<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Going private/public in the NHS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/02/going-privatepublic-in-nhs.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/02/going-privatepublic-in-nhs.html</link>
	<description>medical blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:50:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jaz</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/02/going-privatepublic-in-nhs.html/comment-page-1#comment-83817</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/02/going-privatepublic-in-the-nhs.html#comment-83817</guid>
		<description>The NHS was founded as a moral imperative.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;The collective principle asserts that... no society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.&quot; --Aneurin Bevan&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;and further&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;The National Health service and the Welfare State have come to be used as interchangeable terms, and in the mouths of some people as terms of reproach. Why this is so it is not difficult to understand, if you view everything from the angle of a strictly individualistic competitive society. A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.&quot; --Aneurin Bevan&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;We have a socialist health care system. Anyone stepping out and opting for a capitalist, individualistic approach to securing their own health concerns by definition is refuting the principles upon which the NHS was founded. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Anyone is free to do so, and if they have the means, obviously will. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;But to then return to the socialist provision of (some) free health care in an individualist attempt to save money - and then complain when the system takes umbrage at the half-in half-out stance, I think it&#039;s natural to expect the system to recoil once in a while and tell opt-outers to pick one side of the fence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NHS was founded as a moral imperative.</p>
<p>&#8220;The collective principle asserts that&#8230; no society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.&#8221; &#8211;Aneurin Bevan</p>
<p>and further</p>
<p>&#8220;The National Health service and the Welfare State have come to be used as interchangeable terms, and in the mouths of some people as terms of reproach. Why this is so it is not difficult to understand, if you view everything from the angle of a strictly individualistic competitive society. A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.&#8221; &#8211;Aneurin Bevan</p>
<p>We have a socialist health care system. Anyone stepping out and opting for a capitalist, individualistic approach to securing their own health concerns by definition is refuting the principles upon which the NHS was founded. </p>
<p>Anyone is free to do so, and if they have the means, obviously will. </p>
<p>But to then return to the socialist provision of (some) free health care in an individualist attempt to save money &#8211; and then complain when the system takes umbrage at the half-in half-out stance, I think it&#8217;s natural to expect the system to recoil once in a while and tell opt-outers to pick one side of the fence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
