U.K. Conservative Party Reverses Health-Care Policy
Bloomberg.com
January 4, 2006
U.K. Conservative leader David Cameron reversed his party’s policy on health care, abandoning a pledge to help fund private treatment and promising to support the state-funded National Health Service.
Cameron’s pledge to keep the National Health Service free at the point of need challenges Prime Minister Tony Blair for the center ground on a core area of public services.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=ag.F7kpdlHls&refer=uk
And..
David Cameron’s speech on the NHS
Speech delivered today by the Conservative party leader to the King’s Fund January 4, 2006
Conservative commitment to the NHS
Some people think that we Conservatives want to change the NHS into something that it isn’t. Well, they’re right. We do.
We want to change the NHS into a more efficient, more effective and more patient-centred service. We want to change it into something of which we can be even more proud.
Other people – some of them in my own party – urge me to go much further. They want me to promise that under the Conservatives, the NHS will be transformed beyond recognition into a system based on medical insurance.
I will never go down that route.
Under a Conservative government, the NHS will remain free at the point of need and available to everyone, regardless of how much money they have in the bank.
From the Conclusion
Instead of helping a few to leave the NHS and go private, we want the private sector to come and help improve the NHS for everyone.
We will investigate the crucial questions; how would the NHS use greater freedoms? How can we harness the vitality and innovation of the social enterprise sector to improve the NHS? Is competition essential to deliver more efficient care? How can choice be made real and responsive to patient needs?
Full text of David Cameron’s speech:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/
story/0,9061,1677802,00.html
Comment: The American Heritage Dictionary defines rhetoric as “the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.” It would be refreshing if politicians would become masters of this art, effectively communicating the policies for which they stand. Unfortunately, it is the politicians who have abused this art, necessitating an alternative definition of rhetoric: “Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous” (American Heritage Dictionary)
What does it mean to say “harness the social enterprise sector”? It is difficult to deduce any other meaning than “privatize.” If that’s what he means then why doesn’t he say it?