That video of Hannan's holiday

Well yes, maybe it does come down to interpretation.

Re the topping up, I take your point but I just feel it was dishonest of him to say it was so black and white. In some cases you are quite free to combine private and NHS care. Only yesterday I was offered two different options, private and NHS, by a dentist (who will soon be losing NHS status because of a funding cock up).

Re the friend in casualty - I don't want to obfuscate the issue with practical details, but I find it hard to believe that even with a twisted ankle he could not have gone to the hospital shop and bought some over the counter painkillers over the counter. if that was the point, then again for me the point is that Hannan is implying the NHS is some sort of Stalinist organisation where you are not allowed any privately-bought medicine. That's not true.

I doubt we are in much disagreement really. I don't like scum or vermin talk either, it never gets anyone anywhere. I just see Hannan as being just about as bad as the people wanting to string him up.

I must have interpreted his remarks differently to you.

The issue of combining private with NHS care is a very real one. 'Co-payment' as it is known has gone to cabinet level - and it is official policy that you are not permited to 'top up' your NHS care with private care (ie stay on your NHS ward with NHS staff, using NHS bandages, needles etc - but buy a drug not available on the NHS). If the NHS won;t pay for a potentially life saving drug because it is not NICE approved, and you want to buy it yourself, you have to opt out of all other NHS care too. That is what Hannan was refering to surely?

The oint re his friend was nothing to do with paying to be prescribed a drug by a doctor - it was that while waiting hours in pain he was not even allowed to buy an over the counter pain medication like paracetamol or ibuprofen! It is the same principle as Boris Johnson's story about eating his wife's toast when she was in labour, and not being permited to buy another slice to replace it for her.

you fnal two points I don;t entirely disagree with. I am not (contrary too what it might look like) a supporter of what Hannan said. I just don't like it when the response is to call him scum and vermin, and to suggest he be strung up from a lamp post. Hence I come out fighting on his side!

That you can't combine private and NHS care. True in some cases, probably most notoriously with cancer drugs, but not in others. I've done it!

His point re his friend is casualty is also misleading. No reputable doctor is going to prescribe drugs, free or otherwise, without examining the patient first. The issue was the queue awaiting treatment, and at midnight on Friday, he would have faced a wait for treatment by a private doctor too.

I would readily admit that this can be more difficult than it should be, by the way. Also that the NHS needs reform. It has some great services, and it also has some terrible, dirty hospitals which are (in my experience) usually in poorer areas and thus letting down people people least able to pay for something better.

My objection to Dan Hannan's tactics is that they bring out the emotional, defensive arguments that get in the way of reasoned debate. Unless he is complete fool, he knew very well that this would happen. That calls his motives into question.

Genuine question - what was his blatant lie?

I think 'reasoned debate' went out the window when Dan Hannan chose to voice his views on the Glenn Beck show.

Anyone who questions the NHS ought to be lined up against the wall, Comrades, and shot.
The same goes for anyone who questions our improvement of Schools and Universities.
We do not need wreckers and deviationists and fellow travellers in our Scientific Revolutionary System.
The days of dialectic have gone with Toryism.

I believe in the NHS. Amen.

I am quite saddened by this interview more than anything else. With all the talk about cost and waiting times etc.. the elephant in the room is ignored - the fact that a vast number of Americans have NO access to healthcare. That simply shouldn't happen in a developed country.

A state system does cost more, is inefficient and does harbour and electoral bloc whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the NHS - those things I agree with. However, a market system is always going to exclude those who are not profitable for insurance companies to cover. This means the long term sick, the terminally ill and the poor are excluded - this simply cannot happen.

In any case, the Obama plan is an extention on insurance with a state element - this is not the same as an NHS style system. All this vitriol over healthcare is baffling to me.

But James, he told at least one blatant lie in that interview. That's a bit more than expressing his opinion.

A reasoned debate on healthcare is indeed well overdue. But going on Glenn Beck's programme; telling lies, and presenting oneself in such as way as to be sympathetic to an attack on reforms aimed at increasing socialised healthcare is not a good way to start a debate. It is a way to score cheap political points with right during a quiet news time.

Don't see that with this action, Hannan is actively seeking comments like these in places like this? Duh!

James the hysterical reaction, as you call it, does not prove that reasoned debate is impossible or that you are correct. But your comment demonstrates that you, like everyone else, can also overreact at times.

