August 17, 2009 at 18:06
· Jon writes about Health & Education
Perhaps Mr Hannan cannot see that in America millions of people go without healthcare insurance, as they simply cannot afford to pay it. Imagine if that was the case in this country, not just fear over loosing money from not being able to work if you fall ill but then not able to get better as you simply cannot afford medication to help you back to full health. Luckily, President Obama is attempting to carry on building the blocks so many other Democratic president’s before him have initially started to create – and start what they all failed to do, create universal healthcare coverage in the USA.
Daniel Hannan is a man who came to ‘fame’ from his YouTube publicised attack on Gordon Brown in the European Parliament, and a man who was hailed by the Tories at the time for doing so. Yet now the Tory leader, David Cameron, brushes off Hannan’s attack on the NHS as simply ‘eccentric’. But if that was simply the case, Mr Hannan surely wouldn’t have been given such a strong platform as to be invited to speak at the Conservative spring conference, after his famous outing on YouTube. Hailed and applauded by many Tories at the time, is it the same case now? Quite possibly, as Hannan is no stranger to the heart of the Tory party – writing speeches even for Michael Howard and William Hague. Surely a man with such ‘eccentric’ views, wouldn’t be writing for Conservative leaders? But something that is more striking is that even David Cameron endorsed Hannan’s book, which included the MEPs outlined views for Britain, calling the NHS unnecessary. Is that something a Tory leader who supposedly supports the NHS should be endorsing?
According to David Cameron anybody who doesn’t directly agree with the direction of your leadership, and speaks out should be sacked. That’s the attack he ran on Gordon Brown in the build up to the European Elections, so then why is Daniel Hannan simply branded as an ‘eccentric’ and left without criticism from Cameron? So by his own standards, Mr Cameron has displayed weak leadership, and is not fit to run the country. It just once again shows the non-existent morality of Cameron’s so called ‘progressive’ Tories. Nobody else in Cameron’s party has come forward to criticise Hannan’s comments directly, a sign that perhaps they still do not want to talk about the NHS. According to the Tory leader, they are the ‘party of the NHS’, but perhaps before convincing the electorate he should attempt to convince his own party, as a surprising amount of young Tory activists agree with Hannan’s radical thinking over the national health service, which would see the whole system privatised. On Twitter one Tory activist said to me that he even felt it ‘unfair’ that the NHS system supported those at the bottom, yet everybody had to pay for it. I asked him whether he used the NHS, despite slamming the public system, he said if he didn’t have to pay National Insurance he would go private instead. I wonder if he realises how much less NI contributions are compared to paying for private health coverage?
The only connection the Tories have with the NHS is the colour, and let’s hope it stays that way. How can we trust our health service with people who want to sell our medical records to Google and Microsoft, despite concerns over privacy? How can we trust our health service with people who endorse plans to scrap it all together? Daniel Hannan thinks the system should work by how much money you have, he said he wanted to walk into A&E and go straight to the front of queue because he could pay for it – a system based on the ability to pay and not need. Labour is the only movement actively saying we need a system based on need, and not the ability to pay – everyone else is strangely quiet… or are they all just eccentric?
Keegan wrote @ December 29th, 2009 at 00:07
Good sir Jon I agree. Universal Healthcare is a necessity, and it is important you inform Britons just how important it is. I live in America and I and everyone else I know would take Universal Healthcare in a minute. If you get a heart attack in America, if you can’t afford it they will literally throw you out of the hospital (This is no exaggeration). And most of those who can afford it spend years and decades later trying to pay for it all, and are reduced to poverty.
The British have it really good with the NHS, they should be expanding it, not limiting it. Privatizing is another word that literally means “lets make it accessible to the wealthy”. Do not take America’s example, trust me.
Sam wrote @ January 3rd, 2010 at 09:51
Once again, British system, American System, not the only ones.
Privatising =/= the American system only
Universal Health Care =/= The British System only.
Both have good and bad points – I have posted somewhere else about this I will post my comment below in another, if you get my drift.
Sam wrote @ January 3rd, 2010 at 09:53
” the NHS has been hailed as generally a good thing, even though in a lot of cases it doesn’t offer a very high level of service, and the only other option people suggest is the American one, which is more often than not derided. I think it boils down to whether you think you have a right to healthcare… hmmm. I would say you have a right to emergency healthcare, but perhaps not free treatment for all illnesses. I’m constantly changing my mind about this.
If a system based upon a private health sector was used in Britain, it would help to eliminate all anti-smoking/drinking/eating campaigns as it would be accepted that if you chose to abuse your body in that way then you should pay if you want to repair it afterwards. Privatising it would encourage competition which would improve the quality of healthcare, in theory – The hospitals are gonna want to make money and the only way to do that is to attract ‘customers’ and the only way to do that is to be a good hospital. The American system based upon this is just a bad version of a theoretically good idea – I think that the NHS is in theory a good idea, but it too has been executed pretty shoddily (see http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/08/criticising-nhs-is-not-treason.html). The money saved from paying tax towards healthcare could be used to buy Health Insurance – at least this way you have a choice whether to provide for your future health problems. Furthermore these private health providers could be run like a friendly society, so you pay for a share in a hospital in exchange for health service, or something I dunno- the main point is opting in for health service is voluntary.
The amount of money the NHS gets doesn’t always filter down into the hospitals as this article shows http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/6413018/Its-time-to-slay-the-bureaucratic-monster-thats-ruining-the-NHS.html. “
Sam wrote @ January 3rd, 2010 at 09:54
Oh, here is another reply someone posted on the subject
“You think that the private sector is *more* bureaucratic than the public sector?! What planet are you living on?
The NHS is *not* run like a private company. In private sector companies, spending more than 12 billion on a new software system, that turned into a disaster would result in a *significant* management overhaul (which is why it wouldn’t happen in the first place!).
The problem in the NHS (and all public organisations), is that private companies know if they get a public sector contract, it is a gravy train. I know this because I actually sat down with consultants from Sun and Accenture that were moving off our project onto the NHS one when it started… and they used these exact words.
I also know the problems it causes, because in 2004 my mother was laying on a hospital trolley bed for 6 hours, dying from cancer, waiting for an ambulance from Guys to St Thomas’ (what, 15 mins?). The NHS dispatcher explained to my father that the private ambulance company doing ‘non-emergency’ transit always caused these problems, but were on a long term contract.
Let’s be clear, *we are customers of the NHS*. Our money is not being managed well at all, and we *should* be pissed about it. If I invest in a private company, I have a say in how my money is used. I am a stakeholder and I expect minimum waste and maximum return. I even have a vote to select the management team best able to do that. You could argue that is what a general election is, but I just think it is too broad and too indirect. We should be selecting the elite of our country to run our critical services. There are people with 30 years experience in running large organisations efficiently out there and available. Take 1% of the waste in the NHS and offer it as a salary for ‘NHS director’ and have more promising candidates than you know how to deal with.
Again, private sector is a little too ruthless in the pursuit of profit, the public sector is too casual with money… we need a middle ground.”
I’m just trying to throw some other opinions into the mix
Sam, of course criticising the way the NHS is run should not be discouraged – only through clear debate on policy do we ever achieve anything but the system is something that should be praised – free healthcare coverage keeps people alive, fact and I’m hugely proud to have a system in Britain that does this. Opting in is a failure in its own right. What happens in an emergency and somebody has not made the provision for healthcare because that person thought and believed they would never fall in. Is it then the job of the state to stand back and watch them die? Or to step in and give them support? It would be a disgrace to stand back and see somebody suffer, simply because they had other concerns than factoring healthcare insurance into their budget – or simply had to do without to fund other parts of their life.
You made a general theoretical point about privatisation – “Privatising it would encourage competition which would improve the quality of healthcare”. Just look at every other British industry that has been privatised and see the mess that those former public run industries are in now. The dire state of the British rail system being held to ransom by companies that have taken advantage of a quick-fix created years ago. Utilities – being held to ransom by companies out to make a profit. People rely on these vital services to live, and are rewarded with bad service and a fortune to pay. If the NHS is ever to go the same way it would be a huge disaster on a massive scale.
There are people out there running banks on huge bonuses and salaries and just look where that got us. Throwing money at directors and executives is never going to work. The NHS is a huge system and things are always going to go wrong, but it ultimately comes down to what you value – perhaps we can go on trying to combat waste and make the system more efficient at delivering a good service but being small minded and just focusing on ‘efficiency’ would be crazy. That view would continue to see target-driven results founded in the system – also born out of slap-dash decisions for a quick-fix.
