Privatise the NHS

[Fop 1]

Private transplants to be banned

There are 8,000 people on the transplant register

VIDEO

 

The government says it will ban all private transplants of organs from dead donors in the UK.

 

The move comes after media reports of overseas patients paying to get onto the waiting list for organs donated by British people.

 

An independent report said organs were scarce and no one should be able to pay for transplants, to ensure NHS patients did not miss out.

 

Surgeons said it should reassure people organs went to those in most need.

 

Elisabeth Buggins, former chairwoman of the Organ Donation Taskforce, carried out an inquiry after allegations in a number of newspapers that organs from NHS donors were being given to patients from countries such as Greece and Italy.

 

It emerged that more than 700 transplants, mostly liver transplants, had been carried out on non-UK patients over the past decade.

 

In total, 631 of those transplants used organs from dead donors and, of those, 314 were from outside the EU.

 

It is not clear how many of those paid privately.

 

The inquiry found no evidence of wrongdoing in how organs were allocated to these patients, but concluded that in the interests of fairness no one should be able to pay for such operations.

 

Elisabeth Buggins: "Private practice should be banned for organs donated after death"

 

It also says that rules should be tightened on which EU citizens are entitled to transplants on the NHS.

 

Under EU law, some patients can receive treatment in other countries, if approved by their healthcare system, which then foots the bill.

 

But the NHS needs to be more cautious when checking eligibility under these rules and it is likely that there are patients currently receiving treatment who should be refused, Mrs Buggins said.

 

She also recommended that the NHS works with other countries in the EU to develop their own transplant programmes.

 

And any reciprocal arrangements with transplant networks in other countries need to be reviewed, she advised.

 

Surgeons will still be able to carry out private work using organs from living donors, for example with kidney transplants and some liver transplants.

 

Trust

HAVE YOUR SAY

 

The only reason people pay for transplants is because the NHS take so long you will probably be dead before you get it

 

James Pike, Aberdeen

Send us your comments

 

Last year 3,500 transplants were carried out in the UK.

 

The Department of Health, which covers England, accepted the recommendations and said immediate steps would be taken to ban all private clinical practice involving solid organs donated after death.

 

Agreement for this still needs to be reached with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but is expected to come into force across the UK in October.

 

An implementation group will be set up to monitor transplant referrals from overseas, a spokeswoman added.

 

NHS transplant centres will receive clarification on which patients from abroad are eligible for treatment.

 

There has been ongoing work to increase public confidence in organ donation and, by March 2013, the government want to see donor rates rise from the current 800 to 1,400 donors per year.

 

Elisabeth Buggins said the report aimed to make more organs available for UK residents.

 

"While I found no evidence of wrongdoing in the way organs are allocated to patients, there is a perception that private payments may unfairly influence access to transplant, so they must be banned.

 

"Confidence in the transplant system should increase once money is removed from the equation, decisions are transparent and accountability clear; confidence we know is necessary if the number of organ donors is to rise to match the best in Europe.

 

Health Minister Ann Keen said they would implement the recommendations to ensure a UK system that is "fair and transparent".

 

She added: "The report highlights the complexity of European law in this area and we will take immediate action to provide guidance for the transplant community and reassure the public of the integrity of our transplant programme."

 

Lynda Hamlyn, chief executive of NHS Blood and Transplant, said more than 10,000 people currently need a transplant but due to a lack of organs about 1,000 people die every year before they can have one.

 

"In a situation where there are not enough organs to treat the citizens of the very country donating them, the priority must be to ensure a fair and open system of allocation and treatment and the necessary level of public reassurance that this is the case."

 

The British Transplantation Society welcomed the report, saying it would provide "further reassurance" that priority for a transplant was given to those in greatest need.

 

It added: "We welcome the proposal to clarify the arrangements for the treatment of non-UK patients and would encourage the Health Secretary to pursue this without delay."

 

Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, also hailed the proposal, arguing that any suggestion of private payment seriously undermined the entire transplant programme.

 

"Why should we sign up as organ donors if our organs can then be sold to the highest bidder? The law rightly prevents us from selling our own organs, so it is an outrage that hospitals can boost their income by doing so, while UK residents die for lack of organs."

 

The British Liver Trust said it was imperative to remove any perception that hospitals had a financial incentive to operate on non-UK residents.

 

"With not enough livers for all patients in the UK, this is a very emotive issue both for patients and also for the families of people who have donated such a precious gift," said its chief executive, Alison Rogers.

 

"The review's recommendations will do much to rebuild confidence in the system and help clinicians make the difficult life and death decisions about who should be offered a transplant.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8177826.stm

 

 

Nice try Chezzy.

[Asprilla 96]

I'm really against profit being a big factor in healthcare.

