The assault on NHS funding at all levels is clearly an attempt to gradually have it sold off.
I'm always deeply depressed and even angry at how many people genuinely believe the free market will solve all of our problems.
A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society.
The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.
Just that our system is being eroded and is clearly intended to be consigned to the dustbin of history if the Tories have their way.
What premises lead you to conclude that our highest duty is to guarantee our fellow citizens the unlimited attentions of doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, biotechnologists, etc? Keeping in mind, of course, that fellow citizens = collection of complete strangers circumscribed by some invisible line in the dirt.
> The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.
Surely that's not the only thing standing between society and your goals for it. I might start with the fact that voters have resisted paying for the things you'd like them to pay for.
Our status as a social species that works better when it works together and looks out for other members of the group.
Refusing to contribute to a country's social programs and welfare is basically giving the middle finger to everybody who is less fortunate than yourself. Fuck you, got mine.
How charitable and humanitarian.
We have a much healthier and more productive society when we aren't entirely focused on material self-interest and and irrational fear of strangers or 'welfare scroungers'.
Fair. But why define the relevant group as your countrymen? If you do not believe in positive obligations towards strangers, that definition is overly expansive. If you do believe in such obligations, it's overly restrictive-- third world residents are much poorer and are surely more deserving of your help than anyone inside the UK.
> We have a much healthier and more productive society when we aren't entirely focused on material self-interest and and irrational fear of strangers or 'welfare scroungers'.
There's a large space of actions between fearing strangers and showering them with handouts.
This is the important part of your sentence.
The NHS is government assistance, paid for by everybody's taxes, for the benefit of everybody.
I am absolutely in favour of this, as well as government-provided food and housing.
Without free, universal healthcare those poor people than cannot afford outrageous prices under a US-style insurance system for example are, to put it midly, fucked.
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs
Edit: I should point out that I don't agree with them - just pointing out that there are established well funded entities who oppose the NHS - presumably on purely ideological reasons.
But radical regulatory reform is necessary if a dynamic private health sector offering low-cost, high quality and innovative treatment is to emerge.
A private healthcare sector offering low-cost treatment. That never happens in reality.
Did you actually bother to read their recommendations? I can't speak to the NHS, but the second one alone would save a fortune if implemented in the US when you consider how many doctor appointments are scheduled just to obtain prescriptions or to renew them:
> Perhaps most importantly, the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished. Anyone should be at liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse, with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality. Ending current restrictive practices is essential to enable private firms to increase productivity in the sector.
> Restrictions on the types of treatment available ‘over the counter’ should be lifted to enable patients to obtain medication without recourse to registered doctors and regulated pharmacies.
> Burdensome drug licensing regulations should be rescinded. Instead, the testing of new drugs should be left to private firms and free markets. Reputable companies would have strong economic incentives to ensure the safety of their products, while there would also be far more freedom for experimentation and innovation by new market entrants, with huge potential benefits for patients.
> Prohibited recreational drugs, such as cannabis and opiates, should be legalised to allow the sick to benefit from their numerous medical applications.
> Some form of tax rebate could be introduced for patients choosing to opt out of NHS treatment (see, for example, this study from the Adam Smith Institute).
> Private firms should be free to bring in low-cost medical professionals from abroad and at liberty to determine rates of pay and working conditions through private contract.
> Legal reforms could enable patients to waive their right to clinical negligence claims.
> Planning controls and building regulations should be liberalised to enable the rapid development of new private healthcare facilities.
Most of those recommendations operate under the assumption that private firms can be trusted when unregulated and left to their own devices.
Believing this is to repeat past mistakes.
Private = for profit. Quality of service and public safety are never high on the list of priorities for such firms.
> Legal reforms could enable patients to waive their right to clinical negligence claims
So you can have cheap healthcare, but the quality hasn't been vetted and you can't sue for negligence? That's more or less directly taking us back to the "barbers with dirty hands" era of medicine.
Laser eye surgery is reasonably priced. People usually pay for it directly so there's a functioning market, unlike most of the rest of the health care industry.
A friend had it done, but I've no idea how much he paid.