Health and Safety

This is the sort of news I welcome - the government apparently preparing to give some responsibility for the lives of its citizens back to those citizens. This is the sort of thing that should be celebrated - particularly after 13 years of grinding, illiberal, controlling politics from Nu Labour.

Now, I'm not the sort of person who gets worked up about individual examples of what is termed "the nanny state". I cannot get excited about the banning of a cheese-rolling event in Gloucestershire. Both the event and the banning of it seem pretty idiotic to me, but that's it. But what does bother me is the impact that all these little bans and controls have on us. They make us unwilling to take responsibility for ourselves. They make us dependent on the state. We end up not being able to think for ourselves. And that is a very dangerous state of affairs, because then we cease to be a nation of adults capable of making decisions for ourselves and without government guidance.

Of course, when installing health and safety guidelines and laws, the government can appear benign. They are making rules, they are restricting freedom, in order to stop people being hurt or worse. What better thing could a government do? Except this notion - the idea that the right combination of regulations and laws will eliminate risk from society - is just not possible. Part of being alive is being at risk - and also essential to live is making calculated risks.

Then we get the claims that the government is trying to make children safer - the age old cry, now hackneyed beyond belief, of "won't someone think of the children?" Well, yes, someone should. Their parents. Seriously, if you are going to have kids, then take some responsibility for them. You're their parent, not the government. So if you don't want your kids, for example, to play conkers, then don't let them. If you're actually going to be a parent, then you should do some parenting, rather than expecting the government to do it for you.

Because can you really blame the government when they say you shouldn't smoke, or drink, or be anything other than an optimum weight given the culture of abdication of responsibility in this country? Can you really blame the government when they decide that your children should only hear certain words in their school, or when they decide you're not fit to be a parent when the government has been allowed to control so much of what constitutes parenting in this country? Every meaningless or pointless restriction that appears, by itself, not to matter actually does matter - it is a sign to the state saying we want them to take responsibility for us.

As a nation, we should welcome the idea of restricting government intervention on the grounds of health and safety. And we should push it to do far more in order to give us our freedom - and therefore our lives - back. And we should also grow the fuck up and remember we are adults. Everyone in this country needs to take responsibility for ourselves and any offspring we bring into this world.

Health and safety? Your health, your safety. Act accordingly.

23 Year Ordeal

Dear God:

For 23 years Rom Houben was trapped in his own body, unable to communicate with his doctors or family. They presumed he was in a vegetative state following a near-fatal car crash in 1983.

But then doctors used a state-of-the-art scanning system on the brain of the martial arts enthusiast, which showed it was functioning almost normally.

And:

Houben then suffered years of being effectively trapped in his own body as care personnel and doctors at the hospital in Zolder tried to communicate with him, but eventually gave up hope that he would ever come round.

23 years! Can you imagine being trapped in yourself, unable to communicate with the world around you, for nearly two and a half decades? It truly sounds like a terrible torture, and pretty close to the worst thing in the world. I have literally no idea how this fella was still sane at the end of what must be the very definition of an ordeal...

Jimmy Carter offers his insights into the healthcare row in America:

Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".

Hmm. Whilst I have no doubt that Barack Obama has faced a lot of racism in his life, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the vitriol he is receiving about healthcare reform doesn't have a racist basis. There may be another reason for the abuse.

Like, perhaps, opposition to his healthcare plan.

The Tories and the NHS: Still not got a fucking clue.

What is it with Tory MEPs and the NHS at the moment? We've got another one wanting to throw his ideas into the mix. Perhaps they want to be helpful and offer some advice to Cameron, whose policies on the NHS could best be described as non-existent beyond platitudes like "the NHS is good".

Personally, I have some sympathies with the comments of Hannan. The same can't be said for Dr Chris Tannock and his fucking stupid ideas for the NHS:

"I would be totally in favour of small co-payments, small payments being made if you turn up to things and perhaps small fines being levied if you do not."

