That's what David Cameron wants the Conservatives to be:

Quite an ambition. But an achievable one, since Labour have failed to improve the the NHS despite pumping billions of pounds of our money into it. Instead, they have destroyed it in many ways, changing it into a service that worries more about meeting targets than making people better.

That there is also little ideological difference between the two parties over the idea of the NHS, making it hard for Labour to claim as unassailable territory. Whether the Conservatives can really manage to become the "party of the NHS", I don't know - but if they can, it will be a substantial victory. I'm not convinced that it will be easy, or even possible, to do so. But it is certainly traditional Labour territory [much like the North] that the Conservatives certainly can and are making substantial inroads into.

Even though it's slightly out of date with Tony Blair no longer being Prime Minister, watch this video for the view of two doctors on the last decade of Labour NHS policy:

Rights and responsibilities for entitlement to NHS care?! We pay our taxes which pays for the NHS. So why on earth should we have any "contract" with the NHS that requires that we change our lifestyles in order to receive the healthcare which we have already paid for?!

Whether you smoke or are overweight, so long as you pay your taxes, there is no reason how or why you should not get the healthcare which you have already paid for. You have the right to get free healthcare from the NHS whether or not you have a perfect healthy lifestyle - that's the whole point of the NHS! Healthcare free at the point of delivery as required. Otherwise what's the point of paying taxes for an NHS that you won't benefit from?

If you are a British citizen and require healthcare, you are entitled to it from the NHS. No ifs or buts about "responsibilities" that require people to change their lifestyle before treatment. Of course they should take change their lifestyle to be more healthy, but that should not be part of any requirement for free healthcare from the NHS - it has already been paid for.

There is no choice about whether or not you pay tax for the NHS, so the NHS should have no choice about whether to treat you. If the NHS wants to become a conditional service, then it should be privatised.

Government departments really are just haemorrhaging data about us, the people, who give them this personal information because they require that we give it to them. First the HMRC lost the personal financial details of 25 million people. Then we find out that they have also lost six other discs with our data on it. Then it came out that the details of 3 million learner drivers has been lost. And now the NHS is at it:

So posting discs certainly isn't a one-off or even rare occurrence in the public services, but apparently standard practice!

Even though none of this is directly the fault of ministers of the government, they are responsible for it nonetheless. They have consistently failed over the last decade to ensure that our data is dealt with in the proper confidential manner. And these are the people who want us to give them all of our details, to be collated in one place as part of an ID card scheme! No bloody way.

What these stories show is that it is not possible for the State to be trusted with any more of our data than absolutely necessary - and that this data should be spread out with as little as possible in one place.

And there's one more point to consider - all of these stories have only "emerged" as a result of the investigation after the original massive loss by HMRC. Would they have bothered to tell us about any of these had that not come to light itself?! I very very much doubt it.

So in a "clampdown on spending" the NHS has turned a £547m deficit last year into a £1.8bn surplus this year. But at what cost to the public? Why do they have this money if not to spend it and use it on bettering facilities and patient care? if they don't need it for that, cut taxes and give it back to the taxpayer!

However, is this surplus good for the NHS? I doubt it. How could it have turned a large deficit one year into an even larger surplus the next year without something happening to the level of service provided? This "clampdown on spending" has probably led to a lack of investment where it is needed and sacking [or just not recruiting] staff wherever possible, no matter the effect on the overall level of care to the patients.

For this financial turnaround in the NHS to have happened to such a large degree is impossible without the lowering of standards. After all, there's no other way that they could have done this since all their income comes from our pockets!

It may look good on the news for the NHS to have a surplus, but it's not good for the NHS on the ground.

Source: BBC

I can't see what that problem is here:

Oh come on! Get off your ridiculous high horse. It is a joke to raise money to save a hospital. There are far, far, more distasteful things that happen every day without any intent to do good. It is because Labour have failed to manage the money they have pumped into the NHS properly that such are campaigns are necessary.

What if it was two Labour MPs. Would Unison be complaining then? Bollocks would they be. They'd be lauding them for doing a public good.

Even if the particular calendar may be ill-advised, it is an attempt to a lot of good and to, in the end, save lives. Sex sells, and it's as simple as that.

Source: BBC

Go to hospital under the alcofluence of incohol and you'll have to pay for it - again - if the Lib Dems get their way:

Not only is this a bad idea, it's pretty stupid too. First problem: define "drunk". Does this mean the consumption of any alcohol? A certain number of units? A concentration in the blood? How can you define "drunk" and where will you draw the line between not having to pay and paying? Second problem: if injured "drunks" don't go to A&E, what are they going to do? If they have to pay, many simply won't. This could well cause their injury to get worse or possibly, in extreme cases, cause death.

Unlike the idiots who made up this policy, I have had experience with drunks as a first aider with St. John Ambulance. Most of them don't want to go to hospital no matter what they have done - from cuts that need stitches, to suspected fractured bones, to stab wounds - and this idea that if they do go that they will have to pay for it would just mean that they certainly wouldn't, and could thus seriously damage themselves.

The NHS is pad for by taxes, everyone's taxes - taxes that include that levied on alcohol. Saying the drunks should have to pay for their treatments removes the very point of a publicly-funded health service. It also sets a dangerous precedent: smokers should have to pay for lung cancer treatment because they knew the risks; alcoholics should have to pay if they have liver problems; and then, eventually, old people should have to pay because they should have known better than to get old. if the NHS is funded by taxpayer's money, no British citizen should be charged at the point of delivery for health care by it. We all pay for it - to different extents, true - but we do all pay for it. And thus drunks - or any other group defined in this way - should be charged at the point of delivery for the healthcare that they have already paid for.

At least we know that they want Charles Kennedy to pay for his healthcare...

Sources: The Times, The Guardian, BBC

How much?!

A minimum of £62million on health tourism?! Why are we funding people who don't even live here to have healthcare? We may have a free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare system, but that is no excuse for allowing it to be abused. Free emergency care is fine, but £62 million goes way beyond that.

When the NHS is as skint as it is at the moment, despite the amount of money that has been pumped into it, we shouldn't be making it so easy for it to be basically ripped off. Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP who uncovered the report, said:
They are, and it is. And it is costing us millions that could - and should - be put to better use.

Source: The Times

Is the NHS radicalising it's workers?

"Eight people arrested in connection with failed car bombings in Glasgow and London all have links with the National Health Service...
Seven are believed to be doctors or medical students, while one formerly worked as a laboratory technician." (BBC)

Considering the evidence, it seems possible. Or it could just be a complete coincidence. One thing the articles doesn't mention is how many people were arrested [or certainly doesn't very clearly]. Thus, eight could be all, most, the majority, or even just a tiny number of those arrested. One would expect, however, that for this to cause a story in its own right, eight must be at least significant amount of those arrested.

Even so - they have been arrested - not charged. No proof exists yet - that we know of, anyway.