Well actually that was the inference you were supposed to draw from the post!

Sorry – it was actually sarcasm, but directed more toward politicians and not at you.

There are some of us who believe that this country cannot go on absorbing immigrants ad infinitum.

Really? You’ve never mentioned this before… (That is also sarcasm)

There are also some, who believe that it is not possible to go on funding a National Health Service without some financial limit to the way that it is currently funded. It pleases few, except the trade unions.

Ah, a unions rant.

It pleases those who could not afford to see a doctor, those who are involved in an accident and would have to prove that they had cover either before the ambulance crew would take them or when the crew are deciding which hospital to take them to, those who have – through no fault of their own – a lifelong debilitating medical problem which no insurance company would cover and which requires constant expensive medication. Would you rather that these people suffer and/or die due to a financial limit? (It is alright for you to say yes – we’ve already formed our opinions about you anyway)

Before the jackals assemble for the attack, let me make it clear that as a significant beneficiary of the NHS, I am a devoted supporter but, also a critic.

We have noticed.

Much is made of the claim that the NHS is ‘free’ at the point of delivery. It is not. It is funded by the taxpayer thru’ insurance contributions administered by the Govt.

But when you go to see you GP do you pay before your appointment? If you answer yes then either someone is being sneaky or you are not seeing an NHS GP.
In Ireland it used to cost (about four years ago) 70 Euros before you could even walk through the door, and at least the same again for a prescription. THAT is not free at the point of delivery.

Nigel’s comments were intended to encourage people to think that there might be alternative ways to fund the NHS in ways not entirely dissimiliar to the present.

Didn’t he suggest sell immigrants into slavery to fund the NHS? If he didn’t then he missed a trick…

Any suggestion like this serves only to enrage the all too powerful and dominant trade unions who now exert their brand of tyranny instead of the capitalist bosses.

The powerful and dominant capitalists would rather that the thing was privatised so that they can get their grubby fingers into the pie, complain loudly that they can’t do the job on the money the government gives them so put prices in place that they raise each year at above inflation percentages and hive off any profit for their shareholders whilst complaining that the minimum wage is still too high.

The inefficiency of State run enterprises (Jobs for life, jobs for the boys, don’t have to work too hard, just ‘clock’ in or, get someone to do it for you) versus capitalist greed with all its own excesses.

Hmm. So why not privatise the RAF? Put each section out to tender. Make it run at a profit. No? Why not?
Look at the railways; British Rail was not fantastic but it was not the joke that the current rail companies are now. Every company has a different average cost per mile which varies outrageously, usually depending on how (un)popular the service is, which would have been smoothed out with the previous nationalised rail company. The demand for a good shareholders return each year means that the carriage of freight on rails has priced itself right into the articulated’s of its main competitors on the roads.

Apart from the benefits of scale economics – buying in bulk etc. I think that the NHS should be broken down and administered in smaller self contained units. Perhaps a modern version of the cottage hospitals which were a feature of my youth. The unions wouldn’t like it because it would destroy their ’empire’. Administration would be more controllable, it would be possible to see how much actual work was done by the staff in an eight hour day. It would be easier to track wasteful duplication of labour and materials.

???
Cottage hospitals – massive duplication of staff and services would be required. Duplication like that costs money and is usually uneconomic, staff sitting around waiting for customers – sorry, clients – to walk in. Drawing in hospitals to one site meant that these services could be offered much more economically: the problem comes when the bean counters want costs cut back and ignore the fact that demand hasn’t decreased (their eye being on a nice, profitable and influential job in the city, with their CV saying that they successfully cut costs and balanced the books in the NHS and with a lovely reference as well).
As for the NHS being broken down to smaller units, surely they are already? http://www.nhs.uk/servicedirectories/pages/caretrustlisting.aspx
As for the unions having their empires ‘destroyed’…how? Like political parties unions can be localised, but the main ones are national so a nurse in a union would still be in that union wherever he/she worked in Britain.
And you would allow the staff to have eight hour days, would you? I am sure the doctors and nurses will be most appreciative, especially those currently expected to be available to work 24-36hour shifts despite what the unions have requested.