David Maseng Will is a second year student at Princeton University who recently started a summer internship at Ruder Finn. Born and raised in Washington DC, he developed a passion for politics growing up in the centre of the free world, and David plans on concentrating his studies on politics and international relations.
The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and no not in any way reflect those of Ruder Finn.
As I sat across from my new boss, each of us trying to decipher terms put forth by the NHS to explain its adoption of the recommendations made by the future forum, I couldn’t help but think: what’s the point? Chalk it up to American apathy , an antagonism to socialism or jetlag, but all I can make of the Health and Social Care bill (HSCB) is a mere reshuffling of the bureaucratic behemoth similar to that which is set to engulf one sixth of the U.S. economy.
The passage in the U.S. of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known not so affectionately by detractors as “Obamacare”, marks a distinct turn towards the U.K. status quo. The HSCB, as modified by the Future Forum, aims to reorganize and somewhat streamline the National Health Service. Meanwhile, the PPACA sets out to construct an immense, esoteric artifice of unprecedented oversight. Though the current future of American healthcare and the current British system are analogous, a stark distinction ought to be made between the pursuits of progressivism by politicians in both countries. Initially, both efforts are marked by an urge to help all, but the form of progressivism pushed by today’s democrats in is polluted by a sinister bankruptcy of trust in the American people. Insomuch as individuals should retain their freedoms, the American progressive movement seeks a dominant hand in their daily lives. For, it becomes clear that to view government as the ultimate solution, one must also concede that the people are the problem.
To unbind the public system of care in the U.K. would be a foolhardy exercise in social engineering, and it is imperative for the government to swiftly implement reform, within the confines of practicality, to curb rising care prices. However, the impossibility of a move to a more competitive, market-based design seals the fate of the British healthcare structure. Destined to be an indecipherable maze of entangled authority, it appears a myriad of commissions and more than 41,000 over-seers will have a permanent presence in perhaps the most precious corner of a person’s private life: his or her health.
That the U.K. system is not refracted through a dangerous political ideology, but is rather characterized by a pervasive sense of government dependency is precisely what I believe has allowed for the programme to be successfully sustained over so many decades. And although I still very much ideologically oppose what has been established in the U.K., what I truly abhor is the ultimate asphyxiation of creativity furthered by the Affordable Care Act.
To describe the act as polarizing would be an understatement, as it strikes at the source of ideological departure between American conservatives and liberals. The former group favours greater personal liberty while the latter advocates for government to provide greater economic and social protections. As a true republican and advocate for the largest possible unleashing of individual dynamism, it is my view that the spirits of great nations have languished under the cradle-to-grave oversight of European socialist systems. And furthermore, that the entitlement mentality which accompanies broad centralized government authority is the ultimate sedative to the personal creativity at the heart of prosperity.