Letter to the Guardian...
Sir, So it seems that the nurses are to blame for the deaths at
Mid-Staffs according to the Health Secretary: "Nurses
must spend a year on basic care" - Guardian 26th March.
Conveniently targeting a lower paid group while ignoring the real
causes of the tragedy, i.e. the ridiculous race to turn hospitals
into Foundation Trusts and the failure of the hospital Board and
commissioners to recognise the disaster, is scapegoating at its
worst.
Of course nurses need to ensure that compassion runs central to
their practice and they need not to be above the basic skills of
care but making them spend a further year in training won't achieve
that; ensuring that wards are properly staffed and that health care
focuses on care not profit, will.
Stuart Jeffery
Green Party Health Spokesperson and Registered Nurse
Development House
56-64 Leonard Street
London
EC2A 4LT
Green Party campaigner in Kent. Also a nurse, academic, former manager, writer, Druid, husband and father...
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Too much happening to blog about...
- Disgusted that they can call this green. Treating animals (and Nature in general) in this way is as far from green philosophy as you can get. Raising pigs in factories also has no place in a green society. Disgusting.
- Latest U-Turn by Clegg, this time on control orders. What happened to the liberal part of Liberal Democrat?
- Castro's medical mission marches on to the shame of the civilised West. This time Cuban medics are in force in Haiti. 1200 of them. How many have the US or UK sent I wonder?
- Maidstone's town centre manager is quoted as saying: "Recession, what recession?" after higher than normal sales in the post Christmas period. I'm sure he meant no offence but I doubt the public are in such a boyant mood, I suspect they were having one final splurge before hunkering down.
- It seems that the FT are worried about the burgeoning oil price and its threat to the recovery. Oil hit $95 last week and I think the $148 high was part of the reason for the last economic collapse. Peak oil happened in 2006 and White's Law says the economy needs energy.
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Greens have a new health policy
Fantastic news just in, the vast majority of amendments to our health policy were passed and we now have a brand new policy to go into the general election with. Thank you to everyone who helped pull this together over the last nine months and who helped get it through on the conference floor.
We have gone for a far more evidence based approach to health care, making sure it is the experts that decide which treatments are cost effective for which conditions rather than politicians. We have strengthened the framework for protecting the public with wider regulation to ensure all medicines are safe and all health care practitioners are regulated.
We have got a new model for primary care to prevent the continued privatisation of GP surgeries and to place them into democratic public / patient ownership. This is radical stuff and sets us far apart from the other privatising parties, i.e. Lib Dems, Tories and Labour.
A strong committment to dignity and compassion plus real support for the benefits of breast feeding. Dental care not mass medication by fluoride.
We have gone for a far more evidence based approach to health care, making sure it is the experts that decide which treatments are cost effective for which conditions rather than politicians. We have strengthened the framework for protecting the public with wider regulation to ensure all medicines are safe and all health care practitioners are regulated.
We have got a new model for primary care to prevent the continued privatisation of GP surgeries and to place them into democratic public / patient ownership. This is radical stuff and sets us far apart from the other privatising parties, i.e. Lib Dems, Tories and Labour.
A strong committment to dignity and compassion plus real support for the benefits of breast feeding. Dental care not mass medication by fluoride.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Inequalities and the case for a Maximum Wage
This piece appeared on The Daily (Maybe) yesterday and in true Re-Tweet fashion I've posted it here too (as it was written by me).
Thirty years ago a newly elected Conservative government attempted to quash a ground breaking report by Douglas Black. The report, commissioned by the previous government, was a clear indictment of the impact of poverty (and relative poverty) on health. Just few hundred typed copies of the Black Report, as it come to be known, were ever published but the impact of the report was significant and has been a basis for public health thinking ever since.
Moving forward 30 years, The Equality Trust explain in graphic detail how it is not only poorer countries that have poor health outcomes, but also that countries which have higher inequalities have poorer health outcomes. These poor health outcomes are not just relating to physical health but stretch across the full spectrum from mental health to societal health (for example violence, community cohesion and social mobility).
The evidence is clear, an unequally society is a poor society. The evidence is also clear that Britain has become more unequal; this quote is from National Statistics: "Between 1981 and 1989 disposable income in real terms grew by 38 per cent for those at the 90th percentile. This was more than five times the rate of growth of 7 per cent for those at the 10th percentile.". A quick look at their graph of income since 1971 shows that the gap between rich and poor has grown continually except for a short period in the mid 1970's.
National Statistics also report that '1992 to 2006/07 was a period of relative stability' for income inequality. The minimum wage, introduced in 1999, has had an impact for some but it simply hasn't achieved the narrowing of relative poverty that is required. Two further mechanisms for household income are necessary, a citizens income and a maximum wage.
Maximum wage is simply capping the maximum earnings of an individual, either through the use of a tax bracket that returns 100% of the earnings to the state or through primary legislation to prevent employers paying over a particular ceiling. Practically speaking, a 100% tax bracket looks like the most effective method of implementing a policy as it should capture unearnt income and income from multiple sources (assuming that people don't dodge tax!).
While there are those in favour of a maximum wage, such as Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation, there are of course detractors on the right of the political spectrum. It is easy to see why it is the right wingers who are opposed, given that the majority of high earners are on the political right and the rest of the right are desparate to join them. The Adam Smith Institute claims that the country's most productive workers (doctors, business owners and bankers - it does actual put bankers in this category) would move abroad. They go on to suggest that the best was to reduce poverty is through the 'Trickle Down' of wealth.
