Is a fee the only way to save the NHS?

Is a fee the only way to save the NHS?

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has said that 23.8% of the UK’s GDP is spent on Welfare this is not just things traditionally seen as welfare but also pensions and “other social spending” this is the same as in 2010.  This shows that the Coalition is struggling to get to grips with spending and the report goes onto warn that with the UK’s rapidly ageing population, if spending is not bought under control then our NHS and pension system face the risk of collapsing. 

Changes have already been made to pensions to try to remove some of the pressure on the system however, despite recent NHS reforms it is highly likely further more drastic reforms will be needed to save the health service.  One proposal I have heard is to pay a fee to see a doctor, this system is used in France and it has many advantages over our own system.  Firstly a fee dispels the myth that the NHS is free, the NHS is not a free service everything has to be paid for however the service is used like it is free.  This means people miss appointments and people see their doctor for small things like colds which don’t need a doctor, all this puts pressure on an already strained system.  Secondly a fee would help to fund the NHS the government could keep funding consistent and the fee could be used as additional funding which could help increase staff numbers and improve facilities.  Thirdly, it would kill the idea of health tourism because people would have to pay to use the health service. 

Admittedly the advantages of a fee are few and the disadvantages are many, one big question is what exactly would the fee be.  On this morning’s Wright Stuff a fee of £25 was debated I think this is arguably to much particularly for low paid workers, those out of work and young families.  I think there are several ways around the problem of people not being able to pay, you could exempt certain groups from paying so pensioners, children and those earning minimum wage or below would be exempt however this is not a fool proof solution.  As seen with the Winter fuel allowance and other pensioner benefits some pensioners are well off and could afford to pay the fee, the same thing applies for children as many parents could afford to pay a small fee.  This would mean the system would be full of waste as many of those avoiding paying the fee could pay it.  Another way of making the fee fair would be a sliding scale based on your tax bracket, so those how earn the least would pay a much smaller fee than those who earn the most and those children could get free health care.  Another problem with implementing a health care fee would be deciding how to fee would be applied, would you pay it for just seeing the GP, would you pay it per treatment or would you pay it upon using the health service.  It is likely the fee would be paid based on using the health service no matter what you used it for but this has its own problems, for example  if you are in a car crash and require emergency care you may be given the care without your consent, should you then pay for your care?  The biggest problem with a health care fee would be how politically unpopular it would be, only a government which was certain of not being re-election would even attempt to implement such a policy and it would be extremely difficult to whip back bench MP's into voting for it.

To conclude I don’t think a fee would be the best way of funding the NHS in the future mainly because it would be highly complex and I believe there are much better ways of funding the NHS such as a separate health service tax.  Also once the Coalitions health care reforms affects can be seen maybe the NHS will not require any more reforming to make it affordable in the future.   I have attached a link that briefly details how other European nations run their health services each of these methods is also an alternative method we could implement to make our own NHS more sustainable.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcare-services-belgium-france-germany-sweden

Racism, sexism and free speech

Racism, sexism and free speech

In yesterday’s PMQ’s William Hague called a Labour MP a “stupid Woman,” of course this has created an uproar as this is sexist.  And if you like me think sexism is distinguishing people based on sex then yes it was a sexist comment.  However, we do have a level of free speech in this country so surely a racist or sexist slur, which only offends, should not see you persecuted.  It is probably best I explain that last statement, for me racism is to distinguish between people based on race, and sexism the same but with sex.  It is important that we are aware there are different levels of sexism and racism, so encouraging physical harm against a group because of race or denying a group a job based on race are examples of what I would call high racism (the same goes for sex).  This high racism and sexism is taking away a person’s rights or causing them physical harm due to race or sex and this should be prevented by law and people who commit these acts should be punished under law. 