 

I am generally a fan of state run things, even though they have their obvious faults.

[ewerk 26521]

I am generally a fan of state run things

 

[ChezGiven 0]

Nice try Chezzy.

 

Dont be stupid Ferp.

[Fop 1]

Nice try Chezzy.

 

Dont be stupid Ferp.

 

You seriously saying there's no cash to be made in selling organs? (even vat grown ones?)

[Park Life 70]

What a retard. The comments below the video are a giggle too.

 

Apparently the lefties are hypocrites because they called him thick and lefties shouldnt be prejudiced against people with learning disabilities. Or something.

 

Fuck me, this world.

 

I know man, people are seriously useless...

[Park Life 70]

I'm really against profit being a big factor in healthcare.

 

I am generally a fan of state run things, even though they have their obvious faults.

 

The thing is people are so somatised these days it really is a scenario of what they won't accept (almost nothing)...I was talking to a 28yr old girl last night and she was banging on about being a veggie or something...I often have to tune out for sustained periods or drink fast.

[Fop 1]

According to anti-healthcare republicans in the USA, Stephen Hawkin would be dead if he were British and had to rely on the NHS...........

Edited August 13, 2009 by Fop

[Fop 1]

Browns join Twitter war over NHS

Sarah Brown has joined the campaign to defend the NHS

 

Gordon and Sarah Brown have joined a Twitter campaign to defend the NHS, which is under fire in the US.

 

The prime minister posted a message on the welovetheNHS page after critics of Barack Obama's health reforms dubbed it "Orwellian" and "evil".

 

Tory leader David Cameron has also backed the NHS after one of his MEPs said he "wouldn't wish it on anyone".

 

Mr Cameron said the NHS was "incredibly important to this country" and vowed to "nurture" it if he came to power.

 

The Twitter campaign has attracted more than a million followers and thousands of messages of support - including tweets from Sarah Brown, who wrote welovetheNHS "more than words can say", Health Secretary Andy Burnham and former deputy prime minister John Prescott.

 

Rationing

 

On Wednesday evening a message was posted on it from the Downing Street Twitter feed, saying: "PM: NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there".

 

Many of the tweets in support of the NHS are from members of the public saying they owe their families' or their own lives to its care.

 

Professor Stephen Hawking has also hit back at claims in American newspaper that NHS rationing would mean he "wouldn't have a chance in the UK", saying on a visit to Washington to collect an award: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS".

 

The NHS has been held up by opponents of Barack Obama's health reforms as an example of an overly bureaucratic "socialized" system which rations care and denies treatment to the elderly.

 

Mr Obama's critics claim he would set up "death panels", a reference to the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which decides which drugs receive funding.

 

Republican former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin said such a system was "downright evil".

 

 

I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system

Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP

 

Bloggers debate British healthcare

 

Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who has long campaigned for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced with a system of "personal health accounts", has joined in the criticism on US television, where he described it in April as a "60-year mistake".

 

Speaking on Fox News on Friday, Mr Hannan continued his criticism.

 

"The most striking thing about it is that you are very often just sent back to the queue," he told the Glenn Beck programme and spoke of elderly patients "left starving in wards".

 

He described the NHS as a product of wartime planning, like rationing, and added: "I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need."

 

Cameron vow

 

The Conservative Party said it would not be taking any disciplinary action against Mr Hannan following his comments, which contradict party policy and which have sparked fierce criticism from Labour MPs.

 

But Mr Cameron, who has pledged to protect the health service from public spending cuts, attempted to distance himself from Mr Hannan's comments when he was tackled about them on a walkabout in his constituency.

 

He told BBC News: "I support the NHS 100% and the Conservative Party supports the NHS 100%.

 

"We are the party that gives the biggest amount of support to the NHS. It is incredibly important to my family. It is incredibly important to this country."

 

He vowed to "nurture the NHS" if he came to power, "and improve it and make sure it is there for everyone in this country".

 

Writing on his Daily Telegraph blog, Mr Hannan said he was a strong supporter of Mr Cameron, but disagreed with him on health.

 

"I am not the Conservative Party's healthcare spokesman. I'm fond of (shadow health secretary) Andrew Lansley, and I strongly support David Cameron as party leader. On this issue, though, I disagree with both of them."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8199615.stm

 

 

Chezzy currently resident in the USA perchance?

[ChezGiven 0]

Ferp, read this and come back to me.

 

www.euro.who.int/document/E84968.pdf

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3218]

Anybody who thinks the US system where people are refused treatment for certain conditions beacause of the cost is a better system than the NHS is a moron. To think it is best to dismantle a system ostensibly there for the good of everyone and replace it with a system run to make profit for share holders is just insane.

