DONATE facebook-icon-copy twitterICON

999 Call for the NHS

A grassroots NHS campaign. Not affiliated to any of the political parties.

999logofinal_Pill_straight_360 999 Blog

By 999 Call for the NHS, Jun 22 2017 08:00PM



999 Call for the NHS is on a mission to expose the myths about “balanced budgets” that all three main parties have signed up to. These myths, that we are all guilty of swallowing at some point in the last twenty years, stem from basic misapprehensions about the creation and injection of money into the econpmy and stand in the way of politicians committing themselvs and their party to properly funding the NHS, social care and all other public services.


There is clearly a double standard when it comes to government spending: it’s apparently fine to spend pots of public money on corporate welfare - but not on public services.


While public services are taking the hit -which is exactly the purpose of this thin we call “austerity” - massive corporate welfare payments amount to around £85bn/year, according to an audit carried out by Kevin Farnsworth, social policy lecturer at York University. LINK HERE


Our NHS, like other services, is being run down and sold for want of adequate funding - but currently the UK government gives - GIVES!!! - £6bn/year subsidies to fossil fuel industries operating in the UK


FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES


and a further £3.7bn subsidies to fossil fuel production overseas FOSSIL FUEL SUBS ABROAD in countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and China. Um... pardon? You heard right...


New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the ex-chancellor, George Osborne, in 2015 will cost us taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures. DOWNLOAD


Before the G20 summit in 2014, Kevin Watkins, director of the British think tank the Overseas Development Institute, said:


“The evidence points to a publicly financed bail-out for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2C.


“This is real money which could be put into schools or hospitals. It is simply not economic to invest like this. This is the insanity of the situation. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power and they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious UN climate deal in 2015.”


Nothing seems to have changed.


The World Health Organisation estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. WHO LINK It makes for terrifying reading and is a clear case for a country like ours preparing for the long term future and making ready a health service that can help not only our society but those who are allies and on whom we depend for goods and services.




while the state is giving private companies an increasing amount in direct handouts, the money repaid in corporate taxation is falling almost year upon year. GUARDIAN £93 billion ARTICLE


This is a practice that needs to stop. To do this all politicians need to get their heads clear on how the economy works. How Austerity measures are simply stagnating and strangling our society.


It seems we the people who must help them.






So whilst the case is made over and over that " we cannot afford a health service" and that it is up to us as individuals to pay for it - silently and sneakily the perpetrators of Austerity, the big fatcat corporations are being handed valuable amounts of public money to do what? It will not return to the public purse. It will sit in a corporate bank account doing what? Buidling the economy?


And this is where we return to the fundamental issue. The economy is not HOW MUCH MONEY there is - large amounts of the stuff siiting idle in the pockets of the rich. (We're always told we're the 6th largest Economy yet we cant afford an NHS?) The Economy is about how much MONEY IS MOVING in the circular wave-like pattern that indicates a healthy growing economy.


A government invests by spending on public services and infrastrucure, citizens pay it back through buying goods, houses, holidays, taxes. A government invests first. It does not raise taxes in order to spend. That is what Austerity has convinced us.


And it's wrong.






By 999 Call for the NHS, Jun 21 2017 08:00PM

Hung up as they all are on outdated economic myths and being labelled as the party of “tax and spend” all the three main parties’ 2017 Manifestos fail to provide enough NHS and social care funding to pull the NHS and social care out of their current crisis.


The urgent need is to provide enough funding so that the NHS survives as a health service that is free at the point of need provides the full range of care and treatments to everyone, based on their clinical need. This has ceased to be the case as a result of successive governments’ underfunding of the NHS since 2010.


Social care should also be fully publicly funded and provided and available to all who need it in order to live independent decent lives - not just as a means-tested, privatised, residual service for those with “substantial” needs.


This requires adequate funding. But none of the three main parties’ 2017 Manifestos commits to this.


Given their “austerity” record over the last two Parliaments, it’s not surprising that the Conservative and LibDem manifestos offer little in the way of increased NHS and social care funding.


However, it’s disappointing that Labour have also failed to commit to enough NHS and social care funding to pull the services out of crisis.


The Labour Party manifesto commits to an extra £30bn NHS funding - more than current (Conservative) plans over five years, or £6 billion a year up to 2020/1.


