Privatisation of the UK economy Privatisation on the UK

Privatisation of the UK
economy

 

Privatisation on the UK
economy

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Organisations in privatisation have boosted efficiency and
profit encouragement to cut costs. Manager are known to not usually share in
any profits when working in a government run industry but when a private firm
is interested in making a profit it is highly likely to cut costs and have
efficiency. Ever since privatisation has been introduced many companies have
improved substantially economically achieving maximum productivity with a
minimum expense.

Margret thatcher played a big role in privatisation. She caused
over 50 companies to be privatised and sold resulting to a nation of
shareholders. This led a huge impact and inspired he world to follow her lead.
Thatcher saw privatisation as a way of developing the Britain’s economic
performance. The UK saw a rise in share ownership and followed through. (Osborne, 2018)

Many impacts in privatisation is in the gas industry British
Gas. British Gas floated on stock exchange in 1896 where shares were valued 135p
each. The company experienced many organisation changes, separating the company
into 5 divisions due to competition in the market in 1996 which lead to British
Gas being worth £11.09 per share resulting to a £821 investment from £100 in
1896. (En.wikipedia.org, 2018)

Impacts in privatising the national rail is that standard
single fares have risen by 208%, although passenger satisfaction has risen from
79% in 1995 to 83% in 2013. Satisfaction with the rail is second highest in the
EU. Since privatisation the amount of investment has risen from £698m in 1995
to £6.84bn in 2013. The government improved in speed and electrification. The rail
track tackled a number of track relaying without any adequate planning, the
work was very low quality and had to be re-done due to the Hatfield incident in
2000.  The poor management project was
exampled with the west coast route modernisation project which was designed to
deliver a 140 mph route in 2005 costing £2bn. However they resulted to
delivering a 125mph route in 2008 costing £9bn putting the organisation in a
financial collapse. (En.wikipedia.org, 2018)

 

Arguments for and
against privatisation of the NHS

Privatising the NHS would initially have many positive and
negative impacts to the UK economy and to the public.

 A positive to
prioritising the NHS would have an increase in the quality of care; patients
would have liberty to many hospitals to choose from and what treatment they
would like to have. Multiple organisations would allow making bids to a patient
prioritising the patients choosing a service best suited for them. Patients
would be taken away from the waiting list and be immediately treated.  For some private health care organisation will
supply back to the NHS so there are no cut backs in money lost.

One who is for privatising the NHS is Thomas Cawston. In Germany
a third of hospitals are run by charities, a third by for-profit companies and
a third by the government. Sweden has introduced private providers to provide
GP clinics and hospital services. By contrast to this only 3% of the NHS budget
is spent by private providers in the UK. The competition in health care is that
it can motivate real improvement in care due to the financial benefits. Prior
to this patients with chronic back pains in Bedfordshire would soon eventually
feel satisfied with a better service. Different companies were asked by the
local NHS to suggest the best way to deliver all musculo-skeletal healthcare
services for the next five years.  All
qualified suppliers as well as Private companies including NHS hospitals are
allowed to place bids to provide a world class service in the most cost
effective and sustainable way to meet the customers’ needs. The successful winning
bidder will be the one who gets parts of the NHS to work together to provide a
better and quicker service for the patients. This helps both patients and NHS.
Thomas says “without competition patients would have to “like it or lump it”
“and decision making will remain back to the wealthy who can buy themselves out
of the system. (BBC News, 2018)

Arguments against privatisation of the NHS are that
only the wealthy have access to private health care. This reduces the justice
of the vulnerable. Privatising the NHS can result to a great downfall for the
patients with chronic and congenital conditions due to increasingly expensive
insurance. This would only help one who is largely healthy. It is argued that
private healthcare would do unnecessary examinations to patients to receive
more money which leads to a selfish financially driven act.

Oliver Huiston is against privatisation of the
NHS.  He says that conservatives and the
private health industry is dependant of the several speeches that are given.
Economic theory and the evidence from real-life healthcare both disagree with
their case. The competitive markets are known not to care much about the health
of the patients but in fact are more financially driven. (BBC News, 2018)

When markets are introduced to supplying healthcare,
providers chase the income; become coat soar which results to suffer of health
issues, increase in fraud and the system of universal care coverage collapses. (BBC News, 2018)

 

Out of hours
care – a stream of scandals, mantled by an A&E crisis blamed this on NHS
breaking. The privatised service, with less qualified staff to cut costs, has
seen an increase of 50% in the rate of calls referred to A&E since 2010. (BBC News, 2018)

 

Sweden put
“competition at the heart” of their NHS. “Choice” grew in urban arras where
privately owned clinics were providing non-essential care in large amounts. 195
of the 196 privately owned clinics were in wealthy areas.

