Why don't you just come out and say you are against the state provision of health care? ++++++ Hi Resident Leftie I don't know if that is directed at me but, for the record, I am 100% committed to the state providing a reasonable standard of health care to all UK citizens. The question is how is should be done. As I have frequently said, I have long since put doctrinal issues aside. It does not matter how we do it, as long as we do it. I believe we need a hybrid system, taking the best of private and public medical systems. As to Stafford, well, it epitomises the worst of a Stalinist system. Please explain to me how it can be that not one single senior manager has been sacked or suspended. In my view, they should be prosecuted for manslaughter. Instead they have mostly been promoted. Something needs to be done about this John

It's all well and good to say that Hannan does not represent Tory Health policy. Indeed, Tim Montgomerie said: "On Wednesday I made it clear that Dan's intervention was a very personal intervention that had z.e.r.o. relevance to Tory health policy. The attack on him by the Labour machine and Adam Boulton is getting ridiculous. A politician is entitled to express an opinion without being accused of arrogance and self-obsession." Sadly, the question is not WHO represents Tory policy (on this or anything else), the question is WHO THE ELECTORATE THINKS represent Tory policy. Peter Mandelson awesome presentational skills will be used to portray Hannon as a respected Tory thinker (he is in many ways) and make much capital from his American outburst. Few will be aware the Tim regards his intervention as merely "personal". Add in the worrying cross-links between some senior Tories and the right wing, anti "socialized medicine" American Republicans and you have a recipe for disaster. I work on the front line of the NHS. My patients are not fools. They are aware of the failings of the NHS. They want change. BUT any change that is perceived as threatening their "right" to a free at the point of entry service will be a disaster. John

Mikey Quite right. Corrected. Thanks for that John

Hi Tony "...a subconscious fear, shared among many, that a Conservative government, given the state of public finances, might just take too big an axe to NHS spending?" ++++ That is exactly why the Tories ARE between a rock and a hard place. ANY move to reduce NHS expenditure is perceived as a threat to health care. It's fun to watch Tubby Tritter in his video, but let me assure you that the NHS is riddled with rubbish like this. Bogus touchy-feely websites which appear to promise much, but deliver nothing. Perhaps the worst example is what has happened to the nursing profession. So many nurses now think that hands-on nursing care is beneath their ability and have decamped from the wards to join Tritter and his many clones. They run round with their clipboards telling everyone else how to do the jobs they are too proud to do themselves. The NHS is NOT safe with Labour. Despite the huge increase in expenditure the actual care you get from hospitals has deteriorated beyond belief. Most people do not have much experience of hospitals. They do not believe me when I describe what is going on. I get lots of emails saying "how dare you criticise our beloved NHS". Even criticism is condemned never mind a suggestion the we might economise. Then they are admitted to hospital themselves or, more likely, an elderly relative is admitted, and I get an email which starts "I had not realised..." Budgets are finite. The demands of healthcare are infinite. Rationing and cost cutting has to be done. New Labour has done it by stealth. By dumbing down the service. We need a government which is prepared to say that, as a country, we cannot afford to provide instant health care on demand for any condition however trivial. I would start with a front end charge. A charge to see the GP. A charge to go to hospital. The charge would be higher outside normal working hours. This would solve a lot of problems overnight. Trouble is, any political party putting that in the manifesto would have lless chance of being elected than if they suggested abolishing the monarchy. John

Get rid of these armies of therapists, try to reduce the influence of the drugs companies on GPs that encourage them to prescribe medicine excessively. +++++ We stopped seeing drug reps in our practice twenty years ago, and have not missed them. Their effect on GPs is much over-estimated. Their influence in hospitals, however, is strong. The fund a lot of "research" and a lot of brown envelops are passed under tables to consultants who write advertorials in medical journals under the guise of "research" Dr John Crippen