The next level would be medium sexism or racism, this would be things that are sexist or racist but are not supposed to disadvantage a group.  So this is like single sex private members clubs, sports clubs that only allow single sex membership, or institutional structures that prevent advancement for a sex or race.  People should not be prosecuted for this sort of thing however, any government that believes in equality should legislate to remove these barriers, and society should speak up and try to get these barriers removed.  The final form of racism and sexism would be low level this would include things like what William Hague said because it only causes offence, it does not insight hate and it does not disadvantage a group.  Low level racism and sexism is the hardest to identify because it has to only cause offence, if you advocate violence against a group like a hate preacher does that would be high level racism or sexism and should be dealt with by the law.  However if you call someone a stupid man or a stupid woman this might offend a person but nothing more.  And as we are supposed to have freedom of speech offending a person should not lead to punishment under law.

You may read this and totally disagree with me and believe that you can’t talk about anyone’s sex or race and that every job should have representative proportions from all society and that is fine.  I am going to try to qualify my own opinion in this last paragraph,  if someone said you were rubbish at football this could cause you offence but there is nothing you could do about it.  If some calls you a dickhead or another insulting term and you are offended you can do very little about it.  Nevertheless, if someone writes something or says something that is racist or sexist they can be fined their online accounts can be suspended and if they are a notable person like a politician, the press can bring them down, the gay marriage debate was an example of this.  Racist and sexist comments which only cause offence should be treat the same way as other comments that cause offence.  I am not trying to say that being racist or sexist is good most of these comments will be obscene and horrible and you should challenge the person who makes them about why they said it, but if you support free speech, you can’t punish people who just state an opinion no matter how stupid of offensive it is.  For me free speech allows you to state an opinion, it allows you to criticise the government, it allows you to offend people, it allows you to be offended, it allows you to express your personality.  What it does not allow you to do is to incite violence against other groups, endanger other people’s lives, or threaten people.  It is easy to support freedom of speech for easy subjects such as your right to voice one of the many mainstream opinions but if you support freedom of speech, you must allow people with views you find ridiculous or offensive to be heard without fear of being prosecuted by the law.  

The Unions Strike back

The Unions Strike back

Conservatives like me have been rubbing our hands together with glee at the recent battle between the Labour leadership and their union backers Unite.  We have become used to Conservative infighting Eurosceptic fighting Europhiles, Cameron’s moderniser’s verses the right and many others.  Labour has also had it problems with divisions but their own infighting has not been as public of late, however this latest spat could be damaging for Labour.

Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair had to work hard to modernise Labour and dislodge the party from the grasp of the trade unions, it seems that Len Mccluskey may be trying to increase the presence of the Trade Unions within Labour once again.  Don’t get me wrong even under Blair the Labour party had a group of strong left wing MP’s who were sympathetic to the Unions but they lacked power, the power of the left grew under Brown but they still did not hold power within the party.  But now the left see an opportunity under Ed Miliband to increase their influence over the Labour and this is damaging for the party.  Polls have already shown Labours lead over the Conservatives shrink due to the whole Falkirk candidate selection incident and Labour are still confused over economic policy, which gives the unions an opportunity to try and frame Labours 2015 manifesto.

Tony Blair won the battle for Labours soul when he created New Labour along with Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson, and since then Labour has been an electoral force keeping many of the lefts good ideas while banishing many of its crazier aspects.  Now Ed has a problem he was the candidate of the left of the party he got his job due to the unions, Blairites feel alienated under Ed’s leadership, if Ed strikes out against the unions he risks losing support from Unite which is one of Labours biggest donors.  If he lets the Unions gain more influence any lingering support he has from Blairites will crumble and Labour will lose the next election.  However although this issue of increasing Union power is currently damaging Labour, if Ed plays his cards right and knocks the Unions back he will look strong and may win some support from the right of the Labour party and it could be the start of an election winning coalition.  When Blair won in 97 he framed New Labour as offering the heart of Labour with the brains of the Conservatives, If Ed knocks back the unions he will shake of his left wing image while making himself look strong and that would be a good starting point for him to rebuild Tony Blair’s 97 election winning coalition.  If he plays this wrong he lets the Conservatives keep the keys to Number 10 and gives us a nice stick to hit Labour with as they once again show they are not ready to govern.