Neo-Victorianism

NHS news review

Spread the love

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

NHS waiting list penalties delayed « Shropshire Star

NHS waiting list penalties delayed

Penalties due to be enforced against NHS bodies who fail to treat patients within 18 weeks of being referred by their GP have been delayed

A Government plan to tackle hidden NHS waiting lists has been delayed – just two months after being announced by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

Mr Lansley said in November that hospitals would face a clampdown from this year on the number of people languishing on waiting lists for treatment. But according to the Department of Health, although hospitals are expected to make progress towards that goal, penalties will not now be introduced until 2013/14.

Under NHS rules, patients should be treated within 18 weeks of being referred by their GP, but when that deadline is breached there is often no incentive for hospitals to see them.

To tackle this, NHS managers were told in November they had to reduce the number of long waiters from this year – and by about 50,000 by April.

However, according to the Department of Health, penalties will now only be introduced “once progress has been made on validating the backlog data and the NHS has had time to adjust to working to the new standard.”
…

Strike option on table in doctors’ NHS pensions dispute

Planned changes to NHS pensions could lead to an exodus of doctors retiring early and potential strike action, the British Medical Association warns.

[It is already established that many GPs are retiring early because of NHS ‘reforms’.]

The professional body warned the government against underestimating the animosity caused by planned changes to the NHS scheme – saying it was preparing to poll members on the issue.

BMA Scotland chairman Dr Brian Keighley said there was likely to be an exodus of doctors retiring early and added the BMA had not ruled out a ballot for strike action over pension reforms.

In a New Years message, he said doctors had been under attack on several fronts over the last year.

He said: “Their contracts are being devalued and undermined by NHS employers and now politicians are attacking the NHS pension scheme. It would appear that our political leaders perceive these to be the solution to the country’s national deficit.”
…

The coalition’s Dickensian take on disability allowance | Society | The Guardian

… keen as I am to celebrate the bicentenary, it is possible to take a tribute too far. The coalition government appears to have embarked upon a wholesale reconstruction of Dickensian society. Housing, education, health, social welfare; everything we have put together since, in order to protect the most vulnerable, is in the process of being dismantled to be replaced by a system that seeks to protect the rich at the expense of … well, everyone else. One cannot fault the scale of the government’s ambition, but as a tribute it is somewhat misguided. It is hard to read the details of the welfare reform bill, for example, being debated in parliament, without picturing Dickens rolling his eyes in dismay.

I recently read an impact assessment compiled by the Department for Work and Pensions on the proposed “reform” of disability living allowance – in other words, getting rid of it. DLA is a benefit designed to help people with the additional costs of living with a severe disability. Applicants must fill in a 50-page form, spelling out the most intimate details of their care and mobility needs. Doctors’ details must be provided together with a statement from someone who knows you well, an occupational therapist or social worker, for example. There are different levels of benefit according to the degree of assistance required, and a large proportion of claims are rejected altogether.

DLA is far from perfect. In particular, it struggles to respond to fluctuating conditions and the assessment form is strongly geared towards physical rather than mental health problems. But because DLA is payable regardless of employment status, it is a highly enabling benefit. A great many people are able to work precisely because their DLA pays for the additional help they need in order to do so.

For a government committed to getting people working, abolishing DLA presents a PR challenge with which the impact assessment grapples heroically. Replacing DLA with a personal independence payment, and slicing 20% off the bill, will “provide an opportunity to … communicate that support is available both in and out of work” it states. A “more objective assessment” (designed to reduce the bill by 20%) will create “a more active and enabling benefit” and – get this – the fact that “those on low incomes have higher rates of ill health” does not mean that “a change in income has an effect on health”. What the dickens?

BBC News – Newsnight – Republican Rick Santorum: ‘NHS devastated Britain’

Rick Santorum has lost the first battle in the fight to be the Republican candidate for the White House, the Iowa caucuses, to Mitt Romney by just eight votes.

Mr Santorum has been an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama’s healthcare programme and has said that similar policies brought about the collapse of the British Empire.

Here Newsnight’s Peter Marshall challenges Mr Santorum on what he meant by that statement.

Related (including Pop twat Bono is Sanatorium’s mate): New Statesman – 10 things you didn’t know about Rick Santorum…

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review: Cameron confirms that the intention is to privatise the NHS

Spread the love

Best wishes for the new year.

Seven former presidents of the Faculty of Public Health accuse the Prime Minister of ploughing ahead with an “unprecedented marketisation” of services, which poses a “major threat” to the integrity of the NHS.

David Cameron confirms that the intention is to “… drive the NHS to be a fantastic business“. How is that anything other that the privatisation of the NHS?

