I don't expect many lefties will answer this question here as they probably don't read this blog, but if they do it would be appreciated. I have just read a post on Liberal Conspiracy titled "Worried about NHS being privatised? You should be" which details some sort of arrangement in Cambridgeshire.
Anyhow, the specifics are not really relevant, rather what I want to know from those on the Left who tend to get terribly excited at private involvement in health care provision is this. What is more important to them? That people receive treatment, free at the point of use with no bills to pay, or the structure of the delivery of those services?
This is one of the thing that has always bemused me about the "anti-private" reaction from the Left about the NHS. It seems to me that they care more about the structure being ideologically pure than the service it provides being (a) free* for those using it and (b) the best it possibly can be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that private will be, by necessity, rather I'm confused by the visceral reactionary attitude to changing the structure that delivers a service to people where they are not expected to pay a bill etc. I really want to understand the position of those that oppose change.
So again, what is more important to the Left? That everyone who can currently use the NHS can carry on using the NHS as is without finding they have to pay for it? Or ensuring that the structure remains owned by state at all cost irrespective of whether the front-end user-experience remains the same in both cases?
* When I say "free" I obviously mean "free" in the sense that no bill is presented. Clearly it's not free, as it's paid for through taxation.
No comments:
Post a Comment