« Previous | Main | Next »

Health

Eddie Mair | 15:06 UK time, Wednesday, 11 July 2007

is one of the items we're discussing tonight, specifically this proposal for London. As it comes from a man Gordon Brown has appointed as health minister, it's possible this is the future of the NHS in the UK. The best starting point is probably here

We'll debate it tonight.

Comments

  1. At 04:35 PM on 11 Jul 2007, jacqui Jones wrote:

    I hear Gordon Brown is announing his legislation prior to the Queen's speach in order to consult the general public - ever heard of general elections Mr Brown? Isn't that a good way to consult us?

  2. At 04:43 PM on 11 Jul 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Did you here Eddie's trail just now.

    They have found a public place where people can still smoke.

    I still can't believe how anyone can smoke. It's the most disgusting habit, and I have no sympathy with any smokers. They should be shipped like lepers to an island somewhere miles from anywhere.

    I am a *non - smoker* and have been for 10 days.

  3. At 05:00 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Oh, dear, jonnie, they do say it can make you short-tempered.

    ;o)

    i saw the Evening Standard's front page story about the health changes. Just scanning it I got the impression that ambulances are to take people not to the nearest hospital, but to the nearest specialist hospital. Through the rush-hour traffic? Is this wise?

    I'll listen with interest.

  4. At 05:19 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Frances O wrote:

    'Manic' heroin addicts? I thought the effect was the opposite.

  5. At 05:21 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Andrew McClelland wrote:

    I'm sorry, am I missing something. Isn't Gordon Brown refering to something that used to be called 'Cottage Hospitals'. Most of these have been shut down by previous governments and we have witnessed a 'centralisation' of the provsion of health care. Am I the only one who see's this as a bit of a U turn?

  6. At 05:23 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Where will the money come from? The NHS is already under-funded.

    Oh. The private sector. Of course.

  7. At 05:30 PM on 11 Jul 2007, andrew webb wrote:

    i'm all in fovour of economising but the thought of being treated in a poly-tunnel horrifies me!

  8. At 05:40 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Ann Tarrant wrote:

    Polyclinics.
    I'm sorry to bang on about the French experience yet again, but the outrage greeting waste disposal ideas, Cabinet members being non-partisan & now Health measures are all part of the quotidian experience here.
    Every town the size of, oh, Rugby, has at least 1 Polyclinic. Marmande has 2, one of which I was called to for a mammogram & to which Father-in-law goes for regular prostate check-ups & blood tests. It is a modern, immaculate building where efficiency & calm are the pervading atmospheric traits. At the other, he had a cataract removed last year, as a day patient. We dropped him off at the spotless Clinic in pretty grounds & picked him up, very happy after excellent care & a good lunch, 10 hours later.
    At Bergerac, Mother-in-law has regular scans & blood tests for another condition.
    You always see the same Doctor, there is no waiting list - if you need to be seen, you're seen.
    I liked our local Cottage Hospital in the UK but it pales in comparison to the average Polyclinic.

  9. At 05:41 PM on 11 Jul 2007, David Sheldon wrote:

    Will polyclinics have maternity units and A&E departments? If not they will not replace General Hospitals and will be worse than useless.

  10. At 06:18 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Rachel G wrote:

    Is it just me that gets a 404 on the comments for tonight's Glass Box?

  11. At 07:29 PM on 11 Jul 2007, Charlie wrote:

    If the health debate is worth considering, we could far worse than to start here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6660665.stm

    The article relates specifically to Cancer treatments.

    However, France excels in virtually ALL aspects of health-care provision

    Nowhere is perfect. But France is as good as it presently gets - world-wide

    Our NHS is grossly out-dated, mis-structured, under-funded and inadequately monitored. Poor practices abound. As does lack of accountability.

    C.Difficile and MRSA... we can go there if anyone wishes... Basically, lack of cleanliness and hygiene. Doctors, Nurses, Patients, hospital visitors... for whatever reason.

    Peer pressure, constant review and, a legal requirement to trial and report treatments, results and surgical techniques and procedures are urgently required.

    And, it's not only the NHS that requires restructuring. The BMA, Nurses, Ancilliary Care etc are all woeful.
    They talk a good game...