Richard Blogger writes below:

"But since Cameron does not throw Hannan out of the Conservative Party it can only mean one thing: Hannan reflects exactly what Cameron thinks about the NHS!"

This is getting so silly that I'm not going to bother coming back to Labour List.

Neither the Conservatives not Labour throw people out of the Party for holding views that differ to the leadership's. Should Dennis Skinner be thrown from the Labour Party for not agreeing with Blair/Brown on numerous issues?

Hannan is a lowly MEP and hold no shadow cabinet position. Cameron's views on the NHS (and his families reliance on it due to his late-son's medical condition) are well documented, and bear no resemblance to Hannan's views.

So stop being silly. We can debate healthcare provision, or you can wallow in nonsense like this.

Willets was demoted because of shared cabinet responsibility.

Hannan is a lowly MEP - he is not bound by cabinet responsibility, there is nowhere to demote him to, and the Conservatives (nor Labour) do not throw people out of the Party for holding different opinions to the leadership.

So no, you cannot "conclude that Cameron approves of Hannan's comments about the NHS" and you know it, so don't be silly.

I wrote in an earlier comment that the hysterical reaction to Dan Hannan's interview shows that reasoned debate on healthcare provision is impossible in this country.

Later comments have shown me to be utterly correct.

All Dan Hannan (a democratically elected representative of the people of SE England) has done is express his opinion on our current system of providing healthcare, and what he sees as unfavourable comparisons with systems in other countries.

You don't have to agree with him, but how is the debate helped by such gems from this thread as:

"He's a traitor to this country"

"Scum...lower than vermin"

"When Hannan flies back home, we should string up him at Heathrow Airport"

"This is so self-evidently stupid that it's not worth a comment"

"What a pompous ignoramus"

If this is reasoned debate then the Left are lost.

My understanding was that she was not a Private patient. She had a benign lump in a difficult to reach place. His immediate reaction, based on his background in the NHS and her age, was to leave it where it was.

She immediately challenged him. He spoke with Australian colleagues who couldn't believe he was going to leave it, and couldn't believe he thought age was a reason to treat her differently to other patients.

I asked him about the difficulties and mortality of operating on such an older patient - the traditional reasons the NHS give when rationing care to older patients.

His reply was fascinating. He said "One thing I learned in Australia was - it is amazing what you can achieve when you actually try".

No I believe it would be called metastatic prostate cancer not bone cancer.

Yes if you can afford it you should be given an incentive to pay (like tax relief) but what if you lose your job and can no longer afford it or it is no longer a perk of the job or the private company refuses some types of care? What about emergency care or care for chronic conditions? I cannot see any private company taking on the NHS in its entirety and they are more than likely to cherry pick the areas that will make them a profit like elective surgery. In addition they are just as likely to refuse care on the grounds of cost. No to me the biggest mistake Labour have made regarding the NHS is the money spent and the improvement seen are not good enough. We need a serious public debate about reform of the NHS and not the fiddling around the edges, point scoring and self glorification options that MPs are prone to. Take control away from MPs, the professions within are well regulated by their own professional bodies and anyone can complain directly to these bodies about its members, there will need to be a body that has overall responsibility for the running of the NHS but there are hundreds of these anyway including the DOH so downsizing will save money. There are probably hundreds of other ideas and options and that is why we do need a serious debate.

Agreed, I have mixed the two historically also.

Thanks Amanjit,

I think it will be a fascinating piece.

Ironic isn't it I had the opposite experience when I went Private. I guess a lot rests on the management also and the local hospital as well. Though I do not doubt for one moment your colleagues experiences.

I am unsure about the procedure used on an 86 year old or the risks involved regarding the procedure for "non-essential" surgery or whether she paid for it, I think more detail would be needed.

I just want us to have the best system our resources can afford to pay for.

Which I believe will become increasingly an issue as we recover from the current "it came from America, honest" recession.

What is wrong with debating about it? To me the idea is to put ideas forward and then people agree or disagree based on their beliefs and / or experience. To me we have 3 choices:

1 - Private healthcare
2 - Public healthcare
3 - A mix of the pair of them

Yes option 1 would be sunk pretty much immediately as not everyone can afford it, but what's wrong with debating option 3?