Tim, Dr Crippen is only using Centre Right to advertise his own blog. He is not making unique contributions. ++++++ I think that is a little unfair. For sure, my primary writing commitment is to NHS BLOG DOCTOR where I usually write about health care. Many of the posts there are not appropriate for a more general political audience. But there are some issues that come up that are of wider importance. I had a large number of emails about this appalling animated advert. It is sadly indicative of the patronising, intrusive, health-police culture that has grown up over the last 12 years under New Labour. There IS a problem with childhood obesity, but this is not the way to tackle it in an open, democratic society. Do you want young children seeing advertising copy like this? In one year's time, there will be a general election. The banking furore will have been papered over by the Government. Healthcare can never be papered over. It affects too many people, too often. I hope the Tory party is going to bring something coherent to market. It is not doing as yet. A little re-arranging of the deck-chairs, a lot of bland "the NHS is safe with us" but no hard policy addressing the real problems with healthcare. Yes, I did put a longer version of the post on NHS BLOG DOCTOR first. But when I received a large number of emails saying it was of wider significance I cross-posted. You are correct, therefore, to say that it was not a "unique" piece of writing as it was already on NHS BLOG DOCTOR. I could have course not mentioned the fact that I had written about the issue elsewhere. That would surely not have been right. So, yes, I put in the clickable reference. Guilty on that. I write about topics which concern me, and I write about them in several places, including here, and in the main stream media. I always mention (and yes, thereby promote) my main writing venue when I do so. Does such promotion render the contribution valueless? John

Crippen old bean why are you treating dental problems? The guidance from on high is clear, you are a doctor not a dentist and are not qualified to treat dental problems. So don't. The local pharmacy these days will sell co-codamol over the counter as well as ibuprofen. End off! +++++++++++ I don't drill teeth, that is for sure. But if a customer comes in unwell, swollen cheek and swollen septic gum oozing pus I am perfectly qualified and competent to treat that, even though he should go to the dentist. As some people genuinely cannot get an appointment with the dentist, it would be cruel and probably unethical not to start them on appropriate antibiotics. John

ould someone clarify for me why it is that NHS GP's can ask someone if they are private, recommend them to a BUPA/OtherPrivate if they are and this is not seen as two tier medicine? ++++++ Excellent point. I refer lots of patients privately, but still continue to provide them with full NHS care. Just other glimpse of this multi-faceted nonsense John

Wow! I must say I am taken aback by the strength and vitriol of some of the comments. I don't much care for the government's current alcohol campaign, and I certainly do not like the nanny state. But, to those who imply there should be no controls at all, are you saying that no attempt should be made to reduce the number of 12 and 13 year olds who are drinking heavily? John

I used to drink 2-3 alcopops every Friday night when I was at college. Didn't get smashed out of my face but loosened up a bit. Couldn't stand beer. So in short, a war on alcopops would only isolate younger voters, most of whom drink responsible. Posted by: Richard +++++ Not after the 18 year old students. I am after the 13 year old school children. When they have "loosened up" they start making babies. John

Hi FTP Topcliff Absolute rubbish. Who is this statist horror Crippen? This is totally unConservative nagging. Oh dear; by the time the "children' are 18, the die has been cast. Alcopops are a nightmare. They taste like fruit juice. They have been cynically marketed at children of 12 and 13. I agree with you about paternalism for adults, but not for children Make the information available and let people drink what and as much as they like. NOT children If you ludicrously define anything more than a couple of drinks after work as a 'binge', then obviously I didn't advance any such definition. Depends what you mean by "a drink". Most people's home poured G an T is a binge in itself. I have never smoked but I always knew that once they finished with the gaspers they would come for my homely pint. Not after your pint, sir; I am after you daughter's alcopops No return to Edwina Currie! Don't see what that this has got to do with Edwina, John Major and bad eggs Death to the health fascists! Agreed. I work in the health service. I worked under Patricia Hewitt. I wrote the book on health fascists John