Political journalists are ignorant of how the NHS is actually structured and what privatisation would actually entail and this is causing poor reporting on the matter

(I am assuming good faith on their part here and that it's not malicious ignorance.......)

'The NHS', as a monolith, doesn't actually exist anymore. We couldn't sell it to the americans because there is nothing there to sell. We're not going to wake up one day to NHS:Sodexo or something

But that has never been the point. Here is how NHS funding works (simplified)

1. The department of health: does no active work, passes all their money on to
2. NHS England, does some commissioning of services (Primary care (GPs) and public health mainly, pass the rest on to..

3. CCGs - Clinical Commissioning Groups. NHS commissioning organisations responsible for a certain geographical footprint. Pay structures like Trusts to do their work.
4. Trusts are the place where health care actually get done (for the most part). They receieve the cascade of ££

We'll start at where privatisation kicks in at #2: NHS England. They commission public health services, services which naturally occur over a larger footprint.

As trusts and CCGs are very, very local, they often do not have the infrastructure in place to...

bid for these contracts. That's where organisations like virgin care come in. They have less going on so can just big for the bits they want to make money on.

Also important to note: Trusts are bound to work to a balanced budget, private organisations are not. THis means the private providers can undercut trusts (to an extent, they couldnt bid 0 or some ridiculously number)

Private providers are also not bound to NHS T&Cs for workers

So by squeezing workers, Larger geography contracts are very lucrative for private orgs. I've yet to see evidence they deliver better outcomes whilsy sapping money out of local systems. (reducing a trusts overall budgetthus reducing economies of scale)

Privatisation Route Number 2: Taking the easy wins.

Private providers are often used for low risk (read:profitable) surgeries. This is 'good' for NHS metrics because it brings waiting times down however to the system as a whole it is bad

Hospitals are hugely expensive, they need a multitude of services to 'survive' financially. Taking the lesser risk surgeries out just ends up reducing the overall budget of the hospital thus rendering it less viable

and then of course, drugs. Naturally, the NHS buys a lot of them. It will continue to do so.

Any small increase in price has a huge effect on the NHS as a whole. No drug producer wants to own the NHS, they just want to sell into it.

and as the NHS is a captive market bound (for now) to free at the point of access, there is a lot of money to be made there. There won't necessarily be a political backlash on this because people won't *feel it* - not until it is too late at least

and on and on it goes.

THis is what we're fighting against, piecemeal removal of NHS services until the system as a whole is no longer financially viable (or some such market speak) - i wonder what happens then!

Hope this thread clears up some misconceptions!