And whose sock puppet is this?
No one's, though I was invited to comment on this by a friend who is a regular on this board as he knows that I am both (1) British and (2) a libertarian opposed to most things socialist. I won't name names as I'm not sure if he would want to be identified.
This is nonsense. For a start, NIHCE (NICE is a stupid acronym, and is wrong anyway)
NICE is the official version, it's even on their own website -
http://www.nice.org.uk/ . Though yeah, it leaves out a letter so that it can be just slightly more sinister and Orwellian than otherwise.
does not approve what an individual gets treated with, that is left to the doctor and the Trust (apart from transplants, where a body does have to decide who gets an organ, though this is because of the rarity of some donated organs and not cost). Secondly, the NHS does not prevent people getting private healthcare - in fact far from it, the state will pay for people to be treated in a private hospital (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7742363.stm). Yes, the NHS has on occasion withdrawn treatment from people who have paid for private healthcare (usually because of the scale of what the person has been paying, though this was a very rare occurance), though after the Richards Review this should not be happening (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhealth/194i/194i06.htm). Yes, there are variations in standards between hospitals in various parts of the country - but what system would that not happen in?
Your first point - I did say that in my post. It doesn't mandate
exactly what is allowed and disallowed. However its 'price for life' is what sets the funding allocations, so if your Trust is allowing stuff NICE doesn't approve, they are almost certainly withholding other stuff that it does (or withholding treatment from smokers, or fat people, both of which have happened here). If you really are British you presumably have heard of the post code lottery. This is the cause, not random variations that would happen regardless of the system.
Second point - I'm pleased to see that this ban was (eventually) repealed. I was not aware that it had been, probably because it has only happened in the last couple of months of the NHS's 60 year existance.
More nonsense. If a rich man, or a moderately well-off man, wants treatment he can go to any one of the hundreds of private hospitals in the UK and have it.
He can now, it seems, but 6 months ago he couldn't. Still, I don't think that I was far wrong with the difference in mindset. Take this article, for instance, in a
private healthcare industry journal, that says:
"However, there are fears that, if patients can top up their treatment, only wealthier people who can afford such treatments will benefit."
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/news/november-2008/nhs-top-up-ban-removed-30091/I really do not understand this sort of thing at all. Only the wealthy (or really the moderately wealthy, I suppose, as the very rich could have afforded to leave the NHS entirely even before the repeal), will be saved, therefore it's preferable that the wealthy die
and the poor die, so that it's equal? It's madness. I don't know a single person who would say they're comforted by the fact that, as they lie dying, someone else is being forced to die for no good reason but to make them feel better. I think this is a repulsive thought.
As for the criticism of Hannan, that was inane (but sadly par for the course when it comes to Labour) but Hannan is wrong on this issue - perhaps after the criticism of Brown he has got too big for his boots.
I disagree. Even if you like universal healthcare (and personally I have problems with it - I would much rather a charitable system), the NHS is a pretty mediocre universal system, one of the lowest ranked in the OECD. Countries like Singapore, that spend less and get better results, while still being universal, have much greater private involvement and private funding.
The controversy was not because they were outsourcing cleaning to the private sector, the controversy was that the cleaning provided by the private firms was so sub-standard that it led to several outbreaks of infection. Had it not been there would not have been a controversy. As for reform of the NHS, I am unaware of any genuine reform (ie: reform that is actually well intentioned and not an excuse for someone to make a quick buck) that has led to serious opposition - most people when questioned (including the two mentioned in the Times article) want a better NHS.
That is the stated reason, but plenty of nationalised parts of the NHS are subject to similar failures and this, while provoking criticism of their particular actions, is never presented as an attack on the idea of nationalised healthcare. Usually it is presented as a justification for giving the nationalised system even more money and control.
America wouldnt accept a system that, compared to medicare and the other state programs provided much more help, to far more people, was much less open to fraud and which was a lot cheaper?
It doesn't make sense that a programme that offers insurance at a low, equal price regardless of a person's actual requirement for treatment should be cheap. The only way it could be cheaper than what the US has now is by taking over part of the private market, and then reducing the quality of coverage.