On the waiting list
The announcement on health has been cancelled. I canβt moan. Only the other day, I was complaining to someone about the way the European Commission didnβt co-ordinate its announcements, and how after a drought of directives we get them all coming along at once.
has, Iβm told, decided that the focus needs to be on todayβs announcement on carbon dioxide emissions, not on health. A spokesman says the plan will be put off until January for "purely agenda reasons".
Very sensible, if a bit last minute. Why on earth didnβt they make the decision weeks ago? I suspect this is not the whole story.
Insiders lead me to belive that Barroso wasnβt quite happy with the impact assessment: the document that looks at exactly what the new law would mean.
I get the impression he felt the figures werenβt watertight. My source says that the big difference between this commission and others is that they donβt just fling ideas out left right and centre: if a document goes on the table it's going to get through.
And that means having the best arguments.
Oh well. The Today programme led on the story this morning and the Ten O'Clock News ran my piece last night.
I suspect getting newsdesks to run the story again in the New Year might prove a bit difficult.
UPDATE:
The health directive has evidently fallen victim to left-wing commissioners and MEPs, who have been lobbying hard to prevent it benefiting the better-off.
They feel that those who can afford money up front and hotel bill and air flights will get an advantage over the rest. So, back to the drawing board.
But I think the commission also wants to have one big barney at a time and the extraordinary row over car emissions is first in the queue.
The commissioners meeting in college this morning will have their sleeves rolled up for a dust-up.
They just cannot agree basic figures about how to achieve the cutback in car emissions. The basic row is between the Germans, who make heavy cars, and the French and Italians, who go for lighter models.
The commission document at the moment has a big gap in it. There's a formula in it "a times x times b" where:
β’ x = the weight of the car
β’ a = er, we are not sure...
β’ b = well, thatβs yet to be decided...
So pretty meaningless. Environmentalists say this means the policy is near worthless. Given the environment is President Barroso's defining mission, he won't like that verdict. More as I get it.
Iβm Mark Mardell, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Mark, i know that you have beeing following the Car CO2 debate in some depth. What is your latest information on thsi debate?
as far as i know there will be weight based system where manufacturers avreage car weight will be calculated and given a slightly easier target talk is of a 'curve' with a 15%-20% gradient. also non compliance fines are likely to be phased in over the first five years at around staring at around β¬10- β¬20 / gram per car over the limit from 2012 and will rise to a higher β¬60-90 / gram level over at least five years.i.e. 2017
As far as ai know the debate is going right down to the wire with an emergency meeting this morning with an announcemnet at 12.30pm(CET)
There's an even more revolutionary idea I've been implementing for 25 years. Get yourself a private insurance from a major company with a global coverage. Then, you'll be able to have a treatment/elective surgery in any country and facility with the best record in a particular speciality.
Oops, I forgot that you're a socialist superstate's citizen. :-(
I thought the health story was too good to be true. I was amazed that Europe was actually considering bringing in legislation which helped ordinary people.
It looks like we in the UK have still got to look forward to arrogant medics, incompetant managers, filthy wards, disgusting food, MRSA etc etc all with an annual price tag of Β£90 billion.
I would not mind going abroad for treatment and as most NHS staff nowadays appear to be foriegn there would be no more language difficulties than you get in an average UK hospital.
Its always the same, whatever the problem the answre is always the same...make them pay more!
Of course its a flat fee not linked to earnings, well we cant have the rich hit as hard as ordinary folk can we... If we didnt have all those horrid people in Economy Class all us in First Class could carry on as normal...
There are several questions raised by your piece.
a) Why do the Europeans think they have a role in determining our health service priorities, or where our nationals are treated? They don't, the EU is now interfering in our every day lives.
b) Very similarly, why do the EU think they should interfere with the products produced by the motor industry? If the car makers in europe are stupid enough not to sort out fuel economy (aka co2) then they will go to the wall when the Japanese do it (they are already in the lead with battery and other similar technologies).
It is time that the British government stopped telling huge porkies about Europe, admitted that it has almost irrevocably signed us up to rule by Brussels and allow us the time to revolt against their stupidity.
Presumably the EU Health Directive will aim to ensure health care equality between member states. However, it will still permit discrimination within national borders i.e. the British Government will still get away with the current system of "health apartheid" at the expense of England.
No doubt the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ will fail to explore this angle when questioning European Commissioners and of course the British minister who is effectively only responsible for the NHS in England.
Do not these festive season developments demonstrate once again that Commissioners are never entirely "independent" of the governments that nominate them and that the idea of having a Commission without a member from each Member State is a pipe-dream, even if the Treaty of Lisbon provides for such an eventuality?
The importance of the Community method has been discussed in another thread. One significant element, adverted to by some contributors, is the fact that the Commission decides by simple majority which at least guarantees its capacity to table proposals even if these are not palatable to some Member States.
The ultimate measure adopted must be presumed to reflect the broader Community interest as it will have gained the necessary majority in the Council. The likelihood of such a majority being obtained has a direct correlation to the amount of jumping up and down done at this stage.
Daniel
At 16.06 today, Le Figaro announced that the draft directive figures are
in 2012 β¬20.00 per gramme over 130
in 2013 β¬35.00
2014 β¬60, and
2015 β¬95.00.
The directive would need full support from EU nations - and car-makers from France, Germany and the UK have already started complaing!
The EU governments now have the opportunity to live up to their environmental claims. Will they? Don't hold your breath!
Hopefully Mark's analysis will be aired on the TV news. Barring any problems with the cameras that is, poor thing on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News 24 at 17:05.
