Jeremy Hunt?

I have just heard Jeremy Hunt not only is staying as health secretary but also gets social care Please someone tell me this isn't true. maybe they should give him work and pensions too he could finish us all off in one go.

 

Relevant to ME specifically?

 

I put it in health news unrelated to ME.And it does affect us eg I'm having problems with social care so wil this appt help in improving things for me?

 

As Alis points out, this has been posted in Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS and therefore is perfectly acceptable.

 

You obviously think it will.

ETA - Hit the button before I meant to.

But surely there's a consensus that separating NHS primary care from social provision was a bad idea. Now that's been rectified.

Perhaps wait and see before - tell me it's not true!

 

Obviously think it will what? Who are you replying to?

 

I'm afraid that when group x

• clearly states a plan,
• is given the power to achieve the plan,
• proceeds to do the things needed to achieve the plan

we can probably deduce that they are happy and working along to the plan.

 

Yep, it’s impossible to fully express my opinion on this without at least 14 swear words.

 

Worse than that - May gave DWP to Esther McVey (former minister against the disabled).

 

I think Mr Hunt is doing fully what he thinks is virtuous and good, and working towards goals that he has publicly expressed and thinks is the best solution.

I think he is perfectly competent at doing his job as he sees it. If not I think he would have resigned. If others with the power to remove him also think he is doing the same, why would they remove him?

Following the above quotes, the argument is that even the most disadvantaged enjoy immediate access to high quality care with private third party insurers, it follows that that would be the system Mr Hunt will aim for. (Unless we argue that he would deliberately try to provide substandard care to vulnerable people.)

To produce this intended system it seems logical to add social care to his administration, as it would need to be included in the third party insurance.

I am willing to take him at his word, and assume that he is working towards that which is seen as virtuous and beneficial.

 

Sounds to me like the sort of adult conversation we need to have and 'international best practice' is taken into account in determining policy in most other areas.

 

We can feel secure in the knowledge that any failures will result in the resignation of a special advisor.

 

I don't agree with Mr Hunt or his 'facts'.

I'm just explaining a possible reason for current events.

I believe that if healthcare and social care is to be rationed, it should be on the basis of need and not ability to pay.
We know how patients in Germany don't receive "immediate access to high quality care."

I wouldn't be able to pay for third party insurance so there's not much to talk about. If I don't receive social insurance I don't survive.

 

Does Germany not have an equivalent of the French CMU/PUMA (a 'safety net fund' available for those not covered by work based contributions or on low incomes)?

 

Completely agree. "All patients, including the most disadvantaged, enjoy immediate access to high quality care." is exactly the normal twaddle that millionaire politicians tend to come up with in this country - it's almost as if they have no comprehension of what it's like to be poor.

 

At the risk of raising Godwin’s law here I’m sure most vile people doing vile things have thought they were doing their job competently as they saw it.

 

Except that it happens to be true in the French system which I'm familiar with and likely to be also true in other national healthcare systems using mixed public/private funding and provision.

http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_1.html

 

The UK has mixed public/private funding and provision.

Avoidable hospital admission for diabetes, which is seen as an indicator of primary care performance, is above the OECD average.

 

Among the studied countries, France and Spain are the most inequitable in specialist visits for
both probability and frequency concurring with previous findings (Or et al. 2008; Palència et al. 2011).

(OECD Working Paper 58: Income-Related Inequalities in Health Service Utilisation in 19 OECD Countries,2008-2009)