First topic message reminder :

Written by Allyson Pollock and David Price:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/allyson-pollock-david-price/abolition-of-nhs-that%E2%80%99s-what-is-happening-0

"The scene is set for a re-run of the transfer in the 1990s of long-term care responsibilities to councils when funding was privatized through means testing and charges. Worse: it’s returning to pre-1948.

Not everyone will be covered for all services in the new “NHS”. The government has gone to great lengths to ensure that the newly created commissioners of NHS services (the so-called clinical commissioning groups, CCGs) do not have responsibility for comprehensive care for all residents in one geographical area."

Click on the briefings to read more.

VM

FinnMickey wrote:

sillysally wrote:FM You have the hide of a rhino. I am not proposing any such thing as you well know from the responses I have sent to your many PMs to me. Just stop it please.

Well at least I haven't got a green skin like the little men from Mars.

And by the way whoever asked this, I am very reliably informed (not by Esquires as you ask) that VM was once called Peter but changed to Victoria Meldrew. Perhaps the best explanation is that "Peter" had the operation, and it has gone slightly wrong, which explains a lot.

FM, when in a hole you really should stop digging.

The point that Sillysally was making is that you have no skin, green or otherwise. You have a hide - behind which and in which which you hide. A hide is also a camouflaged shelter.

You have beeen following what is called a bum steer. I can't see where Sillysally or anyone else asked anything about Esquires - so you may have just revealed the source of your bum steer. You must learn how to conduct research that will stand the test of time.

I will return to your earlier nonsense when you show the first signs of a return to normality (unless you are already in your normality, in which case I may distress you further).

You are disturbed at present, by some of your sloppy research - and your incompetent research assistant is doing you no favours - but I can wait for you to resolve your staffing issues.

VM

[quote="Victoria Meldrew"][quote="FinnMickey"]

sillysally wrote:
FM, when in a hole you really should stop digging.

The point that Sillysally was making is that you have no skin, green or otherwise. You have a hide - behind which and in which which you hide. A hide is also a camouflaged shelter.

You have beeen following what is called a bum steer. I can't see where Sillysally or anyone else asked anything about Esquires - so you may have just revealed the source of your bum steer. You must learn how to conduct research that will stand the test of time.

I will return to your earlier nonsense when you show the first signs of a return to normality (unless you are already in your normality, in which case I may distress you further).

You are disturbed at present, by some of your sloppy research - and your incompetent research assistant is doing you no favours - but I can wait for you to resolve your staffing issues.

VM

Tut, tut, tut, tut, there you go again, but you still have failed to answer my questions (bull and bluster usually means you will not or cannot provide the answers) which I repeat again.

You've been here for about two years or more, and during those years you NEVER complained about what the banner said, or said anything about the "fact" that the 1946 Health Act had been repealed ( you landed on the coat-tails of Al-ian to do that) .

AND you have not raised - until now - a single voice against anything else that the forum stood for - not once. On the contrary,you accepted EVERYTHING this forum stood for - WITHOUT QUESTION. Only the last few weeks,everyone suddenly finds that you hate just about everything it stands for or at least that is the impression you give. So why ? And why leave it so late.

And the reason I will not leave, is very simple. I agree with the banner, the principles, the leadership if you like, that this website represents - unlike you.

During those two years, much criticism - not just from me - was aimed at solicitors Hugh James, but from you NOTHING, neither for or against. WHY?

It has been pointed out to me that you did claim to represent someone when you first came to the site, but who or what do you represent now? You certainly do have a lot of opinions that's for sure, but what about the pain, emotional pressure, the frustrations, that so many have had to carry before and during their time here.

And your defence of Hugh James is also strange. Have you used these people, had ANY kind of experience of how they operate? Or had contact in any way? Most of your "advice"in this area, is at best tenth-hand and therefore can be dismissed.

I don't mind being called a "Plonker" I can live with that, I have been called a lot lot of worse, and survived.

And NO it was not Esquires ( you do not have as many friends on this forum as you might imagine, and I would be careful of those who claim to be).

But ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, and two more - are you a man called Peter ? Are you some kind of journalist ?

You really should see that doctor, you appear to be breaking up, and that cannot be good.

For goodness sake, stop it and remember why people visit this forum - for mutual support as well as advice. Being unpleasant is not only unnecessary, it's also distracting, destructive and very saddening - and who needs that, when the real enemy lurks elsewhere?

juwi wrote:For goodness sake, stop it and remember why people visit this forum - for mutual support as well as advice. Being unpleasant is not only unnecessary, it's also distracting, destructive and very saddening - and who needs that, when the real enemy lurks elsewhere?

Juwi, I could not agree more, and this is not the first thread that FM has tried to destroy. FM seems to have set him/herself up as Judge and Jury of forum members s/he doesn't like for whatever reason, without any need for FM to remember what the forum is supposed to be about. And without FM being challenged by the Moderator/Administrators.

You only need to look at the title of this thread to see my reason for starting it. It started life as a very serious thread, with many parallels to the reason for this forum existing.

It's been demolished by FM's constant abuse. 800 views, many viewers must be scratching their heads by now as to whether the forum actually cares about CHC.

I'm also wondering whether the forum should have declared that it is only for those who met in the virtual world/knew/heard about the predecessor forum circa pre-2008, and that those of us who have no personal knowledge of that forum should have been invited to go elsewhere back at the beginning of 2009.

I'm sorry that I've had no choice but to try to defend myself - because the emails I've sent to Steve/Esquires have not resulted in any acknowledgement of whether or not he finds 'acceptable' FM's posts that have been abusive and agressive. Sure, I could have walked away - but I don't like bullies in any shape or form, even cyber bullies.

VM

VM

Just wanted to say that your thorough and painstaking advice has saved me from persuing what could have been a seriously regrettable route. You have always replied to me as quickly as you could, and I have seen you reply swiftly and carefully with great empathy whenever somebody is clearly going through hell.

You have many with reason to be extremely grateful to you on this forum.

In contrast, FM, please go and attention-seek elsewhere, preferably where the individuals involved have the time and inclination to deal with someone of the type for whom most of the world's swear words were coined.

with kindest regards, VM and with hope of a cure for whatever ails you FM.

Avenger.

avenger wrote:VM

You have many with reason to be extremely grateful to you on this forum.

Avenger.

VM I concur with the above statement wholeheartedly.
MG

Here! Here!

Ditto.

juwi wrote:For goodness sake, stop it and remember why people visit this forum - for mutual support as well as advice. Being unpleasant is not only unnecessary, it's also distracting, destructive and very saddening - and who needs that, when the real enemy lurks elsewhere?

If anyone is giving out the wrong advice (the 1946 Health Act does not exist) and tells lies about the person who runs this site ( there is no lawyer, and no campaign ) then I will question and question and question again this person, and to try and find out what their motives are. You either support the aims of this site,or you do not. If not then go.

And accusing Esquires of lying - for what else is it - lands VM in some very difficult legal minefields. Whether this person likes it or not, that statement is libellous, and would hold up in a court of law, and would mean paying out a lot of money. VM cannot in any way substantiate any of this. And one thing to think about - the payments could be very useful to go to the fighting fund for the class action, so in a roundabout way,VM could be doing something to support this move.

The brackets are what VM has said more than once.

I have put my questions to VM twice now, and this person (man or woman I do not really know ) fails to answer them,and appears to do so again. So draw your own conclusions as to why. Telling the truth will harm no-one if the answers are adequate. AND I have not abused this person - perhaps some gentle fun (yes, that is what it is) - but not coming out with PLONKERS and other stuff. And she/he does go on and on and on. And this person has attacked others ( one of them, believe it or not, is listed as one of her friends here ! ! ! ! ! )

VM and Al-ian are not friends of this forum. VM supported Esquires at the very beginning AND accepted EVERYTHING without question that the forum represented (same goes for Al-ian) . As it appears VM continually criticises and finds fault (sometimes just for the sake of it ) then I say VM is a hypocrite.

