UK Confidential: The Birth of the National Health Service

[barryqwalsh]

UK Confidential: The Birth of the NHS

Archive on 4 - BBC RADIO 4

On the 70th anniversary of the NHS, Martha Kearney offers a fresh perspective on its creation as she opens up the files held at The National Archives and delves into the secret government papers of the time.
Home Intelligence reports were compiled from the censorship of the post, letters to the BBC and conversations in pubs as reported by regional intelligence officers. They urged ministers to reflect public fears of any "shilly-shallying" over the implementation of the Beveridge Report in 1942.
Verbatim notes from cabinet discussions divulge the tension within the war time Conservative dominated coalition government over its public stance on the report: "We didn't come into this Government on the basis only of dealing with War."
In 1945, after a Labour landslide at the first post-war General Election, the new left-wing firebrand health minister Aneurin Bevan ushers in major changes, while pushing back against cautious cabinet colleagues. "Here is our chance to do something big," he says, "Are we to sacrifice that chance for fear of the parish pump?"
After a very public spat between Bevan and the British Medical Association, the NHS is born on 5th July 1948. However, funding challenges immediately befell the service and the cabinet's attempts to deal with it are revealed: "We did stop one Dane from getting an artificial leg for nothing."


AUDIO
BBC Radio 4 - Archive on 4, UK Confidential: The Birth of the NHS

 

[joaquinmiller]

Happy Birthday, NHS. And so forth.

The NHS was established a few weeks before Truman used an Executive Order to desegregate the US military. A year later, 1949, Truman proposed a universal healthcare system for the US. It went nowhere. Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The birth and spread of universal healthcare coverage - in the aftermath of WWII - flowed from recognition in European nations that their citizens were all in it together. It was an unavoidable truth, when the risks of war fought at home were shared by all.

The US had no such unity. Not then, or now.

 

[barryqwalsh]

National Health Stories


On 5 July 1948, for the first time anywhere in the world, healthcare in Britain became free for all. Sally Sheard reveals the characters, innovations and heroic standoffs that have shaped our NHS.


Episodes Podcast
BBC Radio 4 - National Health Stories

 

[joaquinmiller]

I've been assured by the most intelligent conservative thinkers that the NHS - despite providing medical care to the entire population for 70 years - is a complete failure.

I'm sorry to bear the bad news.

 

[dblack]

Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

Or maybe they just didn't want to see someone like Trump in charge of health care.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

Or maybe they just didn't want to see someone like Trump in charge of health care.

He's already in charge of healthcare for 132,000,000 people (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP). I don't think that's it. I also don't think America - in the sobering aftermath of WWII - anticipated the election of an orange Fuck You sign.

 

[dblack]

Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

Or maybe they just didn't want to see someone like Trump in charge of health care.

He's already in charge of healthcare for 132,000,000 people (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP). I don't think that's it. I also don't think America - in the sobering aftermath of WWII - anticipated the election of an orange Fuck You sign.

Sure they did. They'd just watched how badly things can go when a government gets out of control. And they wanted no part of it.

See, this is what liberals don't seem to get. Government won't always be on your 'side'. And when it's not, whatever it is you've entrusted to government won't go your way. That's the problem with putting government in charge of something. It locks us all down to one solution.

Liberals tell themselves that this is fine, because - democracy! But, even in a best case scenario, democracy only ensures that 51% of the people are content. Everyone else is at their mercy, and forced to play along with whatever the majority decides. In situations where we truly need conformity, where everyone must commit to one solution and stick with it, majority rule is a fine way to make a decision. In situations where such conformity isn't required, it should be avoided. We shouldn't indulge the majority's desire to control everyone else.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

Or maybe they just didn't want to see someone like Trump in charge of health care.

He's already in charge of healthcare for 132,000,000 people (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP). I don't think that's it. I also don't think America - in the sobering aftermath of WWII - anticipated the election of an orange Fuck You sign.

Sure they did. They'd just watched how badly things can go when a government gets out of control. And they wanted no part of it.

See, this is what liberals don't seem to get. Government won't always be on your 'side'. And when it's not, whatever it is you've entrusted to government won't go your way. That's the problem with putting government in charge of something. It locks us all down to one solution.

Liberals tell themselves that this is fine, because - democracy! But, even in a best case scenario, democracy only ensures that 51% of the people are content. Everyone else is at their mercy, and forced to play along with whatever the majority decides. In situations where we truly need conformity, where everyone must commit to one solution and stick with it, majority rule is a fine way to make a decision. In situations where such conformity isn't required, it should be avoided. We shouldn't indulge the majority's desire to control everyone else.

I don't think too much democracy is the problem, either.

 

[dblack]

Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

Or maybe they just didn't want to see someone like Trump in charge of health care.

He's already in charge of healthcare for 132,000,000 people (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP). I don't think that's it. I also don't think America - in the sobering aftermath of WWII - anticipated the election of an orange Fuck You sign.

Sure they did. They'd just watched how badly things can go when a government gets out of control. And they wanted no part of it.

See, this is what liberals don't seem to get. Government won't always be on your 'side'. And when it's not, whatever it is you've entrusted to government won't go your way. That's the problem with putting government in charge of something. It locks us all down to one solution.

Liberals tell themselves that this is fine, because - democracy! But, even in a best case scenario, democracy only ensures that 51% of the people are content. Everyone else is at their mercy, and forced to play along with whatever the majority decides. In situations where we truly need conformity, where everyone must commit to one solution and stick with it, majority rule is a fine way to make a decision. In situations where such conformity isn't required, it should be avoided. We shouldn't indulge the majority's desire to control everyone else.

I don't think too much democracy is the problem, either.

Like I said. This is what liberals don't seem to get. It's why Trump is "winning".

 

[joaquinmiller]

Americans weren't going to fund healthcare for people with whom they wouldn't share a water fountain.

Or maybe they just didn't want to see someone like Trump in charge of health care.

He's already in charge of healthcare for 132,000,000 people (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP). I don't think that's it. I also don't think America - in the sobering aftermath of WWII - anticipated the election of an orange Fuck You sign.

Sure they did. They'd just watched how badly things can go when a government gets out of control. And they wanted no part of it.

See, this is what liberals don't seem to get. Government won't always be on your 'side'. And when it's not, whatever it is you've entrusted to government won't go your way. That's the problem with putting government in charge of something. It locks us all down to one solution.

Liberals tell themselves that this is fine, because - democracy! But, even in a best case scenario, democracy only ensures that 51% of the people are content. Everyone else is at their mercy, and forced to play along with whatever the majority decides. In situations where we truly need conformity, where everyone must commit to one solution and stick with it, majority rule is a fine way to make a decision. In situations where such conformity isn't required, it should be avoided. We shouldn't indulge the majority's desire to control everyone else.

I don't think too much democracy is the problem, either.

Like I said. This is what liberals don't seem to get. It's why Trump is "winning".

In the sense that the Electoral College prevents too much democracy, you're right. As to the rest, it's meandering bullshit.

 

[dblack]

In the sense that the Electoral College prevents too much democracy, you're right. As to the rest, it's meandering bullshit.

Because it doesn't support blind worship of majority rule? Or because it doesn't support ubiquitous government?

The problem I'm poking at is our over-use of government. When we don't need lock-step conformity, it's an abuse of law to mandate it.