If you can afford to pay for private healthcare, why shouldn't you? It's your choice and (correct me if I'm wrong) means someone that can't afford say hip replacement, gets one quicker.

An honest question here - why can some people be happy to charge the rich more in tax be not happy about them not using the NHS? Surely going private is a tax on their health??

Maybe I've missed a point.

Doesn't happen often but I'm with Louis and Northern Monkey on this one!

Have you seen Fox News????

Would that be like Brown removing anyone that disagrees with party policy over the last few months?

Oh no sorry, most have resigned or he's kept them on. One word - Norwich.

And for the record (before I'm also accused of pouring scorn on the NHS) I think it should be protected but I also think it's funding needs looking at with regards to managers v nurses as I want more doctors and nurses to treat and not more managers to write reports.

Cannot understand why anyone would associate with Glenn Beck.

Obama is only proposing a public insurance option. Not nationalisation of the health system.

Just noticed, isn't this the same Hannan that tore into GB a couple of months ago in Europe?

If so, then why doesn't Cameron remove Hannan from the Conservative Party, since Hannan (in your opinion) clearly does not agree with Tory policy on the NHS?

Cameron was swift to demote Willets over his comments on grammar schools. Cameron has also been swift to remove the Tory MPs who have fiddled their expenses (but are not "modernisers", troughers like Gove, Osborne and Duncan survive). But Hannan is still a Conservative MEP.

We can only conclude that Cameron approves of Hannan's comments about the NHS, or Cameron is too weak to get rid of him. Which is it?

I understand your anger. This creep came out with lie after lie. I am sure I could see his nose grow two foot long during the video!

Cameron was quick to sack (some of) his expenses fiddling MPs (but Gove, Osborne and Duncan were safe) to make him look "decisive". But since Cameron does not throw Hannan out of the Conservative Party it can only mean one thing: Hannan reflects exactly what Cameron thinks about the NHS! Can anyone seriously allow the NHS to get into Cameron's hands?

This is unfair.

Thank you for your kind post. I am not sure that I can offer any valid comment but I will try. The reason I asked for your insight is because you seem to be very well informed. I look forward to your article.

I agree we need a debate but Dan Hannan's over simplified, uninformed and arrogant diatribe deserves all the insults it gets

It's funny when he complains they haven't had him on before - only now to trash the NHS. Is he not right wing enough? Might he have been tempted to 'over-egg' the pudding to get on again?

There must also be an insurance issue - if something went wrong you'd try to blame the NHS and not the private drug as it has bigger pockets.

What a pompous ignoramus.

Surely the American public have enough intelligence and discrimination to see through this fetid pile of bullshit don't they?

Hmm, I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Public health care is safe in his hands.

The ones who watch Fox probably don't.

This is so self-evidently stupid that it's not worth a comment. Surely the American public have enough intelligence and discrimination to see through this fetid pile of bullshit don't they?

Yes. Scum is quite a reasonable description. Or, to use Bevan's words, lower than vermin...

I just can't get through that video without wanting to punch something very hard.

When Hannan flies back home, we should string up him at Heathrow Airport (and then refuse him NHS treatment afterwards). Yet again, I say this only partly in jest.

Loving the welovethenhs twitter trend going on right now!

Agreed. He's a traitor to this country!

Alex,

twitter is a viral site where the story gets distorted. Tell the world that a repugnant Tory is attacking the NHS and people will be up in arms. It means nothing.

A sensible arguement has been put forward by James which I believe (forgive me if I am wrong) is opposed to yours. The response from Mr Homfray, I just do not understand. At which point has Hannan been a dingbat? His reputation has soared since the Brown video.

I applaud you James an excellent and importantley informed post. I get to have interesting conversations with my family who work inside the NHS. Their view is the same, not based on international experience but common sense. The NHS has a convoluted way of doing things and the single biggest issue is that as soon as you discuss reform, it is turned into an attack on the existence NHS. Less passion and more reasoned debate are required.

I take it that Hannan does not reflect the views of the current Conservative leadership?

Hannan is everything that is wrong with Britain personnified!

Quite right too. The only way of getting any sort of equitable system is for all to contribute.

But shouldn't the debate on here be between people who are Labour-minded? No, I can't see the point of debating with barking mad libertarian dingbats like Hannan, because my views are diametrically opposed and there is no benefit in just saying how much we entirely disagree,
Sure, discuss the issue of health provision, but it should be within the parameters of how social democrats could provide health care. And I don't think that includes free-market models.

