Week 4 Flashcards
The national health service
Founded in 1948 in the aftermath of WW2
Aneurin Bevan minister for health labour government
The first such system in the western world
Beatrice Webb
The minority report on the poor law 1909
-challenged the principle that supporting the poor was encouraging ‘indolence and vice’
-advocated the prevention, rather than cure of poverty
A public health service
Deep roots
None of this can be understood without understanding the deep seated class prejudice of the time
Poverty was genuinely believed to be divine punishment
Increased incidence of disease and disability among the poor was seen not as the result of overcrowding or inadequate hygiene but as conformation of this
The poor often self medicated (eg alcohol or laudanum for pain ) and this was seen as further evidence of their depravity
The poor represented a social and political threat
The UK in this period
Most of the population could not vote excluded on the grounds of lack of property ownership (universal male suffrage was achieved in 1918)
1900-1910 represents the peak period of wealth inequality in Britain the top 10% owning 94% of national wealth the top 1% owning 70%
Patchwork of medical care made up of charitable hospitals subscription services for workers, and cash in hand GPs
Illness often meant destitution and the workhouse
Growling public health movement since 1842 fuelled by militarism and eugenics
Lloyd George brought in a national insurance scheme in 1911 (did not cover family members)
Democratisation
Number of factors- universal benefits (eg NHS, education) progressive taxation
Today it has been calculated that universal benefits would account for 60% of the disposable income of the poorest 20% of out population, were they lost
The national health service- founding principles
Universal
Equitable
Comprehensive
High quality
Free at the point of delivery
Centrally funded
A profoundly humanist position
Human beings matter and human experience matters
Science and reason are valuable tools to promote human interests
Human beings have inherent worth
All human beings have the same worth
The ‘just world’ fallacy
Different groups of people think about social hierarchy in different ways
In general those at the bottom think about it quite differently than those at the top
A popular image of the world by some of those at the top is the idea of a ‘just world’
If you make good choices, good things happen to you, if you make bad choices you end up in a bad situation
Therefore if you’re in a good position its because you deserve to be there
-its not just the wealthy (and not all the wealthy) who adopt this position- certain personality types do too the just world position has been linked to preference for simple, casual explanations and certainty
But lots of arguments against:
- unequal opportunities
- unequal resources from birth
- exhausted parents who can give less input
- poor education
-poor nutrition
- lower expectations
Health is an exposer of the ‘just world’ fallacy
Theories of distributive justice
Egalitarian- everyone gets the same
Meritocratic- everyone gets according to their desserts
Socialist- “ from each according to their ability to each according to their need”
Libertarian- “ from each as they choose, to each what they have made or happen to be given”
Fairness- (john Rawls) as you would choose from behind the ‘veil of ignorance”
Egalitarian
All human beings are equal and have exactly equal rights
Resources should be equally allocated among all members of society
More modern formulations focus on removing the influence of luck in the allocation of resources or on social equality
- everyone has the same right to healthcare, everyone is allocated the same resources, when its used up its used up
-lottery allocation of resources has also been advocated from an egalitarian perspective eg, allocation of organs- everyone has the same opportunity to avail of resource
Criticisms of egalitarianism
None seem to actually deliver equality
Eg luck egalitarianism says that chance shouldn’t be allowed to affect people’s share of resources only their resources
But are bad choices always your fault?
Meritocratic
Sometimes called desserts
Rewards should be given in proportion to merit
But what is merit
Social systems based on merit
Competitive rather than collaborative by nature
Proponents maintain that competitive systems drive up performance
Opponents consider that competition produces loss for the majority favouring collaborative social models
Many advantages in competition are not earned
Meritocracies
Those who believe the system is meritocratic generally favour low taxation and low distribution of wealth
The rationale being that those at the top of society have earned it
Meritocratic healthcare
Those who have worked hard (therefore can afford it) can pay for better treatment
Those who have lived healthily should get better/more treatment
‘Bad’ behaviour should mean limited access to treatment
socialist
We all benefit from living in a functional, regulated society
Those who have benefitted most should contribute most
Resources should go where they are most needed
Taxation is an example of socialist mechanism
You contribute in proportion to your income (i.e in proportion to how much you have benefited from the system)
This money maintains the system:
-administration, legal system, business regulation, consumer protection, roads, drinking water, subsidised childcare, education, emergency services
It also maintains those at the bottom of the system:
-its the responsibility of the system to provide employment
-its also the responsibility of the system to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves
“No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means” aneurin bevan