Covid-19 Pandemic Thread

[Regulator]

Anyone who asserts that the Conservatives want to fundamentally change the basis of the NHS or restrict what it does really ought to provide some evidence rather than vague assertions.

Health and Social Care Act 2012

[Joan]

Despite all the stories about medical staff in London hospitals being driven to collapse by the workload, it appears that London has ceased all uptake of recently-retired doctors who were asked to volunteer - they are now being politely told we don't want you.

Do you have a link about that? My 5-years retired nephrologist friend felt unduly pressured to take it up, even while she was self quarantining to to recent travel.

She was very reluctant, because she was afraid, but also because she wondered what use she would be. She couldn't remember the drug protocols so couldn't pick up her old job, hadn't put in an IV for 35 years so could do a junior doctor job etc. She could man 111, but I don't think they were asking her to do that.

I would love to send a link showing she had put more thought into exactly how it would work than the NHS.

[Iris]

Health and Social Care Act 2012

That was rearranging the deckchairs. It didn't invent an iceberg.

Here's the relevant quote. It's in section 1, so I didn't have to read very far. I've put the relevant bits in bold.

“1Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service
(1)The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a)in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b)in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.
(2)For that purpose, the Secretary of State must exercise the functions conferred by this Act so as to secure that services are provided in accordance with this Act.
(3)The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.
(4)The services provided as part of the health service in England must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.”

Now, which bits exactly of "maintaining a universal service free at the point of delivery" does that undermine?

[The Real Ravenhurst]

Anyone who asserts that the Conservatives want to fundamentally change the basis of the NHS or restrict what it does really ought to provide some evidence rather than vague assertions. Vague assertions that don't bear any relation to reality are what is wrong with politics, and get found out eventually.

Here's what they actually said in their last manifesto.

"The Conservatives have been running our NHS for 44 of its 71 years, and fundamentally believe it’s there for everyone in the country to rely on free at the point of use."

I'll happily agree that they've massively underfunded and mismanaged the NHS - those chickens are coming home to roost now. But if they'd really wanted to strip away its universality they would have done it long ago. A Johnson who was anti the NHS would not have let Symonds give birth in UCLH.

And, I'll repeat, it's dawning on those holdouts very rapidly exactly why that universality is intrinsically a good thing and not just a convenient way of gathering votes.

What, in your view, is the Conservative Party for?

[JohnToo]

Do you have a link about that? My 5-years retired nephrologist friend felt unduly pressured to take it up, even while she was self quarantining to to recent travel.

She was very reluctant, because she was afraid, but also because she wondered what use she would be. She couldn't remember the drug protocols so couldn't pick up her old job, hadn't put in an IV for 35 years so could do a junior doctor job etc. She could man 111, but I don't think they were asking her to do that.

I would love to send a link showing she had put more thought into exactly how it would work than the NHS.

YHPM.

[Mister Paul]

A Johnson who was anti the NHS would not have let Symonds give birth in UCLH.

No-one with half a brain would give birth in a private hospital. Boris knows that. It's no indication of his political view of the NHS.

[LowlifeDes]

Does anyone have access to read this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ ... -view-nhs/

[Regulator]

A Johnson who was anti the NHS would not have let Symonds give birth in UCLH.

I wasn't aware that Boris had confirmed which NHS hospital it was...

...but it's worth noting that UCLH has the Fitzrovia Suite, which is a private maternity wing.

[Regulator]

That was rearranging the deckchairs. It didn't invent an iceberg.

I suggest you read a little further. You might also want to read the reports issued by the likes of the Kings Fund.

Amending the 2012 Act: can it be done?

Proposals for legislative reform were put forward at the end of last year by NHS England. They were kicked out by the government.

Anyone who avers that the Health & Social Care Act 2012 was merely 'rearranging the deckchairs' is ill-informed.

[Iris]

I suggest you read a little further. You might also want to read the reports issued by the likes of the Kings Fund.