 The newly privatised Dutch system showed very
similar problems. The GP organisation addressed this issue by asking new
qualified GP’s to take position in rural areas. Due to the apparent
interference with the market the national competition regulator fined the GP
association 7.7million Euros. Huiston says competition prioritises revenue not patients.
It’s a requirement for firms to maximise shareholder value and not the patient’s
wellbeing. Due to this result, the public do not want to privatise the NHS. It
changes a public health service to a “Fantastic business” as Cameron says. NHS
is being changed to a money making business without the public’s consent. (BBC News, 2018)

 

Jessica Hubbard argues that the National Health Service is
principle of British society. During the 1940’s health care was very poor as
well as living conditions for the public. in 1948,  it was founded that its principles included
free and universal healthcare for Britain’s. The industry of health now wants to
charge the citizens for their healthcare. If NHS were to be privatised it would
result to a poor healthcare for those who can’t afford it and there would be a
downfall on health tourism. Health tourism already accounts for just 0.3% of
the NHS’ annual budget. (The Badger, 2018)

Hubbard says that many of us do not realise that the NHS is
already being privatised. Many parts of the NHS department have been sold off
to many different organisations. Virgin care is running the physio department
with earnings of £2.5 billion by the NHS organisation. Care UK took over the
Elderly department as well as mental health services with earnings of £350
million per year. The NHS is gradually being privatised as the years passing
by. Competition is vital for these organisations more than prioritising the
care of the patients. Privatising the NHS will lead to job losses, funding gaps
and a poor service for patients. (The Badger, 2018)

She argues that NHS may be recognised as expensive but the
investment is highly necessary. The NHS needs funding and reform instead of the
selfish acts having it being sold to the highest bidder. Privatisation is
expensive and many of the public will struggle to follow through. Private
companies will have a demand in funding the run the NHS. Funding is being
wasted on marketing the NHS as it is being privatised. (The Badger, 2018)

“1 in 10 NHS pounds is now spent on non-clinical expenses”,
says the popular blog ‘NHSpace’. The reason behind this is due to the NHS
contracts with private firms that take staff and the funds to be managed by an
organisation. This gets rid of them and eliminates costs. (The Badger, 2018)

Funding problems exist due to such high numbers of NHS
trusts across the country experiencing a funding deficit. If efficiency problems
were to occur many of the trusts would be in debt and crisis.

‘Sustainability And Transformation Plans’ was introduced by
the government force NHS trusts to cut disburse. They are known to be highly
disliked due to the leading of unnecessary cuts. The NHS wasn’t in crisis
before this problem had occurred. Cost cuts measured from the Tory government
as NHSpace (blog) suspects that privatisation of the NHS has been encouraged by
the Tory party donors who also have shares in healthcare. (The Badger, 2018)

Jessica Hubbarb disagrees on the government’s billion pound
investments for the nuclear weapons system and believes that the money should
be invested where it’s truly necessary such as funding the NHS Organisation.
Funding nursing courses and other training in health care will reduce the
statistics of deaths, discontinuing the spending on agency staff. This will
increase safety as NHS workers will have a more reasonable number of patients
and will not be forced to work in human hours and make mistakes due to a lack
of staff. (The Badger, 2018)

Conclusion:

Public
services are known to care for the people but private organisations profit from
the public services by failing to invest in sufficient money. There is a lot of
conflict between making a profit and taking the time to care for the public.  Private companies will care more for the
wealthy and insist on unnecessary examinations for more income.

Public
services are very beneficial because it is universal. They need to be
accessibly and give a high quality service for everyone to meet the patients
basics needs. As for privatisation it often goes hand in hand. Motivating the
richer public to pay more and select out of the services we all use. This results
to division making it more difficult to provide service for everyone.

Privatisation
also results to more job losses and more casual workers who are paid less have
poorer conditions. Staff knowledge and experience will be lost with a lack of
service quality. They are also known to cherry pick the profitable bits of the
service so they can make as much money as possible. Over the years the amount
of money spent by the NHS ENGLAND on healthcare that is provided by the
independent sector has increased, with the total of £7billion resulting 6.3% of
the total NHS budget. It’s been found that 2/3 of doctors disagree with the
private sector provision of NHS services due to risk of job losses and low
income. They worry that these increase of contracts are part of a larger
campaign to privatise the NHS completely and bring about a more mixed model of
service rather than being free at the point of access. (The Medic Portal,
2018)

Overall
I strongly believe that the NHS should not be privatised. Many argue that the
shareholders of the NHS organisation have been financially driven and there is
a lack of care for the patients. Many of the public may not have the funds to
pay for a good healthcare. More money should go to the funding of NHS to
provide good services to the public and continue with NHS being a public
service. Doing so will give justice to the public to be treated equally.