Andy Burnham - What a prize pillock! - Health Donations.

Andy Burnham has made a right old tit of himself today. The London Evening Standard's Paul Waugh writes:

Burnham demands answers on Lansley/CareUK link

Looks like the CCHQ donations vetting team must have missed this one.

The Daily Tel's eagle-eyed Holly Watt and Rosa Prince spotted yesterday's Electoral Commission new register had a key addition.

Andrew Lansley's personal office received a cool £21K from John Nash. So far so boring, in that Nash is a private equity boss. But Nash is also chairman of Care UK, one of the largest private providers of healthcare to the NHS, via walk-in centres, GPs surgeries etc.

On the face of it, this risks a potentially glaring conflict of interest. Here's a firm which gets huge chunks of its £400 million business from the NHS and a politician who hopes to be the next Health Secretary running the NHS.

CCHQ say that John Nash has "a wide range of interests of which Care UK is just one". "Mr Lansley did not solicit this donation. Donations from private individuals in no way influence policy-making decisions" a spokesman says.

But policy, as it happens, includes opening up the NHS to even more private provision.

Still, CCHQ says there are no plans to hand the cash back.

Now, Andy Burnham has written to David Cameron to demand a few answers.

Unfortunately for Jungle Burnham (he's thicker than forest) he forgot to take account of the law of Sod. It turns out that our glorious leader Gordon Brown is not whiter than white. Paul Waugh has a follow up story:

Gordon's links to private healthcare

I've posted separately on the Lansley link to CareUK. Labour are v keen on a row here.

But what's this?

Turns out Gordon Brown himself received a donation from a man with strong links to the private health world.

Lord Leitch, the Chairman of BUPA, a private healthcare company with customers in 200 countries, donated £5,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign.

On 21 May 2007, Gordon Brown received £5,000 from Lord Leitch for his campaign for the Labour leadership. Two years previously, in June 2005*, Lord Leitch had become a non-executive director of BUPA and in November 2006, he was elevated to the role of Chairman.

On top of this, the last time Lord Leitch spoke in Parliament, he spoke in favour of the work of the private sector within the NHS:

‘When we debate healthcare in the UK, all too often the focus is on the NHS alone. Yet the independent sector is more important than ever, providing services directly to patients, residents, insurers, and to the NHS itself. Going forward, all of us must think in terms of partnership, not rivalry…I hope that this legislation will help consign to the dustbin of history the false dichotomies between public and private, and also between healthcare and social care.’ (Lords Hansard, 25 March 2008, Cols. 485-6)

Will Andy Burnham be writing to ask his PM about the connection?

Oh dear, oh dear. Gordon will not be happy with Andrew.

Thick of It spin doctor Malcolm Tucker uses the "C" word.

The Thick of It legendary spin doctor Malcolm Tucker has taken to the air to warn British men about the biggest threat to their health in the modern age - their own silence.

Peter Capaldi, renowned for his character’s unbridled profanity, is issuing a new party line for Macmillan Cancer Support’s Cancertalk Week, which runs from 18-24 January. And the ‘c word’ he is ranting about might not be the one you would expect.



http://twitter.com/MacMillanCancer

www.facebook.com/macmillancancer

Norman Lamb - Unhealthy people will pay more tax.

What a complete and utter idiot Norman Lamb is. I've always thought that a great deal of Lib Dem policies are just pie in the sky - wouldn't it be nice if the world was full of rainbows and fluttering fairies and prancing unicorns and smiley happy people and....... I think you get the picture. Their latest lunacy being put forward by their Health spokesman Norman Lamb is to give income tax breaks for living healthy lifestyle. Norman thinks this will be a fair system, nothing like (as he puts it) the current "Stalinist" system.

Is this idiot on this earth or fuller's? Does he not realise that if the healthy are paying less tax in his utopia, the unhealthy will be paying more. What if you can't play sport or exercise because of some ailment? do you have to get a note from your Mum? Norman says:

"You could, for instance, have a card which you swipe whenever you take part in regular screenings or when you take part in physical exercise. "I'm sure we won't be able to police the amount of wine you drink every evening. I don't seek to move the scheme beyond what is possible to measure."