Amending the 2012 Act: can it be done?

Proposals for legislative reform were put forward at the end of last year by NHS England. They were kicked out by the government.

Anyone who avers that the Health & Social Care Act 2012 was merely 'rearranging the deckchairs' is ill-informed.

I take it you'll accuse the authors of that report as being ill-informed. Here's a representative quote.

"The opportunity costs of the reforms were as important as these
direct costs, especially the way in which NHS leaders at all levels were distracted
as they were required to rearrange the deckchairs rather than navigate safely past
the iceberg."

The report you cite quite literally says what I am claiming about the act.

[Iris]

What, in your view, is the Conservative Party for?

Winning power.

It's pretty flexible as to the way in which it goes about it, and reinvents itself all the time. It usually stands for a mixed economy with overt support for private enterprise, as long as that support doesn't get too much in the way of winning votes. It has a broadly market-led view of the economy, but us quite willing to intervene in the market in the pursuit of votes. It's a cynical enterprise, which tends to avoid ideological underpinning.

It's been lucky because its political opponents have fundamentally not understood quite how vacuous the concept is, presupposing that it's an ideological, class-based construct.

When Cameron took over he published some aims and values. Rereading them 14 years later shows quite how thin the ideas of the conservative party are.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... vatives.uk

[Joan]

Does anyone have access to read this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ ... -view-nhs/

There's always a way.....

https://web.archive.org/web/20200418153 ... -view-nhs/

[The Real Ravenhurst]

Winning power.

It's pretty flexible as to the way in which it goes about it, and reinvents itself all the time. It usually stands for a mixed economy with overt support for private enterprise, as long as that support doesn't get too much in the way of winning votes. It has a broadly market-led view of the economy, but us quite willing to intervene in the market in the pursuit of votes. It's a cynical enterprise, which tends to avoid ideological underpinning.

It's been lucky because its political opponents have fundamentally not understood quite how vacuous the concept is, presupposing that it's an ideological, class-based construct.

When Cameron took over he published some aims and values. Rereading them 14 years later shows quite how thin the ideas of the conservative party are.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... vatives.uk

Yes but for who or what?

I agree with your second paragraph - the bit you're missing is that ideology is fundamental to making it possible, given that the interests for which the Tories exist to win power are antithetical to the interests of most of the populace, and indeed most of humanity. The 'aims and values' of the Tories, such as those expressed by Cameron, aren't necessarily insincere - they are part of the stories people tell themselves and one another about why the world is like it is, and usually in the case of the Tories why it can't possibly be otherwise.

[LowlifeDes]

Yes but for who or what?

I agree with your second paragraph - the bit you're missing is that ideology is fundamental to making it possible, given that the interests for which the Tories exist to win power are antithetical to the interests of most of the populace, and indeed most of humanity.

Yes, to put it in current terms, it is almost as though the state of accepting Tory beliefs is a sickness brought on by an infection by an alien organism.

[JohnToo]

Winning power.

It's pretty flexible as to the way in which it goes about it, and reinvents itself all the time. It usually stands for a mixed economy with overt support for private enterprise, as long as that support doesn't get too much in the way of winning votes. It has a broadly market-led view of the economy, but us quite willing to intervene in the market in the pursuit of votes. It's a cynical enterprise, which tends to avoid ideological underpinning.

It's been lucky because its political opponents have fundamentally not understood quite how vacuous the concept is, presupposing that it's an ideological, class-based construct.

When Cameron took over he published some aims and values. Rereading them 14 years later shows quite how thin the ideas of the conservative party are.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... vatives.uk

I'm going to say the same thing as TRR only less well.

If the objective of the conservative party is to retain power for itself (which I largely agree it is) you have to ask who "itself" is. The answer is only a subset of society (defined by status or power or money or self perception of deserving those things). Which is why features of society that explicitly don't differentiate on those grounds, -the BBC, the NHS - are always being undermined by them.