the assumption that state control is always a 'bad thing'. I have not stated any of the views you have attributed to me and I have not advocated 'Total State Control'. I have simply pointed out the undeniable.

Also, as I tried to point out, whether 'Function A' should or should not be delivered by the Private Sector, is a valid debate, but in many ways more important is 'how do we privatise Function A'?

If the decision is to Privatise, all well and good. But this then brings us to the question of Tendering etc. It seems to me that this process in particular is shot through with 'Old Boy Networks' 'Preferred Bidders' 'Vested Interests', lobbying and no doubt corruption on a massive scale.

How do you explain the fact that organisations such as Capita, G4S, Serco et.al keep on gaining lucrative contracts to suck up OUR money, despite having notched up more than a fews pretty spectacular failures over time?

I suspect I know the reason..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top