Reform of the #NHS has been described as Cameron's poll tax. Having lived through the iniquities of the poll tax - including the fact that wealthy Wandsworth did not charge it - I see the point those making this comparison are seeking to make. But I am not sure it is the correct comparison. I think that NHS reform is Cameron's salt tax.
The salt tax was charged in India - but by the British, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India (sorry - working in iPad and links are harder). It's relevance was it was introduced with complete contempt for its impact in people, to deny a basic need and to grant a monopoly right to make profit and abuse to a tiny elite.
That makes it a perfect comparison for Cameron's reforms of the NHS. The too are being introduced contemptuously, will deny access to a basic need and have sole intent of granting monopoly rights that will be abused for the enrichment of Cameron's friends.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s using money, which he and his chums have plenty of, as a weapon then. That’s the only trick they’ve ever had and it’s running out of road – are you aware that money creation by banks, still barely understood here and almost never referred to, is being discussed openly in national newspapers abroad now? http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2012/02/german-media-discuss-money-creation/. I wonder how successful they can be in driving Britain back to the Victorian era in the light of the explosion of information going on that’s bound to sweep them away with it?
The salt tax was imposed when one company, the East India Company, had a monopoly of salt trading. For your analogy to hold, one would have to assume that only one private company has a monopoly of healthcare provision unless you have evidence that the various health care companies are operating as some form of price fixing cartel – in which case you should hand over your evidence to the OFT.
Meanwhile I am rather puzzled that you appear to be arguing against a monopoly in one sense but for the provision of a monoply in another by, it would appear, supporting the role of the NHS as a single monopoly provider of health care free at the point of delivery.
The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe and, apparently, the third biggest in the world after the Chinese army and the Indian railways. Do you think an organisation as large as that can operate effectively in the interests of its customers as opposed to the interests of the providers in an effective monoply environment.
There is a simple one word answer to your question: yes.
Only a pedant would argue it has not: no other single organisation is held in higher regard in the UK
But why let facts come in the way of your false ideology? Tge simple fact (I stress, fact) is there is no way a universal healthcare service can be supplied competitively, as the US proves. But you would rather the profit rak off than the delivery of healthcare, I suspect, as the American righ prove time and again, of course
You ascribed to me a “false ideology”. This has to be a extremely presumptive and assumptive comment. What ideology have I promoted? I was merely asking a question. How can you legitimately infer an ideology on the part of the questionner merely for asking a question?
Your comments come straight from the neoliberal rule book
It was to that I referred
And it is a flaw ideology
If you don’t see that or even deny it then it is hard to see how you are adding to debate and as such your comments fail the moderation policy for many reasons
@D Kane: “Do you think an organisation [the NHS] as large as that can operate effectively in the interests of its customers as opposed to the interests of the providers in an effective monopoly environment.”
Yes, and it has been proven to be. At the end of the Labour administration the NHS reached a peak of satisfaction with the users. It is also recognised as one of the most efficient providers of universal health care anywhere in the world.
Only someone prejudiced against public services could say otherwise. (Interesting that you employ the word ‘customers’ instead of users or patients. I guess that is the term used in the US which has such a wonderful private health service.)
You seem to be implying that I am “prejudiced” against public services. Well I did work in a public service for over 20 years (education, admittedly – not the NHS). Since then I have worked as a self employed gardener.
Perhaps my comments are not merely the result of prejudice but merely the result of somebody who has experience of different aspects of employed activity and hence a wider sense of perspective than some others. I hasten to add that I am not putting that comment forward as a definitive and authoritative assertion – merely a conjecture.
I think at 53, with a wid range of experience, some in the public sector, I can confidently say your comments did not reflect a fair understaningo how markets and the economy works in practice.
But that’s just my conjecture too
Neo-liberal ideology asserts that only private ownership and market competition can produce efficient outcomes. According to the dogma, the NHS, a state run near monopoly which efficiently produces health outcomes at lower cost to comparable countries services simply shouldn’t exist!
It’s very existence is a heresy which mocks them! It doesn’t fit their script! No wonder they are trying their best to destroy it!
They did the same to British Rail which was one of the most cost efficient rail operators in Europe at the time it was dismembered and privatised!
It appears that nobody on this thread is allowed to question the comments and observations on this blog without having a facile accusation of neoliberalim thrown back at them.
I asked a perfectly reasonable question and it appears to have been moderated ouy so let me repaeat it.
The WHO rated the French health system as the best in the world with the UK in 18th place. France has a mixture of public, non-profit and private provision. You may assert that the NHS performs better than services in comparable countries but the WHO disagree. In these circumstances is it not appropriate to consider that there may be alternatives to a single monopoly NHS provider?
That is not adherence to what you may describe as neoliberal dogma – it is just keeping an open mind. Is one allowed to keep an open mind or will that be moderated out as well?
Respectfully, you arrived here as the new troll on the block spouting forth neoliberal dogma about the danger of the NHS monopoly – and how it had to be broken up by market forces
And that is neoliberal dogma
I have engaged with it time and again but find those who are persuaded by that clap-trap of such closed mind that debate is pointless: you behave as if brain washed and have such closed mind it is pointless me wasting my time debating – and I then come to the conclusion that the aim is simply to have me waste my time – a known neoliberal blogging technique
In which case, yer. you fail the moderation policy. And will consistently do so
As for France – why does t cost 25% more than the Uk for worse outcomes and use so many more drugs for no known benefit, bar anti-biotic immunity?
Who funds the WHO? Perhaps they get the opinions they want.
Highly likely!
PS
A recent report by the Indian government condemned the the safety record of the Indian railway system by describing the number of deaths as a “massacre”.
One can see what they meant – there were 15,000 deaths last year according to a BBC report on the 20 February.
Have a look at Auckland Colvin on Wikipedia for background on taxation in India, interesting. Rudyard Kipling wrote a satirical poem about him when he imposed a two pence in the pound Income Tax which caused a major grief. The backdrop in this period is the Fall Of The Rupee and the impact on the incomes of the British in India. All very complicated but the finances etc. of the Empire are rarely, if ever, covered in the histories.
I believe you want the two books by PJ Cain for further information, both start with British Imperialsim in their titles.
Richard
Not a paper I usually read, but did you see the Mail on Sunday piece about the salary paid to the head of the NHS Cooperation and Competition panel. For his second job as advisor to a US Healthcare company he is apparently paid nearly £800,000.
Investments like this just show how much profit the private health companies are expecting to make and how massive the salary bills are going to be. It is hard to see how we (the British public) can possibly get value for money from these “essential” NHS reform.
I have no doubt we can’t get value from the reforms
We can get value by eliminating the faux market from the NHS but to extend it will simply mean granting monopolies to big business from which we have no chance at all of benefitting
[…] Murphy has suggested that this is not Cameron’s poll tax – but his salt tax. The salt tax was charged in India — but by the British, of course. It’s relevance was it was […]