National Health not Private Wealth
Red Disability is appalled by the chronic under-funding of the NHS. The recent job cuts, which have caused a storm of protest, are the tip of the iceberg - patients often have to wait months for routine operations, some areas are without NHS dentists, poor hygiene is leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as MRSA, life-saving drugs are denied for cost reasons, etc.
Everybody, whether they have a disability or not, becomes ill or has an accident sometimes, and needs the services of the NHS. The cuts will fall especially hard, however, on people with long-term medical conditions (eg asthma or diabetes) or with illnesses requiring long-term treatment (eg cancer or AIDS).
How did NHS under-funding occur ?
A number of factors have contributed to the under-funding of the NHS. In the mid 1990s, under the Tory government of John Major, a number of hospitals and healthcare providers effectively opted out of central NHS control to become Trusts, and in doing so they incurred costs due to extra bureaucracy. In a number of cases, thousands of pounds were spent by the Trusts on new logos and new uniforms etc with the new logo on.
At around the same time, we started to see hospitals and medical centres built using Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts. PFI involves the building of public buildings by private companies, which are then "rented back" to the government department - eg NHS trust - at a higher long-term price than would be paid if the same buildings were built using public money. The private companies involved make a profit, which must be paid either through higher cost to the taxpayer or by cost-cutting (ie job and service cutting!)
Appallingly, the awarding of new PFI contracts has continued - escalated even - under the New Labour government of Tony Blair. The NHS - and all who use its services - are now reaping the bitter fruits of this.
Is health insurance an option?
Promoting health insurance, for the costs of private health treatment, has been touted by right-wingers as a possible step forward in relieving the strain on the NHS. In reality, such a move would be a terrible step backwards.
Obviously, health insurance tends to favour the rich and penalise the poor who cannot afford the same level of insurance. Less obviously, it effectively discriminates against people with long-term medical conditions or who have (or have had, or have a genetic disposition towards) serious illnesses - who face either a higher cost for their insurance, or exemption from certain treatments, or both.
Increasing costs of treatment ?
Medical science has progressed over the years, and people who would once have died are now living longer. Some have argued that this is placing extra burdens on the NHS. We must not swallow this pernicious myth, which effectively labels people who use long-term prescriptions (eg insulin or asthma inhalers) as a "burden".
The same advances in technology also cause the real cost of medicines and medical equipment to tend to fall over time. This is certainly true in the case of generic drugs. (The cost of specialist drugs would fall more rapidly if it wasn't for the stranglehold of the drug companies, backed up by Intellectual Property legislation designed to safeguard their profits rather than our health).
Perhaps more importantly, NHS treatment often keeps people not only alive, but keeps them economically productive. The economic wealth generated by people, even people on long-term medications, tends to vastly outweigh the costs of medical treatment.
What about the government's health agenda ?
At the same time, the government (and the Establishment in general) claims to care about our health, and are pushing through measures to promote healthy living.
Some of these measures are welcome - for example, moves towards clearer labelling of food products. People with specific dietary needs (eg diabetes oe coeliac) will know how annoying it is, trying to read the near-microscopic "nutritional information" printed on the back of foodstuff packaging.
Others are more contentious - the banning of certain foods from school dinners, for example, is sometimes cited as an example of the "nanny state" restricting our freedom of choice.
Whatever the case, surely running down the NHS is not a step towards improving our health!
Health service rationing
The under funding of the NHS is the cause of, and the government's health agenda is used as a justification for, the rationing of NHS treatment. There have been numerous cases of smokers and overweight people being denied operations, the implication being that their illnesses are their own fault because of their lifestyle.
This is right-wing moralising, and it also runs the risk of increasing prejudice against people with certain illnesses or conditions. Backed up by media hype, such actions encourage people to associate cancer with smoking, heart disease and diabetes with obesity, etc.
Where will this all end? Will people with epilepsy be denied treatment because they play video games? Will people with asthma be denied inhalers if they go to a disco with a smoke machine? I hope not !!!
Does the NHS over-medicalise disability ?
Some in the disability rights movement claim, with good reason, that there is a tendency to over-medicalise conditions and behavious. For example, an increasing number of kids deemed "hyperactive" are being prescribed Ritalin, and anti-depressants (eg Prozac) are routinely prescribed for depression. It is almost certainly true that hyperactivity in children, and depression in all age groups, have a social rather than a medical cause. The same is true of mental illness, and this is one of the pillars of the anti-psychiatry movement.
Yes, we do need social change, and the sooner the better! But this is not an excuse for running down the NHS, which is still an essential lifeline for people who have been driven to ill health as a result of Capitalism causing us undue stress, polluting our environment, etc.
Besides, there will always be people who do need medication in order to survive. A change in our physical and social environment will not stop people with diabetes needing insulin, people with haemophilia needing blood transfusions, etc.
The money's there ...
As already mentioned, money could be saved, without cutting jobs or health service provision, by scrapping PFI and providing hospitals and health services using public money.
In addition, money could easily be raised for essential services such as the NHS, by the following means:
What can be done about it ?
Red Disability urges all readers to get involved in any local campaigns against job cuts at local hospitals etc. See the What you can do page on the Keep Our NHS Public website.
In addition, local branches of the SWP are involved in such local campaigns in several areas (can be contacted at regular Socialist Worker paper sales, or SWP meetings).
Links