James Bloodworth writes:
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has endorsed an article
by the party’s health spokesperson which calls for people to be allowed to pay
to skip A&E waiting times.
Last week Farage tweeted an article by John
Stanley, a surgeon and UKIP
candidate, referring to Stanley as a “UKIP health spokesman”.
In the article Stanley argues that people
requiring urgent treatment should be seen within two hours, whereas those
requiring non-urgent treatment should be given the option of paying to avoid
waiting.
“We should accept that if a triaging
clinician feels we don’t need treating within two hours required for standard
cases then we be either willing to pay or willing to wait longer so cases most
deserving are treated best. People should pay a higher charge if they haven’t
registered with a GP as being directed back to primary care avoids unnecessary
A&E visits.”
Stanley added that under UKIP people who qualify
for free prescriptions would be exempt from the flat fee – but only if they
haven’t been drinking.
“The same exceptions as for the
prescription charge could apply unless the patient was drunk and disorderly or
incapable.”
Drunk and incapable? Sounds like one
of Farage’s MEPs.
In summary, among other things UKIP would:
·
Scrap NHS 111
·
Charge those requiring A&E treatment who
don’t need treating within two hours
·
Allow mutual providers, including GPs, to charge
a flat fee to see non-emergency cases
·
Ensure people can pay upfront fees off over a
period of time when registered with a GP
·
Refuse to discount fees for drunk patients.
"Refuse to discount fees for drunk patients."
ReplyDeleteExcellent idea; people want all of their freedoms but none of the their responsibilities these days-the main reason for our social collapse.
Taxing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible has been the order of the day for the last 50 years-about time for a counter-revolution.
You mean "chavs", don't you? Go on, admit it.
ReplyDeleteThe rules will not be any different if you can produce a UKIP membership card or proof that you are a higher-rate taxpayer, you know?
A few cases like that for the Telegraph and the Mail, and the whole thing would suddenly find itself a great deal less popular with the Clarkson Classes.
"You mean "chavs", don't you? Go on, admit it."
ReplyDeleteNot in the false Owen Jones sense of the word, as being some kind of allegory for the lower classes-Mike Carroll (and indeed Johnny Rotten) demonstrate that "chavs" (if the term is properly understood) come from all social classes.
It's a mentality-not a class.
Britain used to have a very respectable working-class (much poorer than anyone can now imagine) who despite their poverty generally went to Church, sought work and scorned those who didn't, got married and stayed married,resented drunkenness and license, stayed within the law, and always wore smart shoes, suits and ties-even ones several generations old!
Chav, you see, is a mentality, not a class...it's a symptom of our social breakdown that took place in the something-for-nothing "entitlement" culture produced by sexual license, the Harold Wilson welfare state, Continental obligation-free "human rights" laws, and the collapse of the marital bond that gave men responsibilities to others, apart from themselves.
Back then, there were many poor people but few "chavs"_women didn't generally have two or three kids by three different dads, do the "school run" in their pajamas, spend the meagre aid they got on cigarettes and vodka, or shun work in favour of having a kid and getting a free flat.
Similarly, men didn't generally go around impregnating random women and then running off from their responsibilities, shunning work in favour of drugs and benefits, kicking people's heads like footballs on a Friday night in a kebab queue, playing loud music at 4am to antagonise their neighbours, walking around with menacing weapon dogs, or racing cars at obnoxious speeds in pedestrian areas.
Back then, we had a working class-but we didn't really have "chavs".
But this is all far too much for people like Owen Jones to even comprehend.
They know nothing of our history (poor little Owen once said the British welfare state was founded by Clement Attlee) and nothing of the traditions that once made British subjects, of all classes, better people than we are today.
That's yes, then.
ReplyDeleteYou meant exactly what I said that you meant. Of course.
The Clarkson Classes. Otherwise known as the Farage Classes.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteCan we be sure that there were no significant social pathologies among the working classes prior to the advent of the welfare state? Simply staying on the issue of morality, what do you make of the temperance movement against alcoholism? What of the problem of prostitution?
These problems seemed to be important to Victorian reformers, so it makes me wonder if the period prior to the modern welfare state was as rosy as some suggest.
I agree that all of the things you state above are problems, but is it possible that they represent the failures of neoliberalism and not social democracy or socialism? Most socialists want full employment. They do not support welfare for those who can but refuse to work.
While I do not support Soviet-style communism, it is not really disputed that social problems among the common people of the old Eastern Bloc became much worse after neoliberal “shock therapy” reforms were introduced.
If conservatives were serious about ending idleness and benefit dependency they would support full employment, which is one of the primary goals of socialism.
Unfortunately, the business classes support welfare because it: a) props up demand for goods and services, and b) maintains a pool of unemployed reserve labor that can be used to keep the employed on their toes and unwilling to make demands for better pay, conditions, etc.
Full employment is not necessarily in the interests of capital and that is why capitalists often balk at state-led efforts to put the idle back to work
I think you and I have many of the same goals, but we differ on how to get there.
John,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your reply.
The Left like to blame it all on capitalism-but this is also a complex problem going back to left-wing social reforms in the 1960's.
The Wilson Government weakened marriage by easing access to divorce, abortion and contraception, therefore cutting the ties of responsibility which bound us to others.
This was worsened by the Wilson welfare state which abolished the vital Victorian distinction between "deserving and undeserving poor", by paying benefits on the basis of need (means-testing) and not desert, effectively subsidising the creation of fatherless homes (and indeed workless homes).
If, say, an unmarried mother already drawing benefits for one child, goes on to have another child with another unmarried "partner" she now needs twice the amount of benefits-but does she deserve it?
If a man can impregnate several different women, knowing that the state will pick up the tab, why should he bother sticking around?
Can you see how this might encourage irresponsible behaviour, and punish responsible behaviour?
I'm glad you mention the temperance movement, which is the basis of my point.
Victorian charity taught morality and responsibility to the poor-rather than simply dishing out obligation-free cash to anyone "in need".
The key thing about Victorian charity is it always came with obligations attached, which encouraged responsible behaviour in its recipients.
Victorian charities were notoriously rigorous about ensuring that every penny of aid that went to the poor was spent only on those who deserved it.
Barnardo fell foul of the Charity Organisation Society when, in the 1860's, he opened a soup kitchen in the East End of London.
The COS complained this was an "indiscriminate" form of charity, and people would take free soup and spend their money on drink instead.
Another historian tells the story of a poor woman turned away when she applied for a pair of boots so that her son could go to work; the charity investigated her background and discovered she was a regular at her local pub.
They advised her to quit the liquor and spend the money on her son's boots.
If only we did that today!
"Chavs" (and indeed Shameless) would be unheard of.
And they certainly wouldn't get any of our money.