The Conservatives commit to an extra £8bn in real terms (ie protected against inflation) in 2022/23 than is planned in 2017/18, although doctors and Sally Gainsbury, senior policy analyst at the Nuffield Trust, point out this figure is reached through the deployment of smoke and mirrors. SMOKE & MIRRORS


The LibDems commit to £6bn more than current plans for health and social care in 2019/20. WHO IS MOST GENEREOUS?


The way the Health Foundation analyses it WHAT THE MANIFESOTS MEAN

and although the Labour party’s commitment is the most generous:


“all three parties’ funding plans fall significantly short of the anticipated spending pressures. This will leave a funding gap, which will need to be filled either by a continuation of the drive for very high rates of efficiency and productivity growth in the NHS, or by scaling back what the NHS delivers.”


None of the Manifestos confess to scaling back on what the NHS delivers. So the assumption has to be that they all believe that the NHS will have to fill the funding gap by so-called “efficiency savings” that are at the same kind of level as required by the 5 Year Forward View Plan. For Labour the funding gap by 2022/3 would be £17bn, for the Tories it would be £22bn. Ok it's less but it's still the same philosophy - CUTS.


It looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same.



All 3 main parties make similarly inadequate funding commitments for social care


The Centre for Health and the Public Interest 2017 Election briefing note on Social care funding manifesto commitments finds that all 3 parties are proposing policies that won’t alleviate the social care crisis but will potentially benefit around 100K people, all with significant assets. And their social care manifesto commitments won’t do anything to alleviate the pressures on the NHS which arise because of a lack of adequate social care.


The CHPI Election briefing note points out that a substantial amount of public funding is needed for social care to: “become a service which enhances the lives and independence of our older people.”


But: “The 3 main parties are committed to keeping social care as a residual service for only those with substantial needs.”


This is despite the fact that reducing social care to a minimal service is:


“...a major reason why hospital A&E departments are regularly overwhelmed and why hospital beds cannot be freed up..”


All three main parties have responded to the social care crisis with Manifesto commitments to:

“provide some additional funds to just about maintain a highly restrictive service, and protecting the assets and wealth of a small number of richer older people.”


They have all signed up to the 2011 Dilnot report - LINK TO REPORT - which proposed to keep means-tested social care, with a cap on an individual’s liability to pay at a certain level, beyond which the state will pay; and an increase to the amount an individual can keep before having to contribute to the cost of their care.


The 2013 Dept of Health impact assessment on the Dilnot Report says it would benefit an additional 100,000 people who would receive care they would otherwise have to pay for.


Because the purpose of the Dilnot report was to expand state-funded social care to those currently deemed too wealthy to access it, the 2013 impact assessment showed that the scheme would disproportionately benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.


Yet The Green Party 2015 Manifesto costed free social care for the elderly at around £9bn/year. This could be paid for by a combination of NHS cost savings (as a result of reducing A&E use and bed occupation; and from savings resulting from ending NHS marketisation and privatisation); cuts to other areas of public spending (eg corporate welfare including fossil fuel corporate subsidies, which costs taxpayers around £85bn/year http://renewal.org.uk/files/Farnsworth_final.pdf ); and increased revenue from a variety of fiscal measures including a wealth tax, Robin Hood (financial transactions) tax and a crack down on tax dodging.


However this would not deal with people with disabilities aged 18–64 years who receive long term social care - 285,000 people in 2015/16. Means-tested and largely privatised, this accounts for 48% of adults social care funding. http://www.health.org.uk/sites/health/files/Election%20briefing%20NHS%20and%20social%20care%20funding.pdf We would argue that ALL adults social care should be publicly funded, provided and run and free at the point of need.


Contrary to economic myths put about by all three main parties, adequate funding of NHS and social care is both affordable and economically beneficial. We need to persuade the politicians.


SEE ALSO


TIME TO REJECT THE MYTHS







999 Bloggers

We need your help!

We are all volunteers and there is no polite way to say it. We always need some money to help make 999 a effective success.

 

Please think about donating.

No matter how big or small the amount every penny will go towards the Campaign

FIND OUT MORE

REMEMBER

We are not aligned

to any political party.

 

We never have been.

We know it's going to take political legislation to bring back the NHS into public hands but we remain independent of all the parties in order to lobby and pressure all the parties. We are about people and the NHS they should be able to keep.

 

So to all MPs and politicians -   If the policy fits, we'll support it.  

CONTACT US

ADD YOUR VOICE

 

If you have an article to share, a blog item you feel we could use please do get in touch.

 

This space was always intended as a grassroots venue for campaigners to raise their voices.

 

Contact Steve for more details.

RSS Feed