On Facebook, Doc Emer asks "What's wrong with the NHS?" and links to a story about the service's "own answer to whether it can survive as a unique system of healthcare."

I suggested that the more important question is whether (and why) the MVNHS© should be saved.

After almost 10 years of blogging on the Much Vaunted National Health Service©, it seems to me that the problems are endemic, and systemic. One of the biggest challenges is that, contra its supporters, the folks who run it have had no more success in reining in health care costs than any other system, the Liverpool Pathway notwithstanding.

The linked story begins propitiously enough: titled "How to save the NHS in just 50 pages," it sets forth a kind of Five Year Plan [ed: how ironic] the purpose of which is to "make the case for some of the changes we’re going to need.” And what are these changes?

That's a good question.

Unfortunately, the answer's a bit vague: "It’s not a one-size-fits-all blueprint for every part of the country, let alone a detailed plan for everything that needs to happen."

So, a typical government white paper, long on rhetoric and short on substance. No real surprise there. What I do find startling, though, is that the article explicitly sets forth the real problems facing the service:

"And as no political party wants the NHS to visibly decline on its watch, this is a not-so-subtle public warning that without extra billions, bad headlines and public discontent will follow."

Short version: "It sucks, we can't justify its continued existence,but I can't be the one to pull the trigger."

Which is pretty much where we'll be with a few more years of the ObamaTax under our belt.
 
Top