#ukip’s NHS Policy Allows 4 Charging Pensioners & Others 4 Prescriptions! #RochesterandStrood


STOP PRESS: Nigel Farage has re-affirmed ukip’s commitment to introduce County Health Boards (see below) and, thereby, break up our National Health Service.

I have to thank carol allen aka @lorac22allen for letting me know that ukip’s NHS policy (that fell off their website early this year) was still, in part, in the public domain.  You will find the reference to broadening the range of people who may be charged for their prescriptions in paragraph six.

Carol styles herself a ukip fundraiser:

FPM8 so, unless I hear otherwise, I assume her contention that the web page to which she directed me:

FPM6contains ukip’s latest NHS policies is a credible one.

ukip may say that having no Manifesto, it has no definite NHS policy (its continuing mantra since it did not unveil its Manifesto as promised at its Doncaster Conference).  And, I do not know whether Steve Morris is linked to ukip or not, but someone gave him access to at least part of the policy.

If it is no longer ukip’s intention to enact all or some of what is described in the article then all they have to do is say so and I will amend this post accordingly.  However, if they decline to come forward with a definite response (as they have not done with other draft policies) then I think we are entitled to assume that all the policy outlined in the post is, at least, still under serious consideration.

ukip’s Paul Nuttall has taken down this post:

BoJs_0ICUAA1Sanbut not retracted the sentiment therein personally.  Back in January this year, Nigel Farage said, “The Tories have failed; only ukip dares cut spending on NHS and pensions”.

Whatever else they may say, Nigel Farage and ukip have been seriously flirting with the idea of breaking up the NHS.  Informed opinion, within the NHS, is that a re-organisation along the lines of that ukip has proposed would damage the NHS beyond repair thereby clearing the way for its ‘regretful’, but necessary privatisation.

I have been unable to find much about Steve Morris beyond:

FPM9but he works in the private medical sector providing services to the taxpayer funded NHS.

Would the real Nigel Farage please stand up and let us know where he really stands on the NHS?  The time for a Schrodinger’s Box approach to ukip’s policy on the NHS is long gone:

Political Commentary – UKIP and the NHS

“The NHS is likely to be a major issue for all political parties in the run-up to the next general election. One much-criticised comment about the main political parties is that they are much the same, and look the same, and the problem is heightened towards general election time when the public have to make a choice. That’s what democracy is all about, after all.

Unfortunately, making an effective choice is like shopping in Asda. You go to the tinned food section because you want a tin of beans. They may have different makes and very different labels, so do you pick the tin on the left, the middle or the right? It makes no difference. When you get it home, it still contains beans.

Newcomers to the block UKIP are perhaps the most diverse of the major parties in most things, and they claim to offer a real difference in choice from the other more established parties. They certainly have some diverse views. It is timely to take look at their plans for the NHS to see just how different they may be.

In line with many of their ideas the UKIP health service policy is somewhat without meat on the bones – more of a strategic approach. This is to be expected as they are emergent, and it could be argued that they do not need detailed plans, as they are unlikely to form a government, at least at this time around. However, opponents will seize on the lack of detail as a weakness, barring them as real contenders as they have not thought things through. But how true is this? They are certainly without the major resources needed to formulate detailed proposals at the present time, and without a large and organised (and expert) party “machine” this would be difficult to do. Much of their time seems to be attempting to control their rogue factions appearing in the press every so often.

They certainly support the concept of treatment free at the point of delivery (whether you think this is currently actually happening or not) but the fact is that demand on the NHS is increasing, and funding is getting less, especially in primary care, and some monetary changes are still essential, before it all breaks.

UKIP oppose central control, and want to revert to local Health Boards, also giving “some” Boards the freedom to impose prescription charges. Central control is seen as bureaucratic and eating money. UKIP wants to drastically reduce the DoH to remove this waste and give the public “more control”. We have heard of public control before of course from each of the other parties, and this has been implemented in varying degrees via commissioning and public involvement, so is not a radically new concept. How UKIP differs is not certain. It is clear however that central departments and the DoH will be substantially cut.

UKIP state that they will;

  1. Direct the majority of health care spending to elected County Health Boards, making spending decisions directly accountable to the public locally.
  2. Cut the DoH and bring in professional procurement skills to reduce the huge amounts of money wasted in procurement and resource allocation.
  3. Prioritise UK taxpayers and citizens, ending health tourism by requiring all those without entitlement to pay in advance. Treatment on the NHS is the prerogative of British passport holders and tax payers. Those without entitlement will be strongly advised to have adequate health insurance, as British citizens do when travelling abroad.
  4. Restore traditional nursing, especially the non-university-trained State Enrolled Nurses or equivalent.
  5. Engender a Universal Duty of Care to ensure that everyone is responsible for reporting inadequate care and driving up standards.

In many ways this represents a return to some of the traditional values of past times, especially in a return to skilled vocational nursing and the delivery of hands-on patient nursing care. It will be interesting to see what the RCN stance is on this. It may be a return to more traditional patient needs-based nursing standards, where for some, patients not targets come first.

Health Boards are yet another cycle of the same old structures – what goes around comes around – but I think health tourism sanctions will be a popular vote-winner among the rank-and-file general public, who are, in the main, opposed to any form of system-abuse. But the devil is in the detail, which is not there.

The UK Independence Party is also exploring alternative models, such as those used in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, taking the best of the NHS and the alternatives, but they have firmly rejected a USA insurance-based system. In due course this should lead to being able to offer people a choice, should they wish to use it.

They intend to:

  • maintain the existing principles of the NHS
  • scale down the Department of Health
  • create elected County Health Boards
  • devolve budgets and responsibilities straight to CHB members
  • restore traditional nursing training and roles whilst safeguarding skills and knowledge
  • give everyone a joint responsibility to improve standards for all
  • restore free eye and dental checks

Many people have expressed concern that the move to university training has changed the opportunities for those born with a vocational calling who wish to provide the crucial core nursing care. UKIP will therefore restore hospital-based vocational training, similar to the old State Enrolled Nurse (SEN) system. Whilst highly educated and higher skilled nurses are now an integral and vital part of the healthcare team, the all-important core nursing skills will be restored.

The costs and provision of training for these vocational nurses (and similar roles in other healthcare areas) will be the responsibility of the CHBs.

If UKIP suddenly find themselves in a position of power, they are likely to struggle to implement change of any magnitude within the life of their parliament without detailed plans already in place and ready to go. I suspect that for this reason I see a series of “hits” rather than a full-on overhaul. The current government kicked off fundamental changes to the NHS straight after the last election, and these have not proven to be complete or successful even now, running out of time with a new election on the horizon. Any new government will certainly have to run with what is in place (CCGs) etc for a considerable period.

The healthcare debate is likely to escalate over the next few months as political parties start to bite. Keep your grocery eye peeled for the new label.

More on this later.”

2 thoughts on “#ukip’s NHS Policy Allows 4 Charging Pensioners & Others 4 Prescriptions! #RochesterandStrood

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s