Theresa May has been accused, of distorting the issues behind the NHS emergency. Theresa May has shown consistently that the NHS got more funding than it requested, and that the origins of the dilemma lay in surprisingly large demand on the service.
However, Simon Stevens, the Chief of NHS England, has declared to a parliamentary select committee that this is wrong.
More than 20 NHS trusts declared black alerts, suggesting they can no longer support patient protection, and across social media, the news could be to heard live from frontline NHS workers fighting to protect lives in the light of the government’s wild under-funding and under-resourcing of the service.
This is a completely fabricated crisis and it has resulted in needless distress, pain, and even death.
During the emergency, Theresa May and her Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, have continued to say that under-funding and under-resourcing have had no part to play in the crisis. Theresa May herself declaring that they have provided the NHS more than the additional money they announced they needed for their five-year plan.
However, when talking to the Public Accounts Committee, Stevens said that the Prime Minister was stretching the truth, stating it was a matter of fact that like seemingly every element of public service, they got less than they asked for in that process. It would be stretching it to say they got more than they asked for.
He proceeded that in 2018/19, in real terms, that NHS spending was going to go down, 10 years following Lehman brothers and austerity started and that in the here and now there are very real tensions. This was not because hospitals are being feckless, and that it doesn’t benefit anyone to pretend there aren’t finance gaps.
This is not the first time that the government and the Department of Health have been found misleading the finances of the NHS. The government is known for regularly announcing the same additional funds designed for the NHS, whilst the money never appears to arrive.
In fact, something very unusual is happening to health spending in Britain. As Stevens says, funding is falling below that which is required to implement the service.
Reacting to the government’s 10-year budget forecast in 2015, the King’s Fund said that the ten years up to 2020/21 are expected to see the greatest continued decline in NHS spending as a percentage of GDP at any time following 1951.
As a consequence, the NHS is fighting to meet its responsibilities to patients.
The numbers are unambiguous. Hospitals are striving to cope with the most severe period of financial belt-tightening in the history of the NHS. Claims of unprecedented demand have proven incorrect. The NHS is not overspending or being over-utilised by immigrants or an aging/obese population. It is being gutted by cuts in funding which leave it powerless to meet demand.
In attempts to reallocate liability from the government, Conservative MPs and compassionate media outlets have engaged in a smear crusade. Under-funding becomes overspending, and the crisis in supply, contributing enough funds and resources becomes a crisis in demand, with too many people exploiting the service.
This smear crusade is summarized by the 10 January on the front page of The Daily Mail, and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt draws a completely inaccurate statistic out of thin air, accommodating newspapers then prints it, and the bloke in the pub attacks it, and so on.
This is the politics of despair, with a government that has consistently under-resourced the NHS and social care services, panicking in the light of the outcomes, and eager to pin the blame on everything but its own ideology.
Nevertheless, apparently the Tories are giving more NHS funding to Private corporations, in actuality, this suggests that NHS loses at least a third of that funding.
Most corporations set aside one-third for profit, therefore for every £100 million a private business gets, they will steal £33 million. This amounts to a lot of lost funding over a period of time, which is simple to understand how this is showing up now and getting worse.
Nevertheless, if the government didn’t steal your money and decide how it was used, you could determine how much of your money you wanted to designate to medical care, and how much you wanted to designate to fighting unnecessary hostilities, and how much you wanted to designate to charity.
What a Brave New World it would be, if these decisions were in the hands of the people, and not of the maniacs that run the asylum.