WI: Thatcher Government attempts to privatise the NHS

[Stolengood]

I have to ask, though... why is it so accepted over there, but anathema to the U.S.?

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Pangur

My views would be the same. As for her skills, I would agree with you least ways in her first years however towards the end she was not as smart as she was in the first years. With Poll Tax I think that some how she had the notion that if something was the law then enough people would follow it to male it work. How wrong could you be?

There was actually quite a bit of public support at the time for the idea of having some system for financing local goverment that was fairer than the rates, and the Community Charge in itself wasn't that bad an idea: Admittedly there were some problems with the precise set of rules adopted, particularly with respect to single-income/multi-adult households, but I think that those could have been sorted-out if the government had been allowed the time in which to make suitable corrections.
Speaking as an Englishman who was already old enough to be a taxpayer in those days, I didn't see it as any worse in principle than -- for example -- income tax or VAT, and nobody tried organising mass marches against either of those: The main problem was really that because it was new opposition to its introduction could be & was adopted as a weapon by some of the more virulent anti-Conservative factions that were active at the time, and the protests that those raised were too loud for tinkering with the system to improve it -- instead of chucking it out and bringing in yet another new one instead, as was actually then done -- came to seem politically inadvisable.
Honestly, what's so undemocratic or otherwise wrong about the idea that if everybody potentially benefits from local government's services then every household -- rather than just property-owners -- should contribute towards the costs of these?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

There was actually quite a bit of public support at the time for the idea of having some system for financing local goverment that was fairer than the rates, and the Community Charge in itself wasn't that bad an idea: Admittedly there were some problems with the precise set of rules adopted, particularly with respect to single-income/multi-adult households, but I think that those could have been sorted-out if the government had been allowed the time in which to make suitable corrections.

If memory serves didn't the Scottish councils ask for it to be introduced up there as they thought it would be fairer than the then tax system? Or am I misremembering.

[lucaswillen05]

As I recall from the time there was talk from the Tories about actually doing it and there has been similar talk more recentltly from the Cameron Government, They would be have to be suicidal to try it (and I meaan that in every possible way) The only way to do it woukld be by staelth over a period of time. As with the Post Office run the service down making it so bad that most people welcome privatisation as the only viable option. Which of course seems to be the usual Tory modus operandi. Trouble is more of us are onto them but, in the 1980s Thatcher might have been able to do it that way.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Simon

If memory serves didn't the Scottish councils ask for it to be introduced up there as they thought it would be fairer than the then tax system? Or am I misremembering.

No, you're quite right, at least some of the Scottish councils did make that request. Maybe Maggie should have given the change a slightly longer test-run north of the border to see what problems it had, instead of introducing it in England & Wales as well only a year (IIRC) later, but I think that there would have been political problems inherent in that approach too.

[JN1]

Maggie's Scottish advisors apparently suggested it to her and mistakenly thought it would appeal to the Scottish perceptions of fairness.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by lucaswillen05

As I recall from the time there was talk from the Tories about actually doing it and there has been similar talk more recentltly from the Cameron Government, They would be have to be suicidal to try it (and I meaan that in every possible way) The only way to do it woukld be by staelth over a period of time. As with the Post Office run the service down making it so bad that most people welcome privatisation as the only viable option. Which of course seems to be the usual Tory modus operandi. Trouble is more of us are onto them but, in the 1980s Thatcher might have been able to do it that way.

How much talk has there been from members of David Cameron's Government of actual privatisation of the NHS? Ever?

[Meadow]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

How much talk has there been from members of David Cameron's Government of actual privatisation of the NHS? Ever?

I don't know, but I know Virgin has been running my local A&E for the last month.

'If you can run a business, you can run any business.'
Richard Branson

[King Thomas]

If Thatcher touched the NHS, the voters would see red.

[RogueBeaver]

ASB is a gross understatement.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Stolengood

I have to ask, though... why is it so accepted over there, but anathema to the U.S.?

1. The same reason social security and medicare were an anathema in the U.S. until they had them and now they are untouchable.
2. The filibuster. And the Senate in general. In fact, the U.S. was unicameral Prime Minister Pelosi would be leading one of the most leftwing governments in the world.

[King Henry]

Originally Posted by Stolengood

I have to ask, though... why is it so accepted over there, but anathema to the U.S.?

Enacting new entitlements generally rouses almost hysterical amounts of opposition from those who profit from the current status quo and those they can rile up. Repealing Entitlements is about the same, but generally once people get used to being guaranteed a certain thing by the government, they hate anything that could take said guarantee away.

[lucaswillen05]

I saw an interesting news report about the real word situation in Greece today. What you had was a family, all of whom were unemployed and who lacked the 5 Euros needed to get access to the hospital. et alone whatever might need to be paid fior treatment. The hospital also lacked basic things like insulin.

It is only when you have a terrible economic crisis such as r=the one you are in today. Let us suppose that Thatcher had privatised in the late 1980s. Things might have been fine for most people even during the early 1990s recession and during other economic slowdowns over the last 20 years. But then you hit 2008 and the subsequent severe recession (it could even be considered as a depression by future historians) We hear reports on the news about people in well paid jobs having to rely on food banks. The same people in our alternate privatised NHS which levies charges for access to hospital , treatment etc as happens in some countries effectively denies access to health care based on the ability to payand that in itself would have a potental huge social.political impact during this kind of economic crisis,

[zippy]

Originally Posted by mtg999

The part that makes this ATl electoral suicide as others have quite aptly called it, is the bit about 'American-style' system.

How about instead a move towards a system similar to what we have here in Australia, where there is mostly universal coverage and public funding, but most of it (except for actual public hospitals themselves) are privately owned (ie our Medicare system doesn't have publicly owned GP clinics and so forth like I understand the NHS does)?

Basically, what is in the jargon of many economic reformists a 'purchaser-provider split' ie the government pays for the service, but private providers actually provide it?

I think this is similar to the system many continental European nations have (France, I think?).

the POD could have been the creation of NHS trusts - if it was doneearlier and the infrastructure privatised via a mass British Gas /BT style public sell off ...

so bigger and deeper purchaser - provider split and perhaps 'PFI -MAX' where the PFI provider not only providers the buildings and back room services but employs all the staff ...