[Happy Face 29]

Anybody who thinks the US system where people are refused treatment for certain conditions beacause of the cost is a better system than the NHS is a moron. To think it is best to dismantle a system ostensibly there for the good of everyone and replace it with a system run to make profit for share holders is just insane.

 

I think you've got that the wrong way round. It's the UK that inspects the value of a treatment before rolling it out to the NHS. In the US you can pay for anything you can afford.

[Fop 1]

Ferp, read this and come back to me.

 

www.euro.who.int/document/E84968.pdf

 

 

Do you believe the US assertion that the NHS is "evil" and that "Stephen Hawkin would have died long ago had he been British and had to rely on the NHS"?

[Fop 1]

Anybody who thinks the US system where people are refused treatment for certain conditions beacause of the cost is a better system than the NHS is a moron. To think it is best to dismantle a system ostensibly there for the good of everyone and replace it with a system run to make profit for share holders is just insane.

 

I think you've got that the wrong way round. It's the UK that inspects the value of a treatment before rolling it out to the NHS. In the US you can pay for anything you can afford.

 

 

Unfortunately for your "Christian" dollar-fascist beliefs more than 50m people there cannot afford any. It's time you embraced peaceful socialism, Chris.

[Renton 17843]

Anybody who thinks the US system where people are refused treatment for certain conditions beacause of the cost is a better system than the NHS is a moron. To think it is best to dismantle a system ostensibly there for the good of everyone and replace it with a system run to make profit for share holders is just insane.

 

I think you've got that the wrong way round. It's the UK that inspects the value of a treatment before rolling it out to the NHS. In the US you can pay for anything you can afford.

 

That's true but in the US the bottom line is if you personally can't afford your health insurance then you can't have it. And we're not talking about wonder drugs that extend your life by an average of 4 months when you've got terminal cancer here, we're talking about very basic life-saving drugs for diabetes etc.

 

So what's your stance again HF, bearing in mind no country in the world can afford to supply all its population with every medical intervention available? We can have the American system, where you get what you can afford. We could have the traditional UK system, where you get what the state can afford. Or we can have a hybrid system, where the state pays for basic healthcare and you can choose extra if you can afford it. My votes for the latter.

 

Btw, this latest debacle is shameful from the US. I thought it was supposed to be a Christian country, where the poor and needy are treated compassionately? Apparently not, that's best left to the secular European states.

[NJS 3986]

Btw, this latest debacle is shameful from the US. I thought it was supposed to be a Christian country, where the poor and needy are treated compassionately? Apparently not, that's best left to the secular European states.

 

The vitriol of the opposition appalls me. I can understand the insurance lobby rallying against any proposed change but the way the ordinary people are so against any kind of "socialism" is frightening.

 

This shit about death panels is another thing - surely the insurance companies could be brought to book about their policy cancelling/refusal antics?

[ChezGiven 0]

Ferp, read this and come back to me.

 

www.euro.who.int/document/E84968.pdf

 

 

Do you believe the US assertion that the NHS is "evil" and that "Stephen Hawkin would have died long ago had he been British and had to rely on the NHS"?

 

You ignorant twat

 

I've just given you the very document that shows which middle ground i have been propagating and also, if you hadn't noticed, a refutation of the absurd republican rhetoric on socialised medicine. If you haven't read or don't plan to, i would at least familiarise yourself with table 2.1 on page 26 (i've read every page of that document btw).

 

This gives you a taxonomy of European healthcare systems and shows that firstly, the NHS is not really that unique and secondly that 'socialised medicine' is delivering better access to more people with better outcomes in France, Germany, Austria etc than the US.

[Fop 1]

Ferp, read this and come back to me.

 

www.euro.who.int/document/E84968.pdf

 

 

Do you believe the US assertion that the NHS is "evil" and that "Stephen Hawkin would have died long ago had he been British and had to rely on the NHS"?

 

You ignorant twat

 

I've just given you the very document that shows which middle ground i have been propagating and also, if you hadn't noticed, a refutation of the absurd republican rhetoric on socialised medicine. If you haven't read or don't plan to, i would at least familiarise yourself with table 2.1 on page 26 (i've read every page of that document btw).

 

This gives you a taxonomy of European healthcare systems and shows that firstly, the NHS is not really that unique and secondly that 'socialised medicine' is delivering better access to more people with better outcomes in France, Germany, Austria etc than the US.

 

 

So you don't believe the NHS is currently "Evil" and you do believe Stephen Hawkin would be alive if he were British and treated by the NHS?

 

 

 

 

Now do you believe it would be profitable to sell vat grown organs to the rich?

Edited August 14, 2009 by Fop

[ChezGiven 0]

Wasn't funny the second time either.

 

Plumbing new lows here fop.