Hello Norman, is anybody in there? You don't think that forcing people to make the choice between partaking physical exercise, or paying more tax than everyone else, is a little - now what's the word I'm looking for - ah yes that's it, "Stalinist"? And as for "what is possible to measure" I'm afraid, what you can't measure, is quickly diminishing.

Of course this is nothing to do with exercise and everything to do with smoking and drinking. What Norman is really saying is that if you smoke you will pay more tax than everybody else, even though you are already paying a massive amount of tax every time you buy your fags.

Jesus! Is this the best they can come up with? If it is, then the Lib Dems really are in deep trouble.

UPDATE: I've been pulled up by Nich Starling for calling Norman Lamb a complete and utter idiot. Nich is right, I'm willing to believe that Norman is not an idiot all of the time, but I'm afraid on this occasion, he most definitely is.

NICE Tell Alzheimer's patients to forget it.

Can you think of any medical complaint (that can seriously reduce the quality of life for you and your family) that you would expect a doctor to tell you to come back only when it gets worse? That's what thousands of people suffering from Alzheimer's are being told. NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), the government's health watchdog say the drugs available are not cost effective in the early stages of the disease.

Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, said: "The reality is that, for Alzheimer's disease, drugs are only part of the care that needs to be offered. Non-drug interventions have an important part to play and the evidence indicates that drugs are simply not effective for some patients." I say what a load of rubbish. You would expect your doctor to give you every form of treatment available to treat your condition. The fact that the drugs are not effective for some patients should not preclude their use for those that can benefit, cost effectiveness should not be a qualifying factor. The drugs cost about £2.50 a day, which is peanuts when you work out how much you pay into the national health service throughout your working life.

The Alzheimer's Society, with support from drug firms Easai and Pfizer are to challenge the decision in the High Court. Neil Hunt, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, said: "People with Alzheimer's disease and their carers have fought long and hard for their day in court. These treatments have benefited so many families already - where is the justice in NICE's decision to snatch them away? We have to fight NICE's fatally flawed process, which has failed to recognise the benefits these treatments have for carers."

Anyone that has had a loved one suffer from this disease will know what a cruel affliction it is. Let's hope that the Alzheimer's Society's legal challenge is successful.

There is an E-Petition asking the Prime Minister not to deny people in the early and late stages of Alzheimer’s disease access to drug treatments.

Please click HERE to visit the Alzheimer's Society.

Community Treatment Order Bill

The House of Commons is to debate the Government’s proposed Mental Health Bill over the next two days. The Bill, if passed, will see people with violent personality disorders held in confinement without having committed a crime. The government's attempt to change the Mental Health Laws follows the conviction of Michael Stone in 1998 for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell. Prior to the murders it was thought that Stone, a diagnosed psychopath, could not be held in confinement as his condition was untreatable. It was later realised that Stone was indeed receiving treatment, but this treatment was not administered fully.

Community Treatment Orders were to allow patients to be forced to take medicine, or placed in detention if required. After the Bill was previously defeated in the House of Lords, the Government has been required to make concessions and give doctors tight rules on how the orders are implemented.

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "They (the Government) want to force the argument in the direction they want to go. Compulsion is not the only route to treatment. Thousands of patients will access services without compulsion."

Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb Mr Lamb said: "We want to see core principles set out on the face of this bill. Those facing compulsion should have a right to an independent mental health advocate and they should be made aware of that right."

Health Minister Rosie Winterton said: "Every barrier that is put in the way of getting treatment to people with serious mental health problems puts both patients and the public at risk. We believe that this bill strikes the right balance between getting treatment to those who need it, putting in place patient safeguards and minimising the risk to the public."

Q. Should people diagnosed as having violent personality disorders, but have not committed any crime, be held in confinement?

Click: HERE to view the results.

(The results are archived by the British Library)