Skip to main content

Playing games with the NHS?

The Labour Leader did a decent job of his interview with Jeremy Paxman last night. My judgement is that he 'won' the debate that wasn't held - instead we had the two main party leaders facing separately Jeremy Paxman and the studio audience.  There was no head-to-head confrontation.  But in my view Ed Miliband 'won' because he didn't 'lose'; in contrast, David Cameron 'lost' because he didn't 'win'.

What really came out of it was Ed Miliband in a different light - not the 'geek' he has been portrayed, but a forceful and motivated leader.  This came out in his answer to the question of why he stood against his brother, David, for the leadership.  He gave a good account of himself.  But, and it is a big but, there was nothing from either of the two leaders about how they would deal with the £30 bn gaping hole in funding that will develop in the NHS over the next 5 years.

The NHS is uppermost in the issues of concern to voters.  Yet neither party has produced convincing answers to the principle question of funding.

Responding to a speech by Ed Miliband marking the launch of the Labour Party General Election campaign today, in which he outlined Labour plans for the NHS,  the BMA (the doctors representative association) called once again for the parties not to play games with the NHS.

Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair said:

“The test of any health policy should be whether it benefits patients, yet 95 per cent of doctors do not believe the quality of patient care has improved under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

“Proposals to remove the most damaging elements of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to support more joined up care and to prevent the private sector from cherrying picking the most profitable services are a step in the right direction. The BMA wants a publicly provided and funded health service, and believes the NHS should always be the preferred provider."

He called for a commitment to provide more GPs to meed growing demand.

"A commitment of more GPs is vital to meet rising demand on services, especially as more care is being delivered in the community. However, with general practice facing a recruitment and retention crisis we must first address the challenge of getting more doctors to choose to become GPs."

The Prime Minister, David Cameron insisted in his interview with Jeremy Paxman that funding for the NHS had risen over the last five years. Yes it has,  but by the lowest ever level or just 0.9% per year - not enough to meet the growing demands for care in the community and pressures on A&E.

The government have cut local authority funding by 40% which in turn has reduced funding of social care by 20%. The consequence is an increase strain on the NHS.

Commenting on Ed Miliband's speech opening the Labour campaign and promising more funding for the NHS',  Dr Mark Porter says:

“While extra funding is desperately needed, this announcement falls far short of explaining how the NHS will plug the £30bn gap it faces by 2020."

The NHS faces a crisis in the coming years. Sticking plaster solutions won't do.

“There must be no more games with the NHS. Rather than political parties bidding against each other for sticking plaster solutions which don’t go far enough, what is needed is a serious, detailed look at the investment health and social care services will need to cope with rising demand from an ageing population, and a long-term, fully funded plan to deliver this. This is the only way to ensure the NHS can rise to the enormous challenges facing it.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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