Jeremy Hunt?

Alis

Alis

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I have just heard Jeremy Hunt not only is staying as health secretary but also gets social care Please someone tell me this isn't true. maybe they should give him work and pensions too he could finish us all off in one go.
 
You obviously think it will.

ETA - Hit the button before I meant to.

But surely there's a consensus that separating NHS primary care from social provision was a bad idea. Now that's been rectified.

Perhaps wait and see before - tell me it's not true!
 
Last edited:
There is a logic to running health and social care as a single organisation in a local area if it means better coordination. For example patients needing care at home after leaving hospital need suitable arrangements made promptly so they can go home instead of staying in hospital which costs much more. I guess theoretically putting them together at Government level is supposed to enable better coordination.

I share the concern that someone already trying to oversee policy for a huge organisation like the NHS should have even more to do.

I suspect if I venture an opinion on the politics or competence of J Hunt, I will violate the no politics forum rule. And probably the no offensive language rule too.
 
Trish said:
There is a logic to running health and social care as a single organisation in a local area if it means better coordination. For example patients needing care at home after leaving hospital need suitable arrangements made promptly so they can go home instead of staying in hospital which costs much more. I guess theoretically putting them together at Government level is supposed to enable better coordination.

I share the concern that someone already trying to oversee policy for a huge organisation like the NHS should have even more to do.

I suspect if I venture an opinion on the politics or competence of J Hunt, I will violate the no politics forum rule. And probably the no offensive language rule too.
Click to expand...

Yep, it’s impossible to fully express my opinion on this without at least 14 swear words.
 
I think Mr Hunt is doing fully what he thinks is virtuous and good, and working towards goals that he has publicly expressed and thinks is the best solution.

Our Ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain, so extending to all the choices currently available only to the minority who opt for private provision.


Direct Democracy p78 (Jeremy Hunt et al.)
Click to expand...

I think he is perfectly competent at doing his job as he sees it. If not I think he would have resigned. If others with the power to remove him also think he is doing the same, why would they remove him?

Many European countries, such as France, Germany and Switzerland,
operate insurance-based systems which cover all members of society.
Under such systems, contributions towards health care are paid to
third-party insurers who (unlike governments) are under an obligation
to serve customers. All patients, including the most disadvantaged,
enjoy immediate access to high quality care.

Direct Democracy p78 (Jeremy Hunt et al.)
Click to expand...

Following the above quotes, the argument is that even the most disadvantaged enjoy immediate access to high quality care with private third party insurers, it follows that that would be the system Mr Hunt will aim for. (Unless we argue that he would deliberately try to provide substandard care to vulnerable people.)

To produce this intended system it seems logical to add social care to his administration, as it would need to be included in the third party insurance.

I am willing to take him at his word, and assume that he is working towards that which is seen as virtuous and beneficial.
 
Luther Blissett said:
I think Mr Hunt is doing fully what he thinks is virtuous and good, and working towards goals that he has publicly expressed and thinks is the best solution.



I think he is perfectly competent at doing his job as he sees it. If not I think he would have resigned. If others with the power to remove him also think he is doing the same, why would they remove him?



Following the above quotes, the argument is that even the most disadvantaged enjoy immediate access to high quality care with private third party insurers, it follows that that would be the system Mr Hunt will aim for. (Unless we argue that he would deliberately try to provide substandard care to vulnerable people.)

To produce this intended system it seems logical to add social care to his administration, as it would need to be included in the third party insurance.

I am willing to take him at his word, and assume that he is working towards that which is seen as virtuous and beneficial.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like the sort of adult conversation we need to have and 'international best practice' is taken into account in determining policy in most other areas.
 
I don't agree with Mr Hunt or his 'facts'.

I'm just explaining a possible reason for current events.

I believe that if healthcare and social care is to be rationed, it should be on the basis of need and not ability to pay.
We know how patients in Germany don't receive "immediate access to high quality care."

I wouldn't be able to pay for third party insurance so there's not much to talk about. If I don't receive social insurance I don't survive.
 
Luther Blissett said:
I don't agree with Mr Hunt or his 'facts'.

I'm just explaining a possible reason for current events.

I believe that if healthcare and social care is to be rationed, it should be on the basis of need and not ability to pay.
We know how patients in Germany don't receive "immediate access to high quality care."

I wouldn't be able to pay for third party insurance so there's not much to talk about. If I don't receive social insurance I don't survive.
Click to expand...

Does Germany not have an equivalent of the French CMU/PUMA (a 'safety net fund' available for those not covered by work based contributions or on low incomes)?
 
Luther Blissett said:
I don't agree with Mr Hunt or his 'facts'.

I'm just explaining a possible reason for current events.

I believe that if healthcare and social care is to be rationed, it should be on the basis of need and not ability to pay.
We know how patients in Germany don't receive "immediate access to high quality care."

I wouldn't be able to pay for third party insurance so there's not much to talk about. If I don't receive social insurance I don't survive.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. "All patients, including the most disadvantaged, enjoy immediate access to high quality care." is exactly the normal twaddle that millionaire politicians tend to come up with in this country - it's almost as if they have no comprehension of what it's like to be poor.
 
Luther Blissett said:
I think Mr Hunt is doing fully what he thinks is virtuous and good, and working towards goals that he has publicly expressed and thinks is the best solution.



I think he is perfectly competent at doing his job as he sees it. If not I think he would have resigned. If others with the power to remove him also think he is doing the same, why would they remove him?



Following the above quotes, the argument is that even the most disadvantaged enjoy immediate access to high quality care with private third party insurers, it follows that that would be the system Mr Hunt will aim for. (Unless we argue that he would deliberately try to provide substandard care to vulnerable people.)

To produce this intended system it seems logical to add social care to his administration, as it would need to be included in the third party insurance.

I am willing to take him at his word, and assume that he is working towards that which is seen as virtuous and beneficial.
Click to expand...

At the risk of raising Godwin’s law here I’m sure most vile people doing vile things have thought they were doing their job competently as they saw it.
 
Andy said:
Completely agree. "All patients, including the most disadvantaged, enjoy immediate access to high quality care." is exactly the normal twaddle that millionaire politicians tend to come up with in this country - it's almost as if they have no comprehension of what it's like to be poor.
Click to expand...

Except that it happens to be true in the French system which I'm familiar with and likely to be also true in other national healthcare systems using mixed public/private funding and provision.

http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_1.html
 
The UK has mixed public/private funding and provision.

Avoidable hospital admission for diabetes, which is seen as an indicator of primary care performance, is above the OECD average.

 
Among the studied countries, France and Spain are the most inequitable in specialist visits for
both probability and frequency concurring with previous findings (Or et al. 2008; Palència et al. 2011).

(OECD Working Paper 58: Income-Related Inequalities in Health Service Utilisation in 19 OECD Countries,2008-2009)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top