Watch the video here VIDEO BLOG: Cameron wants the NHS “to be a fantastic business” « sturdyblog

Drop perilous NHS reforms, say leading health professionals – Health News – Health & Families – The Independent

David Cameron faces fresh calls to abandon his NHS reforms, as a group of leading public-health experts predicts that the changes will “exacerbate inequalities” in the health of the nation.

Seven former presidents of the Faculty of Public Health accuse the Prime Minister of ploughing ahead with an “unprecedented marketisation” of services, which poses a “major threat” to the integrity of the NHS.

In a letter to Mr Cameron, the group warns: “The Bill is likely to produce a ‘patchwork quilt’ health system that will vary hugely across the country, failing to meet the diverse needs of the population and undermining the health of vulnerable, minority groups.”
…

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingNHS news review: Cameron confirms that the intention is to privatise the NHS

NHS news review

Spread the love

On a different topic: I’ve been looking at Cameron’s speech on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible intending to do an exegesis which quite possibly would be an exegesis of Cameron’s exegesis.

My attention was drawn to this speech by the widely reported soundbyte ~ He said “live and let live” had too often become “do what you please”. I recognise that as relating to something deeper than its superficial appearance.

The speech is obviously sucking up to Christians and is recieved well by them from a look at the comments. It’s an awfully tedious speech by David ‘Marvin‘ Cameron in which he makes some very dodgy assertions.

Marvin starts by suggesting that he’s in the lion’s den. It’s a reference to Daniel who survived the lion’s den unscathed. Some Christians are hardly lions now are they? I came across some Christians one Christmas day. I was collecting some friends by car for four-days-late Midwinter dinner. These Christians had just come out of a Cathedral and I stopped for them at a Zebra pedestrian crossing. I am usually patient, polite and considerate with pedestrians being a cyclist and motorcyclist as well being able to drive a car. One of these Christians was such a pain returning across the crossing that I wound down the window and shouted “F*****g Christians!” at them. Needlessly annoying motorists like children is hardly lion-like behaviour now is it? Not going to rip me to shreds with his fangs and claws and rip the flesh off my severed limbs is he?

Marvin talks in a confused way about ‘something’ and ‘anything’ without defining these terms and then using ‘something’ in an opposite sense. “You can’t fight something with nothing.” … “Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.” It’s tedious vacuity.

So Marvin praises the language of the King James Bible. I’ve found it one of the nastiest translations actually. “It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page…” “depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page” is imagination and subjective so that it can’t be shared (discounting telepathic abilities). “…giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate.”

Marvin praises the contribution that the KJB has made to British society and culture, values and morals when really it’s just part of historic tradition.

Marvin says that we are a Christian country and should not be afraid to say so then goes on to qualify Christian country so that it is meaningless.

Christ, this speech is tedious bullshit. And what’s with the dot, dot, dot? …

 

[Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13 . A typically highly convoluted passage about love.]

Better find some NHS news.

We can’t allow the Bible to be hijacked for narrow and partisan politics | David Edgar | Comment is free | The Guardian

12.45 am edit

Committee members looking at implications of public bills say health secretary’s role should be made explicitly clear

The coalition government’s health bill will dilute accountability to parliament and the courts and should be amended to address serious constitutional issues that remain, a Lords committee has warned.

The committee examining the constitutional implications of public bills, chaired by Lady Jay, says the House of Lords will have to alter the health bill so that “ministerial responsibility” for the NHS is made “explicitly” clear.

Last month the government had been forced to hold up the part of its NHS bill dealing with the health secretary’s new role to stave off an embarrassing rebellion from a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrat peers over the issue.

The health bill is expected to pass through committee stage, but will face a crunch vote on the issue in January.

Jay said: “It must be made clear in the bill that the secretary of state for health continues to be accountable for the provision of health services in England.

“This is vital to ensure parliament can properly scrutinise the NHS in the future.”

She warned that the bill at present leaves it unclear “on where the buck stops when health services are removed”, picking up on campaigners’ fears that the health secretary would be helpless to stop patient care disappearing from the NHS.

At the heart of the debate is the government’s plan to devolve its “constitutional responsibility” to provide NHS services to a quango and also, in the words of the white paper, “liberate” hospitals and GPs to decide what level of provision patients could expect.

This represents a significant shift. The health secretary has a legal duty to provide key NHS services, such as hospital accommodation, ambulances, maternity and nursing.

…

 

 

 

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love


Tory Health Minister Simon Burns called activists opposed to the Con-Dem coalition government’s plans to destroy the NHS “zombies”. Burns comments echo a similar comment by David Cameron exposing the Con-Dems’ contempt for parliamentary democracy. He said that those that opposed their Neo-Victorian policies should “grow up”.

This is about the stupendously rich and priviledged’s arrogant sense of entitlement and superiority. There is no need to debate on the issues since opponents are simply dismissed as immature or the living dead – or is it less than human? The super rich are so divorced from reality that they simply cannot understand that anyone could disagree with them. Please sir, can I have some more?

I paraphrase my step-father on the Tories’ ‘Big Society’ return to Neo-Victorian hypocrisy and prudery and their failure to maintain the deception of parliamentary democracy: Another deception, of course, is David Cameron’s discussion of the “Big Society”. In truth he is keen to undermine society – and even undermine democracy itself.

A century and a half ago, almost all services that ordinary people depended on were provided either by private companies or voluntary organisations founded by rich individuals. Gradually the vote was extended, first to men and then to women. The intention of universal sufferage was to create a society where the most important services were in the hands of peoples’ representatives to ensure that they were available to all and in an acceptable form to the majority of the population. This formula has never worked perfectly of course and we need new methods to make our representatives and service managers more accountable to the people.

Instead of trying to improve this formula, the Tories want to destroy it utterly and return public services back to the Capitalist and the rich voluntary bodies. Nobody else will have any influence on our public services. The clock will be turned back a century and a half and many of the major features of a democratic society will be destroyed.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development thinktank reports that the NHS is good and that it is repeated reforms that is damaging it.

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

‘Zombie’ insult angers activists / Britain / Home – Morning Star

Health campaigners hit back today after Tory Health Minister Simon Burns called them “zombies” for making noise about the government’s controversial NHS reforms.

The MP insulted campaign group 38 Degrees in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon while responding to a question by shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.

The question related to a demand by 38 Degrees that the government releases its NHS risk register promptly so peers have the full facts during their debate of the Health and Social Care Bill in the House of Lords over the next few weeks.

Mr Burns said: “I think Mr Burnham does himself a disservice by simply joining the rants of organisations like 38 Degrees who are frightening people and getting them almost zombie-like to send in emails.”

The campaign group said that it was “shocked” to hear the minister attacking members of the public who had emailed their MPs about their concerns regarding the Bill while neglecting to explain why the government is delaying releasing the details, despite the Information Commission ruling that it must.

“Thousands of members have been in touch with 38 Degrees since Mr Burns made his remarks to express their disappointment that he’s chosen to insult them in this way,” said 38 Degrees executive director David Babbs.

“Many have said how worrying it is that a senior member of the government doesn’t seem to think we have a right to contact him about something as important as the NHS.”

Related: David Babbs: 38 Degrees Members are Not ‘Zombie Like’

A new return to Victorian values – UK Politics – UK – The Independent

Coalition health bill will undermine NHS, says OECD thinktank | Politics | The Guardian

Each reform costs years of improvements in quality, report suggests, but Andrew Lansley insists change is needed

The last thing the NHS needs is a large reform as it is one of the world’s best health systems and has been improving patient care for years, says the author of the OECD’s flagship report into international care and treatment.

The report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development thinktank, which is funded by wealthy governments, says the NHS has cut heart attack deaths by two-thirds since 1980; the public rarely has to pay to meet health needs; and citizens have comparable life expectancies to their neighbours on the continent. Among global diseases the UK also scores well: less than 5% of adults had diabetes in 2010, contrasting with 10% in the United States.

“The UK is one of the best performers in the world. But outcomes are not what you expect because there is a big reform every five years. We calculate that each reform costs two years of improvements in quality. No country reforms its health service as frequently as the UK,” said Mark Pearson, head of health at the OECD.

When it was put to Pearson, a respected economist, that the NHS faces its biggest upheaval in 60 years with the coalition’s health bill, he said: “The NHS is so central to the political process that every politician has to promise to improve the NHS. But there’s no big reform that will improve it. Better to let it bed down and tinker rather than wondering about more or less competition. It is less the type of system that counts, but rather how it is managed.”
…

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

Cameron and Lansley have been claiming that NHS cancer figures are bad while actually they are extrememly good.

38 Degrees explain their legal advice about the Health Secretary’s responsibilities: It’s about distancing the Health Secretary from responsibilty for the NHS.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets

The banks have run the global economy into the ground. Bankers, encouraged by the government, gambled recklessly with our money, and they lost. Spectacularly. Remember 2008? In the UK, the government decided it had to step in with a bail-out because these banks were ‘too big to fail’. According to the Bank of England, the cost of this bail-out now exceeds £1trillion. The result is that all high street banks- from Barclays to RBS- owe their existence to public financing.

What did we get for our billions? A banking system that serves ordinary people rather than the super-rich? No. Regretful bankers who refuse to reward themselves with massive bonuses? No. How about increased financial regulation to ensure this crisis couldn’t happen again? No. The government has done nothing to stop it being business as usual for banks.

What’s worse, the money that was given to the bankers is the money now being taken from the poorest in society, guaranteeing a rise in poverty, debt and inequality. Nearly £7 billion will be paid out in bank bonuses this year. This sum is more than the first wave of public spending cuts. We are not all in this together because it’s us who will pay if education, health, housing, libraries, woodland and much, much more, disappears from our lives.

Who’s telling us we must make these cuts? A government led by a cabinet of millionaires, in bed with the bankers, which is now pulling off an audacious con-trick in front of our eyes.

This is how their story goes. The crisis was caused by a bloated public sector. We binged away all our money on luxuries like healthcare and free education and council services, care for the elderly, for people with disabilities, school sports and free school meals for children living in poverty. Now the country is bankrupt and we must repent, detox, cut back. We have to relinquish our welfare state to appease the circling money men. Welcome to the Age of Austerity but don’t worry because we are all in this together.

We say – don’t believe their lies. This is their crisis, but there is no austerity for the bankers.

 

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

NHS cancer figures contradict David Cameron and Andrew Lansley’s claims | Society | The Guardian

The prime minister and health secretary have criticised the NHS on cancer, but new figures suggest the service is a world leader

David Cameron and Andrew Lansley’s repeated criticisms of the NHS’s record on cancer have been contradicted by new research that shows the health service to be an international leader in tackling the disease.

The findings challenge the government’s claims that NHS failings on cancer contribute to 5,000-10,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year, which ministers have used as a key reason for pushing through their radical shakeup of the service.

In fact, the NHS in England and Wales has helped achieve the biggest drop in cancer deaths and displayed the most efficient use of resources among 10 leading countries worldwide, according to the study published in the British Journal of Cancer.

“These results challenge the feeble justification of the government’s changes, which appear to be based upon overhyped media representation, rather than hard comparable evidence. This paper should be a real boost to cancer patients and their families because the NHS’s performance on cancer is much better than the media presents. It challenges the government’s assertion that the NHS is inefficient and ineffective at treating cancer – an argument for reforming the NHS,” said Prof Colin Pritchard, a health academic at Bournemouth University.
…

38 Degrees | Blog | NHS bill: “hands-off clause” advice

A few months ago, we asked one of the legal experts we funded for his view on the “autonomy clause”, or Clause 4 in the bill.

The full advice is here, but below are the main points on the “hands-off clause”.

Our legal advice:

30. However, what is proposed to be a new section 1C of the NHS Act 2006, does seem to me to be of importance. This would read

―1C Duty as to promoting autonomy
In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must, so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service, act with a view to securing—

(a) that any other person exercising functions in relation to the health service or providing services for its purposes is free to exercise those functions or provide those services in the manner that it considers most appropriate, and

(b) that unnecessary burdens are not imposed on any such person.”

31. Therefore, so long as the Secretary of State does not think that it is inconsistent with the interests of the NHS, s/he must positively act to allow any other person exercising health service functions to do so in the way that that person thinks appropriate. This is what I described in conference as a “hands off” clause. Although the Secretary of State keeps some form of oversight, it is the other persons and bodies delivering the health service whose views are important as to how those services are to be delivered. This is further explained in the Explanatory Notes as follows

74. This clause seeks to establish an overarching principle that the Secretary of State should act with a view to promoting autonomy in the health service. It identifies two constituent elements of autonomy: freedom forbodies/persons in the health service (such as commissioning consortia or Monitor) to exercise their functions in a manner they consider most appropriate (1C(a)), and not imposing unnecessary burdens from those bodies/persons (1C(b)). The clause requires the Secretary of State to act with a view to securing these aspects of autonomy in exercising his functions in relation to the health service, so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service.

75. This duty would therefore require the Secretary of State, when considering whether to place requirements on the NHS, to make a judgement as to whether these were in the interests of the health service. If challenged, the Secretary of State would have to be able to justify why these requirements were necessary.

32. This kind of wording is often used in statutes to mean that a public body only has the power to act when steps to be taken are “really needed” or “essential”, rather than because the public body thinks something is desirable or appropriate. A court looking at this kind of wording would expect the public body (the Secretary of State in this case) to demonstrate why no other course of action could be followed, which is a high test to meet.

33. I think the reference to potential challenges at the end of this note is significant and reflects the limit of the Secretary of State’s powers. If the Secretary of State attempts to use his or her powers to impose requirements on commissioning consortia, for example, then there could well be a judicial review challenge from a consortium which opposed the requirements on the basis that they infringed the principle of autonomy in the new section 1C and could not be justified as necessary or essential. This approach replaces the, more or less, unfettered power that the Secretary of State has to make directions currently to be found in s8 NHS Act 2006 (as explained above), with a duty not to interfere unless essential to do so. It is also noteworthy that the same “autonomy” or “hands off” duty is also placed on the NHS Commissioning Board, by what would be a new s13E of the NHS Act 2006 (and it is, of course, the Board who will have closer contact with commissioning consortia than will the Secretary of State).

Continue ReadingNHS news review