Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Finger-wagging cunt

Ignore Gordon Brown's load of fucking wank New Year's tossing message, this kind of crap is what we can look forward to in 2008.
Patients could be required to stop smoking, take exercise or lose weight before they can be treated on the National Health Service, Gordon Brown has suggested.

In a New Year message to NHS staff, the Prime Minister indicates people may have to fulfil new "responsibilities" in order to establish their entitlement to care.

Go fuck yourself, you monocular fuckarse. Do you know why we have "an entitlement to care", you cunt? Do you?

IT IS BECAUSE WE FUCKING WELL PAY FOR IT, you unutterable bastard.
The new conditions could be set out in a formal NHS "constitution", Mr Brown says.

What? What the fuck is this? Tell you what, sunshine, how about we actually get a chance to sign a contract—a properly, legally binding contract—with the government and, if they break the terms of the contract, we can sue the fucks until the tiny shining state baubles have to be sold to pay the fucking bills?

Actually, here is an idea: if the state breaks the contract, then—much like Lloyds names—the MPs are personally, financially liable. How's that for an idea, eh?

Even better, if the government breaks its spending commitments, then MPs are liable again. That would make them a little less cavalier with our cash.
Despite the NHS commitment to provide free universal care, it is already common for doctors to set conditions on patients seeking treatment.

The NHS is not fucking free, you turd; WE FUCKING PAY FOR IT through our NICs contributions.
Katherine Murphy, a spokesman for the Patients Association, raised fears about the spread of conditions in the NHS.

She said: "We would have concerns about this. Patients do have a right to access to care and we would be very concerned if people were to be denied access to care.

"Is this being done for the patient, or is it just another way of saving money?"

It is being done partly to save money, of course; after all, despite running a National Insurance scheme since 1911, the state has never actually acted like an insurance company—which actually invests the money that it receives so that it will grow plus insurance companies themselves also take out insurance with underwriters—but more like a fraudulent company: all the money that it has received has been immediately pissed up the wall.

In other words, from the very beginning, the idea of a National Insurance fund was a scam, a lie, a fraud. There is no National Insurance fund and there never was: if the state were a private company, the directors would be in prison and the investors would have sued the arse off the company and bankrupted the directors.

But then, as we know, the government never obeys the laws that it forces onto others. In fact, the government is a rogue monopoly and should be broken up with all speed. And all of its directors hanged from lamp posts, the lying, cheating cunts that they are.

But the second reason for doing this is, of course, social control: Gordon Brown—and his coterie of fascist, lying bastard medicos and tame scientists—thinks that we should live our lives in a particular way and is quite happy to break contracts to do so. In his mind, much as in that of the odious Chris "Stalin" Hallam, he is doing all of this for the good of society and the advancement of Man.

And we all know what the end-point is: gulags, death-camps, show-trials and "do you love Big Brother?"

But, ultimately, this proscription of the Gobblin' King's is deeply dishonest: it is a breach of contract. The problem is that we don't actually have any contract and nor can we chose not to enter into the contract. And because we cannot choose not to enter into the contract, we are in hock to the state which is then able to dictate how we live our lives.

As The Longrider states,
How I live my life is my concern. It is not the government’s concern. Some of it, if relevant may be the concern of medical practitioners seeking to help me. It is not up to them or their profession to judge me or my lifestyle choices. The risks I take are a judgement that is mine and mine alone. And, to reiterate; I pay NI contributions – that means that I am paying for my treatment. If I am to be denied treatment because some purse-lipped, finger-wagging puritan disapproves, then I expect to stop paying for a service I am not going to receive. I’ll then take out private insurance and get the service I am paying for.

Quite so. I have a private pension, private unemployment insurance and private health insurance, all of which are freely entered into and the conditions of which are legally bound through a contract: and all of this costs less than half of the total NI contributions of someone on £19,000 a year.

And since I have chosen to take out all of this private provision (because I saw the writing on the wall—if you are sensible, you will do the same), why the hell should I be forced to pay NICs as well?

You can keep your NHS, your one-eyed cunt; just allow me to opt out of the fraudulent National Insurance scheme. Because, if you are not going to provide the promised care—if, in other words, you are going to break the terms of the contract—then either I can do the same, or I can sue your fucking arse to kingdom come.

Which would you prefer, you bastard?

16 comments:

Budgie said...

It's a socialist system: therefore no treatment unless you obey.

the a&e charge nurse said...

A thoroughly absorbing post Devil [and happy New Year by the way].

I may finally be coming round to some of your ideas, not because I think life will actually be any better - in fact I suspect it is virtually impossible to meaningly quantify the sum benefit to the nation's health if we were to switch from the NHS to an insurance, or market driven health system.

I'm still convinced that we would merely be substituting one set of problems, for another... there would be slightly different criteria for the winners and losers, that all.

