LettersTel2

Motorists, Equity & Unity Party

Published and promoted by the Motorists Equity & Unity Party, 123B Southfield, POLEGATE BN26 5LZ

Letters to Daily Telegraph (continued)

< Back

Sir, with reference to your Leader (NHS in Crisis, 12th Dec) the conclusion that we should seek health care via private insurance; I would suggest that such a route is following the USA pattern where, if you have money you have health care and if you don't you are obliged to attend a "State Hospital" which is almost like using St John's Ambulance for your care. No disrespect for that organisation but I'm sure even they will admit they aren't quite up to carrying out complex operations and far less able to supply medications for AIDS and for the treatment of the "Big C". The problem with health care provided with an insurance supported market is that the prices tend to rise astronomically along with the remuneration to the Consultants. This is why operations in the USA are so expensive. The insurance route (USA style) is not the answer. However there is a third way which is utilised across "La Manche" where the French are expected to pay 33% of their health costs at the point of use. As can be imagined an insurance payout covering that smaller amount is less likely to become unmanageable. If a patient attends their GP they have to pay that 33%. If they contract AIDS they are obliged to pay 33% of the drugs cost. This has many advantages, not least reducing unnecessary visits to GP's or hospital A & E's since, if required to pay a contribution it has the effect of dissuading patients with minor ailments seeking major attention, i.e. ailments that can be diagnosed and treated by the local pharmacist just as effectively as the GP or local hospital.

There are many ways that our health care services can be supported without taking the US route. The French 33% insurance system is one way, paying at the point of use with private insurance policies (obligatory); charging for food supplied during hospital stays (better menus without cost to the Health Trusts); and, what is probably already in the mind of the government - leasing out some of the wards that are closed due to financial restraints although this is clearly a step in the direction of privatisation. At the present time Consultants go from their NHS hospital commitments to the private hospitals to carry out further operations; with the annexing of some wards these operations could be carried out within the same premises thereby reducing costs in the private sector at the same time as helping with the running of our NHS hospitals. Your leader gave a good example of the increasing costs; if a cure for baldness (regenerating follicle growth ) was discovered, would this be available free on the NHS ? We have introduced the Cat Scan, Aids drugs, new drugs for Oncology departments and as your article points out spending is increasing at a rate of 7.4% p.a. However your article failed to recognise that much of the outgoings for staffing are going to the Nurse Agencies. This distorts the wage bill for the staffing of our hospitals considerably and some Health Trusts are attempting to tackle this problem head-on. To summarise, in order to reduce the cost of the NHS - (1) the introduction of a 33% payment requirement for all health treatment (private insurance policies); (2) food to be provided by private caterers with a much more varied menu (without cost to the hospitals); (3) a marked reduction in the use of Agency Nurses; (4) the annexing of one or two wards in our NHS hospitals for the private sector providing additional funds to assist with the running of the units (this would require legislation by the government as to the maximum number (%) of wards to be so annexed by statute in order to protect the principles of "health care available to all").

There would need to be some provision for those in the community that are unable to provide for their own care (destitute) including the long-term unemployed.

Peter Sayers, secretary, M.E. & U. Party, (address supplied)

NHS in Crisis - Letter submitted to the Daily Telegraph 13th December

Letter continued from previous page

If the standard of driving is raised many of our restricting regulations could, in time be relaxed. It is not speed that kills but bad driving - the answer is glaringly obvious, improve the quality of drivers. One further aim that we recommend is that all drivers from the age of 65 should be subject to medical checks every 5 years to ensure their retention of adequate skills. Every day we witness the incorrect use of the lanes on our motorways with drivers insisting on using the middle lane whilst the nearside lane remains empty sometimes for distances of half-a-mile. This necessitates that others drive nose-to-tail on the outside (overtaking) lane making the provision of three lanes farcical. Until drivers can be persuaded to use the lanes correctly we will continue to have tailbacks on what are supposed to be highly efficient roads.

One further point the Secretary of State for Transport might like to note: in France, HGV drivers are prohibited from overtaking on hills and a road sign to that effect is posted at the side of the motorway. This bad practice is also responsible for much of the tailbacks on the motorways and the sooner that we introduce similar requirements to those on the continent the better for all.

Peter Sayers, secretary, Motorists Equity & Unity Party (address supplied)
e-mail: secretary@me-and-u.org.uk [see Newsletter ] URL: www.me-and-u.org.uk

Improving the infrastructure of our national road system &
Encouraging better driving . Letter submitted to Daily Telegraph 2nd Dec

David Miliband talks about the sense of powerlessness that can seem pervasive. My observations during the last 10 years have been an increasingly controlled population; stopping smoking in all places, whereas before we had the option of going where the non-smokers went. Stopping hunting, the sport of the countryside folk that don't get to play bingo or any of the other town related pursuits. The spread of parking deregulation which has encouraged councils across the country to install the equivalent of the German SS, to remove our hard-earned money; in London, the charge for being 4 minutes late back to one's car is £100; this, in addition to the congestion charge, now spread even further across our capital - a charge, incidentally, which favours the rich in our society, hardly a socialist attribute, but then, this government, far from being centre-left is what I would describe as the 'Blue Rose Party'. So far to the right that the Foundation Hospital and Trebling of Tuition Fee bills were supported by the opposition bench (Conservatives). Hopefully the traditional Labour voters will wake up before the next General Election and vote for the Traditional Labour MP's and consign the ‘Blue Rose’ variety to Kew Gardens. The proposed Road Pricing (black box in car) bill is nothing more than an increase in the Police State in this country. As for local control, we have had Parish Councils, Town Councils, Borough Councils since time immemorial. We have a government that is obsessed with control, whilst at the same time allowing house prices to spiral out of control with no attempt to stem this phenomenon, putting young families in the unenviable position of being unable to get on the housing ladder and therefore either on interminably long waiting lists or subject to the whims of property speculators whose priority is profit rather than social responsibility. I think David should retire to his Ivory Tower to dream on, hopefully not in the House of Commons !
Posted by Peter Sayers (Secretary of the M.E. & U. Party) - on March 29, 2007 4:30 AM

Comment in The Daily Telegraph ( 29th Mar ‘07) to David Miliband MP’s article: I'm in tune with the 'I can' generation [spelling corrected 5th April ‘07]