British policy on health is shaped by an institution that remains, despite some chequered history, one of the most beloved organisations (governmental or otherwise) in the UK: the National Health Service. To some extent, asking foreigners to vote on British health policy seems almost sacreligious, such is its place in British hearts. Especially as your average Republican will say something like "who don't you just privatise it all?!? I thought UKIP were right-Wing libertarians?"
Created under the Attlee government, the nationalised health service was intended to be a completely free at point of use service, although financial constraints from the Korean War swiftly introduced small charges for prescriptions and for dentistry. The NHS has often struggled with funding and staffing, and "bright innovations" of successive governments, including a complex internal market designed to boost competition, increased outsourcing to private sector contractors and infamously a disasterously over budget attempt to develop a national IT infrastructure for health in the 00's. (The British government is pretty terrible at IT projects in general). Under the coalition government, a large NHS reform bill was passed under significant opposition from doctors and the left. I won't describe the details, mainly because the details elude me, I'm afraid, but here is a didactic war between GP's for the soul of the British Health Service:
http://www.gponline.com/top-gps-debate-pros-cons-nhs-reforms/article/1056140Anyway, that's the past. What are the parties promising
now! Worth noting that NHS England came up with an influential document showing an 8 billion pound shortfall and strategies for more integrated healthcare.
Party 1
Party 1 promise a "common sense approach" with less political interference. They plan to establish (presumably elected) County Health boards to control spending. They promise increased frontline spending (£3billion per year) and increased social care spending (£1.2billion), while simultaneously cutting "health tourism" (foreigners using the NHS) which CITATION NEEDED costs two billion per annum. They promise 20,000 new nurses; 8,000 new GP's (who would be required to work shifts in Accident & Emmergency wards, for some reason) and 3,000 new midwives. Historically such recruitment would have to come from overseas, so this might be a stinger - this party is not a big fan of overseas types. The party also opposes most attempts ago regulate public health through, say, minimum alcohol prices and plain tobacco packets.
Party 2
Promised to match the 8billion per year requested by NHS England and 500 million for social services "closer to people's homes" (seems woefully short to me, but under this party social care and health budgets will be pooled together by 2018). A lot of investment in mental health, especially for children and mothers pre-and post-childbirth. Wishes to levy tax on tobacco companies (RIP Big Tobacco political clout, you shall not be missed,
unless Lynton Crosby walks in) and restrict junk food ads to the kids. They have a ... Very clear ... Position on the controversial NHS Reform bill. Namely, repeal some of it, but not all of it, but only if it could lead to privatisation ... Err (sidenote: this party wrote the NHS reform bill).
Party 3
This party matches the requested revenue and then some, giving a cool 12billion a year rise for starters, and 20billion by 2020. Wow! That'll keep doctors happy with new gadgets and machines! This will be partially funded by the bloodstones of public policy, alcohol and tobacco companies. Of course,this will be combined with free at point of use elder social care (9bill per year) which would be integrated into the health budget for "efficiency" reasons. This extra funding would pay for 400,000 new employees across the service, funding "local community health services" for more flexible health treatment, and enough mental health places that police cells are no longer needed as "places of safety", especially for children. The party would also raise VAT on unhealthy foods (which would raise a fair amount of revenue, but would be fairly recessive) and place a 50p per unit price for alcohol.
Party 4
In contrast to the wild increases of the rest of the gang, this party increased spending by a positively Scrooge-like 2.5billion per year. Even more inexplicably, the party decide to actually cost this increase via new taxes (albeit very populist taxes, including our old friend the tobacco company levy). The party has very specific pledges that are rolled out like machine gun fire: 20,000 new nurses, 8k GP's, 5k careworkers and 3kmidwives. Guaranteed GP appointments in 48 hours. Maximum one week for cancer tests.. Ban zero-hour contracts ("flexible hours") for health contractors. And generally a lot of stuff on integration with mental and social care - or "whole person care" as they put it. The whole thing is cloaked in a very anti-private sector fashion, including full repeal of the NHS Reform Bill. Also cuts in salt and sugar to kid foods and a (quite frankly creepy sounding) "improved national uptake of exercise".
Party 5
Sometimes it's not what a party promises, and more how they promise it. Yes this party promises the promised 8bill per year, and yes there is the social care integration common to all the manifestos, but health policy is not this parties historic forte and was not placed among the priorities. Still, there was some good promises - seven day a week GP care for all patients! (Hire 5k more GP's pls!) same day appointment for all persons over the age of 75! Devolve 6billion pounds to the healthcare in Greater Manchester! (A liberal bribe, as this party really wants more cities to adopt G Manchester's government structure.) the party's real feelings are made very clear by their only commitment on public health: a review of how to get alcoholics, drug addicts, the obese and disabled back to work quicker. Ayy
Poll
