14 August 2009
A better debate about healthcare
For all the controversy of Daniel Hannan’s intervention in the American debate about healthcare reform, he has at least performed one valuable service. Too often, debates about domestic policy reform in Britain are conducted as though we are the only country in the world to have domestic policies. We would be much better off in discussing health or education or transport or whatever if we studied and knew more about how other countries do things. That way, we might learn some lessons and avoid some mistakes. In particular, our own complacency about the way things are here might be shaken up from time to time.
A case in point is the criticism by Daniel Hannan of the NHS. The only politically correct response is to say that we love the NHS just as it is. The idea that it could be improved in some new way, along French or German lines for example, is deleted from the national conversation.
Even worse is the assertion by health secretary Andy Burnham that Mr Hannan is unpatriotic for questioning the way the NHS is run and funded. This is even more ridiculous than anything that has been said about healthcare itself. For, whatever this blog knows about healthcare, it knows a lot more about patriotism, and it knows for sure that Andy Burnham is not the judge of it.
A case in point is the criticism by Daniel Hannan of the NHS. The only politically correct response is to say that we love the NHS just as it is. The idea that it could be improved in some new way, along French or German lines for example, is deleted from the national conversation.
Even worse is the assertion by health secretary Andy Burnham that Mr Hannan is unpatriotic for questioning the way the NHS is run and funded. This is even more ridiculous than anything that has been said about healthcare itself. For, whatever this blog knows about healthcare, it knows a lot more about patriotism, and it knows for sure that Andy Burnham is not the judge of it.
Posted by Richard Laming at 16:42
At this point, although the debate and spin continue, this bill is essentially dead from an emotional and mandate perspective, even if some version gets passed. Whether it ultimately proves to be of any benefit to society, or a detriment, will take years, if not decades, to appreciate.
This bill, and virtually anything that might be done to improve our healthcare system, involves too much complexity with which we are emotionally motivated to deal.
There's been too much arguing about the details. People can not describe in 2 or 3 sentences the conceptual parameters of the effort and what it is supposed to accomplish. Unfortunately, people can describe how they feel about it in 1 or 2 words, and that's not good.
If either side of the debate has to work this hard arguing about something which theoretically should improve the lives of the masses of people, there's a big problem.
Even more so than how something is done, people are interested in results, not the details. And once again, as is frequently the case with much of human processing, the facts don't really matter. How people view the world, what they value, and what they want, matters.
And there is nothing collaborative in nature about that. Factor in the strong individualistic American DNA, and this effort is emotionally toast.
It's wrong to say that the only politically correct answer to Mr Hannan is to say we love the NHS.
That would imply that loving, liking or appreciating the NHS in its current form is to be entertained only by vacuous, spineless, pandering saps.
Or, it could just be that the vast majority of the UK is happy with the NHS in its current form.
Post a Comment
Back to the top