THIS pair will drive away those needing help, as they will look at what they say, and being intelligent, realise that they are continually arguing against all that the site stands for and sadly leave. Goodness knows what damage they have done so far.

At one time, if I read it correctly as they meander so much, this pair were "giving advice" about the scale of fees you would have to pay for your healthcare when in a home. Now come on. This site has fought this kind of thing for years, long before VM made her muddy appearance.

And also VM jumped in feet first to support the two very dubious characters (MIkeJ and muminlaw) when they made their appearance a short time ago. They were "new brooms" who would make a big difference here. Well, VM would have been certainly right on that score if they had been allowed to stay.

And anyone who allies themselves with these two, should leave as well and for the same reasons.

I will continue to probe and ask questions of this pair, as they are against this site, and for no other reason - so get used to it.

So come on VM, answer the questions. Let's all know what you have to say.

Please would someone wake me up when FM changes to a tune with a positive note?

VM

Debating the possible abolition of the NHS is irrelevant when in fact the crucial question is 'what will replace it' if any party dared to abolish it? However the question is not pertinent to THIS forum the purpose of which is to ensure that the founding principles of the NHS are maintained and applied whatever changes may be made to the structure of the organisation itself.
The NHS confirm on their own website and in their constitution that they contine to uphold the founding principles of the NHS act. They say that these can be summed up as: "The provision of quality care that meets the needs of everyone: Is free at the point of need and is based on a patient's clinical need not their ability to pay" Anyone who wishes to confirm the founding principles, which still predominate need only visit:

http://www.nhs.uk/aboutnhs/CorePrinciples/Pages/NHSCorePrinciples.aspx

As I have stated many times, the NHS is NOT a free service because it is funded from general taxation and is the statutory right of every citizen because it was established by act of parliament. Check the NHS constitution here:

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Documents/nhs-constitution-interactive-version-march-2010.pdf

Steve

It goes without saying that I am MORE THAN ENORMOUSLY shouting about being pleased to see that we are now able to return to the original thread, which was entitled The Abolition of the NHS ....

So far, the thread has been diverted by intrusive contributions from someone with a personal agenda, and only a maximum of 2 posts (out of 60+) have managed to refer to the original thread content. But almost 1000 views of this thread which has so far been destroyed by the ridiculous actions of just one forum member with problems. We all know who that is .... so let's leave it there, and get back to the main substance of the thread.

I suggest that debate and discussion of this is enormously relevant to this forum, but only if the forum wishes to continue to exist beyond and encompassing any changes in the NHS Acts that may soon be upon us.

We cannot yet know the answer to your 'crucial question' of what will replace it. All we can do is to learn about what 'MAY' replace it.

I am following the House of Lords debates, and I get daily updates slung into my inbox from the House of Lords.

Whatever is currently placed on the NHS sites will change overnight, if/when this Health & Social Care Bill becomes more than just a Bill ..... if it becomes ACT.

We won't be able to influence that UNLESS we engage now with the potential changes. From what I am reading, they are enormous and will result in a privatisation of anything that used to be called the NHS. The name may still be there ......... but the principles will have changed.

Send an email to whichever/however many/ House-of-Lords-Members you fancy .... chances are that s/he and they will then send you daily or weekly updates by email. That's what I've done ........... and that's why I don't need to trawl for knowledge/learning/information.

There are other sources of information on the debate about the potential abolition via gradual .... and concealed/hidden unless you read the detail ....privatisation of the NHS. You only need to ask and they can be made available to anyone interested enough to care.

VM

Correction .... 1105+ views of a serious thread that has been destroyed thus far.


VM

Hello Steve

Two very good links and it all looks neat and cosy. So why dont the PCTs follow the core principles of the NHS?

Why dont the PCTs follow the NHS Constitution? Putting flowery words and making silky promises are all very well!
But what is the reality?

More to the question why doesnt this present government make the PCTs follow the core principles of the NHS?
Why doesnt the government enforce the NHS constitution? They still have the power through the health act ,under section 1, to do so, so why dont they do it?

Because it is not in the interests of the government to do so and in this current economic climate neither is it in the interests of the NHS to do so either.

Dont forget that get-out clause in section 1.(3) of the current consolidating Health Act, which gives the government the power to change anything anytime they wish to, either through amendment, or more backdoor methods ( ie, social care needs,etc ).

That get-out clause has been there from the start, howbeit, somewhat differently worded.

Why wasnt all of the Beveridge report concerning the NHS implimented? I make the assumption that not all was, because I dont have the Act, but going by section 1 of the NHS Act 1946, and section 2, I dont think it was.

Beveridge spoke ( I think its on a BBC site on film ) about a totally free health service, based on clinical need, not the ability to pay, free at the point of need.

But is that anywhere in the 1946 health act? You have the act Steve, please tell me is it there in that exact wording. Not just implied, but there in black and white.

Beveridges comments are exactly what NHS site are calling the core principles and what is part of their constitution. But is it a part of the act? In order to make it law..

VM is right if this bill of Lansley cant be stopped or at least the proposed section 1 amended ( meaning the government no longer is legally obileged to provide provision for health care ). Then as far as government and legal enforcement is concerned all the flowery words of core principles and talk of constitution will be pointless.
Because by the power of this new health bill there is ( at least to my reading of it ) nothing we can do by law to counteract the increase of privatisation of the NHS.

No Steve no government is so stupid to try and finish the NHS in one go, but they will keep on working at it.

Very kind regards Ian.

Ian - you ask "More to the question why doesn't this present government make the PCTs follow the core principles of the NHS?
Why doesn't the government enforce the NHS constitution? They still have the power through the health act ,under section 1, to do so, so why dont they do it?"

I am sure forum members can suggest many answers! Those which occur to me are "too many people are living far too long, cost too much and contribute nothing" and "British taxpayers money is needed to breath life into the rotting corpse of the great Euro. scam" and "it serves the best interests of British politicians to dish out overseas aid to line the pockets of tin pot petty dictators"
My question: "when is the judiciary going to enforce the law - which they clearly endorsed in 'Coughlan', St. Helens, Booker, Grogan, et al?"
I will scan the Health Act for you tomorow as I've been tied to this PC for the past 16 hours - apart from when the dog (a PMD)took me out in the rain earlier - and I need my bed! Steve

Hello Steve

Thanks you for going to have a look at the 1946 health act for me.

Agree with your comments about Europe.

I still think that the government should enforce their own legal obligation towards the provision of a free health service. The judiciary can only really act when something is brought to them for a judgement to be made.

Coughlan,Grogan,St Helens and Booker all came about because people took action in court Steve.

The judiciary will act if it can do so. Coughlan influenced GROGAN AND ST HELENS cases.

We need to break this social care need farce thats where I personally think the difference would be made.
A judicial review on the Health care need and social care need issue with a clear legal line drawn between health related social care needs and social care needs unrelated to disease/illness or disability is what is required.

If that could be won then every time there is a dispute that decision can be used and the NHS would have to follow it or else end up in court. I may be wrong Steve, but theres never been a challenge to the legality of Coughlan decision in a courtroom. Not as far as I am aware.

Better stop now I have just finished a 3 hour DVD music video recording I know how you feel.

Kind regards Ian.

ian wrote:

Hello Steve

Thanks you for going to have a look at the 1946 health act for me.

Agree with your comments about Europe.

I still think that the government should enforce their own legal obligation towards the provision of a free health service. The judiciary can only really act when something is brought to them for a judgement to be made.

Coughlan,Grogan,St Helens and Booker all came about because people took action in court Steve.

The judiciary will act if it can do so. Coughlan influenced GROGAN AND ST HELENS cases.

We n Ian.

The very simple reason that this government, and the last government, and for all I know the one before that do not enforce this law, is MONEY. They will have to pay out BILLIONS and I do not think that this is an exaggeration . So they lie, and tell health service authorities to lie as well or if they don't, well certain people could find themselves on the next redundancy rota during these very hard times. In other words, blackmail.

So people are conned into paying, and are NOT TOLD about the alternatives. And those entering care homes are ALL placed in the medium band for funded care, no matter if they have got arms missing, useless legs, and blind.

I am currently helping a friend of mine who is about to consider what to do with her mother as she is very likely a candidate for a care home. She has, thank goodness Power Of Attorney, but I have warned her not to sign anything, and I have passed on this advice and more, because of what I found out from Esquires and others on this forum over the years.

If you wish to know anything about the duplicity of governments, and how far they are prepared to go to pay out as little as possible, then - once again I'm afraid - you have only to study the Equitable Life scandal.

Cameron and his mob promised before last year's election, to settle this whole unsavoury episode, once and for good, to "everyone's satisfaction".

Oh yeah ! Once in power, they said they would only pay out quite a lot of money to people after a date of 1992. The rest of them can go jump in the lake. And those getting some money have found that this not the full amount lost AND remember the Equitable Life people had the backing of the Financial Ombudsman, Ann Abrahams. In fact the payments process is bewildering - not unlike the process to get full funding for healthcare.

And even some of these people, have so far, not received any money - very few have. Many pensioners who put cash into EL, will probably die before they get anything. The Equitable Life group are STILL fighting.

So if anyone wants to know just how far officialdom will go to dodge their responsibilities then check out the EL site which is:-

http://www.emag.org.uk/

Hello Finn Mickey


Very good post and you are very right about why any government wont enforce CHC funding or follow the law.

Not sure FM isnt there now just one band for fully funded nuring care?

Good comments about EL too.

Kind regards Ian

ian wrote: Not sure FM isnt there now just one band for fully funded nuring care?

Kind regards Ian

Ian,

It's called either the RNCC (Registered Nursing Care Contribution) or the FNCC (Funded Nursing Care Contribution). (Not 'fully funded', for obvious reasons.)

And, yes, Ian - there has only been one band since 1 October 2007 (!!), prior to which there were 3 bands.

It contributes £108.70 per week at present. It doesn't always reduce the costs to self-funders, because private care providers can just sniff in that £108.70 into their own coffers without deducting it from the care fee costs. It works differently with every care provider, and also with every local authority if the LA is providing the care home in question. No one size fits all!

Hope you don't mind my contribution, Ian, to the info you are presenting here.

VM

Hello VM

Not at all I always know I can rely on you for the correct information when I dont know, or am not sure.

Thats what a top researcher does so well.

Very kind regards Ian

You are correct VM. The RNCC of about £108 per week is not always deducted from the care home bill. Ironically the ' self funders ' bill is approx the same amount [ approx £108 per week ] higher than the non self funder's!! I told the PCT about this scam thinking they would be shocked that their NHS was lining the fat cats pockets but they just said they already knew this and there was nothing they could do about it. Or should I say they couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. We have been ' done ' by this scam for approx 6 years of paying the [ now bankrupt - how did they manage that? ] Ex Southern Cross Healthcare Group PLC. I hope they enjoy their ill gotten gains - at my poor old Mum's expense !¬!

The National Health Service Act, 1946 states:
'Part 1.- (2) The services so provided shall be free of charge, except where any provision of this Act expressly provides for the making and recovery of charges.'

The National Health Service Act 2006 states:
'1 (3)The services so provided must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.

In fact at no time has any enactment been passed for charges for nursing services to be levied by the NHS. The NHS can charge private patients treated in NHS hospitals and for dental and ophthalmic services etc. The scam of course is to 'redefine health care as social care' and thereby shunt all care costs on to social services by claiming that the primary need is for accommodation, not nursing care. As we all know where the need for accommodation arises as a consequence of an illness or disability thus enabling 'health needs' to be addressed then the primary need is for nursing care - NOT for accommodation - just as it is on a normal hospital ward. Steve.

Steve: In fact at no time has any enactment been passed for charges for nursing services to be levied by the NHS. The NHS can charge private patients treated in NHS hospitals and for dental and ophthalmic services etc. The scam of course is to 'redefine health care as social care' and thereby shunt all care costs on to social services by claiming that the primary need is for accommodation, not nursing care. As we all know where the need for accommodation arises as a consequence of an illness or disability thus enabling 'health needs' to be addressed then the primary need is for nursing care - NOT for accommodation - just as it is on a normal hospital ward.

This also my belief....so WHY and HOW are the authorities getting away with this scam when there are very intelligent people contributing to this site for a start? :confused.

Hello Steve

Thank you for that definition Steve. It shows again how we need to redress this reduction of health care needs as social care needs. Its this that is at the heart of the all issue.

We need to prove that this is contrary to the Health Act, Contrary to the core principles of the NHS and contrary to the constitution of the NHS. And contrary to the principles of treatment and nursing.

I am aware that any action taken along these lines will be costly. Speaking here of a class action based on this issue. WE could be dealing with something that could go on for days or weeks in judicial review. We would need to use many expert witnesses and they would use their own. This action would be massive it could be the biggest action ever taken against the NHS.

Kind Regards Ian

All agreed and observed as operating in practice. How/when do get moving on this please?

ian wrote:

Hello Steve

Thank you for that definition Steve. It shows again how we need to redress this reduction of health care needs as social care needs. Its this that is at the heart of the all issue.

We need to prove that this is contrary to the Health Act, Contrary to the core principles of the NHS and contrary to the constitution of the NHS. And contrary to the principles of treatment and nursing.

I am aware that any action taken along these lines will be costly. Speaking here of a class action based on this issue. WE could be dealing with something that could go on for days or weeks in judicial review. We would need to use many expert witnesses and they would use their own. This action would be massive it could be the biggest action ever taken against the NHS.

Kind Regards Ian

Esquires (and a few others ) have over the years demonstrated that SOCIAL CARE and HEATH CARE are the same when an elderly person HAS to go into a nursing home, and it is all part of the scam. tA huge pretence is made that somehow they are different. And I even hear Lansley echoing this total nonsense in one way or another even now. It is to bamboozle and MAKE YOU PAY.

Whatever is being said from whatever direction healthwise (govt,.SHAs and whatever comes next) simply close your ears. Once you have understood that it really is a conspiracy (and it is the only word that fits this whole business) then you can adapt and face it, as you know where this lot are coming from, and it is certainly not in the direction of the elderly who need healthcare.

Look at today's news about HSBC and the swindle they have managed over the years. And no-one knew, or at least kept quiet about it. That is what is happening with healthcare.

Hello everyone
Following on from Finn Mickey post; does anyone know how camerons speech, I think on Monday went?

This was focused on bringing in more big business involvement and that it was to be a main factor for the future.

Worrying also about the private medical records of patients that could be made available to private concerns.

Just seen on TV text a warning that more care firm providers face the danger of going down the same road as Southern Cross. The impression I am getting is that it is up to the government to make sure it doesnt happen.

I think it would be in the governments interests to let them fail so that they could use that as their excuse to bring in American Care providers.

Agree with Finn Mickeys comments and all this has come out of The Community Care Act that Thatcher masterminded that was the socialisation of aspects of medical care. The same battle is starting in Japan. The situation is very different in Japan because the majority of people suffering from dementias are kept and looked after at home.
But they are regarded as being medically ill. But there are elements within both the government and the health authorities in Japan that are trying to introduce the same thing as over here. But it is being strongly resisted.

Thats still why a legal defintion in law is vital to put a end to this game. All social care needs that are associated with a medical condition, illness or disability are the direct consequence of the foregoing trinity and must not be seen as social care needs in isolation from any medical condition.

Therefore to be regarded as part of medical care and treatment no matter if the individual is in hospital, a care home, or in his/her own home.

We are going to need this if the new health bill gets passed in full without an amendment to section 1 because unless my interpretation is wrong we wouldnt be able to use the health act against them.

