You Do Surprise Me

Following on from the rows about the NHS and the damning reports which have been published about care provision in the last few months, I thought I too would offer my own opinion on the subject. I was moved by the revelation published by online magazine The Commentator that the Guardian had yesterday permitted the publication of a piece on its much-revered Comment is Free page by a Spectator contributor, namely Melissa Kite. The subject being funding for the NHS and why those who have private health insurance are denigrated. 

Ms Kite's motivation came from the revelation by Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director for the NHS, that the organisation ought to be more like PC World in its delivery process. Like many right-wingers, Ms Kite included, I believe that the NHS should reform and perform better. I do share her scepticism that maybe it wouldn't be entirely wise for the NHS to privatise entirely, given the fluctuating ability for the markets to provide universal services (but that's the price we pay for capitalism, eh?). 

Her article quotes from the original Beveridge report, which was the arguable cornerstone for the founding of the NHS in the first place. Sir William himself said, "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, responsibility, opportunity in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family". In other words, the NHS will happily provide you with all the basic stuff you need, but don't expect it to bear the brunt of your bad lifestyle choices. 

I also agree that those who do pay for much of their healthcare ought to be applauded for not adding to the burden of our already overstretched system. If I were fortunate enough to have the money, then I too would pay for my healthcare (albeit with certain strings. Tax break for one). 

This leads me onto another similar argument made by the Telegraph's excellent Janet Daley last month. Being American-born, she is well placed to comment and indeed makes some excellent points in the article, particularly on the topic of health insurance. She contends that having a co-payments system for non-basic procedures would help benefit the provision of basic healthcare from a financial standpoint. Again, this should come with strings attached, preferably in the form of reduced NI contributions for those who do have some form of basic health insurance. 

Both of these combined could see a resurgence in healthcare provision and ensure real demand from those patients who will be particular about the treatment they receive. To be able to better provide basic healthcare is what the NHS ought to be striving for, that is why it is there. Added to this the Friends and Family test which, although shaky right now (and unwittingly mentioned in an earlier post of mine), should add weight to what patients think of their treatment and enable others to choose where they are treated. All this is designed to continue to help raise the NHS's game and ensure that it continues to deserve the epithet of "best in the world", for I am sure neither we or it can stomach another damning report.