It is always nice to see business to take a look at others and see how they can profit. As The US had to increase its Intelligence spending from 2004 onwards, many of us saw the outrageous amounts that the taxpayer had to dish out for intelligence resources. The biggest drain was not the need for more men, but the simple fact that much of the Intelligence community went private and those intelligence officers who were making on average $72333 year, suddenly in the private sector were asking for $172333. It was a simple ask and demand issue. This has gone on for some time and now we see how others are picking up the idea.
It is Sky News who informed us (at http://news.sky.com/story/1310468/nhs-hospital-paid-1800-a-day-for-nurse) on something so outrageous, that for a moment I thought they had just copied and pasted news from the Telegraph (the truth is far more shocking).
The first quote should be a massive wakeup call “On May Day Bank Holiday this year a locum agency was paid more than £1,800 to supply a nurse for a 12-hour shift, new figures show“, so a group that does not get anywhere near such an income supplies more funds for one day then most nurses will ever make in a week. Can anyone please explain that to me?
I know that I had given the answer in the beginning of this blog, yet in my blog of June 19th ‘Concerning the Commonwealth‘ I wrote “if we look at the NHS, then staffing and expertise are also a worry, which is by the way a worry in many Commonwealth Nations. Most of these nations have well over 5% unemployed; can some not be re-schooled in the healthcare sector?” Of course, that was after the event and long before Sky News wrote their article, yet overall, just as we saw on the mismanaged 111 helpline; it seems that hospital resources are not budgeted correctly either. You see, when we look at budgets, we think of coin and cost. It seems that most people think in that same way. Yet, hours and staffing is also a budget we must keep. The fact that we for some reason suddenly need to pay 1800 pound for a 12 hour shift comes down to the cost of a full day plumber (or the equivalent of two QC’s).
Yet the article is also lacking, WHY was this action taken? Perhaps there were valid (or better stated a host of) actions that resulted towards this choice. So, not unlike the Telegraph, we should ask the questions in regards to these events as they are told to us. This is why I decided to hold on to this, as it was clear that there was more to this than meets the eye. My initial response: ‘Bad Sky News, bad!‘ (Especially as the health strikes were already going on).
It is now, today August 10th that I see an article of the Guardian that does more than just put the Sky News article to shame. I am not debating whether the article was true, but it seems that there are sides that certain people are never happy to inform the others about.
This part is now seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/09/former-nhs-carers-intensify-strike-over-pay). If I read this correctly then these people are making just above minimum wage, yet these people are doing intense work, needing to keep a mind of everything (especially physicians at times), whilst making no more than the brain dead fast food counter staff tends to make. How is this even close to acceptable?
Perhaps Sky News did stumble upon something, but they ignored the other side. So at 7 pounds, a nurse makes 280 pounds pre taxation. If that person was staying at a homeless hostel, she would lose out on 105, which gives her 175 to live on for a week, which is 25 pounds a day, take in consideration underground, busses and such, which makes for another fiver down the sewage (as they would rightfully see it). So how can ANYONE live on less than 20 pounds a day? Remember, this still needs to account for food, clothing and a few other items.
There is no denying that leaving the NHS in private hands is worse than just a bad idea. It could be the first onset of death for healthcare in the UK. As politicians have wasted in excess of 15 billion pounds on failed approaches to healthcare, why think that the private sector (a greed and profit driven entity) would do better to the cost and even more disgraceful, better to the people it is supposed to take care of?
The article has a clear quote that shows the danger people face: “Once they have squeezed out the state sector, and the third sector, we will then see prices rise; then we will see profits; then we will see these tax-efficient structures working.” This is a clear ‘divide and conquer’ approach, a method, might I remind the reader of that has been around Julius Caesar, so long before Nicola Machiavelli decided to become devious. Attached to this is that as more and more cost cutting solutions are born, ‘surviving’ on tax shelter operations, then the treasury coffers will miss out on a lot more, which will just force a system of checks and balances which is no longer depending on any balance, it makes for a massively unbalanced future for both the people and the state.
The part that gets me is the people behind the strike “Fifty carers for the disabled are staging one of the longest strikes in the history of the health service to secure a living wage for staff working in privatised services formerly run by the NHS“. Have these people on minimum wage figured out what politicians, who make a lot more than that are ignoring?
The danger is that when (not if) the healthcare sector collapses, the fallout will be unimaginable. Those deciding on cutting costs (which by itself is not a bad idea), should also consider the dangers that follows. Government has health and medical options because (for now) it is not driven from a profit point of view, which is at the heart of this situation, this is not about cutting cost or making profit, this is about breaking even or losing an essential part of support for the living. When we are left to the devices of that what brings profit, we see the first steps into culling a population. It will not happen because they are killed, it will happen because services are no longer available. Then what will the government do, and who will they have to pay, or more interestingly, how much will it cost the government then?
Is that in any way a lesser form of murder?
The question becomes: ‘If a Service Level Agreement is set between government and the private sector, can any of these parties be prosecuted for murder?‘
You the reader will laugh now, which is fine, but when we see the first casualty because of these changes consider my words and consider how that person would still be alive if certain steps had not been taken.