    The future, if the NHS is to survive in a meaningful guise will be painful, for some, to be sure... If it doesn't survive, "the some" will be us...

  12. At 08:51 AM on 12 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Charlie;
    France, according to the World Health Organisation, has the best public health system in the world.

    A singular example; Blood donors in France aren't given a cup of pisspoor tea and a bourbon biscuit, they get a two or three course meal with a small carafe of wine to pick them up after their donation.

    But you have to pay for your healthcare, or at least some of it. And ability to pay is taken into account. The poorest get what they need substantially free. As you rise up the affluence scale you contribute more, within certain limits.

    Their version of National insurance is ring-fenced into a kitty which pays for your treatment or re-imburses you a proportion of it. It is emphatically NOT free at the point of delivery. Personally I think it a good model. But so long as we in the U.K. have this shibboleth about the system being free to all (it's not of course, we've already paid in advance) we can never make the required major alterations to our own NHS.

    Oh, and French National Insurance is much higher than ours, and the employer bears a crippling burden in their contributions on behalf of their staff. That restricts hiring. Since those staff are almost impossible to get rid of, once taken on and salaried (the fabled 'lack of labour market flexibility') the French employers are now turning increasingly to the use of short-term contract labour, thus undermining the French Social Model and job security from within.

    Returning to the wider question; I see that the privatisations got a mention, the US health consortiums waiting their chance to take a slice of the U.K. market on very expensive terms, viz. my comments on previous threads about the privatisation of Buxton GP practise services. Utterly unwanted by the locals, but being railroaded through by a Government which cares little for what the people want, but rather thinks it can dictate to them what they are going to get.

    This model is not the way forward, indeed it is a retrograde step. There is a sound principle that 'If you want to succeed, work with winners'. The only thing that you learn from failures is how to fail. The US healthcare system is shambolic and only covers the absolute minimum. People only get the treatment which their private health insurance will pay for. Is this really the system that we want to imitate? Or would we rather swallow Anglo-Saxon pride and learn from the French and others running the best healthcare systems in the world?

    Si.

  13. At 11:53 AM on 12 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Charlie;
    France, according to the World Health Organisation, has the best public health system in the world.

    A singular example; Blood donors in France aren't given a cup of tea and a bourbon biscuit, they get a two or three course meal with a small carafe of wine to pick them up after their donation.

    But you have to pay for your healthcare, or at least some of it. And ability to pay is taken into account. The poorest get what they need substantially free. As you rise up the affluence scale you contribute more, within certain limits.

    Their version of National insurance is ring-fenced into a pot which pays for your treatment or re-imburses you a proportion of it. It is emphatically NOT free at the point of delivery. Personally I think it a good model. But so long as we in the U.K. have this shibboleth about the system being free to all (it's not of course, we've already paid in advance) we can never make the required major alterations to our own NHS.

    Oh, and French National Insurance is much higher than ours, and the employer bears a crippling burden in their contributions on behalf of their staff. That restricts hiring. Since those staff are almost impossible to get rid of, once taken on and salaried (the fabled 'lack of labour market flexibility') the French employers are now turning increasingly to the use of short-term contract labour, thus undermining the French Social Model and job security from within.

    Returning to the wider question; I see that the privatisations got a mention, the US health consortiums waiting their chance to take a slice of the U.K. market on very expensive terms, viz. my comments on previous threads about the privatisation of Buxton GP practise services. Utterly unwanted by the locals, but being railroaded through by a Government which cares little for what the people want, but rather thinks it can dictate to them what they are going to get.

    This model is not the way forward, indeed it is a retrograde step. There is a sound principle that 'If you want to succeed, work with winners'. The only thing that you learn from failures is how to fail. The US healthcare system is shambolic and only covers the absolute minimum. People only get the treatment which their private health insurance will pay for. Is this really the system that we want to imitate? Or would we rather swallow Anglo-Saxon pride and learn from the French and others running the best healthcare systems in the world?

    Si.

  14. At 12:53 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    I'm glad someone mentioned Cottage Hospitals, it was the first thing I thought of too when they were describing these Polyclinics as if they were a new idea. They are just rehashing old ideas while diverting more & more money into admin & running costs and less and less into patient care.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.