Skip to main content

Politicians are failing the NHS


Remember how the NHS was supposed to be 'safe' in Cameron's hands. Remember how the NHS was supposed to be 'ring-fenced' from the effects of austerity? Yes we remember. But we see an NHS starved of funds. But do the politicians care sufficiently to act?

The NHS Confederation’s survey of politicians has highlighted  that seven out of 10 MPs believe there is insufficient political will to meet the challenges facing the NHS.

Responding to the report, Dr Ian Wilson, Chairman of the BMA’s Representative Body, has said:

"The government must not risk the NHS' core value of being based on need, not ability to pay, purely because they are unwilling to take action and make the changes they admit are desperately needed.

"It is unbelievable that while eight out of 10 politicians agree change is essential, almost seven out of 10 say there is insufficient political will to allow this to happen.

"The reality is that the NHS is under intense pressure from a combination of rising patient demand and declining funding. Politicians must confront these challenges head on in order to ensure we can continue to deliver a high standard of care while remaining free at the point of use.”

We have been here before. It is no coincidence that the last time the Tories were in power the NHS was failing patients with unnecessary reform - remember the internal market? 

Cameron said there would be no top down reform of the NHS. He broke that promise!

Osborne and Cameron said the NHS would be ring-fenced. They broke that promise. The NHS has faced billions of pounds of cuts. It is not the NHS that is failing. It is the politicians  


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more