Thursday, January 20, 2011


Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday proposed a radical reorganization of England’s health care system, introducing legislation that would hand responsibility for most of the country’s health budget to its 42,000 general practitioners and, his political opponents say, open the door to private competition that could threaten the foundations of socialized care.

Mr. Cameron argues that the bill, said to be the biggest overhaul of the National Health Service since it was founded in 1948, is essential to increase efficiency and allow doctors, patients and localities more control of how the health budget is spent.

The bill would allow general practitioners to commission services from “any willing provider,” which the government says would encourage efficiency and quality, as providers competed for business.

Under the government’s plan, some $127 billion a year — about 80 percent of the total health care budget — would be handed directly to the country’s 42,000 general practitioners, who would join together into consortia that would negotiate to buy treatment from hospitals and specialists. The 151 bodies that currently make such spending decisions, known as primary care trusts, would be abolished, as would another layer of bureaucracy, 10 regional groups known as Strategic Health Authorities.

The government argues that the plan will cut waste, allow patients more autonomy over their treatment and give doctors and localities, rather than bureaucrats, more direct control of the system. Like other health care systems around the world, the N.H.S., which provides treatment free at the point of service, has struggled to keep up with rising costs and increased demand.

Dr. Michael Dixon, chairman of the N.H.S. Alliance, which supports clinicians’ ability to commission health care, said it was inevitable that the proposals would provoke opposition.

“Giving power to frontline clinicians and their patients is bound to upset those with vested interests, such as some of the more centralist senior N.H.S. managers who are used to ruling the roost,” Dr. Dixon said.

One of the plan’s boldest components is the pledge that patients will now get to choose their doctors, their hospitals and their treatments — a radical proposal for a service in which patients can now sometimes wait months for specialist care.

Cameron Seeks Vast Changes in England's Health Service
The New York Times
January 20, 2011

So let's review.

We were sold on ObamaCare using the British plan as an example of an icon of Europian socialized medicine. We were going to eliminate waste and control costs using their example. We were also assured by Emporer O'Kenya that freedom of choice would not be compromised.

Britian is now proposing to go to a system more like the one we're dumping, in order to elimiate waste, control costs, eliminate long waits for care delivery and allow freedom of choice.

And this story, for the record, is not in The New American. It's from the New York Times.

Still think ObamaCare is a good idea?

Note the paragraphs I have emphasized.

"Giving power to physicians and patients" is viewed as a bad thing. Letting the consumer and the provider decide what is best for the consumer is bad. Instead, let's let the government decide. Isn't that the ObamaCare knock on our current system-that the payor has too much authority?

The plan's "boldest component" is allowing the patients choice.

Imagine that!

A patient, actually allowing to choose their doctor, a relationship that is very personal and intimate. How utterly revolutionary of the British to suggest such a thing. That would almost be like a free market!

And finally the last sentence-that the wait time for care can be months.

In our American utopia of twenty-four hour groceries, drive-through restaurants and liquor stores and retail outlets open until midnight (not to mention at three a.m. on Black Friday), do you really think adding a several month wait time is going to go over well?

Instead of letting Obama and his cronies run our health care (we've seen how they do it with other government functions and it ain't pretty), we should probably be turning to NetFlix.

Now there's a business that runs well-IN SPITE OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE!


  1. I like the healthcare I have now. I hope they don't screw it up. If they do then maybe it will just be simpler to get sick and die.

    Tossing It Out

  2. Lee-

    It would be less painful, anyway!


  3. Yeah, the health care situation in England is getting damned tough. The purse strings are being pulled taut. For instance, earlier today I heard on a talk radio program that the formerly world's fattest man, in England, just learned that his government welfare check is soon to be cut in half.

    According to the talk radio host, that means that instead of getting approximately $60,000 a year absolutely free, he will soon be receiving only approximately $30,000 absolutely free. This is how he responded to the devastating news:

    Click the link here --> CLICK HERE.

    Or put this URL into your browser:

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  4. So I watched some of the other videos about this guy and in one they were saying that he consumed 20,000 calories per day. He was saying that he ate 50 to 60 chocolate bars per day. No wonder he needs that government money. He can't work and it's expensive to maintain that guy.

    Tossing It Out

  5. What you guys are missing, is that the $30K per year is his WELFARE payment.

    Imagine what his health care costs must be (or will be when all those calories catch up to him)!

    Socialism-the great equalizer and demotivator!

    Coming soon to a United States near you....

  6. "and, his political opponents say, open the door to private competition that could threaten the foundations of socialized care"

    So does that make him a fascist, a racist, or both? I'm thinking both.

  7. Annie-

    Yeah that free market competition will burn you every time!

    If only their actions were simply due to unfounded arrogance that they could do things better rather than a more devious agenda...

  8. Thank you for posting this. Logic lives.

  9. Thanks for stopping by, Jo!

    Sadly, logic seems to not be the American way anymore...people seem all too willing to drink the Kool Aid!


  10. Socialism is a word the right use as sort of slam/spin to downplay the left, they are good about that. But if socialism means spreading some of the top 1% wealth around a bit more or trying to get large corporations to go back to the day where they still gave workers who had worked for them all their lifetimes a retirement, plus still had good benefits and pay raises, then I say, by all means, let's go socialist! I keep seeing cutting back measures and a tightening of the belt except for chairmen of the boards, CEO, and the top echelon. Sad & freakin greedy.

    The Obama health plan wasn't what he wanted, he had to compromise and settle for less, and it turned out to be not a very good thing. I think if he wasn't going to get what he wanted he should have waited until he could get it or abandoned it. Plus he made that his #1 priority, and it shouldn't have been. Although some people need health care. Certainly health care/big pharma has become a big business. Lobbyist: what was it Metallica said: Kill Em All.

  11. I would pose to you that having the government mandate anything in the way of retirement or benefits goes against the principles that the country was founded on.

    And can you name anything the government does efficiently?

    If you look at countries in Europe, that will be the US. The top 1% still has their 1%. It's just that instead of a middle class, everyone else is pretty much at the bottom without much opportunity for changing classes.

    I'd agree that many CEO's get salaries that maybe could be trimmed to provide more benefit to the workers.

    Right now, the big story is a labor dispute between a bunch of millionaires (NFL players) and billionaires (owners), and America seems to side with the millionaires.

    I would say that a CEO who runs a company that employs thousands is at least eligible to earn as much as someone who throws a football for a living. Many of them do not.


  12. As always, the simplest (and best) solution would be this: REVERT TO AN ADHERENCE TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS THOSE WHO CONCEIVED IT INTENDED.

    There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
    ~ Henry David Thoreau

    We could discuss all year the various facets of our society that need improvement - we can argue about health care and toxic waste and racism and socialism - but if we'd just stick by the Constitution and follow it to the letter, nearly all of our problems would be resolved naturally via Free Enterprise and by restricting interference from Big Government ("Uncle Sam").

    Not to mention that an adherence to the U.S. Constitution would have prevented that foreign Marxist in the White House from ever moving in there.

    Isn't it a great country? We ALWAYS get what we vote for!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  13. Name anything the government does efficiently?

    Yes, I can. I don't understand why Republicans or naysayers always have to make grand generalization about everything. Are you saying you can't think of one single thing that the government does not do that is efficient or works somewhat or is needed or does so to protect the public? I'll name a few:

    Social Security
    State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
    US Postal Service
    Roads and Highways
    Air Travel (regulated by)
    The US Railway System (regulated by)
    Public Subways and Metro Systems
    Public Bus and Light-rail Systems
    Rest Areas on Highways
    All Government-Funded Local/State Projects

    I guess you could add: funding to colleges, the military (we still have the best as far as I know). I'm sure there are others I could mention. They do a lot to regulate things that creates jobs like CDC, FRA, EPA, and so forth that watches out for the public's welfare.

    And Free Enterprise would not just balance out the scales on things. Hell there'd be so much pollution, unsafe railroads systems and industry, just look at lessor nations for that; look at our close neighbor of Mexico.

  14. EV-

    Considering that your first two examples are both programs that have been victims of Federal corruption and are currently insolvent, I'm not sure I'd agree. If the Federal government were to use the same accounting rules private industry uses, and post a liability for what you and I have paid in to date, the funds would be insolvent (assets exceeded by liabilities).

    They have been managed like a Ponzi scheme, with the contributions you and I make today being paid to today's beneficiaries.

    Not a good model when your population is declining, as they are also only a few years of having a cash flow problem.

    The Postal Service? Well my mail gets screwed up weekly, so I am biased.

    The wait times at every post office I have ever used are ridiculous. Compare those same wait times to any retail operation. I'd love to see the statistics. Ditto for every government agency I have ever had to wait in line for.

    Many of your examples are state run, and each state can be different. So we could simply have very different experiences based on where we have lived. Interesting that most states are having a budget crisis when they're all so efficient.

    Most of my blog comments are meant for the Federal government because they are the ones acting without regard for the Constitution. All power not expressly granted to the Federal government is held by the states.

    Many of the my blog rants, as well as many of the examples you cite, the Federal government has no business being involved in. They are exceeding their Constitutional authority.

    The USPS is allowed, though. I just do not consider it efficient. I worked for UPS in college. They're efficient.

    Private industries manage operations to be efficient. The government manages to spend everything it takes in. Any appropriations not spent are not given to you next year. This promotes waste.

    Private industry manages employees by reqarding the better performers. Government socializes wages, not only removing the incentive to excel, but acutally incentivizing poor performance.

    For the record, I loathe both parties equally and consider them to be no different. They tax us with a burden that far exceeds the one that caused that little skirmish with Britain a couple of cenuries ago, and it seems that most Americans have become so apathetic that they either do not realize it or do not care.

    I am a believer in the Constitution, and would rather we go back to those principles based on individual freedom and limited government.

    Finally, your last example says "All Government Projects"

    Aren't you generalizing a little yourself here?

    All projects?


    How can we have trillions of dollars in budget deficits under both parties with such a model of efficiency?

    I guess we have very different belief systems, but I do welcome the discussion.


  15. I could write a tome on what the Federal government does poorly (not to mention un-Constitutionally) and could maybe manage to write a pamphlet on what the Federal government does well. (A very small pamphlet.)

    But since I'm in the mood to write neither a tome or a pamphlet (even a very small pamphlet), I will respond (hopefully humorously) to only one of the above statements:

    >>.....just look at lessor nations for that; look at our close neighbor of Mexico.

    The last time I looked at our "close neighbor", Mexico, I found him CLOSER than I would like. I found him cleaning our office buildings, cutting our lawns, and waxing our grocery store floors after hours. Is there anybody left in Mexico other than corrupt politicians and drug warlords?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  16. Stephen-

    Without knowing where in Texas El Vox lives (I would think the border areas of Texas see the same problems as AZ, but Texas is a big state), we may have a very different perspective on Mexico.

    Like you, all I see is corruption that drives their citizens to America to "do the jobs nobody wants to."

    El See