Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists

My blog here http://j.mp/fwJlW1 got name checked on @leftfootfwd http://j.mp/gyJ0w7 I'm still sceptical

Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me at @leftfootfwd

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @richardblogger: My blog here http://j.mp/fwJlW1 got name checked on @leftfootfwd http://j.mp/gyJ0w7 I'm still sceptical

RT @DrEvanHarris: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I by @prateekbuch & me …

RT @leftfootfwd: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I write @prateekbuch an …

THIS>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/04/lib-dems-demand-changes-to-health-and-social-care-bill/

RT @leftfootfwd Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes 2 health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I

RT @pimlicat: THIS>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/04/lib-dems-demand-changes-to-health-and-social-care-bill/

RT @leftfootfwd: Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I write @prateekbuch an …

Perhaps my scepticism is really naivety. I expected the white paper consultation (which highlighted many of the issues the Lib Dems were concerned about in their Spring conference) would lead to a change in the Bill. It didn’t, most of the criticisms expressed during the consultation process were summarily dismissed in the government’s response. Further, as concern was increasing before the end of last year (and just before the Bill was published) a Lib Dem, Danny Alexander, reviewed the Bill and signed it off. Alexander was satisfied with the Bill, surely we should take that to mean that he thought it agreed with the Coalition Agreement and key Lib Dem policy?

The debate for the second reading of the Bill had Lib Dem MP after Lib Dem MP speaking in support of the Bill (notably, Andrew George was against and John Leech expressed concerns, but still voted for the Bill). Were those Lib Dem MPs speaking for the bill aware of what was in it? Two months later the Lib Dem grassroots gave those MPs the message that they were clearly out of touch.

Then the Bill moved to the Committee stage, which, rather naively, I thought would scrutinise the Bill and make amendments. The Bill committee contained John Pugh and Mike Hancock, both Lib Dem MPs (the latter, a chair of the committee) as well as Paul Burstow (Lib Dem Minister of State). Yet the only amendments made to the Bill were by the government, and we were told that they were simply “tidying up” and “clarifications”. In the midst of the Committee’s work the Lib Dem Spring conference declared that they wanted important changes made to the Bill, yet the Minister of State (in a good position to make Coalition government changes that would alleviate Lib Dem fears) made no such changes.

Perhaps I do not understand how coalition government works, perhaps I do not understand how the parliamentary system works, but I have not seen any Lib Dem influence on this bill as it has gone through Parliament. Indeed, I have seen Lib Dem MPs in the second reading debate fully support the Bill.

Now we hear that Lib Dems are against the Bill in its current form. Why weren’t they against it in the second reading? Why weren’t they willing to make amendments in the Committee stage? This is why I am sceptical.

The proposals in their current form are in a total state.

For anyone who doubts the worth of the NHS being free at the point of need for all who need it, I advise you to read this telling report from an 89 year old retired doctor who vividly remembers the pre NHS days….. http://tinyurl.com/5sfppf Also note those who were excluded from ‘the panel …the most needy & the most vulnerable’. Sound familiar? Let us stop this vile Bill before history is repeated – not out of ignorance now, but out of deliberate cruelty.

Essentially if anyone believes that a mere tinkering with the Lansley Bill will suffice – just remember loose jawed Letwin letting slip that it has been specifically designed to demolish the NHS within 5 years. We need to preserve the NHS and build on our proven success, protecting it from profiteers and take overs – to do anything less will show that we have wasted our knowledge and brutally rejected the evidence. Please do not let ‘the pause’ be used up by nothing more than feigned listening – let us state our case loud and clear to make sure the ‘listeners’ actually hear us.

Natural Break? A wobble, but not yet a U Turn. I teach Biology but I Have never taught prospective medical students about balance sheets. The changes are fundamentally flawed here’s why… http://bit.ly/fK92rs

@Richard Blogger

I linked to the wrong blog of yours.

You wrote (in unnecessarily personal terms against me) that the Lib Dem Conference vote would not matter and has not mattered. You were wrong and I think you should admit you were wrong and apologise for the personal tone of your articles both of which affect your credibility.

This one http://torylies.blogspot.com/2011/03/lib-dems-live-up-to-their-reputation.html said,

“So we hear that Dr Evan Harris will propose a motion on the NHS at the Lib Dem spring conference tomorrow. What a pathetic action that is.”

” he is proposing this motion at a time when he knows damned well the amendments will not be made.”

“As anyone who has read Lansley’s response to the “consultation” will tell you, his reply to any criticism was “tough, I will have my way regardless”. And this will be his response to Dr Harris.”

“I expect the Harris motion to be passed and Lansley to say to Clegg “deal with your little local difficulty”. The Bill will pass largely unscathed and Dr Harris will be seen as having tried to amend the Bill. The only winner will be Dr Harris.”

And this blog
http://torylies.blogspot.com/2011/03/reaction-to-lib-dem-nhs-motion.html

“Let’s have a look at the reaction to the Lib Dem spring conference rebel motion against the government (just joking, we all know that it will be treated as a little local difficulty).”

