I have posted this thread to Twitter:
According to the Guardian ‘GPs could write prescriptions for money off energy bills for the most vulnerable under a plan drawn up by the Treasury'. Let's just think about that for a moment. A thread….
To provide a caveat, the Treasury has not said Team Truss has adopted this plan as yet, but it's been put out as an idea for a reason, and it must exist, so what's wrong with this proposal?
I ask what's wrong, by the way, because struggle as I might I can find nothing good to say about this idea.
The first and most obvious problem with this plan is that GPs are already overwhelmed with work. Trying to get a face-to-face appointment is already hard in many areas. How is that going to be helped by turning GPs into debt counsellors?
Second, GPs have no training of any sort in this issue. Why on earth should they suddenly become experts in appraising household budgets in a ten-minute appointment (at best) and so be able to determine the right amount that a person needs in support?
Third, how much will they, in any case, be able to prescribe? Too title and this is a joke. Too much and it is obviously open to abuse.
Fourth, how is this process to be integrated into the benefits system? GPs operate on condition of medical confidentiality. How are they to transfer data to say to whom they have supplied help, and how much?
Oh, and fifth, will team Truss insist that the first part of any payment due be used to pay any fines due for missing GP appointments?
Come to that, sixth, what will the prescription fee be, and who is going to cash it, and how? I the prescription is for a maximum of £100 then the current standard prescription fee is going to be a big slug to pay.
Let's be blunt, very obviously none of this has been thought through for practicality. So, it's instead fair to say that this is not being put into circulation as a serious proposal. There must, therefore, be another motive or motives for suggesting this. And of course there are.
The first motive for this is to trivialise the issue: the pretence is that something might be done, but that the matter is not that significant, meaning it can be dealt with as a tack-on task to be undertaken by already busy people.
Underpinning this motive is contempt, both for those who will not be able to pay their bills because no proper support system is considered necessary for them and for GPs, who we can only presume are thought by the Treasury to be doing nothing very useful.
The second motive is to undermine the NHS. The obvious aim is to make people turn on their GPs and claim that they were denied support when they asked for it by a GP and as such it is all the fault of GPs that we will have a cost of living crisis this winter.
When the whole purpose of the Tories is to divide people against each other as a way of distracting attention from the destruction they are deliberately promoting this must be considered, in their book, a classic policy proposal.
Nothing comes closer to the Tory goal of creating dissent than detracting division between people and the NHS that is a necessary pre-condition, so far not achieved, for privatising it.
The third motive is simply to blame ‘lazy, well-paid GPs' for refusing to help. You can just see the Mail headline saying that.
That GPs literally have no more training to help on this issue than they have with sorting out a patient's plumbing is beside the point: the refusal of the GPs to do something they cannot possibly do will be their fault, and not that of politician's stupid enough to dream this up.
And the fourth motive? That will be to provide the excuse that because it will become nigh on impossible for people to get appointments to claim this money if the scheme were rolled out there could not have been actual demand for help because so little will be prescribed.
In other words, the government will say “we put aside £2 billion to help but less than £50 million was used so there was obviously no real problem to deal with, and we actually did all that could have been expected of us.” Don't blame us, in other words.
I'm sure there might be other as sinister motives beside these, but you get my drift. This is a deeply cynical ploy by politicians intent on causing harm, stress, and division in society whilst claiming, wholly untruthfully, that they are seeking to help.
So terribly Tory, in other words. And so typical of the playbook of those pursuing the pathway to fascism, where chaos, disorder and division are essential.
Please read this ‘plan' for what it is in that case. This is the act of a political party intent on abuse, which has already won by getting headlines for this absurd idea. They are truly evil.
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 reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxwqBJLU8A
about living in a world of their own
but it’s not one I would want to share
Your conclusions about creating division are more than likely correct as there is already a system in place to assess peoples incomes and household budgets and to supply cash if needed. It’s called Universal Credit. Call me old fashioned but maybe we should be increasing benefits or making one off payments through the benefits system, maybe widening the scope of who qualifies.
That would still leave all the other problems you’ve identified such as care homes etc not being able to pay their bills.
Again, as you allude I think, it shows you just what low regard the Tories have for the public health system and those who provide services in it. Obviously they think it offers excellent VFM – I mean cross training doctors to give out fuel for those in fuel poverty is redolent of private sector practice. Supermarkets cross train shelf stackers to jump on a till during busy periods.
It all sounds so sensible until you have to weigh up the judgements general practitioners have to make about presenting medical problems, updating medical records and issuing prescriptions.
Why not recruit some more civil servants to deliver the payments? Well – of course not!! Let’s sweat an asset even more, over load it and then watch it publicly fail.
The building trade cross trains plumbers to be gas installers in the name of ‘efficiency’. That’s why when nine times out of ten when we purchase a new build property for social housing from one of the big builders, our landlord gas team fails the installation and has to insist on changes being made prior to handover.
If any of you are thinking of buying a new house, have it checked over by a qualified gas engineer and electrician first before you part with your cash. You might be surprised at what they find and what you are paying for.
I kid you not.
Cross training may work for investors and CEOs after their bonuses. But I don’t think it works for anyone else.
More Tory Tripe.
God – haven’t they gone yet?
Utterly ridiculous idea. Reading the German press, one idea floated is having bands: first 3000kw in the lowest band; then increasing in bands of 3000kw onwards . The average kw for heating is 12000kw pa .Thus you get penalised the more you use. Not perfect but is one way forward. ps I heat my house on 19C. All rads upstairs turned off coz heat rises. In the morning turn heating on downstairs
I suggest this in Surviving 2023
Horrible idea.
So, people who use more energy have to pay more ? – that’s the disabled and OAP’s who spend much of their day at home and are more susceptible to cold.
Secondly, if you really care about climate change then green electricity would be the cheapest form of fuel, and gas would be four times the price of it, not the other way around.
Here’s my situation, live in Scotland, electricity only house – with solar panels, disabled OAP at home all day. Annual usage is 14k of energy net after solar production subtracted (which I understand is the annual average, not 12k)
For the last 8 years I have bought only green electricity, paying over the odds to do my bit for the environment and paying many times more than climate destroying gas and oil.
My annual bill of £3500 was set against average household bills of gas users of £800-£1000 and now my bill is set to explode to £8000 plus.
My property is fully insulated, new double glazing, smart radiators, has solar panels and more on the way. We buy green electricity and we are careful.
Your suggestion is that I should be ‘penalised’.
The most galling aspect of my situation is this, Scotland produces 100% of its domestic electricity needs through renewables.
If rising energy prices are amplifing energy poverty – the obvious thing is: do something about the prices. This seems to have passed by Tory-vulture imbeciles – who then resort to sticking plaster solutions – so much easier & with the added benefit of plausible deniability – as the Twitter thread makes clear. It has come to a pretty pass that the Daily Heil etc would use such a gambit.
Solutions:
Electricity: everything priced at cost of production (which is know). Basket price then built.
Gas: anything from the North Sea @ £20/MWh – mash with imports and arrive at average price (which will be far less than now).
Agreed
‘ When the whole purpose of the Tories is to divide people against each other as a way of distracting attention from the destruction they are deliberately promoting this must be considered, in their book, a classic policy proposal.’
When you repeat bullshit like this, it is quite clear you have no intention of being a genuine credible commentator on any topic.
I’d call it objective observation
And the thread was read hundreds of thousands of times on Twitter so I think you’ll find yourself in the minority
Graham
You really take the biscuit mate, you really do.
Credible? It’s you who lacks credibility.
The Tories have been using classic fascist tactics which includes pointing out the supposed ‘enemy within’ in order to then offer sanctuary to voters and get them to take their eye off the real source of the real problems – BREXIT, austerity and market failure in the utilities.
Because of course, these are all Tory polices.
The fact that you don’t seem to acknowledge this marks you out as particularly gullible – fodder for the Tories, a victim if you will of your own lack of awareness to the point that you come here and make a ad hominen attack on someone who does.
I pity you. And you don’t even deserve that mate.
It’s also classic distraction and displacement politics. Distract from Tory failure to do the kind of things other European countries have done, like France’s energy price cap and Spain’s free travel on some train routes, and displacement from having to think about doing something serious to prevent the impending disaster for so many.
“Tory scum” is not a term I would use personally, but it does seem appropriate.
As my late father, neither Labour or holder of a Degree in Sociology would say, ‘These People Dont Have any Money!’
While I believe that possibly the best weapon in any GP’s armoury is a cheque book, I can see only too well the hazards of this proposal
What is urgently needed however but what we wont get is things like action on energy prices, energy conservation, and pay and benefit increases.
The news that CEO’s yet again are enjoying 30% and upwards pay rises suggests that there is money just not for those that need it.
GPs prescribing money ? Crazy idea.
At best, even if it were practicable (which I agree it isn’t for reasons you explain) it only addresses symptoms of a problem the government doesn’t wish to deal which is economic not medical. If this is a serious suggestion from the treasury you are well justified in considering what the underlying agenda might be. Further damaging NHS credibility seems high on the list.
GPs would retire in droves wouldn’t they ?
They are already
I am married to one who is – albeit for medical reasons in her case
Presumably the Tories want doctors to identify those who will die because of energy poverty, so they can blame the doctors for not identifying those who will actually die. “Not our fault, we asked the doctors to let us know who needed more help.”
Yes….in a word