Right. So you would need to pay to use the NHS, and pay even more if you are unable to make an appointment you have already paid for. Which would be fine, if the NHS was currently free. However, it isn't. It is only free at the point of service. The NHS has already been paid for by every taxpayer in this fucking country. Under Tannock's plan, you would pay once for the NHS through your taxes - whether you use the fucking thing or not. You'd then pay even more to see someone you have already paid for through said taxes. And then, if you don't make an appointment, you get fined. Which means that the British tax-payer could pay three times and still not see a doctor. I can see this idea being less than popular...

"I know they are controversial but I don't think people who are in a job would be against say spending £10 to see their GP or being fined £10 if they don't show up to an out-patients, so that's the sort of thing I would like to see."

What a wonderfully circular statement. As a small question around the logic of this statement, why would it be controversial if people aren't against it? And if people did object to it, would Tannock drop the plan? If so, why doesn't he oppose it because, by his own admission, it is controversial?

Tannock's words show just how detached he is from the day to day reality of life in this country. I think people who work hard to fund the NHS through their taxes (whether they want to or not) would seriously resent having to pay £10 each time they want to access a service that they have already paid for. It is like ordering something online, paying for it online, going to the store and paying for it again when you pick it up. Of course people would object to this! It is ripping them off, and then rubbing their face in it.

Besides, we all know that the abilities of GPs vary considerably. What would happen if you paid £10 to see a GP, and they couldn't do anything to help you? What if they refused you medication when you believed you needed it or when you had got it in the past? Would you be able to ask for a second opinion? Would you have to pay another £10 for that second opinion? Or would you be entitled to a refund? Because I know that if I got shitty service from a restaurant or another service provider, I'd ask for (and normally get) my money back. And I wouldn't already have been funding that restaurant through my fucking taxes!

To summarise Tannock's suggestion on GPs - you pay even more for them. Let's all give Dr Tannock a round of applause. Don't worried if you're feeling too tired to applaud effectively with both hands; this is the sort of proposal that begs for the sound of one hand clapping.

Still, fortunately the Tory in charge of not doing anything different with the NHS, Andrew Lansley, is on hand to dismiss these ideas:

He added: "Charles may say 'oh well £10 to see a GP' - well that would not make any difference to hospital care and frankly, if you tried to put in such a system, by the time you have done all the bureaucracy of raising the money and levying some fines, you would not be raising any money for the NHS anyway."

I just want everyone to take a moment and digest Lansley's response. Staggering, isn't it? At no point does he raise an objection to the idea of people paying even more for the NHS, and at no point does he talk about value for money for the poor fucking consumer. The poor people who the NHS is meant to be serving. No, the problem with Tannock's plan is that it wouldn't raise any more money for the NHS. Good God above, give me strength!

The NHS gobbles up money like a fat man with a hungry tapeworm gobbles up pies. It isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if you spend more money on the NHS. It will consume the money, not change in any way whatsoever, and then ask for more money. Any policy that advocates the same level of spending or more for the NHS is stillborn; it is destined to fail. If nothing else, Nu Labour has proved that conclusively in the 12 years they have been in power.

Tannock needs to get a grip. Lansley needs to get a grip and a fucking policy. Cameron needs to get a vision on the NHS that accepts the need for radical change. In about nine months time, these people are going to be running the NHS. And as things stand, they have nothing that will help the people the NHS is meant to serve get the level of service they have already paid for and deserve.

Health Secretary? No thanks!

It has got to be one of the bum jobs of the Cabinet. Just imagine going into meet with the new Prime Minister, fully expecting to get a post in the Cabinet that will push you further forward in your career, and being told that you are going to become the media's whipping boy (along with the Home Secretary) as Health Secretary. You may as well resign your seat in Parliament there and then, as your career certainly isn't going to go anywhere.

