More NHS privatisation

[wutang]

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt selling off NHS firm which saves taxpayer £70m a year

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... ebook-post

Because the NHS is reliant on more agency staff it has its own agency that is cheaper than using private firms as it saves on expensive agency fees:

NHS Professionals (NHSP), supplies staff more cheaply than private firms.

The Department of Health-owned private limited company, which employs 506 people, was created in 2010 and is used by dozens of NHS Trusts in England. It saves the NHS £70m a year on staffing.

Privately hired medical workers cost the NHS up to 30 per cent more than through NHSP, according to the Financial Times. Agency staffing costs the NHS around £4bn annually.

Of course to the average person this is good - its saves money for the NHS at a time when funding has been scarce. But for the 'private sector is king' crowd this is bad.... think of all that lost profit that the private companies are missing out on.

So they are selling it off:

The newspaper reported the government plans to sell around 75 per cent of the business and withhold the rest, with the option to sell the rest within five years.

Bids reportedly include £50m from recruitment firm Staffline.

Fuck this Government

NHS workers have slammed the prospect of further NHS privatisation.

“This is utterly ludicrous,” said anaesthetist Tim Martindale on Twitter. “NHSP is a great organisation which is designed to save on expensive agency fees.”

Sarah Holmes MBE, a nurse and midwife, said it was “yet another example of profit being made exploiting scarce NHS resources and people”. She added: “This is awful.”

[Red Okktober]

When you eventually do fuck off - you clearly have no intention of staying in the UK, what with your hatred of white people, 'the rich', the police, the government, local councils, landlords, banks, anyone in authority etc. - to whichever country you find more suitable, be it North Korea, Somalia, or wherever - perhaps you could report back and let us know how their health system compares to ours?

Ta

[Si_Crewe]

Not that I approve of this, or am attempting to defend it but here's a thought....

Haven't we already got a gigantic, taxpayer-funded, recruitment agency in the DWP?

Why do we actually need a specialist recruitment agency to supply staff to the NHS?
Why isn't there just an office full of people in the DWP already doing that job?

[wutang]

Not that I approve of this, or am attempting to defend it but here's a thought....

Haven't we already got a gigantic, taxpayer-funded, recruitment agency in the DWP?

Why do we actually need a specialist recruitment agency to supply staff to the NHS?
Why isn't there just an office full of people in the DWP already doing that job?

Because its more effective. Which is why there are specialist recruitment agencies for loads of different areas employment. Bit hard to call up the DWP on a Friday morning and say "we need 2 nurses to work a shift asap", whereas a NHS recruitment agency will have the contact details of the relevant people (in the area, right qualifications, etc) at hand.

And this move isnt scrapping the idea merely privatising it cos y'know making it more expensive with profit seeking agency fees is good for the NHS budget

[rollup]

When you eventually do fuck off - you clearly have no intention of staying in the UK, what with your hatred of white people, 'the rich', the police, the government, local councils, landlords, banks, anyone in authority etc. - to whichever country you find more suitable, be it North Korea, Somalia, or wherever - perhaps you could report back and let us know how their health system compares to ours?

Ta

Truly idiotic post.

[Si_Crewe]

Because its more effective. Which is why there are specialist recruitment agencies for loads of different areas employment. Bit hard to call up the DWP on a Friday morning and say "we need 2 nurses to work a shift asap", whereas a NHS recruitment agency will have the contact details of the relevant people (in the area, right qualifications, etc) at hand.

And this move isnt scrapping the idea merely privatising it cos y'know making it more expensive with profit seeking agency fees is good for the NHS budget

Cobblers.

If it's "more effective" then why can't the DWP just be "more effective" as well?

All they need to do is set up an office and operate in exactly the same way that the people in NHSP operate, using all the same files, records and contact-lists that NHSP currently use.
Hell, I'm sure they could even get BT to re-route the phone lines so they could even retain the same fucking phone numbers that NHSP currently use.

If we think we can manage to nationalise a fucking rail-network, surely it's not beyond our wit to nationalise an office comprising a dozen people and a few computers?