The problem with insurance based systems is that they require more people being in work than in receipt of services - and we are moving away from that position. I think it would be a financial impossibility to set up social insurance based schemes now. The other problem is that there is no perfect system and often these sort of discussions have advocates for one system or another, whereas they also have their problems in practice.

Exactly. What about a case where a person who can't afford private care is diagnosed with cancer and he stands a better chance of survival with a drug the NHS won't buy him? Why can't the family have a whip-round and help him egt that drug?

In my opinion private healthcare should be tax deductable, much like private pensions. It might help convince more people to go private and thus reduce the NHS bill for only a fraction of the loss of tax income.

I think that's unfair. If you're a member of Twitter, get on that trend now. It's very powerful to watch 800 new snippets *per second* about the advantages and personal stories of the NHS.

But LabourList don't want this sort of sensible debate. They want to launch pre-emptive attacks on anyone who suggests that the NHS isn't perfect: see Alex Smith's latest: "We love the NHS".

that we rarely stop t question whether the way we practice medicine in this country is really the best.

If by 'we' you mean labour, lefties and socialists you maybe correct, the rest of us do little else other than question the NHS itself and the blind support labour, lefties and socialists offer it.

Why do we question it? because we want the best healthcare possible for the amount spent. Meanwhile labour, lefties and socialists just want as much spent on it as possible - quality/quantity of the care is not an issue for them.

A friend of mine is a highly qualified surgeon, and he recently spent a year working in Australia. During that time he completely changed his opinion of the NHS.

The Australians have a dual system where those who can afford it pay into a compulsory insurance scheme, and those who can't are looked after by a State provided system.

My friend was a strong advocate of the NHS - like many other people who have no direct experience of any other systems.

He returned deeply troubled. He said he can now see that we are so wrapped in our belief that the NHS is the best system that we rarely stop t question whether the way we practice medicine in this country is really the best.

He said that the insurance based care was superb, and that while there were in some instances a difference in care between that and the state provided care - the State provided care was still better in his opinion than the care routinely provided by the NHS.

His opinion now is that we should wake up to the fact that not one single other country copies our model. We are not held up anywhere in the developed world as a health care system to aspire to.

We ration our care strictly and have got so used to the rationing that we consider it to be 'best practice' - when it is not.

His Australian colleagues were shocked when he questioned providing 'non-essential' surgery to an 86 year old. He said in the UK this particular procedure would simply not be offered to someone of that age. In Australia it routinely is.

For my side, I have no particular ideological attachment to or beef with the NHS. I just want us to have the best system our resources can afford to pay for.

But it pains me that ideology and the 'sacred cow' argument gets in the way of that debate.

There is a lot of evidence that the way the NHS does things is not the best way, and that we could learn from other systems - but we need to open our eyes and allow a rational debate.

The hysterical attacks on Dan Hannan show that we are a long way from having that rational debate.

Technically you are when you pay private. When I was at Charing Cross hospital there was a great deal of "sharing" going on between the NHS Trust and the Private wing/floor.
Though I do think your suggestion has merit in the sense it would be nice to be able to order a better drug if the prescribed one is not up to scratch. I have been in this predicament myself. The NHS GP prescribed me a drug, it did not work, so I went back and asked him politely if he could get me a better drug. He did.

But that comes down to the discretion of the GP and was eight years ago. While I was in the military though I did not use the camp doctor if I could help it and went private because camp doctors live by the assumption that unless you are an officer you are pretending to be sick.
A colleage of mine got sent back to work with pneumonia until she collapsed and we had to get an ambulance on camp. See good old fashioned Tory elitism is still alive and kicking in the mob among the commissioned ranks.

My advice is if you can't get the drug you need get a second opinion, if it's critical just get your MP involved.

Thanks to all of you for your replies to my comment.

Saint Emillion - Sadly I do understand that politicians of all hues, parties and countries often offer massaged or biased statistics as a way of promoting their point of view. My concern was that many people were questioning the legitimacy of the figures given in the interview, I sought only to confirm that although the general trend described in the figures could be said to be accurate this only provided people with half the picture. I had simply hoped that the paper I offered for your perusal would provide people with an independent easy to understand, peer reviewed and well respected set of un-biased statistics that would aid them in formulating their own opinions whatever they may be.

