The NHS - A Matter of Life and Death

  Yes, ironic though it may seem, the good old National Health Service is ill - very ill. Since 1948, this mammoth organisation - the largest single employer in the UK and the best health service in the world - has provided care to the injured and the ill of this country. It's not been perfect, and we grumble, groan and complain about it like true Britons - but let's be honest, none of us would want to see it go.


Doctor! Doctor!

  Unfortunately, we're looking at that as a very real possibility unless we seriously get our act together. The Coalition insist again and again that the NHS has been ringfenced from austerity (as well they might - the NHS has been described as England's national religion and surveys show that 71% want to see increased, not reduced, funding) but they are lying through their teeth. What they actually mean is that NHS spending has not been cut, and it hasn't - but the NHS, in order to function, needs more money every year.

  The reason for this is pretty obvious - every year there are more people to treat, with the average age going up and diseases like heart disease, HIV and cancer steadily growing. There are also more and newer medicines to buy and new technologies to use - things which the public expect the NHS to have and have to be paid for, often at exorbitantly high prices due to the unscrupulous and predatory nature of the pharmaceutical industry.....but that's a topic for another time.

  The point is, between 1950 and 2010 NHS spending increased by an average of 4% per year. This was necessary to keep up with increasing pressures on the service. Since 2010, however, the increase has been slashed - to just 0.5% per year. This is, quite simply, unsustainable. At that paltry rate of increase, the NHS will crash and burn within a few years.


Action Plan

  There are basically three ways the current funding situation can be assuaged:

1. Cut Spending Elsewhere: A typical Tory idea, this just cannot happen. The deficit in health spending over the last four years now stands at £16 billion, and will rise to £34 billion by 2018 if current spending trends do not change. Not only would such cuts to other departments be devastating, they are just not possible: The Tory-led coalition, as ideologically committed to spending cuts as it is possible for a government to be, spent £85 billion more this year than Labour did in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis. If even the Cameron/Osborne/Duncan-Smith trinity can't slash spending in four years of government, it can't be done
2. Introduce Patient Charges: This won't happen. The Royal College of Nursing has suggested the introduction of £10 charges to see your GP, but the Department of Health has come out and said this is not on the table - "We are absolutely clear that the NHS should be free at the point of use, and we will not charge for GP appointments." It would be electoral suicide for Labour to go against the Tories on this, so it's not even an option
3. Raise Taxes: Always a scary prospect for any government, this is nonetheless the only way forward. Labour's Frank Field has proposed a 1% increase in National Insurance, but the Labour leadership - having made much of the 'cost of living crisis' in their propaganda output - is reluctant to go ahead with this. However, as mentioned above the public are overwhelmingly in favour of an increase in NHS spending, so National Insurance is probably the one general tax they could get away with raising

  At the end of the day, the NHS budget has to go up - there is no choice. The 4% annual increase is not an extravagance, it is a necessity, and without it the service built by Clement Attlee and Aneurin Bevan will collapse. The privatisation of the best health service in the world has already begun  - and let's not forget who's profiting from that - and it will continue as long as the NHS is starved of the funds it needs. The 2015 election will include the NHS as a central battleground, but unless one of the main parties steps up and admits that tax increases are the only way to preserve the 'English national religion', then it will soon be just another constituent of the nostalgic past. 

  It's very much like the Church of England in that respect, I suppose.

Where There's Smoke...

  The House of Commons has just passed a resolution allowing the government to impose a blanket ban on smoking in cars containing children. Just to be clear, this emphatically does not mean that a ban has been created - it merely enables the government, at any point in the future, to do so. This is quite likely to occur in the fairly near future, as failure to do so would be highly damaging politically, but as of yet, no. Just to be clear: you may continue to poison your children's lungs for a little while to come. 

  Now, it would be fair to say that I broadly support this move. I do think that children need to be protected from dangerous chemicals, of which tobacco smoke is one, and government's major responsibility is to prevent harm to the citizens of the country which is governs. It is a sad, sad thing that legislation is even necessary in this area - seriously, why the Hell is anyone smoking in front of their kids anyway? - but NHS statistics suggest that 430,000 children are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in their family cars. So yes, this move was an unfortunate necessity.

  But...

  There's always a but, isn't there? And in this case it's a big one, because this move DOES impinge on civil liberties - there's no question of that. You can argue the toss one way or the other as to whether this particular impingement is justifiable - and as I say, I would consider that it is - but it represents what is a creeping attempt to curtail the freedoms of the people. Now, as a once radical anti-smoker, it will likely come as a shock to many who know me when I say I think the ban on smoking in pubs should be overturned. I agree that in restaurants, shops etc. it is reasonable but pubs are traditionally places where people go for their leisure time - and if they want to smoke, why legislate to stop them? There might be those who don't wish to breath in the smoke, of course, but it would be a fairly simple matter to put a screen of some kind up to create a smoking area if a pub wants to attract both smokers and non-smokers. In any case, this kind of decision should rest with the landlord - not the government.

  The reason I support the new move is because the protection of children has to be legally enforced. Simply put, children should not be exposed to dangerous chemicals until they are old enough to take that decision for themselves. Adults, though, should be free to do what they wish provided it does not cause undue harm to non-consenting persons. So yes, legalise marijuana. Yes, allow smoking in designated smokers' pubs. Yes, allow people to continue gorging themselves on fast food if that is their choice. If health problems result from this, then they should be made to pick up the tab, but it is firmly not government's job to tell adults what they can and can't do in situations where it hurts no-one else. Civil liberties are important, and we must begin the process of clawing them back from the state.

  Otherwise, when they come for the really important ones - freedom of expression, assembly, religion etc. - we'll be so used to it no-one will think twice.