“Downing Street has ruled out “significant changes” to government NHS reforms following their rejection by Liberal Democrat members.” So in other words: not much will change.

Also you do not, as you suggest, understand parliamentary processes. Potential rebels do not generally vote against a whole bill at 2nd reading (esp where many of its contents stem from the manifesto – or in this case the Coalition Agreement) but wait for Report stage to vote for specific changes. If that fails they have the option to vote against at 3rd reading or wait for Lords amendments to come back.

Public Bill Committee is not the place for rebellion (the last Labour Government was never defeated in Public Bill Committee in 10 years – or just once I think). The chairman of a Public Bill Committee – who is deputising for the Speaker – can’t express a view, let alone vote (except as a casting vote for the status quo). This is basic. You really should do some research before making allegations like that against Mike Hancock.

http://tinyurl.com/3fprjqf Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists

@Richard Blogger – your scepticism/naivety is understandable, but as Evan pointed out rebellion isn’t usually encountered at earlier stages – even less so in a Coalition I’d suspect.

What matters is that through internal, democratic dialogue, the Lib Dem membership made its position on the Bill clear at Conference – and now expects its representatives in Parliament to deliver the amendments we set out.

I don’t understand the natural resistance people have to this bill.

Why is privatising the NHS instinctivly a bad thing, NO ONE is talking about changing the “free at point of use” part of our healthcare.

Why does it matter that it is public or private run?

Why are these people not looking at the fact that WHO ranks the UK NHS in the 20s wheras countries that have privatatly provided BUT state funded healthcare (which is basically what this bill is about) sitting in 1-5th place?

I don’t understand the resistance to this bill other than some idillic moral crusade about protecting public sector intrests.

What about the paitents who are recieving declining healthcare at ever increasing costs?

Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activist | Left Foot Forward: http://bit.ly/evUwVL via @addthis

Well, BOB, the reason we are opposed to market mechanisms and the involvement of private sector in frontline services is pretty straightforward. You see, its all about core functions. The core function of the NHS is to take care of the health of the nation; the core function of a private sector health trader is to maximise profit & minimise loss, as it is for any commercial venture operating in the market. Straight away, the conflict of interest is starkly obvious. Both the historical and contemporary record is replete with examples where private sector health traders have degraded the services under their purview, or triaged their patients and clients according to ability to pay, or siphoned off financial resources in the form of bonuses, exorbitant executive pay, and shareholder dividend.

See, where the money goes is also of vital importance to us; for you and others to turn round and sneer that all we should be bothered with is that its ‘free at the point of use’ is profoundly insulting. Here endeth the lesson.

bob,

You say:

“Why are these people not looking at the fact that WHO ranks the UK NHS in the 20s wheras countries that have privatatly provided BUT state funded healthcare (which is basically what this bill is about) sitting in 1-5th place?”

Is it simply a question of private versus public funding, or do the results reflect the results of a larger spend on healthcare? For example France and Germany spend a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare as opposed to the comparable spend of the UK.

A second point to note is that country by country comparisons may not accurately reflect the differences that may occur between nations, as the article by David Beemer alludes

“The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation’s health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation’s residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system’s speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.”
“These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it….”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html

*Is it simply a question of private versus public funding, or do the results reflect the results of a larger spend on healthcare? For example France and Germany spend a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare as opposed to the comparable spend of the UK.*

You miss the point.

Those countries spend more, but they do not provide the healthcare, they provide the funding.

Many other countries provide better healthcare without the state being the provider (they just provide the funding).

I see no reason why the NHS has to be owned or run as a goverment entity as it is, and THAT is what this whole thing has been turned into (You only have to look at the top of this page “Keep our NHS PUBLIC).

[...] list of those opposing these reforms continues to grow, and includes an ever increasing number of Lib Dems and Tories like Lord Tebbitt. They join a growing list of leading health [...]

bob,

Many other countries provide better healthcare without the state being the provider (they just provide the funding).”

If you check out the OECD data with regard to the proportion of private/public healthcare spend as a proportion of GDP, you will find that the UK spend mix is roughly in line with the OECD average, and that nations with a higher percentage of private healthcare are not at all entirely top performers.

The spend figures can be found in the OECD Factbook,

http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=8219516/cl=17/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/10/02/01/10-02-01-g1.htm

Compare with the rankings found in the article from Health Consumer Powerhouse.

http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/UK.pdf

The Netherlands healthcare system, ranked first, is a public healthcare system, not a private one, it is also heavily regulated by the government and payments towards insurance are collected by the government. You will note the public/private mix as per the OECD Factbook is roughly the same as the UK. So your correlation in favour of the private sector fails.

[...] the Liberal Democrats still demanding substantial changes, and medical professional bodies looking unlikely to be convinced any time [...]

Govt. must go beyond cosmetic changes to health bill warn Lib Dem activists: http://bit.ly/eDq19I #ConDemNation