‘Through discipline comes freedom’. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle warned that freedom means more than just “doing as one likes”. Ancient Greek societies survived...
On the 24th of November 1999, the United Kingdom banned the use of asbestos. Twenty years later and this toxic mineral still plagues public health,...
Liberalism relies heavily on certain assumptions about the human condition, particularly, about our ability to act rationally. John Rawls defines a rational person as one...
During his campaign, Boris Johnson made it very clear that when it comes to proroguing Parliament, he is “not going to take anything off the...
Download the full text of the submission On 3rd July 2019, the CMA launched a market study into online platforms and the digital advertising market...
On Wednesday 31st October ResPublica and WSP hosted a panel discussion in Parliament to launch WSP’s Productive Places paper and debate its findings. The report...
The 2018 Budget delivered by Philip Hammond was the first since 1962 to be delivered on a day other than a Wednesday, and was moved...
The Government’s housing announcements on the 5th March were the first substantial change to the planning system since the Coalition reforms six years ago. The...
A century on from Charles Booth’s famous Poverty Map of London, accurate information on poverty has never been more important. So the findings of...
Reforming health care policy is arguably the most difficult area of policy reform. The stalemate between neo-liberal privatisers and statist monopolists is a hard one to crack for reformers. The solution is not difficult, in theory: replacing state-centred, bureaucracy-driven provision with a system of competing mutuals of consumers which purchase and coordinate care for consumers without provider-capture of services. But this Third Way in health care remains surprisingly difficult to conceptualise and popularise.
The number of grass-roots advocates for this course remains small. And the cooperative and mutual movements, who ought to be the natural supporters of this approach, remain stuck in the state provision paradigm in defiance of their own traditions.
In both the UK and Australia, ation
Thanks for Dr Madge’s gently provocative blog, which sets many hares running. The one I would like to address is: our faith in our Rights. We do, of course, contribute to our NHS but, unless this is regularly matched to expenditure, it fails to uphold our Rights. As Dr Madge points out: the very excellence of the Service has created more demand; it follows that we must now assess how users should contribute to the unimaginable benefits of the idea of ‘free’ health from cradle to grave.
Dr Madge raises many hares in his gently provocative blog. The one I should like addressed is: Our faith in our Rights. Don’t Rights involve Responsibility? We do pay towards the NHS but is it enough? Dr Madge points out that the very excellence of the Service has created ever-increasing demand; surely it is time for an assessment of how much health we can expect to be given free from cradle to grave. It is a pretty universally acknowledged truth that humans usually appreciate something the have earned more than something that is free
I agree that the politicians need to be removed from running the NHS, this is the only way we can give it clear direction that is guaranteed not to change every few years. However I also feel that the link between what we pay for the NHS and the individual needs to be restored. We should look at National Insurance again so people see the link between what the NHS costs and what they get and also the benefit system costs and what they get. This would also show what good value the NHS we have is.
Procurement of services by groups as suggested may work in the populous areas of the country, however for many parts of the country this would undermine what service there is. Local control of the NHS and all other public services is the way to go. Let local people develop the services that suit their community not a centralised system that dictates.