No, it's just that I'm absolutely exhausted by NuLab's endless fuckwittery [as many thousands of others are, of course] - the proposed NHS constitution being the latest crass example of vital cash being diverted away from the bedside by management turds who produce endless pamphlets for the DoH.

NHS doctors and nurses seem riven by perpetual turf wars, at least neither camp [outside of the cognoscenti] have been able to offer the public any meaningful alternative - which is rather strange considering how abysmal Brown & Co are [the government that likes to say no].

Through a combination of NuLab vandelism and professional intransigence, the door has been left wide open for your lot, so bring it on, and let the chips fall where they may.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"I may finally be coming round to some of your ideas..."

Good lord, A&E, are you pissed...? ;-)

"I'm still convinced that we would merely be substituting one set of problems, for another... there would be slightly different criteria for the winners and losers, that all."

I don't think that any system is going to be perfect (systems never are), but I do think that any system run by the state is probably going to be appallingly bad.

As I say, I would even be willing to contemplate the Canadian system (hospitals independently run by an assortment of different types of organisations, but the state funding the treatment) because more or less any other system is going to be better than the one that we have.

I think that nurses will see a benefit too, you know. Not only with wages that fit the area in which you live (rather than the ludicrous national pay deal) but you will also get far fewer arseholes roaring that "my taxes pay your wages".

Further, if people are forced to pay -- at the point of delivery -- for their treatment, then they are going to be a hell of a lot more careful with themselves: that means fewer drunken arseholes to abuse you.

"Through a combination of NuLab vandelism and professional intransigence, the door has been left wide open for your lot, so bring it on, and let the chips fall where they may."

Indeed. And you may be right and it will be a hellish disaster, but we have so many long-term-working systems (which we didn't really in 1948) to examine and thus a real chance to get it right.

DK

Charles Pooter said...

This is why I feel smug that for years I lied when asked if I have ever smoked.

Last year I used the NHS for the first time in years to have an agonising in-growing toenail removed. The podiatrist asked if I smoked and I said "No, but if I did I wouldn't tell you". He seemed put-out by my insinuation that my medical information was not confidential. I asked him if he'd heard of the "NHS spine" and he said he had but that it was still confidential if the data was held "within the NHS". I repectfully disagreed and suggested that even if the data was not abused now, it certainly would be in future. Didn't take long for me to be right.

I also predicted that when the NHS was finally moved to a private insurance sustem (as economic reality and EU harmonisation means it certainly will eventually), that the "confidential" data will be sold to the insurance companies so our premiums can be set accordingly.

I also feel good that I refused to have a medical when changing GPs this year.

Use the NHS when you need to (after-all, if you're a childless working man or woman, you've already paid for your healthcare and the care of a few children, OAPs and the unemployed through your taxes), but give them as little info as possible: they can't be trusted!

Ian said...

What you don't mention here (though you have posted about it previously) is that the instrument of this "social control" is the centralised database.

Specifically, in this context, the NHS Spine which will contain all the private information needed to make the Clunking Fist's dreams come true. Now is as good a time as any to reiterate the need to put a spanner in their works by as many people as possible opting out and making a noise about the Spine.

I posted about this at Question That and conclude with a link that people can follow to download a letter to send to their GP to exercise their right to opt out of the system.

The Underdoug said...

Gordon Brown lost the use of both eyes (although one was restored by the good orifices of the NHS - only one eye is needed to screw Britain over - note how he played on this when he became leader) through playing rugby. Should an additional 'responsibility' of the patient be non-participation in contact sports (amateur/professional)?

Happy New Year BTW.

verity said...

I keep offering a reasonable solution. Accord everyone the right to direct their NI contributions - which should continue to be mandatory - to whichever provider of healthcare insurance they choose. The NHS could be one of the choices. But NI contributions should be directed by the wage/salary earner, not the state. Most people, I think, would direct their NI contributions to a private insurance company of their choice.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what the fucking problem is people. The way I see it is that seeing as some of the tax paid at point of sale when buying a packet of fags goes towards funding the NHS it makes sense that those who buy cigarettes should be exempted from paying tax on said packet. That would bring down the price of a pack of 20 quite substantially. Therefore everyone gains- smokers save money, medics don't treat said smokers therefore saving the nation money on treatment. All round an ideal solution. Mind you that would mean levying taxes on food such as well most of the Iceland range (feed a family of four for a fiver for a month, specially if they're from the Wirral), burgers from fast food resturants, donner kebabs etc. etc.

GCooper said...

I note there's no suggestion that people who blow-out their knee and hip joints through endorphin addicted pursuit of sport and 'fitness' should be denied treatment.

Rather tells you all you need to know about the new puritans, doesn't it?

Roger Thornhill said...

The whole issue of taking money then denying services is basically theft - stand and deliver - your money but not your life.

A&E:
"Through a combination of NuLab vandelism and professional intransigence, the door has been left wide open for your lot, so bring it on, and let the chips fall where they may."


