 |
 |
Humbug. Actually, I think Martin and David have a point (although it's a bit too much 'standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park Corner'). If you attack universalism, you risk undermining middle class support for anything - I wrote about this a few years ago re. the NHS. I think I was pretty much ignored though, even by me, eventually. But...as we know, many people (and governments) in the West spent far more than they (we) can afford over the last ten years. Now we're having to cut back, everything seems like a loss, and losses hurt (101 behavioural economics). If we hadn't have spent so much, we may have smaller welfare states today, but losses wouldn't be necessary now. i.e. we would have been happier with less. I think there's an economic paradox in there, and lessons that will never be learned. Anyway, ho, ho ho. Merry Christmas, everyone. Adam -----Original Message----- From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Foubister Sent: 23 December 2011 09:15 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: UK welfare state Dear all, In today's BMJ Martin McKee and David Stuckler have a short article giving a succinct outline of how the welfare state in England is currently being eroded. The article misses the devastation underway within local government welfare services, especially in terms of care received at home, where the picture is most depressing of all. But if you're interested in a good snapshot view, which also provides a take on the US (have they got it right on the US?), here's the link. http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7973 Happy Christmas, Tom Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer