Too much of the discussion about the National Health Service seems to assume that its raison d’être was the provision of medical care without payment by the recipient at the time of its delivery.

There are many ways in which that might have been achieved. The diagnosis and treatment of ill health in individuals, without payment at the time, is not an end in itself, but one of the means to an end. That end is the national health. It was to that end that the NHS was created for four main reasons.

First, a healthy nation is a less unequal nation, and a national health service can be considered as part of a nation’s apparatus of social justice.

Second, the health of a nation is an important national economic resource, and a national health service can be an important contributor to a nation’s wealth.

Third, a healthy nation is a more secure nation. The development of publicly funded health services in the early twentieth century, which culminated in the consolidation embodied in the creation of the NHS, began with the discovery that a large proportion of young men were unfit to serve in the armed forces in the war in South Africa.

Fourth, pursuit of a healthier nation requires the implementation of a national strategy in which the health care of individual citizens is complemented by public health programmes of health protection and health promotion.

These are the compelling reasons why a comprehensive and integrated service, funded from national taxation and accountable to the people through parliament and via a responsible minister, is preferable to one provided by piecemeal entrepreneurial agencies and insurers. In my view, the re- establishment of the NHS as a vital national resource, should be a prime objective of any political party seeking to replace the present administration.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

2 Comments

  1. But the NHS has never been “accountable to the people through parliament and via a responsible minister” in reality, has it? Those are just words. – It has had the GMC and the GDC, equally useless to patients damaged by professional negligence, and Complaints Procedures of unparalleled cruelty and futility, as we all know now all too well after horrifying scandals, the worst of which being the Mid-Staffs scandal, plus the despicable cover-ups and the failure to sack (at the very least) Sir David Nicholson, who should really be arrested and tried in a criminal court.

    I wrote about my own experience of the thoroughly evil NHS Complaints Procedures in an article for Mensa: http://wildeaboutobesity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/fighting-system-nhs-complaints.html and, if you’ve got the stomach for it, also wrote about it in the form of a short story here: http://wildeaboutobesity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/long-in-toothache-short-story-by.html

  2. I prefer the idea that the creation of the NHS was a recognition that people are equal,i.e.that none should die or suffer because they could not afford medical care.
    It is appalling that medical care in the market place is beyond many peoples’ ability to pay for it.
    It is abhorrent that the market is allowed to set the price of medical care.
    The market,and medicine couched in the market,allows individuals to die and suffer because they cannot afford the price of medical care.
    That’s some statement.
    The NHS prevents this culture from carrying the burden of this statement.

What do you think?

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 450 other subscribers

Follow us on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: