The Tories (and austerity) are not just bad for people's health via the engineered crisis in the NHS, but reduced the healthy lives of people in the most deprived areas to less than 50 years of 'good health'.
-
The Tories (and austerity) are not just bad for people's health via the engineered crisis in the NHS, but reduced the healthy lives of people in the most deprived areas to less than 50 years of 'good health'.
Its not entirely surprising but its still shocking, not least as people in the richest areas have TWENTY years more of 'good health'.
The Q. is what can be done to reverse this trend when austerity remains the policy (that cannot speaking its name)?
#NHS #health #inequality
h/t FT/ONS -
The Tories (and austerity) are not just bad for people's health via the engineered crisis in the NHS, but reduced the healthy lives of people in the most deprived areas to less than 50 years of 'good health'.
Its not entirely surprising but its still shocking, not least as people in the richest areas have TWENTY years more of 'good health'.
The Q. is what can be done to reverse this trend when austerity remains the policy (that cannot speaking its name)?
#NHS #health #inequality
h/t FT/ONS@ChrisMayLA6 I think the problem runs deeper, and emanates from the "Americanization" of healthcare systems and otherwise public infrastructure. It used to be so, that in each of the public sector, there were components that ran at a loss, others at a profit. They complemented each other. With the "Americanization", or privatization, the profitable components were sold off, and the ones thst didn't, remained in the states' hands, for the taxpayer to bear the brunt.
-
The Tories (and austerity) are not just bad for people's health via the engineered crisis in the NHS, but reduced the healthy lives of people in the most deprived areas to less than 50 years of 'good health'.
Its not entirely surprising but its still shocking, not least as people in the richest areas have TWENTY years more of 'good health'.
The Q. is what can be done to reverse this trend when austerity remains the policy (that cannot speaking its name)?
#NHS #health #inequality
h/t FT/ONS@ChrisMayLA6 unless they are aglomerated again, fully nationalized, the problem will never be solved.
-
The Tories (and austerity) are not just bad for people's health via the engineered crisis in the NHS, but reduced the healthy lives of people in the most deprived areas to less than 50 years of 'good health'.
Its not entirely surprising but its still shocking, not least as people in the richest areas have TWENTY years more of 'good health'.
The Q. is what can be done to reverse this trend when austerity remains the policy (that cannot speaking its name)?
#NHS #health #inequality
h/t FT/ONS@ChrisMayLA6
I'm pretty sure Starmer and Streeting are trying to get that down to 40 years of good health so they can outdo the farther right. -
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
The Tories (and austerity) are not just bad for people's health via the engineered crisis in the NHS, but reduced the healthy lives of people in the most deprived areas to less than 50 years of 'good health'.
Its not entirely surprising but its still shocking, not least as people in the richest areas have TWENTY years more of 'good health'.
The Q. is what can be done to reverse this trend when austerity remains the policy (that cannot speaking its name)?
#NHS #health #inequality
h/t FT/ONS@ChrisMayLA6
> what can be done to reverse this trendEducation, community building, political representation not of but by the people. And first of all acknowledging that austerity **is** the plan. There are things riches can't do and have while laws are enforced. They are about change it. Right now. The technical means for the mass enslavement are loaded and ready.
The theory before the conspiracy has already fallen:
-
@ChrisMayLA6 I think the problem runs deeper, and emanates from the "Americanization" of healthcare systems and otherwise public infrastructure. It used to be so, that in each of the public sector, there were components that ran at a loss, others at a profit. They complemented each other. With the "Americanization", or privatization, the profitable components were sold off, and the ones thst didn't, remained in the states' hands, for the taxpayer to bear the brunt.
What's so maddening is that int he public sector as you say (now) cross subsidy is regarded as wasteful, with profitable aspects sold off or drained of cash while the loss-making aspects are regarded as in crisis...
Virtually every successful business in the history of economics has cross subsidised aspects of it operation if not in perpetuity for long periods - that the public sector, when 'managed like a business' is somehow not allowed to do this, is just hypocrisy or madness
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topicR relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
