[url=http://postcodegazette.com/news/9002098886/nhs-centre-run-by-private-firm-charges-patients-for-treatment-AT-sheffield-broad-lane/And as it begins, so shall it continue[/url NHS Walk-in Centre charging £25 to see whiplash patients

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/private-hospital-told-doctors-to-delay-nhs-work-to-boost-profits-7962582.htmlPrivate hospital instructs doctors to delay NHS work, all in the name of maximising profit[/url

Thank you Lansley, Cameron and all you lily-livered, spineless LimpDems who back the NHS reforms

I had both my hip replacements at Spire Private hospital, but for very different reasons mentioned in the article. Both were done on the NHS. My consultant explained they often offered this to anyone over the 18 week time scale which I was due to my op being delayed due to winter emergencies. In saying that, I talked to the nurses at Spire, they had a portacabin quickly brought in to use as a "ward" for NHS patients and I certainly wasn't offered wine with my evening meals or given a restaurant type menu to chose from more like an A4 sheet of paper every day!

Very simple solution - any NHS Trust who use that hospital should immediately stop using it until the director involved is removed from their post and treatment waiting lists improve.

Indeed any NHS Trust who use private hospitals for sub contract work should be imposing their own terms and conditions on the deal, the waiting time being one of the major clauses.

The whole of the private hospital industry in the UK would be dead in the water if it weren't for the NHS, they had a window of opportunity in the 1990s to make us all sit up and think that actually it might not be a bad idea to take up some health insurance, but they lost that lead after substantial investment in the NHS by the Labour government to the point when, in 2009, a close friend of mine saw a consultant in brain surgery about a tumour that he had, he was told that he would be admitted into the NHS hospital where they were sat and the surgeon would operate the next morning (Tuesday), my friend told him that his employer provided private health cover and would he be better seeing him at the BUPA hospital in Leeds, he was told that it was his choice but that the same surgeon would not see him there until Friday - he stuck with the NHS - a surgeon who works four days a week in one hospital and moonlights for one day a week in another - which one would you go for ?

[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/08/21/outrage-as-nhs-hospital-charges-for-ae-drugs/NHS hospital charges for A&E drugs[/url

University Hospital of North Staffs has started charging £7.65 for drugs administered in A&E.

[iA joint statement from UNSH and North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust said that: “More than three-quarters of patients don’t pay prescription charges” and if they [the hospital “did not levy charges” they would face reductions in their budgets and therefore have “less money available for other services”. [/i

One little flaw in that argument: the money raised is not kept by the hospital, it is channelled back to central government

Just refuse to pay. That's what I did when Warwick Hospital tried to charge me for my treatment following an RTA a few years ago. Eventually they gave up asking.

... and now, the NHS are to be encouraged to expand overseas. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19328105 It's not privatisation, though, oh no, absolutely not, no way.

... and now, the NHS are to be encouraged to expand overseas. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19328105 It's not privatisation, though, oh no, absolutely not, no way.

They do that because they figure it will be covered by your motor insurance. Then they moan when the get their policy renewals through.

How far away are we before the first check on entering A&E is not your vital signs but your available credit?

Quote ="El Barbudo"... and now, the NHS are to be encouraged to expand overseas. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19328105 It's not privatisation, though, oh no, absolutely not, no way.'" It does seem a bit strange, selling the reputation of the NHS overseas, while claiming that it doesn't work and is unaffordable at home.

Quote ="El Barbudo"... and now, the NHS are to be encouraged to expand overseas. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19328105 It's not privatisation, though, oh no, absolutely not, no way.'" It does seem a bit strange, selling the reputation of the NHS overseas, while claiming that it doesn't work and is unaffordable at home.

[url=http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/its-official-first-privatised-nhs.htmlWell, what a roaring success the privatisation of Hitchinbrooke has turned out to be[/url

Never mind, as long as Circle Health keep pouring money into the tories' coffers eh?

Smells like a big pile of dog poo, particularly as the holding company is based offshore.

Give public money to private company - reduce employment in the area - make profit from public service - don't pay tax on that profit - hand some of profit back to the political party that gave you the £1.2 billion contract.

The perfect scam.

I wish I'd thought of it.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/13/private-firms-corporation-tax-nhs-profitsMore news.[/url

Tax breaks for private NHS providers.

Yep, not to mention that private hospitals generally don't have A&E departments and so don't have emergency doctors or equipment. If anything goes wrong in your surgery you have to be transported to your nearest A&E.

I've done a similar thing though not actually on purpose. I recieved a bill for meds from A&E following my RTA. They wanted 7 quid for a handful of ibuprofen. They chased it for a few months then stopped. Now I work for the same trust lol.
I have actually meant to pay t , but just kept forgetting.

Lets also not forget when things really go tits up ( and I've had experience of this many times) they quickly get you transferred to an NHS ICU.
Icu is not a profitable method of health care for private firms so they let the tax payer pay the thousands, and some time hundreds of thousands of pounds it takes to rectify their mistakes.

... and in today' s news, private providers may be given tax breaks to ' level the playing field'.

But it' s not privatisation, perish the thought, no ... we can' t have the profits of private health providers being subject to tax, can we? I mean,they might not be able to afford to contribute to Tories' election expenses then and that would never do.

Not only that, unlike the NHS, the private proividers are not subject to FOI, claiming commercial sensitivity. So basically we'll know feckall about what they're getting up to

it's not actually todays news though

i find this odd, andy burnham is seemingly all over the media decrying the great nhs sell off by the coalition, yet on his watch these nasty, nasty private healthcare companies which kill and maim at will were asking for exactly the same thing despite them having no say whatsoever in the nhs at that point. no siree. it seems the tories main problem is the labour party get there first.
good to see the moral outrage cranked up to 11.

Well done for spectacularly failing to see the point.

It's today' s news in the sense that it' s in today' s papers.

Whilst the private providers may have wanted the same under the previous government, they didn't get it ... but now it looks as though they will.
That is a) why it's news and b) why your claim that Labour got there first is disingenuous rubbish.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/13/lewisham-hospital-fury-bill-closure?CMP=twt_guThe plan to spend £195m to get £19.5m savings.[/url

Lewisham – being punished by having its maternity and A&E services closed in order to cope with PFI debt at hospitals in an entirely different trust (ie debt not caused by Lewisham).

It's entirely coincidental that Lewisham is a Labour area, and the hospitals being saved by the loss of Lewisham services are in a Tory area.

Entirely coincidental.

Of course.

PS: Of course, as once advised on this forum, 'PFI is a non-issue'.

Not only that but if you look at the population it serves the decision is disgraceful. That closure in another town or city would be political suicide.

And even more so when you consider that, because Sidcup A&E was closed in autumn 2010, with patients from that area being channelled to the Queen Elizabeth, there are already four-hour waiting times there, so the closure of Lewisham will simply worsen what is already a far from ideal situation.

Even just considering the population of the Borough of Lewisham itself, that would be around the same as Belfast and bigger than Nottingham (which has a magnificent hospital). As I said, could you imagine the outcry if those cities had no A&E?

Another way of limiting access to scarce resources? www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... l#comments

Another way of limiting access to scarce resources? www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... l#comments