Let's All Focus

You will pleased to note that the NHS decided to concentrate its efforts.

"Other key themes to emerge (sic) from the consultation process were: " ...investing in services for people whose health and well-being may be at greater risk, for example: minority ethnic groups, teenagers, and people on low income."

Well let me see. The population of England and Wales in 2001 was recorded as 49,138,831 people.

• Sixteen percent of these are aged 65+ and we can hardly leave them out. That's 7,862,213 pensioners.
• Add to that the thirteen percent of the population who are teenagers and that's another 6,642,321.
• That leaves 34,634,405 of whom eight per cent come from ethnic minorities - 2,770,752.

I could go on but simply add on pregnant women and those in post-natal care, the long-term chronic sick, victims of accidents and crimes and somehow the focus starts to become a tad blurred.

Dont forget that since 43% of UK NHS spending goes to the elderly, that leaves just 57% of funding for the rest of us 84% of the population.

It's the sort of gibberish that is pleasing to the ear and meaningless to the wallet. Do we really live in a society where teenagers are counted as " ... people whose health and well-being may be at greater risk"? If so, we are all deeply in the proverbial.

"Your health, Your care, Your say" but who PAYS?

Read the new government White Paper? With its zippy touchy feeley title, it can only be a political winner. This government "listens". It puts us first. It drives me bonkers.

The whole "listening exercise" with its preposterous "citizens summit" and its "panels of stakeholders" seems to me to be a complete abrogation of strategic management by the Department of Health and the National Health Service. Don't tell me that it was worthwhile because it was important to listen to what the public wants. That has as much value as asking my granchildren to design the menu for school dinners. Perhaps I can suggest a new title? "What shall we promise you to get your vote?"

If the mercury wasn't already popping out of the top of the sphygmomawotsit, to conveniently forget to ask these wise public people to consider costs makes me really angry. Of course I want to visit my doctor when I'm ill, any time day or night, weekends, bank holidays, when I'm doing the weekly shop. Of course I want all the services I might need all installed nearby just on the offchance I have a knee strain or a rather unsightly rash. I'll take it all as long as it doesn't cost me anything.

Staying open a bit longer is simple. All you need to do is .... well, stay open a bit longer? Oh, you then have to either recruit additional staff or pay overtime. Then there's the security guard since there are some strange night dwellers where we live. Oh and since we are a service, we have to provide sufficient staff to guarantee the service despite sickness, holidays and absenteeism. So where's the problem? A receptionist or two, a security guard, a doctor and a nurse should do it. Oh and a cleaner. Maybe the caretaker might not like working longer hours but it's probably OK.

The whole thing is a disgraceful piece of political posturing done at the taxpayers expense and which has served to raise expectations without proper regard to the sensible use of NHS funds. We need an honest and open debate about the true and ever-rising costs of providing complex and costly drugs and treatments and how this can be properly funded. Just like twenty years ago we needed the same thing about pensions. We didn't get it then and it isn't happening now. Instead we get platitudes, slogans and expensive and meaningless Labour propaganda dressed up as national policy.