The news I take away from this 'news' article is that the BBC has fired or overruled everyone who has a medical or scientific education.
In short, the BBC is the broadcast media science service of the Daily Mail.
So there's no point questioning the facts, or the presentation of deliberate distortion - take it as a given and ask the only question that remains:
"Who profits from the propaganda?"
You could phrase that as: "What's the agenda?" but it's better to look at underlying causes with a fair amount of cynicism.
Existing private-sector health providers won't profit all that much: the Priory Group provide excellent in-patient care but their market in depressive illness is tiny, as only single-digit percentages of clinically-depressed people have access to the funding.
There is no evidence of commercial human warehousing providers extending their existing market in 'residential care' for the severely-disabled and local-authority residential youth services into low-cost mental health services; and prison profiteers don't touch mentally-ill 'service users'.
In sort: there is no profit in depressed people.
So my guess is this is propaganda intended to harden public attitudes to the mentally-ill in general, ensuring that there is no public outcry at their destitution and death in the absence of both welfare support and long-term NHS treatment.
I worry that the visible consequences of these policies will be met with public expressions of approval.
Note that this isn't about the public purse: getting people well is always cost-effective for the wider economy (in my case, a decade of non- and underproductivity due to depressive illness cost the Exchequer a cool million, and could've been fixed for an outlay of anout £15,000. It's about diverting funds from the productive economy to politically-privileged profiteers who 'monetise' human beings they refer to as 'the stock' in activities that an economist refers to as 'tax farming' and the rest of us - taxpayers and 'service users' alike - would refer to as exploitation.
And its up to us to spread that word, because the BBC most certainly will not.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-21 09:40 am (UTC)In short, the BBC is the broadcast media science service of the Daily Mail.
So there's no point questioning the facts, or the presentation of deliberate distortion - take it as a given and ask the only question that remains:
"Who profits from the propaganda?"
You could phrase that as: "What's the agenda?" but it's better to look at underlying causes with a fair amount of cynicism.
Existing private-sector health providers won't profit all that much: the Priory Group provide excellent in-patient care but their market in depressive illness is tiny, as only single-digit percentages of clinically-depressed people have access to the funding.
There is no evidence of commercial human warehousing providers extending their existing market in 'residential care' for the severely-disabled and local-authority residential youth services into low-cost mental health services; and prison profiteers don't touch mentally-ill 'service users'.
In sort: there is no profit in depressed people.
So my guess is this is propaganda intended to harden public attitudes to the mentally-ill in general, ensuring that there is no public outcry at their destitution and death in the absence of both welfare support and long-term NHS treatment.
I worry that the visible consequences of these policies will be met with public expressions of approval.
Note that this isn't about the public purse: getting people well is always cost-effective for the wider economy (in my case, a decade of non- and underproductivity due to depressive illness cost the Exchequer a cool million, and could've been fixed for an outlay of anout £15,000. It's about diverting funds from the productive economy to politically-privileged profiteers who 'monetise' human beings they refer to as 'the stock' in activities that an economist refers to as 'tax farming' and the rest of us - taxpayers and 'service users' alike - would refer to as exploitation.
And its up to us to spread that word, because the BBC most certainly will not.