The door was rotten to the hinges already, A&E. In some ways your stance is actually worse than before - what you are now asking for is "change" to whatever, it does not seem to matter, but it does. Scrapping of the NHS COULD result in a worse situation than we have now - State mandated private geographic monopolies, for one, e.g. BUPA gets Northamptonshire, AXA gets Gloucestershire. Nightmare.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Roger - did I understand you correctly: the insurers could be even WORSE than the NHS, you suprise me - I doubt if the idea will go down very well with many of the other commentators here.

But it does seem the NHS is in its death throes - and its founding principles of a tax funded, comprehensive service, free at the point of delivery, and based on clinical need [rather than ability to pay] will be replaced by a market + insurance driven hybrid.

As I mention above many of us are weary of NuLabs [endless] "reforms", and it's hardly suprising that a certain amount of cynicism creeps in when the grunts keep getting their arses kicked by certain sections of the public and of course by the politicos and their DoH stooges.

If there is one job worse than managing Englands football team these days it is the job of trying to satisfy expectations when it comes to explaining how much [or little] the health pound realistically purchases nowadays.

To give one worrying example - it won't be too long before there are almost 1 million Brits suffering with dementia - now what do you think the bill might be for residential placements [400,000 wharehoused at present], nursing care, treatment of chest infections & UTIs, or the burden of managing multiple co-morbidities, such as heart disease, diabetes, and so on.

Have you seen the pharmacy tab for mass statinisation, to name just one group of drugs ?

I know this point always tends to get dismissed but up until relatively recently the UK was spending virtually HALF the amount spent by the US [as a proportion of GDP on health] - and as you know we have always lagged way behind the Swiss, and even the Gemans and French [and still do].

Admittedly, the gap closed somewhat, but only during the last few years and we now have a bizarre situation where many Trusts and PCTs have spiralled into financial melt down after the financial purse strings were arbitarily tightened again...... simply to make Hewitt look good.

I doubt if there are many people at all who would support that sort of idiocy, no matter how much they value the founding principles of the NHS ?

verity said...

Rogere Thornhill - Dear God! " State mandated private geographic monopolies,"! Doesn't anyone read anyone else's contribution on this blog?

How many times do I have to say 'privatise NI payments'?

Roger Thornhill said...

Verity, I was responding to A&E's view that anything would be better, which clearly it would not necessarily be so.

The issue is not just about where we want to be but how to get there from here.

John Trenchard said...

here's an idea - all smokers to send a bill into the Inland Revenue for a rebate on the cigarette taxes they have paid for the year.

just a thought.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Verity - where is the slack in the NHS that non-state providers could improve on ?

Hospital cleaning, laundry, and cooking have all been "outsourced" [in the majority of hospitals] - hardly an unqualified success, given the potential contribution to HAIs and malnutrition from shit food and the frequent turn over of low paid and demoralised cleaning staff.

And you need a small mortgage nowadays to make a phone call after patient phone services were privatised.

I won't dwell on privatised hospital parking costs since this only makes patients and relatives incandescent with rage.

So I ask again, where is the deadwood ?
Try and be specific if you can.

Hell, even the managers would need to be moved sideways to administer the bureaucratic [and potentially complex] insurance schemes.
After all what's the point of having a policy except to decide what you are and aren't entitled to when a cancer with an unknown primary is becoming rather troublesome ?

As fas as I can tell [based on present spending] abolishing the NHS would merely run the risk of denying more treatment to more people - we already know the Devil thinks it would be immoral to penalise the smokers, boozers, or those who are morbidly obese, to name but a few [and I fully agree with him, in fact, that has always been a fundemental principle of the NHS......until NuLab].

The most likely groups to suffer [even more than they already are under NHS provision] would be the old, mentally ill, and those with complex, or chronic diseases.

I know we mustn't mention the USA but I was talking to a Scottish lady who'd lived in New York for many years [after marrying a Yank].
Her Dad had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease and the physician advised the family to return to the UK [to obtain long term health services].
A salutary tale perhaps ?

verity said...

Roger Thornhill - Apologies. Didn't realise.

A&E - "A salutary tale perhaps ?" Not really. One anecdote of one person doesn't really tell us anything. I lived in the US for 14 years and never saw anyone dying or in any kind of agony on the streets. Everyone is taken care of. The county hospitals, which are free provided you can prove you don't have the means to pay, are roughly on the level of the NHS. Everything else is miles better.

I didn't say "abolish" the NHS. I said let them compete with private healthcare insurers for NI contributions. The NHS is, like everything run by governments, grossly overmanned and all those thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of bureaucrats doing the overmanning are all trying to stake out a piece of turf for themselves.

The NHS is Stalinesque and very last century. I would prefer to see it and the BBC destroyed on the same day, but if people want it, it could be in the field along with many competitors. Many old-timers would probably stick with it, even.