Skip to main content

NHS 'winter crisis' due to Tory cuts.

The 'winter crisis' in the NHS is a crisis of the government's own making. It is the result of the real cost of the £20 bn efficiency savings forced on the NHS. This is the truth behind the headlines of bed-blocking. The bed shortage is because we don't have enough beds to cover increased demand over the winter.

This is the reality. OECD figures show that in England and Wales there are just 2.95 beds per 1,000 people. This compares with 6.37 in France, 7.65 in Austria and 8.27 in Germany. And before the Scottish Nationalist Party pipe up, the Scottish Government figures show their figure is down 21% compared to 2004. But England and Wales are way behind the 4.95 beds per 1,000 in Scotland. Nevertheless, Scottish hospitals have shed beds at a faster rate than almost anywhere else, with more than 5,000 disappearing in just seven years. In North Wales more than 400 beds have been lost over the last five years.

In response the government would say it is due to “ongoing changes in the way modern health care is delivered”. That is a euphemism for 'efficiency savings' - it means cuts in front-line services and it means a bed shortage.

The government will say that the NHS is 'treating more people faster than ever before'. This is a euphemism for getting them in and shipping them out fast but often before they are fully recovered, and a costly revolving door as patients are readmitted in A&E. This revolving door practice is not good medicine. It is costly and inefficient and delivers poor care.

English hospitals have lost 5 beds every day of David Cameron's tenure at number 10 Downing Street.


So as we wring our hands again at the 'winter NHS crisis' we will be told it is due to an 'ageing population' and a lack of 'care beds'. In the sense that this is true, it is only partly so because it is in the main due to cuts. Those cuts are the result of the £20 bn efficiency saving imposed on the NHS. Think what a further £22 bn will do because that is what the NHS are asked to find in the next five years. This madness should stop!

Comments

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

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

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau