Our beloved and saintly NHS, which previously could do no wrong, has come under a lot of criticism recently. Most of the time this is along the lines of 'it's a typical state-run industry: too centralised, the extra money being pumped in will be wasted, the private sector is better'. Sometimes it is not that sophisticated, but that's the sort of thing. Often the argument will then go 'Extra money cannot cure it, only privatization will", and as proof, see the fact that the 'The American -- largely private -- health care system is better'.
Let us run with that idea, for now ignoring any evidence to the contrary (e..g which might or might not be provided by life expectancy, or by comparisions with non-private systems in other countries). So the argument is: 'Extra money cannot cure the NHS, only privatization will", and as proof, see the fact that the 'The American -- largely private -- health care system is better'.
Does this hold up? Well the proof doesn't. When examining the US system, surely one can see that if it is better, it is not because it is private, responsive to customers' needs, etc? It is because it spends
nearly three times more money per person? (the data is 1995 but I doubt much has changed).
A better argument would be that the only way you can spend that much is to make it private, because the public won't stomach paying taxes when there is no direct link to their own healthcare. Unfortunately of course so far Gordon Brown's budgets have been generally popular. But we shall see.
It could, of course, be a little bit of both. But it is interesting how most of the critics allege it is poorer because it is state-run, rather than because it spends 1/3 as much.
posted by Matthew @ 8/15/2002 03:21:00 PM
Comments: 0