[wutang]

Because its more effective. Which is why there are specialist recruitment agencies for loads of different areas employment. Bit hard to call up the DWP on a Friday morning and say "we need 2 nurses to work a shift asap", whereas a NHS recruitment agency will have the contact details of the relevant people (in the area, right qualifications, etc) at hand.

And this move isnt scrapping the idea merely privatising it cos y'know making it more expensive with profit seeking agency fees is good for the NHS budget

Cobblers.

If it's "more effective" then why can't the DWP just be "more effective" as well?

All they need to do is set up an office and operate in exactly the same way that the people in NHSP operate, using all the same files, records and contact-lists that NHSP currently use.
Hell, I'm sure they could even get BT to re-route the phone lines so they could even retain the same fucking phone numbers that NHSP currently use.

If we think we can manage to nationalise a fucking rail-network, surely it's not beyond our wit to nationalise an office comprising a dozen people and a few computers?

So set up an department within the DWP that specialises in recruiting for the NHS?

wouldn't the NHS be better suited for such a task given the they naturally have a much more indepth knowledge base on the operational management of the NHS (and the various rules/regulations relating to it) than the DWP

We could call this service "NHS Professionals", or NHSP for short

[wutang]

Also not sure the DWP which has been cut relentlessly via the Government's austerity agenda has the manpower/resources to carry out such a task

Especially as they are planning to shut even more offices around the country

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pl ... ss-9698561

[Si_Crewe]

Because its more effective. Which is why there are specialist recruitment agencies for loads of different areas employment. Bit hard to call up the DWP on a Friday morning and say "we need 2 nurses to work a shift asap", whereas a NHS recruitment agency will have the contact details of the relevant people (in the area, right qualifications, etc) at hand.

And this move isnt scrapping the idea merely privatising it cos y'know making it more expensive with profit seeking agency fees is good for the NHS budget

Cobblers.

If it's "more effective" then why can't the DWP just be "more effective" as well?

All they need to do is set up an office and operate in exactly the same way that the people in NHSP operate, using all the same files, records and contact-lists that NHSP currently use.
Hell, I'm sure they could even get BT to re-route the phone lines so they could even retain the same fucking phone numbers that NHSP currently use.

If we think we can manage to nationalise a fucking rail-network, surely it's not beyond our wit to nationalise an office comprising a dozen people and a few computers?

So set up an department within the DWP that specialises in recruiting for the NHS?

wouldn't the NHS be better suited for such a task given the they naturally have a much more indepth knowledge base on the operational management of the NHS (and the various rules/regulations relating to it) than the DWP

We could call this service "NHS Professionals", or NHSP for short

Fair comment, I suppose.

I don't really care which government department NHS recruitment falls under.
The point is that there's absolutely no need to have any kind of specialist agency involved at all.
Especially if that means the company can then be sold off to subsidise duck-castles, house-flipping and "fact-finding" junkets to Las Vegas.

I suppose we could hope for the best and assume that NHSP is being sold because the government has decided to set up a special office (in the HNS or DWP) to deal with this stuff in-house but what're the chances of that?

[Guest]

Because its more effective. Which is why there are specialist recruitment agencies for loads of different areas employment. Bit hard to call up the DWP on a Friday morning and say "we need 2 nurses to work a shift asap", whereas a NHS recruitment agency will have the contact details of the relevant people (in the area, right qualifications, etc) at hand.

And this move isnt scrapping the idea merely privatising it cos y'know making it more expensive with profit seeking agency fees is good for the NHS budget

Cobblers.

If it's "more effective" then why can't the DWP just be "more effective" as well?

All they need to do is set up an office and operate in exactly the same way that the people in NHSP operate, using all the same files, records and contact-lists that NHSP currently use.
Hell, I'm sure they could even get BT to re-route the phone lines so they could even retain the same fucking phone numbers that NHSP currently use.

If we think we can manage to nationalise a fucking rail-network, surely it's not beyond our wit to nationalise an office comprising a dozen people and a few computers?

Was East Coast a success or disaster?
How much did the Treasury gain or lose in 4 years?
How much did taking the franchise over, from National Express, cost the UK taxpayer? £0, £100 million or £217 Million?