I met energy commissioner Piebalgs last week and he proposed to tax car company executives relatively to how good they achieve their emission goals. Surely, he said, that would force them to make those changes in order to keep their bonuses (Porsche, anyone?) He wasn't quite sure, however, if that would go against human rights or something on those lines and thus it won't be proposed. I find it an interesting idea though.
The impact assessment is as follows: NHS spending will be redirected towards subsidizing private treatment in other countries. A self-reinforcing process would be established triggered initially by those able to secure priority treatment abroad through an advance payment which they can reclaim from the NHS. Assuming taxes are not raised (or other social services cut) there will be therefore be fewer resources left for NHS medical facilities in Britain. The combination of fewer patients and lost funding would lead to the eventual rationalisation and closer of under-utilised healthcare resources in Britain. A 2nd stage of a vicious cycle would then commence as those that might have preferred to use NHS healthcare are compelled by its non availability to travel. The effect would be very similar to the decline of the railways in the 1960s in which deteriorating levels of service encouraged more people onto to the roads, leading to vicious cycle of declining standards that resulted in only those with no alternative using the trains.
The summary of this EU healthcare directive in the βEuropoliticsβ article to which Mark Mardell provided a link to is illuminating. There is no mention of any patient benefits at all. Instead the βEuropoliticsβ summary starts with a happy proclamation for it Brussels readership βFinally β a clear transfer in authorityβ and dedicates its entire summary to listing the new powers which the EU would assume concluding that the Commission would become the βco-organiserβ of healthcare in each EU state. As ever real-world problem solving is a matter of secondary importance β even an accidental by-product β of Commission proposals whose primary goal is always the accumulation of more power for itself.
If the Commission is today discussing carbon emissions I trust they are factoring-in the effect of their ill-thought healthcare directive in encouraging people to book trips to the dentist on Ryanair and investigating the costs of chartering airplanes so that friends & relatives can visit them while in hospital.
eu waste of time bring back full home rule .
To Dave (No 5):
You ask β "Why do the Europeans think they have a role in determining our health service priorities, or where our nationals are treated?"
You are an EU citizen (and a European yourself, by the way, unless Britain is now its own continent). And so, the EU wants to give you the right to get treatment in other EU countries, if you can't get it in the UK for any reason. No one is telling you how to run the NHS. You are just being given more options.
One would think you would be appreciative, but, of course, Europhobic people such as you see only fault, even where there is none.
On the EU draft health care legislation an EU spokesman told journalists: "In some instances healthcare may be better provided in another member state, for rare conditions or specialised treatments for example..."[1]
I was born with a rare condition, something between 0.7% and 0.001% of the population. In those days almost all doctors considered it a mental illness, which psychoanalysts never managed to "cure", but often dreamed of the fame that might come if they could. Sensible parents hid it in the hope the child would survive relatively safely and might still have a decent life. I got terribly bullied but I did survive. Today the official policy in the NHS is unchanged, but in some other EU countries there is excellent and helpful treatment available through their health services. Parents in the UK with such children would like to access that treatment, visiting every few months and filling quite cheap prescriptions back here, but they not only face NHS refusal of permission but would likely have all their children confiscated if they pressed their case. So they either face heartbreaking possibilities with a child's life in their hands, or leave the country.
Numbers are too few to bother those with influence, and the necessity of privacy prevents publicity.
The EU draft proposal would solve some of the problem - outpatient treatment elsewhere in the EU when it is not available in the UK would not need approval, and perhaps legitimate diagnosis and treatment overseas would be some protection from charges of child mistreatment. Far from it being just the rich who would benefit, all those whose families would rally round or can borrow would be empowered. But the UK government's pressing to require prior approval would negate that. Department of Health sources which reportedly said "... any attempt by the commission to override NHS trusts' decisions about the treatments to be funded by taxpayers would be resisted 'tooth and nail,'"[1] imply it about money, but sometimes it is to pander to the political influences of the medical establishment. That sort of local cartel is what "common markets" are supposed to free people from.
How foolish is this government, that after seeing billions of extra funding diverted by the entrenched powers in the health industry, they still pander to their vested interests.
Please keep us informed about how this progresses.
[1]
Re: waiting list
On a separate matter is anyone ever going to sort out the appalling reliability of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ blog software? Much of the time you can't even get through to complain about it. [#5]
True, but the problem helps you understand why GALILEO
(a satellite-based positioning system, which was supposed to be "an alternative to American GPS") is years behind schedule and a "French alternative to Google" and Windows is nowhere to be found.
And poor Galileo insisted that things move after all! ;-(
* 12.
* At 08:51 PM on 19 Dec 2007,
* George smith wrote:
"eu waste of time bring back full home rule ."
Ay laddie, but which home?
Good people, where does all this negativity towards europe come from? Facts: very high proportion of children in Grampian(n-e Of Scotland) has never seen a dentist in his life.One of my continental friends asked after a visit to Aberdeen: why do so many people have no front teeth? Well, probably because there is no NHS dentist to visit. In fact private dentists don't take patients either. Nevertheless if you work you pay for national insurance contributions....which of course includes NHS dental treatment. You are entitled to, but the service is unavailable...would you not rather go or take your child to Germany and visit a dentist there? and ....well you can be sure you get fast, state of teh art and more importantly clean treatment...therefore i mor ethan welcome that fnally europe takes a responsibility in our great british private lives...
Overall I think it will cause many problems. More so in that people from the poorer nations will travel for treatment to the richer nations such as France and Germany.
As for the UK any Labour MP who thinks it will mean people from abroad will willingly wait for 6 months for an operation they can receive in 1 elsewhere and in better conditions need to be taken by the white coats.
As for complaining about an increase in bureaucracy I thought this would be a significant plus for Labour considering their record.