> The government could improve every level of hospital medicine, not by
> increasing
> NHS funding, but by increasing the level of funding for Rest Homes, Nursing
> Homes, Home Help etc, but I guess it's just not as sexy.
In reference to this and the Maryland experiment mentioned, does anyone know
what the votes in Oregon were when they tried similar medical spending
referenda?
My impression is that as the public demands a more direct voice on how
government acts (heath spending, MMR vaccination etc), then there will be a
learning curve for the public.
They will initially make a lot of stereotypical 'mistakes' such putting more
money into A&E and less into care homes, or offering triple vaccines instead
of MMR. It will take them a while to realise these choices don't work, if
they learn this at all. It will also be a learning curve to realise that
the 'safety harness' of paternalism has been removed, and that if they
choose to increase mortality rates with their choices, no-one will
physically stop them.
The public is perhaps a bit like the Opposition in Parliament. They can say
what feels good because they don't have to suffer the consequences of
actually doing the things they are saying.
Do people think:
(1) that the public should be able to decided on such issues?
(2) that things will initially get worse or better, when the public have a
greater say?
(3) that the public will develop better risk/causality assessment skills if
they are actually making the decisions?
Robbie Coull
email: [log in to unmask] website: http://www.coull.net
==^=========================================================================
ATTENTION GPs, NHS TRUSTS and LOCUM DOCTORS
visit http://www.locum123.com the online locum messaging service by doctors
for doctors and send or receive requests for locum cover by SMS and email
==^=========================================================================
|