Quick, who said this:
"(P)romising fundamental changes to the country's expensive and over-stressed ... health care system ... the reforms would cut red tape and improve treatment, but critics claim they will cause chaos ..."
Nope, not BarryNancyHarry. This is "The New MVNHS©" and it's the rallying cry of Prime Minister David Cameron. The primary issue seems familiar: who's in charge of health care decision-making, the docs or the bureaucrats? Currently, it's the latter, but that could change:
"(B)y giving control over management to family practitioners rather than bureaucrats, and allow private companies, charities and social enterprises to bid for contracts within the public health service ... Making health care more efficient ..."
Heh.
So at a time that many here want to see us adopting a British-type system, the Brits themselves are seriously considering scrapping it? Wow!
Worse yet (from our own statists' perspective) is that Mr C is taking direct aim at those self-same bureaucrats:
"Cameron promised to get rid of "topdown, command-and-control bureaucracy and targets."
Whoa there, fella, that's some dangerous rhetoric.
For those who continue to deplore the (alleged) 17% of our GDP that goes to health care, keep this little number in mind:
"The health service is Britain's biggest employer, costs more than 100 billion pounds ($158 billion) a year." [emphasis added]
Looks like that ostensibly superior health care scheme hasn't been any more successful at reining in health care costs (or demands) than we have.
"(P)romising fundamental changes to the country's expensive and over-stressed ... health care system ... the reforms would cut red tape and improve treatment, but critics claim they will cause chaos ..."
Nope, not BarryNancyHarry. This is "The New MVNHS©" and it's the rallying cry of Prime Minister David Cameron. The primary issue seems familiar: who's in charge of health care decision-making, the docs or the bureaucrats? Currently, it's the latter, but that could change:
"(B)y giving control over management to family practitioners rather than bureaucrats, and allow private companies, charities and social enterprises to bid for contracts within the public health service ... Making health care more efficient ..."
Heh.
So at a time that many here want to see us adopting a British-type system, the Brits themselves are seriously considering scrapping it? Wow!
Worse yet (from our own statists' perspective) is that Mr C is taking direct aim at those self-same bureaucrats:
"Cameron promised to get rid of "topdown, command-and-control bureaucracy and targets."
Whoa there, fella, that's some dangerous rhetoric.
For those who continue to deplore the (alleged) 17% of our GDP that goes to health care, keep this little number in mind:
"The health service is Britain's biggest employer, costs more than 100 billion pounds ($158 billion) a year." [emphasis added]
Looks like that ostensibly superior health care scheme hasn't been any more successful at reining in health care costs (or demands) than we have.
Posts
