In which case, would it not be better to specify what the components of NHS
Pro ought to be, rather than NHS lite? The reason I have for saying this, is
that if we do it the way you suggest, the politicians will be left in
posession of the moral high ground - the implication being that the current
service is adequate and that no rationing is taking place a la Tessa
Jowell's belief.
Better still would be to stage a small firepower demo. The BMA declares it
policy that we will progressively end rationing of referrals in the NHS.
Month one - we refer all clicky knees to orthopds, they list them and
waiting lists go haywire.
Month two - we refer every case of irritible bowel disease to
gastroenterologists (bearing in mind IBD is a diagnosis of exclusion)
Month three - angina
Month four - varicose veins
I doubt we will get to month five.
A (-:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ahmad Risk
> Sent: 04 December 1998 14:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: NHS Lite
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 07:48:32 -0000, Andrew Herd wrote:
>
> >Isn't NHSlite what we actually have at the moment?
>
> In a way, yes. The trouble is is that an awful lot of people *pretend*
> or *expect* it to be NHS Pro..
>
> Ahmad
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|