I argue in the book that we need to think about health differently and recognise that health creation plays an important role alongside health services and the prevention of disease. It is time to bring it into focus, celebrate and support the health creators and recognise that health is made at home and in the school, the workplace and the community …
I think that’s a good concept and would be one we could adopt to replace the classic (and disastrous) ‘cost benefit’ analysis. We could and should instead just be asking: will this change make people more healthy?
Marcus Rashford in his willingness to use his own money for change has shown us how money works for change – we now have to realise that government creates it, in order also to realise that that change is within any elected government’s general grasp.
If we thought that government should promote health the surely most people would realise that poverty, which is so all consuming, is disastrous for the nation’s health. For, even when people have the means they often make crazy decisions because all their mental bandwidth is focused on feeding their children.
Thus eliminating food poverty is likely to incur less government expenditure and not more. Meanwhile the rest of us have that tax of charitable giving…
It is not a question of not being able to afford equality because you need to resource health, but if you have greater equality you spend considerably less on sickness – so yet another win-win.
It is certainly true the Tories have purloined the NHS as an icon.
Yet in effect it is a sickness service.
We need actually to promote ‘Health’ itself both mental and physical as an even better icon.
I suggest that all government legislation should have included in its title details of how exactly it will promote the electorate’s health.