[Fop 1]

Wasn't funny the second time either.

 

Plumbing new lows here fop.

 

Are you saying that the only ethical system for vat grown organs would be a NHS based one?

[Happy Face 29]

Anybody who thinks the US system where people are refused treatment for certain conditions beacause of the cost is a better system than the NHS is a moron. To think it is best to dismantle a system ostensibly there for the good of everyone and replace it with a system run to make profit for share holders is just insane.

 

I think you've got that the wrong way round. It's the UK that inspects the value of a treatment before rolling it out to the NHS. In the US you can pay for anything you can afford.

 

That's true but in the US the bottom line is if you personally can't afford your health insurance then you can't have it. And we're not talking about wonder drugs that extend your life by an average of 4 months when you've got terminal cancer here, we're talking about very basic life-saving drugs for diabetes etc.

 

Absolutley, just seemed a rosey view of the NHS....which does refuse treatment based on cost....which is the way I think it should be in a publicly run system.

 

So what's your stance again HF, bearing in mind no country in the world can afford to supply all its population with every medical intervention available? We can have the American system, where you get what you can afford. We could have the traditional UK system, where you get what the state can afford. Or we can have a hybrid system, where the state pays for basic healthcare and you can choose extra if you can afford it. My votes for the latter.

 

Btw, this latest debacle is shameful from the US. I thought it was supposed to be a Christian country, where the poor and needy are treated compassionately? Apparently not, that's best left to the secular European states.

 

I also think the latter is desirable, but would be cautious about how "basic" free healthcare becomes. Speaking as someone with no knowledge whatsoever of hybrid systems elsewhere, I'd worry that less costly procedures will end up being made available only to those with private coverage.

 

I was shocked to read on wiki that in 1993, 89% of the population of Oman had access to health care services. In 2000, 40% of the population had access to health care services. If that's true it's a shocking decline.

 

I think a system (as good as) fully financed by government can work better than it does in the UK. Italy modelled their system on ours and seem to be doing it better. Second only to France in the world. Austria's public system makes the top ten too....but then, so does Oman's which I find incredible, if the Wiki quote is true.

[Billy Castell 0]

The NHS is a bit of a pigs ear at the moment, partially down to the partial privatisation, partially to old fashioned red tape, but it is far better than a wholly private one. Have you noticed how your train and energy bills have rocketed over the last 10-20 years? That is because the privatisation has allowed companies to charge what they like, regardless of running costs, fuel prices etc. Who'll stop your bills from going up 12% a year? No-one as they're all owned by foreign companies who see us as a soft touch.

 

As for the US and all the crap the Alaskan Blue et al have been spouting, well they're just American, so they are all borderline retards.

[ChezGiven 0]

The NHS is a bit of a pigs ear at the moment, partially down to the partial privatisation, partially to old fashioned red tape, but it is far better than a wholly private one. Have you noticed how your train and energy bills have rocketed over the last 10-20 years? That is because the privatisation has allowed companies to charge what they like, regardless of running costs, fuel prices etc. Who'll stop your bills from going up 12% a year? No-one as they're all owned by foreign companies who see us as a soft touch.

 

As for the US and all the crap the Alaskan Blue et al have been spouting, well they're just American, so they are all borderline retards.

 

Prices have risen because losses are no longer paid for by the taxpayer. When nationalised, there is no P&L, so any inefficiencies are merely subsumed within the Treasury bill.

 

Now there is accountability to relate the cost base to the revenue base, meaning comsumers have to face the real cost.

 

Without these excessive amounts on the tax bill, subsequent governments have been able to dedicate more public resources to the NHS, as witnessed by the greater than 10% year on year 'real' increases in funding since 2000 i.e. inflation adjusted.

[Park Life 70]

Anybody who thinks the US system where people are refused treatment for certain conditions beacause of the cost is a better system than the NHS is a moron. To think it is best to dismantle a system ostensibly there for the good of everyone and replace it with a system run to make profit for share holders is just insane.

 

I think you've got that the wrong way round. It's the UK that inspects the value of a treatment before rolling it out to the NHS. In the US you can pay for anything you can afford.

 

 

Unfortunately for your "Christian" dollar-fascist beliefs more than 50m people there cannot afford any. It's time you embraced peaceful socialism, Chris.

 

Do we get pin badges?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3218]

Ok I had a thing called SVT. This meant at any time my heart might have gone into a 240 bpm cycle. I was advised by the NHS that when this happened I was to call for an ambulance to be monitored just in case. twice my heart did not return to its normal bpm and I had to be given a drug to reduce my heart rate. Three years ago I was given the option to have radio ablation therapy to permanently correct the problem. I had this done and have not had an episode since. How much of this would have been covered by the basic level of health insurance in America?