Posted on 09/04/2007 3:07:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles should not be treated by the NHS, the Conservatives said today.
In a bid to ease spiralling levels of obesity and other health concerns, a Tory panel said certain treatments should be denied to patients who refuse to co-operate with health professionals and live healthier lifestyles.
And those who do manage to improve their general health by losing weight and quitting smoking, for example, would receive "Health Miles" cards.
Points earned could then be used to pay for health-related products such as gym membership and fresh vegetables.
The aim is a shift in the NHS towards preventing disease and ill-health rather than having to treat it.
The proposal was one of a raft of measures suggested in a review of public services, ordered by David Cameron.
The 200-page study, entitled Restoring Pride in Our Public Services, was carried out by the Conservative public services improvement policy group's review co-chaired by former health secretary Stephen Dorrell and leading educationalist Baroness Perry.
"It is inconsistent with the concept of the responsible citizen to imagine that it is realistic for citizens, having paid their taxes, to expect that the state will underwrite the health implications of any lifestyle decision they choose to make," the report states.
Along with the health proposals were a raft of suggested changes in education and housing.
Smaller schools, it has been suggested, would improve overall results.
In cases where pupil numbers are falling large schools in the centre of London and other cities would be closed, rather than smaller schools in outlying areas. Inner city pupils could be transported to schools in the suburbs and even villages to ensure they remain open.
"Schools within schools" could be created to tackle poor discipline, particularly in large schools, national targets could be reduced and struggling pupils could be forced to repeat their final year at primary school.
Former chief inspector of schools Lady Perry said: "Every time we have a cutting back of numbers in schools, the knee-jerk reaction is to close all the little village schools or suburban schools and bus all the pupils into great big city schools.
"Schools are getting bigger and bigger. All the evidence is that discipline, achievement and standards are better in small schools than they are in big ones. So why don't we instead close the great big city school if numbers start to fall and bus the children out to the villages?
"It does not cost any more. It would be so much more productive for the children from the middle of the city to be taken out to the suburbs."
She branded the trend towards large schools a "disaster" - as Education Secretary Ed Balls hailed moves to create more mergers between schools.
He said: "Rather than set schools against schools, we need to increase collaboration."
The Tories' renewed focus on schools came on the same day shock official figures revealed an 83% in school spending only brings a 1% boost in productivity.
A report from the Office for National Statistics showed state schools were more productive during 1996-99, a period when spending was tight.
Where housing is concerned council tenants who are well-behaved could be given as much as £50,000 to help them buy their first home.
The move to rescue poor families from 'dead-end ghettos' in deprived inner cities is a key part of a Tory review of public services.
Families with a five-year record of good behaviour would be given a 10 per cent stake in their property in a significant extension of Margaret Thatcher's hugely popular right-to-buy scheme.
Under the 1980 Housing Act, families received a discount of up to 50 per cent on the market value of their house depending on how long they had lived there.
By 1995, 2.1 million families had taken advantage of the scheme to buy their home.
The payment would be held as an equity bond and could be used only to buy a home.
Council houses are typically worth between £100,000 and £200,000 on the private market - but some tenants in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea could be sitting on properties worth as much as £500,000.
The report says a Conservative Government has a duty to transform deprived inner cities into neighbourhoods with a 'sense of local pride and ownership'.
But handing money to council tenants would be highly controversial as ordinary council taxpayers would foot the bill.
The move could also provoke resentment from those who do not qualify for social housing - and will not be able to take advantage of the windfall.
But Tory officials said the financial costs would be outweighed by the long-term social benefits of good behaviour by tenants.
The latest proposal is aimed at boosting individuals' pride in their home by letting them own a share of it.
Other health measures outlined include incentives to encourage GPs to "re-engage" in responsibility for the out-of-hours care provided to their patients, without imposing "undesirable working patterns" on doctors.
Tory leader David Cameron will examine the proposals before deciding which ones to make policy.
Crucially on health, the group concluded that far more focus must be placed by the NHS on public health issues.
"We have considered ideas such as an 'NHS Health Miles Card' to promote the concept of wellbeing," says the report.
"Although much work would be required for development, we think that the creation of a small individual benefit scheme would change the language of health from illness to wellbeing."
The group also warns that public support for the NHS is under threat because of the "failure" to engage citizens in the drive to improve the service and to boost productivity despite the billions being poured into it.
Satire... faticiousness?
I like the comments:
The Tories will never win a election with Cameron as leader,
He comes across as a rich boy that is completely out of touch with the real world. The tories stand a better chance with Hague at least he knows what he is talking about.
- Mick Wright, Wellingborough, UK
I assume people with unhealthy lifestyles will be exempt from paying NI Contributions as well as being exempt from receiving NI benefits. Just lost my vote Mr Cameron.
