The healthcare debate

Recently conservative MEP Daniel Hannan hit the headlines by appearing on fox news to warn America about the NHS;



Some went so far as to call Hannan 'unpatriotic' for his opinions, and David Cameron was very quick to side with the NHS. In reality the most common criticism of what Hannan said is invalid, which is not to say that I agree with him, because there are genuine flaws in his ideas - but before I address those I want to discuss the myth that have emerged at what Hannan said.

The leading argument in favour of the NHS, and against Hannan, seems to be that the American private healthcare system is worse. This is true by nearly anyones standards, except a few delusional republicans - however Daniel Hannan never said he supported the American system of healthcare.

The argument is not as simple as saying America have it worse, case closed. Instead the NHS should be compared with the Singapore health system which combines private and public care. The concept of the private market providing the care under state regulations and controls makes the debate far more interesting, and not as simple as those on the left would want it to be. I would go as far as to say the system in Singapore is superior to the NHS in the same way the NHS is superior to the USA. The only issue is whether it is possible to implement such a system here. The population of Singapore is smaller than London, and there are just 23 hospitals in the entire country.

The issue is not that private healthcare is a totally undesirable system, but instead that it is difficult to implement - especially when the NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs in the UK (the Chinese red army and the Indian nationalised railways employ more.) However more of these jobs are held by administrators and government officials than by doctors and nurses.

The best plan on healthcare I have seen from any party in the UK is actually from a totally unknown party, LPUK - now the libertarian philosophy certainly dictates that healthcare should be private, yet the party leader Ian Parker-Joseph realises that the NHS is too engrained in society to eliminate quickly. His plan is progressive and sensible, and puts emphasis on eliminating the layers of beaurocracy within the NHS without closing down any clinics or losing any doctors. Contrary to popular belief, these plans would benefit the poorest in society by relieving them of a large chunk of their tax burdens without reducing the quality of servise given to them. It is a long read but here is a link to LPUK's leaders plans for healthcare.