It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
...
Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients.
online.wsj.com...
Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts
An Indiana experiment that is reducing costs for the state and its employees.
“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.”
Dr. Durie added, “The gulf between the rhetoric of the white paper and the technicalities of what is involved in the various elements of the overall reorganization being proposed is just extraordinary.”
For example, he asked, how will the government make good on its promise to give patients more choice — a promise that seems to require a degree of administrative oversight — while cutting so many managers from the system?
Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
Originally posted by Jenna
Is it still to early to say "I told you so"?
Which system would you rather be treated under?
89.9% The NHS, every time
10.1% I'd prefer to avoid the waiting lists and go stateside
According to 90% of British citizens, WAY too early...
Which system would you rather be treated under?
89.9% The NHS, every time
10.1% I'd prefer to avoid the waiting lists and go stateside
Originally posted by jdub297
Once you are "addicted" to gov't. 'give-aways,' OF COURSE you're
going to insist on more of the same!
...
Ask an addict if he'd rather have a job or another fix.
Comparing health care to a physically addictive substance is a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by Misoir
Americans who have never lived in Great Britain are arguing about their health care system as if it is relevant to us.
Let the British talk about their health care, it's none of our business when we have such a screwed up corporate system.
make no mistake the face of goverment may change from time to time but those pulling the strings will remain the same for so long as we let them.
Originally posted by justwokeup
We hold insurance companies in the same level of contempt we hold lawyers and estate agents...