GORDONSMITH7
Admin
By .....DR. RAJ MISTRY, JUNIOR DOCTOR AND BMA MEMBER
BIG G
BIG G
Last edited:
NHS catastrophe: Tories have blood on their hands
- Thread starter GORDONSMITH7
- Start date
GORDONSMITH7
Admin
By .....DR. RAJ MISTRY, JUNIOR DOCTOR AND BMA MEMBER
www.socialist.net
BIG G
NHS catastrophe: Tories have blood on their hands
The NHS is facing the worst crisis in its history. As COVID cases surge, the ravaged healthcare system is struggling to cope, due to years of Tory austerity and privatisation. We need socialist policies to save our NHS.
BIG G
Jack
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
I do wish people wouldn't refer to this organisation as the NHS. It is NHS England.
NHS Scotland has been protected from the worst of the tory ravages. Firstly by Labour when they last won an election and resuscitated the NHS and many other public services and then the SNP when they came to power and basically put in legislation that made it impossible for "healthcare" companies to infiltrate our NHS as they have in England while at the same time getting healthcare professionals on side to push through reforms.
NHS Scotland will have a hard time coping with this crisis. Thank fuck I don't live in England (or Wales, or NI) though.
NHS Scotland has been protected from the worst of the tory ravages. Firstly by Labour when they last won an election and resuscitated the NHS and many other public services and then the SNP when they came to power and basically put in legislation that made it impossible for "healthcare" companies to infiltrate our NHS as they have in England while at the same time getting healthcare professionals on side to push through reforms.
NHS Scotland will have a hard time coping with this crisis. Thank fuck I don't live in England (or Wales, or NI) though.
Last edited:
Jack
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
Link not working.
GORDONSMITH7
Admin
Jack
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
Ah! A duplicate thread!
I'll go further on what I said on the other one.
This is not The NHS its NHS England or the NHS in England.
I think it's just downright ignorant that the media, who should know better, take this line as if only England matters. Almost imperial like that in bygone days the UK was referred to as England.
It's a serious message (the article) discredited with a fundamental error.
I'll go further on what I said on the other one.
This is not The NHS its NHS England or the NHS in England.
I think it's just downright ignorant that the media, who should know better, take this line as if only England matters. Almost imperial like that in bygone days the UK was referred to as England.
It's a serious message (the article) discredited with a fundamental error.
GORDONSMITH7
Admin
A Doctor in the South East, presumably London has the balls to speak out. Deary me. Come on here and tell me that the NHS in the devolved nations do not have exactly the same problems of long term underfunding, staff shortages, privatisation and I will take your reply seriously.
BIG G
Jack
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
I did say the message had merit.
All 4 NHS are underfunded some more than others, only 1 of the countries of the UK has full control over its budget. The others have to mix and match with what they're allocated.
With that in mind NHS Scotland does quite well. More money spent on the NHS per head of population, more GPs per head of population, more hospital beds per head of population, you get the gist.
Privatisation is being used differently in Scotland and England.
In Scotland if there's a growing waiting list in a particular board then the excess will be sent to the NHS Golden Jubilee hospital for treatment. Only if that is being used to capacity will private hospitals be used to reduce that list. It means there's a flexibility to deal with different specialisms as they arise.
Quite different from England selling core services such as GP practices to private companies and underfunded Trusts competing for the bread and butter services while still having to fork out for the low volume/high expense stuff.
I know folk complain about staff shortages. I accept in some areas, both specialisms and geographically, there are shortages. Its perhaps reassuring though that year on year for a long while now there are more doctors, nurses, AHPs in NHS Scotland than there's ever been.
I can't speak for nor have any desire to say anything about the other 2 devolved nations, they have their own problems.
Can you tell me what a fully funded NHS would look like? And where would these funds come from?
GORDONSMITH7
Admin
I believe in a publically owned economy under democratic control as opposed to the crisis ridden capitalist economic model.
In the here and now, with what we have, the scrapping of Trident would be a good place to start, to top up billions by taxation and NI and also retrain workers working on Trident to be retrained to be used to provide socially beneficial goods, which is possible if the will is there. A military manufacturing consortium was give a contract to produce 10,000 ventilators.
Cost of Trident
Manufacturing four Successor submarines – £31 billion
Contingency fund – £10 billion
Missile life extension programme – £350 million
Replacement warheads – £4 billion
Infrastructure capital costs – £4 billion
In-service costs – £142 billion
Conventional military forces directly assigned to support Trident – £1 billion
Decommissioning – £13 billion
TOTAL – £205 billion
BIG G
Jack
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
Well we both know that's not going to happen while Scotland remains part of the UK. If we were independent the proportion of that saving alone would cover most of NHS Scotlands expenses over a year with a decent amount left over. £13/14bn the last time I looked.
Still looking to see what a fully funded NHS Scotland would look like.
Smurf
Auld Enuff Tae Know Better This Radge
Does "Fully funded" mean the budget is limitless?
The NHS is underfunded. In England and Scotland. In Scotland as a consequence of Westminster but if the Scottish Government wanted to it could spend more on the NHS in Scotland.
For too long the SNP have hidden behind Westminster.
The NHS is underfunded. In England and Scotland. In Scotland as a consequence of Westminster but if the Scottish Government wanted to it could spend more on the NHS in Scotland.
For too long the SNP have hidden behind Westminster.
southfieldhibby
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
It could spend more on the NHS if if spent less elsewhere, or raised the small proportion of tax it controls, but that could be counter productive if it can't control all aspects of tax raising/borrowing.
Smurf
Auld Enuff Tae Know Better This Radge
Not saying it's easy Mark. However, I'd feel confident that additional resources could be found from the existing budget.
The bigger picture though is of course how the NHS Scotland could be in an independent Scotland. When last did we hear an SNP politician articulate that vision?
Why not a pledge to invest more as a % of GDP in healthcare than any other European nation?
It's for another thread but it really is time the Yes campaign outlined the realistic achievable vision!!
southfieldhibby
Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
If they did find money from their existing money, it would only result in someone else being done over and probably quite rightly complaining, Whack-a-mole politics.
The Yes campaign has nothing to do with the running of Scotland if independence was won, that's the job of political parties. which I guess is the main issue with the current Yes campaign- too closely wed to The SNP
Smurf
Auld Enuff Tae Know Better This Radge
Agreed on the final point.
1875
Admin
Me too, but its only because there is no viable alternative parties so the majority of politically motovated independence supporters will be aligned to the SNP?
GORDONSMITH7
Admin