I mean, who would want a job like that? Perched like a demented Gordon Brittas* on top of a vast, dysfunctional (hell, even psychotic) bureaucracy desperately trying to fight fires and deflect body blows from the baying hordes of headline hungry journalists until your inevitable demotion/sacking/return to the backbenches. Who would want a job like that?

Well, I would for a start. It could be one of the great reforming briefs of the Cabinet. You could really make a difference - if you are willing to take a risk and challenge some of the fundamental assumptions about the health in the UK. I'd have a look at convincing the British people of four fundamental truths - and then, once the attitudes towards health have changed, we could have a look at real reform of Health in the UK.

1. The job of Health Secretary is Health, not the NHS

Every Health Secretary seems to focus solely on the NHS. But their brief is broader - they should be looking after, and finding ways to improve, the health of the nation as a whole. Not finding more money to throw into the NHS black hole, and not desperately trying to tinker with a system that is fundamentally screwed. Health Secretaries get a form of political myopia - they cannot see beyond the NHS, and therefore fail to look at radical policies that could make a real difference. Which needs me nicely onto my second point.

2. The NHS does not have to exist

Really, it doesn't. There was once a time when the NHS didn't exist, before Attlee et al created it. It is a human construct, and like anything created by humans, it can be demolished as well. We need to get beyond this limiting political assumption that insists that we must have the NHS. We need to go back to bases and challenge exactly why we have the NHS. Because, quite frankly, it isn't working. It is a leech on government funds, sucking billions of pounds without really offering anything in return. Furthermore...

3. The NHS just can't work

Really, it can't. It was conceived many moons ago, when medical technology was (by comparison to today) in the Stone Age. It was created to service a smaller population, and a population with a lower life expectancy. It is a completely different health service to the one that Attlee created, and with more people and more expensive treatments - it is no wonder that the government cannot afford to pay for it. The massive cost of the NHS was even acknowledged by the NHS creators - after all, it was Labour under Attlee who first started charging for prescriptions. Even the most preliminary examination of the NHS must show that it is, not to put too finer point on it, utterly fucked. And why on earth would we continue to fund something that doesn't work? Because it is a British institution, and it represents free healthcare for all. Except for the fact that...

4. The NHS is not free

Really, it isn't. Yes, it is free at the point of service, but we fund the NHS entirely. The billions thrown at it come from the nation's tax burden. Your income tax and your national insurance contributions fund this creaking, failing tax vampire. The only reason why people think it is free is beacuse when they arrive art A+E, they don't have to pay for it. Solely because they have already paid for it. Seriously. Nothing is free, the NHS just appears to be free when you arrive at hospital. And what is the point of having something that is free at the point of service if, fundamentally, the service is shit because the institution isn't working? This is not dissing those who work in the NHS, but rather acknowledging that they are restricted by the outdated, outmoded and failing bureaucracy they are working for.

I don't know what could replace the NHS, but I rather favour removing all funding for hospitals and instead using the money to fund vouchers for the population as a whole. Let people vote with their feet. The decent, working hospitals will still get government funding through people spending their vouchers in them. Those that are working will not get the funding, and may well end up closing. But, really, so what? If something isn't working, then why continue to fund it? If demand disappears for a supermarket brand, for example, then it goes out of business. Why not the same for a crap hospital? But as I say, I don't know whether this would work. But as Health Secretary I would be looking to change the way people perceive health in the UK - and would judge my success or failure based on whether people still feel the NHS has to exist or whether they are prepared to accept the NHS is past the sell by date and needs to be fundamentally reformed - if not replaced.

So, come on, then, let's not have the job of Health Secretary as career suicide for any incumbent. Let's have a great reforming Health Secretary. Someone prepared to change the perceptions towards the NHS in the UK, and therefore able to contemplate other ways of managing the health of the country.

*If they ever make a TV biography of Patsy, I really do think she should be played by Chris Barrie. Aside from a vague physical resemblance, only Barrie could convincingly portray that air of panicked incompetence that pervaded the senior eschelons of the Department of Health under Hewitt.