Just back from being away, and seeing all the column inches devoted to not debating the NHS, a question occurred. If Labour politicans are so attached to the NHS as it now is that they can tolerate no criticism, and so opposed to anything that might smack of a two-tier system, what do they think about people who have the temerity actually to use private health services? Either as self-funders or through health insurance. What do they think about employers who fund healthcare for their employees? Or self-employed people who fund it for themselves? Or Trade Unions, like Equity, which negotiate a BUPA discount for their members? Surely Labour must strongly disapprove.
Andrew Flintoff has been seeing lots of doctors recently. I have no direct knowledge, but would be absolutely astonished if any let alone all his recent medical treatment has been on the NHS. If it's alright for Flintoff and/or his employers at the ECB to pay for swift and expert treatment to get him fit for work as quickly as possible, rather than wait in line, why not the rest of us? I assume that most Labour politicians think it's a good thing Freddie is fit for the Oval tomorrow, but perhaps not?
Reports are that about 6.7 million people have health insurance. Back in 2001, Danny Kruger found that 3.5 million Trade Union members had private insurance (I haven't found a more up to date figure). And many others besides pay directly for treatment. That's an awful lot of voters.