John- I would be more than happy to offer my opinions on both the positive and negative aspects of both the US and UK health care systems but that would be rather a long post and rather than trying to offer those opinions here I will try to write a piece for submission to Labour List I hope that if the piece is published you will be able to take the time to read it and offer me your own opinions and critique of my views.

Going private means paying twice.

That only works if he can afford to go completely private. What if he can only afford to pay a top-up for one particular drug?

You can, just go private and use the alternative system. See freedom of choice?

One important question. Why can't Labour supporters bear to believe that there might be a better healthcare system than the NHS? I'm not talking about copying the US system here, I'm simply asking why you pathologically believe that the NHS is absolutely the best system there is, and any suggestion that there might be a better way of providing healthcare is immediately shouted down.

Take top-ups. If the NHS is prepared to pay £x for a drug, why can't I put £y of my money together with the £x from the NHS in order to buy a potentially better drug? No doubt the answer is "what about people who can't afford to pay the top-up?". My response to that is that they still get the original drug, and why should the first person be prevented from having a certain treatment simply because someone else can't afford it?

If that changes the validity of any of the points they made then feel free to highlight where they went wrong.

The Guardian!

Says it all really,a loss making paper in hock to Labour owned banks.

Amanjit, you certainly understand medical statistics and you can see their misuse but I am afraid that means you only half understand politics.

Politicians do not use statisics considering their context and the wider picture. They are simply numbers to influence, support and make true what ever that politician is selling that day.

I'm sorry to hear about your dad. I agree about screening. Women have managed to identify the need for screening for cervical and breast cancer. Men seem to be reluctant to raise the issue of prostate cancer.

People on this site would usually refer to the people in this video as "rednecks" or if they were in the UK "Sun" readers etc..

Thanks Amanjit.

Hannen is a national treasure. He makes me proud to be British again.

The opposite is the case for Brown and New Labour. I'm always having to explain to foreign people that the media here is so biased and it's not the British who are at fault for electing such nutters.

New Labour are "internationalists", so they fall down on the first duty of a national government, ie. to put national interests first.

The simple truth is that as much as Cameron says the NHS is safe in his hands, as long as he has people like Hannan in his party it clearly is not.

Amanjit,

Please can you give us your critique of the NHS, your view of it and what you think should be done to change it, if at all?

Alex,

If I may tell you what I would like; this them and us nonsense to stop.

For you to accept that he is allowed an opinion and to air it. What difference does it make that he is an elected MEP. Does this affect his human rights or judgement. This is freedom of speech. He was asked his opinion and he gave it. Our society is founded on this and we must fight to uphold it.

For what it is worth, the last 3 times I have been to casualty has been a 3 hour wait. My last visit to casualty was at 10:00 am on a Tuesday. My osteopath suspects I have a hairline fracture of the pelvis and I wont go to casualty because of the wait.

My policy on the NHS. Divert the money from the managers to nurses and facilities. Get rid of all the administration, silly schemes and targets etc.. Just concentrate on delivery and empowering medical people to do what they do best. Doctors go through an incredible amount to qualify and nurses get paid little to do what they do. Trust them to do the right thing.

Fight the Republicans, but don’t reduce yourself to petty arguments and points. Jusge yourself on your views and how fairly you argue.

I felt compelled to comment on this article due to some of the confusion generated by the statistics quoted in Mr Hannan's interview.

Whilst it can be confirmed from the CONCORD study of 2008

v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf

That the 5 year relative survival rates of prostate cancer in the United States is Superior to the United Kingdom the interview with Mr Hannan conveniently avoids the fact that in terms of the 5 year relative survival rates for Colorectal and Breast cancer both the United States and the UK as well as most of the world are out-perfomed by the Cuban health care service potentially the most socialised system in the world.

By focusing on only one example of 5 year survival rates Mr Hannan has given an extreme spin to the relative merits of the US health care system. I have experienced both the UK and US health care systems having worked as a doctor in the UK and having spent time as a medical student at Harvard University, and whilst I do feel that both systems have their relative merits no full and frank discussion is aided by heavily biased information such as that given in the interview above.

