And the logic of this is what, exactly?

I am of course querying the decision to extend free HIV treatment on the NHS to foreigners, a decision announced just two days after we are informed by George Osborne that the UK has run out of money. Ed West, on his blog, makes the valid point that offering this treatment may well encourage people suffering from this illness to come to this country. That this move will probably prove a magnet for yet more immigration at a time when the government is desperately attempting to reduce immigration would appear to have escaped the minds of our political elite. I have to question the logic - and the fairness - of the government asking the NHS to make cuts, cuts which will have a detrimental effect on  those who have, in effect, 'paid into' the NHS, whilst providing free treatment to foreigners who will have made no such 'investment'.


The comment by Anne Milton, the public health minister, that tough guidance meant that this measure would not be abused is completely laughable. I seem to recall similar assurances being provided on just about every policy that our politicians have introduced. When remembering the greatest assurance of all, that of Ted Heath who assured us that membership of the European Union would not involve any loss of sovereignty, just why the hell should we believe anything any politician tells us? 


Reverting to Osborne's statement that the UK has run out of money, perhaps this would not be the case if we had not provided funds to prop up the euro, perhaps this would not be the case if we had refrained from trying to teach Libya a lesson, perhaps this would not be the case had we refrained from such vanity projects as HS2, perhaps this would not be the case were we not forced to spend £5million per annum keeping Abu Qatada in our country.


The Telegraph article informs us that those from abroad, including failed asylum seekers, students and tourists are currently barred from receiving free HIV treatment - yet this does not appear to be the case, at least not according to Nam. It is also important to ask our political elite just when did they ask those who will be providing the necessary funds whether they agreed that their money could be used for this?

Now, if we had 'referism'...........

So where are our elected representatives?

There is a debate taking place in the House of Commons, as I write, on the NHS and the Coalition's proposals for reform. As at 18:15 it would appear that there are approximately only 40 Members of Parliament actually in the chamber. On this point I reproduce a tweet from Alex Cunningham, timed at 17:54:

"There isn't even one Tory minister listening to the health debate at this time only a whip staffs the front bench. It is a disgrace."

Cunningham is, I believe, being polite in calling that situation a disgrace. Where are the other 610? Do not Members of Parliament have a duty to attend on behalf of their constituents? At the end of the debate those missing will appear and troop through the lobbies, but on what will their decisions on how to vote be made when they have not heard the arguments put? My Member of Parliament, unfortunately, happens to be our present Prime Minister and whilst it is acknowledged he has 'affairs of state' with which to deal, does he not have a duty to his constituents to be present? Or is his absence yet another area of democracy in which I am disenfranchised? As an aside, how many Members of Parliament have held public meetings with their constituents to garner their views?


This is a system of democracy by which our lives are decided? This is democracy? This is a system that costs taxpayers £millions - and for what? Members of Parliament will, generally, vote along 'party lines' - aka the diktat of their party leader. And we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?

The NHS (2)

Following on from my previous post on this subject, it would appear that where provision of health services in the EU is concerned all is not as first appears. Whilst health care was specifically excluded from the scope of the services directive, in June 2006 Ministers of Health of the (then) 25 Member States adopted common values and principles which are to guide EU health systems - and which, as far as I am aware, are still 'extant'.


From the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) website we read that:

"In their declaration, ministers agree that health services must be underpinned by the following values, as defined below:

universality (access to healthcare must be ensure for every person living in the European Union);

access to good quality care;

equity ( equal access to health care regardless of ethnicity, gender, age, social status and ability to pay);

solidarity (linked to the financial schemes under which the health systems are funded)

They also state that reducing health inequalities must be one of the aims of health systems, as well as a shift towards preventive measures.

Besides values, they specifically note that the implementation of those values vary from one State to another and that should remain the rule. Nevertheless, they outline operational principles:

Quality

Safety

Care that is based on evidence and ethics

Patient Involvement

Redress

Privacy and confidentiality

In passing, do note that phrase "as well as a shift towards preventive measures." which is more than likely the reason for legislation such as the 'smoking ban'; latterly, the attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, obesity, 'cheese rolling' (someone might break an arm or a leg); and other such 'dangerous practices'. Note also the 'operational principles' outlined, which provides ample scope for the Lib/Lab/Con to inflict their ideology on changes that they make to our 'national treasure' - aka the NHS.

It is also worth noting Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in particular clause (a):

"The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of Member States. The areas of action shall, at European level, be:

(a) protection and improvement of human health"

So not only do we find that Cameron' proposals for changes to the NHS conform to the 'common values and principles', being the good 'European' that he so obviously is he has ensured they do.


Reverting to Article 6(a) of the TFEU, it does beg the question how long it will be before a 'harmonisation' of healthcare and the provision of same emanates from Brussels?


Just asking...........