The Echo faithfully reports anything that puts our Health Minister in a good light,without a feministic bias.
In her article 'Extra Cash for Health boards Not a Bailout,' Julia Watt allows our dear health Minister to demonstrate the meaning of Semantics. Quite simply ( to the dear lady), the extra £82m that has been set aside for the end of the year - when the health boards fail to meet their break-even target that the Minister assured us ( only last week ) that they would not be in defecit - is a 'Contingency' "to allow the NHS to manage and maintain quality of care". Huh ? Now, I may be a tad slow on the uptake at times but isn't she saying that she knows the health Boards won't break even ( as promised ), so this Contingency Fund will save the NHS the embarrassment of failing to meet their targets - in other words a Bailout for budget failures isn't a actual bailout, as such, it's simply a means of money to ensure that the boards break-even. Confused ?
Ok - it's a ruddy bailout by another name ( semantics, isn't it , see Butty ? ). Of course, it's much easier to understand the dear lady when we have Kirsty Williams AM translating this B.S. by stating, The Minister is predictably denying that this is a bailout", adding that " The Minister has plugged a hole in the the NHS' finances by raiding the Capital Budget". Other AMs agreed but the dear lady insists that "I have made changes to the NHS finance regime, including a review of how we provide flexibility as recommended by the Auditor General" Huh ? Isn't this more semantics to pretend that the extra £82m isn't a 'bailout' ? Why can't politicians speak the truth, instead of persistently being guilty of a 'Terminalogical Inexactitude' ????
And - if the NHS is supposed to "manage and maintain quality of care", how can they achieve this within continually tightening financial constraints.
Incidentally, In case anyone has missed the main point, the NHS is NOT - repeat NOT a Profit and Loss commercial enterprise. On the contrary, the NHS is a PUBLIC SERVICE, established to meet the needs of the tax and N.I. paying public ! Therefore, they are supposed to meet the growing health needs of the increasing population, and NOT to 'cut the patients to fit the service' by reducing services and making them more inaccessible than they already are ! R.W.