[Si_Crewe]

Was East Coast a success or disaster?
How much did the Treasury gain or lose in 4 years?
How much did taking the franchise over, from National Express, cost the UK taxpayer? £0, £100 million or £217 Million?

No idea, TBH.
Was it, by any chance, the worst one?

I don't know the details but if National Express planned to cancel a service because it wasn't profitable and THAT is the reason it ended-up in the public sector then I wouldn't immediately be upset simply because it made a loss.
What I would get upset about is if it turned out to be a huge, bloated, wasteful, money-sponge of an operation that was now costing much more than it'd cost when National Express were running it.

We seem to have this attitude where we accept that things in the public sector are doomed to be an expensive shambles and so we resign ourselves to letting private companies run things because we think they can do it better, rather than asking WHY this is the case and insisting that we hire people who're capable of operating at the required level AND giving them the tools they require so they can do the work.

[Guest]

Was East Coast a success or disaster?
How much did the Treasury gain or lose in 4 years?
How much did taking the franchise over, from National Express, cost the UK taxpayer? £0, £100 million or £217 Million?

No idea, TBH.
Was it, by any chance, the worst one?

I don't know the details but if National Express planned to cancel a service because it wasn't profitable and THAT is the reason it ended-up in the public sector then I wouldn't immediately be upset simply because it made a loss.
What I would get upset about is if it turned out to be a huge, bloated, wasteful, money-sponge of an operation that was now costing much more than it'd cost when National Express were running it.

We seem to have this attitude where we accept that things in the public sector are doomed to be an expensive shambles and so we resign ourselves to letting private companies run things because we think they can do it better, rather than asking WHY this is the case and insisting that we hire people who're capable of operating at the required level AND giving them the tools they require so they can do the work.

Success
£1 billion GAIN
£0

Now you see how sensible the Rail policy is for Labour and why over 62% of the public support it.

[Si_Crewe]

Success
£1 billion GAIN
£0

Now you see how sensible the Rail policy is for Labour and why over 62% of the public support it.

Well, that's great news.

I'm all for nationalising things if it's beneficial to us, as a society.

A company has just been in to fit some non-slip flooring outside my disabled neighbour's house.
I can see why something like this, for example, might remain the remit of a private company; it's a fairly specialised job and there wouldn't be enough work to keep council employees busy all the time.
That being the case, it's more sensible to just hire in a specialist company when you need their services.

When it comes to services that there's a constant need for, such as hiring temporary staff for the NHS, it baffles me why we subcontract those services out rather than doing it for ourselves.

[wutang]

When it comes to services that there's a constant need for, such as hiring temporary staff for the NHS, it baffles me why we subcontract those services out rather than doing it for ourselves.

But we are doing it for ourselves, thats the point.

We are solely owned by the Department of Health (DH), and our entire focus is on working in partnership with Trusts, helping them spend money more carefully on their temporary workforce, whilst improving the quality of patient care. We work with over 100 hospitals, and any surplus we make is put back into the NHS.

Part of the service is allowing NHS trusts to share their staff with each other.

Bankshare enables clusters of Trusts to share their own substantively employed staff between Trust banks, enabling Trusts to minimise the need for staffing agencies to fill part-time, occasional or ad hoc roles. It also gives Trusts access to NHS Professionals’ bank of 25,000 fully compliant ‘bank-only’ workers across all staff groups.

Shared back offices costs and a common, consistent approach to agency use and selection help Trusts make significant savings. It is the ideal solution for Trusts looking to work collaboratively with other Trusts in their area.

Bankshare provides staffing solutions on a shared or individual basis across STP footprints and also ensures compliance and appropriate skills for specific tasks.

granted the need for this stuff is a result of the marketisation of the NHS and the staffing crisis.... strip it down ready for privatisation.

[wutang]

Article from last year:

NHS spending on agency staff increases despite control measures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... -spending/

...Jeremy Hunt said agencies had been able to charge “extortionate rates” for too long.

The same Jeremy Hunt now privatising the NHS in-house agency....