If we could use the core principles and the constitution of the NHS against them in its place is another matter.
Perhaps Steve could make comment on this or VM. Personally I dont know. Any body can use the terms of core principles or codes of practice,, M&S, Asda,Sainsburys, all have core principles. But they are not law.
There are laws that govern how businesses operate but it doesnt mean that these are the same as the firms own core principles/codes of practice.

Very kind regards Ian

Read all about it, as the cry used to be.

http://allysonpollock.co.uk/

Click on and read as many 'clickables' and 'readables' as you can.

Then sleep on it. Then go back and click and read again.

It's all there. Nothing to do with VM, (before anyone starts on me again! ) but it's all there.

VM

It's all in 'Coughlan' starting with the observation that "the NHS had attempted to redefine health care as social care" and "here the needs of Miss. Coughlan were primarily health needs for which the NHS is as a matter of law responsible" and " Miss Coughlan's needs were clearly of a scale beyond the scope of Local Authority services" ... etc. The Court didn't invent all this; they were merely applying the law (the Health Act) yet the NHS still apply their cost shunting scam by 'redefining health care as social care'.
The law is unequivocal. As the Law Society confirms, 'anyone who is so ill that they need to be in a care home is entitled to have ALL their care costs met by the NHS' THAT IS THE LAW! Steve.

Well, that sure tells Allyson Pollock to crawl into a corner and forget all about her solidly reliable work, trying to change things that go bump in the night.

She's worked out that there's more to CHC than Coughlan, but that may be because Allyson Pollock has managed to encompass all that has changed and moved on since Coughlan, since 1993 and 1999 and 2003 and 2006 ... so on

After Coughlan came the National Framework(s), both of which were supported by Lord Hunt and a few others too, including the Ombudsman. If you don't like the NFs, you have Coughlan and the Ombudsman to blame!

After Coughlan came assorted new NHS Acts (2006 included, which like the 1977 did not change the basic principles), assorted NA Acts, assorted Statutory Instruments, Directives and Directions all handed down by the Secretary of State (as in post at the time). Not one of those can be ignored.

I admire Coughlan and the support that she found in her solicitor, without whom there would be no Coughlan for everyone to quote.

Life for Coughlan has moved on and changed too. So must post-Coughlan thinking. Otherwise, we might just as well forget any chance of change for the present and the future.

We cannot cling to Coughlan alone.

We have to find more than Coughlan to rely on. It is not all in Coughlan - because Coughlan does not relate to the changes that have come about since 1993.

VM

Whether we like it or not, responsibility for CHC funding is going to be passed to the consortia of GPs who are now forming across the country and will be managing their own budgets I know for a fact they are being advised by PCTs and I have had several heated debates with GPs who say there is not the funding available for patients with dementia unless they are in the final stages of it. When I argue with regard to primary healthcare needs the response is, "Where is the money to come from?"

I think VM & genevieve have raised an important issue. We appear to be operating in a post-Coughlan era (not to minimise the Coughlan case), things have been moved on because the powers-that-be see that they need to change the goalposts.

I think also that we are in a sort of post DST-era. I read here of cases like my own where PCT's ignore the DST criteria weightings and use the much more nebulous arguments around complexity and unpredictability: get two severes and it doesn't mean you get CHC funding. And it is much more difficult to argue about 'criteria' that are not clearly defined.

Which, as I see it, is why solicitors like Hugh James are arguing their cases by addressing the issues of complexity / unpredictability etc.

I fear the day GP's take over the finances (although I am not sure this will include residential care home fees) as they are not equipped and do not have the time for such non-medical stuff.

genevieve wrote:... I know for a fact they are being advised by PCTs and I have had several heated debates with GPs who say there is not the funding available for patients with dementia unless they are in the final stages of it. When I argue with regard to primary healthcare needs the response is, "Where is the money to come from?"

Indeed, they are being advised by PCT's.

The question about money is bound to keep coming up. I can see GP's being taken to court if they refuse to fund care home fees (always supposing that this will be in their remit, which I doubt): in any case they will look for the cheapest option which might mean they dump people on Local Authorities / Social Services.

Incidentally, WE all know dementia is a health issue but the comment about being 'in the final stages' is an interesting and revealing one as it appears that some GP's agree with us, whereas we know that PCT's regard it as a social issue.

ian wrote:

Hello Finn Mickey


Very good post and you are very right about why any government wont enforce CHC funding or follow the law.

Not sure FM isnt there now just one band for fully funded nuring care?

Good comments about EL too.

Kind regards Ian

I did not say there was ONE BAND. What I hoped I said was that Health Care authorities shove EVERYONE into this band no matter the scale of the care necessary for the individual concerned, and no-one - and I mean no-one - gets fully funded care from day one. And that is a picture that has been repeated from all over the country and reflected in the replies on this forum. There are I believe three eligibility bands - and, again as Esquires has repeated too many times, they are ALL illegal. Only fully funded care should be provided.

My own particular fight - and someone else who contributed to this forum had exactly the same experience only recently - ended by the relative SHA conceding fully funded care for the last three to six months of my mother's life. And as I said that was after fight that is still going on.

SHAs and PCTs are instructed to con ( but you will never find a paper trail about this ) and they are told to do so at the point of a gun.

Hello Finn Mickey

They slipped up with Grogan though when it was a three band system. They attempted to change her bands and the judge deemed it unlawfull.

Why do they even bother at all with this Funded Nursing Care Contribution? Why do they have something called a contribution? Which implies what it is just a part payment for something they should be paying in full.

Why bother with eligibility bands? When according to them all nursing care is free anyway.
Its a farse and when it is payed it is often not knocked off the bill and just pocketed by the Care home manager.

Seems to me its because if they didnt have it they would have to admit that the all care in a care home was their full responsibility which in accordance with the core principle of the NHS health Act it is.

Again it shows how they are making a division between nursing care and social care and with someone with a medical condition there can be no division between the two.

Its all coming back to the same thing FM we need to destroy that division and probably the only way we can do it is through the law courts.

Times running out fast, who knows what will transpire with the new health bill. If the DOH gives responsibility to make provisions of services on to such as doctors and private organisations, then it is against them that we would have to take action. The majority of doctors are against this new health bill and so are the nursing profession. The government is trying to wash its hands of its responsibility towards the NHS.

One of the old definitions of the two main parties that has stuck in my mind since my studying days is most apt:

With Labour you have a party that will give money away that they dont have:

With the Conservative Party, you have a party that has the money but wont give any away, or as little as possible.
But with the Conservative Party the trick is to make the people believe that they are receiving more when in effect they are receiving less. I dont have much faith in politics anymore.

Kind regards Ian

Ian yes you are correct when you say " Its a farse and when it is payed it is often not knocked off the bill and just pocketed by the Care home manager."

This theft happened to my Mum in the last 6 years of her stay in a Southern Cross Healthcare Group PLC Nursing Home !! I think the Directors would have pocketed the money though - not the care home Manager !! I informed the PCT but they didn't seem very concerned that the NHS was helping to line the fat cats pockets. Why am I not surprised ??

Ian wrote

With the Conservative Party, you have a party that has the money but wont give any away, or as little as possible.
But with the Conservative Party the trick is to make the people believe that they are receiving more when in effect they are receiving less. I dont have much faith in politics anymore.

Ian

you are so right cameron the con will not give the british public anything,But he will Give away 200 plus Billion a year to oversea's aid. And wants to increase this by 37%, The UK Governments past and present are feeding, educating, providing policeing and providing HEALTH care, also building housing overseas , (All Political Parties Guilty of this Not just picking on the cons)Our elderly Sick people get dumped on from a great hight. they get nothing for their sacrifices made over the years tax, tax, tax,and more tax this lot make the sheriff of nottingham look like a novice

If they continue to brain wash the younger generation into beleiving that they are paying to keep the elderly in long term care, then the younger generation will fall into the trap, It will be everyone pays for health care/treatment short and long term no matter what age you are or the illness disability or injury you suffer from


Mick