Douglas Carswell has entered the fray with this post, announcing that he intends to support the coalition plans. In this post he writes:
"Of course there are various vested interests opposed to change. They should be listened to carefully and with respect. But at the same time, we should remember that the British Medical Association, for example, has pretty much opposed every single reform ever since the NHS was founded. We should no more run a health service for the benefit of the BMA than we might run a political system for the benefit of MPs." (my emphasis)Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings........ Mr. Carswell, we do run a political system for the benefit of MPs and it is called representative democracy - but I digress.
Of course Douglas Carswell is correct when he says 'we', as in 'government and politicians' should not run a health service and it is a great pity that government and politicians cannot accept and understand that they should not run anything - but again, I digress.
I would venture that most people believe the NHS, in it's current format, has existed well beyond its sell-by-date and that change is needed cannot be denied. The main problem, in enacting change through the years, is that that change has been driven by political dogma to the detriment of the people. Radical reform is necessary, reform that puts the people in charge of their healthcare and in this respect perhaps a system based on that operated in Switzerland would be the way forward. On the two matters mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, do read this and this - while bearing in mind the content of the preceding post. That change would, no doubt, present problems in implementation and may necessitate two systems being operated for a number of years, but then radical change never is easy.