Constitutional reform… of the NHS?!

Set aside for one moment that Gordon Brown is dealing with England’s health service, and his own constitutents are not affected because health is a devolved matter, the preserve of the Scottish parliament, because the NHS has been carved into four parts under devolution….

Forget for as long as possible Cameron’s NHS bandwagon-jumping, the latest example being on superbug fines

What is the point of the NHS? Is it a health service, designed to prevent and treat illness, or is it a cash cow for the ruling class, a source of profits for multinational corporations?

Rather than being to protect the NHS so that it can exist for another 60 years, Brown’s planned constitution would enshrine the policies which are destroying its basis as a publicly provided service, free at the point of delivery.

The Observer reports of Brown’s New Year statement:

Aides described the message as strongly New Labour. He makes clear that Labour traditionalists will receive no comfort as he presses ahead with the reform of public services to better tailor them to the individual. ‘Illness is not a nine-to-five condition – and the NHS cannot be just a nine-to-five service,’ he writes. This will be welcomed by supporters of Tony Blair who signal today that they are suing for peace with Brown as they declare that their hero is ‘history’ as a political figure in Britain.

A written NHS constitution would be in advance of any written constitution for the state…

As George Monbiot noted the other day:

Real constitutional reform requires much more than the timid proposals in the green paper on the governance of Britain, which are likely to appear in a new bill in a few weeks’ time. Yes, parliament should be allowed to vote on whether to go to war, yes the Royal Prerogative should be rolled back. But the prime minister, his diplomats, civil servants and generals would still decide which wars parliament needs to know about, which crimes could be secretly committed in our name. Real constitutional reform means not only handing power to parliament; it also means confronting the power of the cold, unaccountable people who act as if it is their birthright.

Despite assertions that there will be no two-tier NHS, the fact remains that the NHS in England has been easier to marketise and will be easier to privatise because England does not have a devolved parliament.

Anthony Barnett has picked up on Brown’s use of the threat of terrorist attacks to scaremonger against granting devolution to England and against the growing movement for Scottish independence.

In his New Year message Brown writes:

And in 2008, with firm conviction and resolve, we will make the case for the United Kingdom – standing up for the cause of the Union and against secession, showing people in all parts of the country that for so many of the challenges our country faces – from climate change to terrorism – there are no Wales-only, Scotland-only or England-only solutions.

Barnett responds thusly:

Hold on, the Union is now resting on an anti-terrorist programme. Does it follow that those who want an English parliament, which is defined by Brown as threatening the Union, will be seen as aiding and comforting the terrorist threat?


2 Responses to “Constitutional reform… of the NHS?!”

  1. Laura Says:

    Perhaps the changes to the Mental Health Act in 2007 will be used in a sinister way to silence future criticism of the Government?

    Especially likely to happen with this Government, which really loves you and your children of course and believes all spin from the infamous American based “outlaw” branded Unum Corporation…

    Sadly, NHS devolution has not prevented “Pathways to Work” going national and other so-called innovative “initiatives” from the American based “outlaw” branded Unum Corporation or indeed, its various financially sponsored UK charities.

    Is it the case, the unfair and illegal practice employed by Unum to dismiss private policy claims [throughout the U.S and the U.K.] is being touted as proof of its credentials and ability to remove state welfare claimants from benefit and “help” reform the NHS?

    For unknown reasons, some currently in Parliament seem to embrace such criminal behavior, as well as promote the use of Unum’s non-medical “bio-psycho-social” model for “assessments” of the chronically or mentally ill and/or disabled citizens.

    Unum is providing “rehabilitation training” to GP’s nationally, trained “pathways to work” assessors will be stationed in doctor’s surgeries and many other suggestions from this unscrupulous company e.g. to pay doctors bonuses for not signing sick notes etc. have already been put in place.

    Private American wealth care [managed and controlled by ruthless insurance companies] is an absolute disaster, as Michael Moore’s recent SICKO movie aims to highlight.

    The #1 [in both the U.S. & U.K.] “insurance” giant Unum seems to be extremely gifted, not only at continuing to con and deceive many policyholders with false “safety net” promises but also setting political agenda’s, which appear designed to make Unum the “One” state provider of Health & Welfare services.

    It would also appear the British state is starting to be used as a “reference site” back in the U.S. where this very “Christian” company is about to face numerous RICO Act trials but with very little doubt will manage to continue to exercise additional American political “influence” to further increase its commercial wealth-care interests.

    SICKO coming soon to a NHS near you?
    Sadly, it really looks like it…

    The people in England need to wake up. Unfortunately, Wales currently has a Unum Professor [ex DWP] in charge of its NHS reforms and according to the most senior employed Unum Doctors and Professors operating out of Unum’s sponsored University facility, in Cardiff Wales, disease does not exist, it’s all in the mind and work is really good for you.

    As they say in Scotland – It’s Time…

    Support the Goals of

  2. M Anderson Says:

    One of the things “medical” companies in the USA do is create illness populations. One of the ways they do this by funding groups of people who cliam, often legitimately, that they have such and such disease. As the new disease gains credence the companies suddenly invent a new drug to fight it. Of course the companies had no vested interest or anything like that. Like hell! Apparently, they put company people in these funded groups to make sure that they get their way, i.e. the disease group gains publicity. The company then comes along and becomes the saviour! Of course the public are unaware that the company is behind the funded group. Look up disease mongering. Think about how so-called medical companies control who gets what drugs and push their own agenda. Losing your hair IS NOT an illness either. Neither is failing to get an erection! I think the medical companies are criminal. They have taken natural processes and tried to turn them into illnesses. I dont think a.d.d. is a real condition either. Everyone has times when they arent at their best. It’s normal. All they are doing is inventing conditions that do not apply to 99.9% of people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: