Intelligent Post Alert!
Okay, I know I don't do this often. In fact, even this post amounts to nothing more than a shameless stealing back of my comment on someone else's blog. But I was impressed by the relative smarts displayed in my comment to feel it warranted reproducing here. And I quite like the blog it is on, so you can take this as being my feeble attempt to apologise for not linking with it by (hopefully) sending some traffic its way. To understand the context of my comment you'll have to read the original post anwyay. :-P
My comment:
"although, if we want to be accurate about it, that great reformist government of 1945 were merely implementing that great liberal reformist Beveridge's ideas from 1942. and while it ought to be noted that the NHS turned out much better under Labour than it would have done under the Conservatives (and the national government during the war did attempt to implement in 1944 but failed due to BMA rejection of their proposals), it was actually more Nye Bevan's strength and persistence which resulted in the NHS as we now know it to be. the rest of the government were less averse to introducing charges on 'extra' services - this was the premis pon which Bevan later resigned from Cabinet (although other factors did, arguably, play a role).
technically, historically, it can be claimed that Clarke is not, therefore, out ofsync with the party. I still think it a bit of a dumb comment though. Even from a purely economic point of view, intrducing charges for rehab will mean less people opt for it. they will likely then experience further medical ailments which the NHS will then have to remedy. in terms of admin staff coping with readmissions and the cost of providing this care, it seems plausible to suggest that Clarke's suggestion would be economically unjustifiable. That said, I've not researched the costs sufficiently to answer on this with any certainty, this is just my observation.
why i don't post like this on my own blog baffles me."
Now, I'm gonna go back to reading a brilliant essay by Jun'ichiro Tanasaki.
My comment:
"although, if we want to be accurate about it, that great reformist government of 1945 were merely implementing that great liberal reformist Beveridge's ideas from 1942. and while it ought to be noted that the NHS turned out much better under Labour than it would have done under the Conservatives (and the national government during the war did attempt to implement in 1944 but failed due to BMA rejection of their proposals), it was actually more Nye Bevan's strength and persistence which resulted in the NHS as we now know it to be. the rest of the government were less averse to introducing charges on 'extra' services - this was the premis pon which Bevan later resigned from Cabinet (although other factors did, arguably, play a role).
technically, historically, it can be claimed that Clarke is not, therefore, out ofsync with the party. I still think it a bit of a dumb comment though. Even from a purely economic point of view, intrducing charges for rehab will mean less people opt for it. they will likely then experience further medical ailments which the NHS will then have to remedy. in terms of admin staff coping with readmissions and the cost of providing this care, it seems plausible to suggest that Clarke's suggestion would be economically unjustifiable. That said, I've not researched the costs sufficiently to answer on this with any certainty, this is just my observation.
why i don't post like this on my own blog baffles me."
Now, I'm gonna go back to reading a brilliant essay by Jun'ichiro Tanasaki.
posted by Scrybe at 2/09/2007 09:37:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home