- F, London
If the object of the exercise is to anihilate the conservative party for all time, I guess Cameron is doing a rather good job.
- Jim, Menton, France
In that case, those with unhealthy lifestyles should not be expected to contribute to the NHS in any way.
- M, Essex
“Well-behaved council tenants to be given £50,000 to help buy homes”
Excellent idea, I’m ecstatic that he wants to give £50k of my money to other people, how very kind of him, and will he be giving me anything for this wanton act of charity on my part?
- Terry Roll, London
I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on those ignorant folk who deliberately ignore their own health and expect every one else to pick up the pieces. It’s high time someone took some action on this.
- Simon Caleb, Clapham, London
Heh, we knew this kind of garabage was in the works.
I wonder how long before this spreads here?
Yeah, but they must still pay for it.
I saw that John Edwards thread. You get it, others don’t.
OPEN MEMO TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS:
This is why places like NYC are agitating for smoking and trans fat bans. 33% of their budget goes towards medical entitlement spending through SCHIP, Medicare and Medicaid. As the baby boomers age, that number will top 50%
If anybody is left here who thinks this is really about smoke in a bar or a simple step to take trans fat out and then they’ll stop...then you are a retard.
This is where we are headed in the USA. If Gubmint is given the obligation of paying for your health care, then it is their right, indeed their duty, to intervene and reduce their cost and taxpayer costs. ie: Drop the Chalupa, fatass!
It’s here now, sadly.
A fair percentage of medical care is state subsidized and paid for here. “Preventative Medicine” is just a code word for drop the chalupa, stub out the cigarette, put down the beer and start excercising.
Well, that’s true.
Liberals never stop. They are the same evil beings in every country.
Alert the mentally fat and lazy here, those who either forgot or never learned what makes the US an exception in world history.
I knew an Armenian woman whose uncle somehow got her family permission to leave the USSR. She said they were supposed to leave at a certain time, and they disposed of all their assets and went to the airport - at which time her parents were allowed to go but she and her brother were retained. So they were under tremendous pressure from having no base of support. And a girl (when she said it I looked at her shraply, and she repeated, "I mean a beautiful girl) started playing up to her brother and trying to convince him to stay in Moscow.I so wished that she could have published that story before Clinton was elected POTUS! He who had gone to Russia and didn't know if he had seen any KGB agents! The actual question to have asked him was if he had met anyone who was not a KGB agent there!
My own efforts are confined to analyzing the reasons for the support which governmentists get in America. I've concluded that it traces back to the history of the telegraph and the Associated Press, which is a pretty good start for explaining the propaganda tendencies of "objective" journalism. And all I do with my analyses is to post them on FR. In their most concentrated form, they can be seen in
Well sure, Communism and Socialism has failed everywhere it has ever been tried bfree. But OUR SOCIALISTS in the Western World have learned from the previous mistakes and they promise it will be better this time.
You VILL QVIT SCHMOKING! JA?
In the Capitalist inurance industry, those who live a healthy lifestyle pay far less than those hwo do not. For every type of insurance. As a former smoker, I still pay more for health, homeowner's, and even auto insurance than a nonsmoker with an equivalent claim record.
However, I am not forced to pay for the habits not my own, for those people their risk assessment is their own and should be reflected in their bills.
Unfortunately, from one year to the next, the definition of what is healthy changes. Butter is bad, butter is good, eggs are bad, eggs are good, someone who quit drinking is deemed an alcoholic by decree and pays more than someone who drinks, etc.
Ultimately it boils down to what any doctor you have ever seen as a patient scritched down in your file, right or wrong.
In the capitalist system, you have the option of seeking a different provider. If the government decides for you, God help you, you are on your own otherwise--and paying for it.
I have to wonder if they would include the Police, Firefighters and Military as well?
Actually, if they go ahead with this it will be a shot in the arm to the US medical industry. Lots of Brits, just like Canucks, coming in for medical treatment. “Texas Medical Center Airlines”. I like the sound of it.
Could be a good deal for us.
Somewhere in heaven, Winnie is reaching for the thunderbolts.
The Tories solution?
The Final Solution - exterminate all those who don’t live the “correct” way, don’t vote the “correct” way, and don’t subscribe to correct thinking regarding global warming.
If you are going to exclude the unhealthy, then surely that must mean that people with genetic tendencies that put them at risk ought to be on the outs.
Also, people who eat too much salt. There ought to be a Salt Police that go around making sure only those who limit their sodium intake qualify for government health care.
Or better yet, just exclude everyone, because we all have a 100% risk of getting sick at some point in our lives. Just think how much money the system would save then!
I wonder if he has the guts to come out and say this about HIV and "high risk" sexual activity.
I'm betting....no.
Well now, aren’t Her Majesty’s Tories good little socialist tyrants?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.