Free Markets, Free People

UK’s NHS In Deep Financial Trouble (update)

The IMF has called out the UK’s NHS as “unsustainable”.

Gordon Brown was warned last night to raise the retirement age above 65 and introduce NHS charges to tackle the soaring state deficit.

In a devastating intervention, the International Monetary Fund called for radical changes to the pension system and spending cuts that go far beyond the plans outlined by the Prime Minister this week.

The global watchdog said root and branch changes to public sector spending would be necessary to ‘help keep a lid on the debt’ and restore financial stability.

And yet despite that example and the fact that our “pension” and government run health care system (Medicaid/Medicare) together have some 57 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and are riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, we’re considering allowing government to intervene in more of the market?

Brilliant. Just freakin’ brilliant.

UPDATE: I didn’t mean to step on Michael’s post, I just flat missed the fact that he’d posted on this.  I’m not sure how I missed it but I did.  He and I have done this before. Be sure to read his take as well.  Obviously we both came to the conclusion that this story was important.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to UK’s NHS In Deep Financial Trouble (update)

  • But … but … that’s not what the bellhop at the London Penta said!

  • DON’T LOOK NOW! But France and Italy are in even worse shape!

    But silly Ivory tower creeps like Erb think that we have to be like the sophisticated Eros and ape them in everything, even if it means driving our economic car over the bridge.

  • Do you mean to tell me that government-run health care doesn’t SAVE MONEY??? That it doesn’t deliver better care to more people for lower costs than private insurance????


    / sarc

    Yet, those dimwits in Congress are still plugging away to cobble together some sort of legislation that TAO will sign to foist a similar system on the United States. Not that they actually read the legislation themselves:

    Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

    “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told

    via Hot Air

  • Stating the obvious: It’s not about cost control, it’s about PEOPLE control and RESOURCES control.

  • Poor MichaelW, it’s like he doesn’t exist!

  • […}Do you mean to tell me that government-run health care doesn’t SAVE MONEY??? That it doesn’t deliver better care to more people for lower costs than private insurance????[…}
    Not at all. The NHS delivers far better, more effective and cheaper healthcare to the people of Britain than your private system does to the people of the US. In the US only the privileged few get healthcare, the rest being left with inadequate policies or no care at all, while the rich indulge in elective procedures and tit jobs.

    • Pretty soon no one is gonna have healthcare in Britian… I’d rather have some get healthcare, than none receive healthcare.

      But of course, this isn’t even a real issue. Your false dichotomy, of “privileged healthcare” vs. “universal healthcare”, is a common one among health care proponents (and left wingers in general).

      “Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a “snapshot” of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.

      Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states — Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent — 9.7 million — of the uninsured are not citizens. Up to 14 million are eligible for existing government programs — Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans’ benefits, etc. — but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.

      Insuring the perhaps 20 million persons who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple: Give them money — (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect. Which is why the simple idea of the dependency agenda cuts like a razor through the complexities of this debate.”


    • Really? So why all the horror stories saying exactly the opposite from your assertion (and that’s all you’ve provided, btw, an assertion) from your press and why is the IMF saying your “cheaper healthcare” system is “unsustainable?”

    • Um… Do you even live in the United States?