Standard right wing thought but the evidence goes contrary to this.
Firstly the concept of 'Trickle Down'. It is surely time for this phrase to be consigned to the dustbin of patronising and obnoxious terms. Trickle down suggests that the elite should hold the nations wealth and provide a little cash to the underclasses to stop them starving. It suggests that people are not equal and shouldn't strive to be. It keeps the ruling class, er... ruling.
The concept of trickle down serves to widen the poverty gap within countries by enforcing and expanding the existing inequalities. Sure, it will address absolute poverty and may increase a nations overall wealth, but that is not what needs to be addressed.
Secondly, the claims that productive workers will flee the country are without evidence. Of course the Adam Smith concept of 'productive' is a little different to the concept held by the majority of people. Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus whether he considers nurses or bankers to be more productive!
Concerns about highly skilled workers fleeing the country are also misguided. In Cuba, doctors are paid around twice the national average wage, compared to around four times in the UK, however Cuba has one doctor for every 174 people and the UK has one for every 600. There would be a balance of greed versus good community that people would weigh up before emigrating for financial reasons. If society was cohesive and enjoyable, it is unlikely that most would want to leave for a country where the quality of life was poorer. There is far more to life than hard cash.
Assuming that the majority of the arguments currently against a maximum wage are false, there remain just two questions. Firstly would a maximum wage actually help to reduce inequalities and secondly what should the level of maximum wage be?
If the approach of a 100% tax bracket is used and the taxes are reinvested in citizen's income / health care / regeneration / redistributive schemes, then it is clear that inequalities will reduce. The longer term picture of a 100% tax bracket gives similar results to a maximum wage through primary legislation over time as companies stop advertising jobs with huge salaries. As total income, including unearnt income from profits, could not exceed the maximum, money would need to be spent somewhere in society over time (unless company's reserves get bigger and bigger - maximum profits legislation anyone?). The gap between the rich and poor will start to close.
And as for the maximum wage... let's start at £150k and reduce it by £5k a year to £100k. Anyone not able to survive on £150k or even £100k needs to think very carefully just what they are doing to society and the planet.
Moving forward 30 years, The Equality Trust explain in graphic detail how it is not only poorer countries that have poor health outcomes, but also that countries which have higher inequalities have poorer health outcomes. These poor health outcomes are not just relating to physical health but stretch across the full spectrum from mental health to societal health (for example violence, community cohesion and social mobility).
National Statistics also report that '1992 to 2006/07 was a period of relative stability' for income inequality. The minimum wage, introduced in 1999, has had an impact for some but it simply hasn't achieved the narrowing of relative poverty that is required. Two further mechanisms for household income are necessary, a citizens income and a maximum wage.
Maximum wage is simply capping the maximum earnings of an individual, either through the use of a tax bracket that returns 100% of the earnings to the state or through primary legislation to prevent employers paying over a particular ceiling. Practically speaking, a 100% tax bracket looks like the most effective method of implementing a policy as it should capture unearnt income and income from multiple sources (assuming that people don't dodge tax!).
While there are those in favour of a maximum wage, such as Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation, there are of course detractors on the right of the political spectrum. It is easy to see why it is the right wingers who are opposed, given that the majority of high earners are on the political right and the rest of the right are desparate to join them. The Adam Smith Institute claims that the country's most productive workers (doctors, business owners and bankers - it does actual put bankers in this category) would move abroad. They go on to suggest that the best was to reduce poverty is through the 'Trickle Down' of wealth.
Standard right wing thought but the evidence goes contrary to this.
Firstly the concept of 'Trickle Down'. It is surely time for this phrase to be consigned to the dustbin of patronising and obnoxious terms. Trickle down suggests that the elite should hold the nations wealth and provide a little cash to the underclasses to stop them starving. It suggests that people are not equal and shouldn't strive to be. It keeps the ruling class, er... ruling.
The concept of trickle down serves to widen the poverty gap within countries by enforcing and expanding the existing inequalities. Sure, it will address absolute poverty and may increase a nations overall wealth, but that is not what needs to be addressed.
Secondly, the claims that productive workers will flee the country are without evidence. Of course the Adam Smith concept of 'productive' is a little different to the concept held by the majority of people. Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus whether he considers nurses or bankers to be more productive!
Concerns about highly skilled workers fleeing the country are also misguided. In Cuba, doctors are paid around twice the national average wage, compared to around four times in the UK, however Cuba has one doctor for every 174 people and the UK has one for every 600. There would be a balance of greed versus good community that people would weigh up before emigrating for financial reasons. If society was cohesive and enjoyable, it is unlikely that most would want to leave for a country where the quality of life was poorer. There is far more to life than hard cash.
Assuming that the majority of the arguments currently against a maximum wage are false, there remain just two questions. Firstly would a maximum wage actually help to reduce inequalities and secondly what should the level of maximum wage be?
If the approach of a 100% tax bracket is used and the taxes are reinvested in citizen's income / health care / regeneration / redistributive schemes, then it is clear that inequalities will reduce. The longer term picture of a 100% tax bracket gives similar results to a maximum wage through primary legislation over time as companies stop advertising jobs with huge salaries. As total income, including unearnt income from profits, could not exceed the maximum, money would need to be spent somewhere in society over time (unless company's reserves get bigger and bigger - maximum profits legislation anyone?). The gap between the rich and poor will start to close.
And as for the maximum wage... let's start at £150k and reduce it by £5k a year to £100k. Anyone not able to survive on £150k or even £100k needs to think very carefully just what they are doing to society and the planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)