With regards to 5 year survival rates again these are often affected by multifactorial issues with anything from racial composition to the comparative industrialisation and level of pollutants having an effect on cancer rates and an oversimplification of the arguments such as that offered by Mr Hannan is both irresponsible and dangerous.

I hope that you all find the above study useful in sparking further debate as I do feel that the figures taken in the interview should not simply be viewed in isolation.

No Alex, the statement was about NHS managers, not NHS staff in general if I'm reading what John has put in the right context. We both know about the managers in the NHS, there are far too many of them and they take money away from the frontline which is where the money should be going.

I'd much prefer it to be Labour announcing to get rid of the layers of management and the private consultants hired in to help that management, but it if it takes a Conservative to do it, it'll get the desired result. If the Conservatives think they will get away with cutting frontline services they are really daft, but I'd hope their targets are the quangos, the consultants and the pointless managements layers that seem to do little but eat money.

Thank you for that. As you say it does seem to back up those figures.

My dad recently died following a prostate cancer, so I feel a bit emotional about this, and seeing the figures presented baldly amidst the politicking made me mistrust them instinctively - not always wise. However, I do feel in health things are more complex than is often allowed for. The 100% figure still seems strange to me.

Anyway, you asked what anyone thought of those stats. I think they clearly show the efficicacy of screening. The NHS is not screening enough men often enough. A private insurer has a strong motive for screening - it saves them money. So in this instance you have a very good argument for private healthcare, or at least some different model.

Mark, the high survival rates for cancer are for those who have insurance and access to healthcare - not for those who don't!! Wake up and smell the coffee for goodness sake...

For the poor 46 million (just under the population of England) without access to proper healthcare treatment can only be accessed late, via charity or not at all.

I think the figures may be right. I've no time for extensive research, but quick Google cameup with this:
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/survival/

The Guardian have a good piece responding to the Republican attacks.

I don't think it's unfair on the American political system - how could I when I was involved in their democratic process last year? I think it's unfair on the NHS for an elected member to travel abroad to badmouth the NHS.

He is using the NHS as a punchbag in citing all sort of unproven acecdotal evidence about "friends" having bad experiences, and in aswering at length a question based on an untrue premise: "someone who knows first hand" about the NHS. Is he on the NHS? With unbalanced attacks like this, without due consideration for the millions that the NHS helps, I'd've thought not.

As an aside, that you say NHS staff vote to save their employment says to me that you are concerned that a Tory government would cut the NHS budget and staff...?

I think you are splitting hairs; of course the number of people in the NHS makes it an electoral bloc. Party policy on the NHS will result in an impact at the ballot box. If you think the NHS is bloated with managers (as I do), then you will be concious that the majority of those managers will vote in a way that preserves their employment. QED electoral bloc.

Please tell me where he used the NHS as a punch bag and moreover why he should not be allowed to enter the debate. Have you become the thought police?

It's interesting that it quotes sources for the US and Canadian figures, and not for the UK ones.

Survival rate figure for prostate cancer are very open to interpretation because people frequently die with it undiagnosed.

Any "100%" stat in healthcare is suspect, esp in this case because at the point where the cancer moves into the bone, it can be reclassified as bone cancer.

I agree with your point re different models, but Hannan is a liar. It is perfectly possible to mix private and NHS care; I have done so.

I really, really object to his point about his friend with the broken ankle. If his friend wanted to see a private doctor to get a prescription for drugs, then he could have called one - and he would have had to wait his turn until a private doctor could see him. You can't just prescribe painkillers to anyone without examining them first, whether they are paid for by tax and therefore "free" or not.

Hannan just makes strong points by twisting facts. Like most politcians.

I've watched it again a couple of times, and I see your point, and I think it's fairly open to interpretation. He says: "the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. That's the electoral bloc. It's unclear as to whether he means all three sets of people, so I've added staff above. But in clumping them all together his point remains wrong: that NHS staff are treated as a (guaranteed) electoral bloc vote.

By the way, there is also a huge bureaucracy in US healthcare, an impossibly complicated set of forms for insurace claims, including proofs of purchase of treatment, medicines, birth cirtificates, proof of ID, etc.

I do certainly think it's unfair that Hannan should go to the US to use the NHS as a political punchbag. It's left our embassy and other organisations having to correct myths and slurs from all sections of the right over there, and it realy isn't Hannan's place to enter the debate.

A way must be found to address this, I think it is good that Obama has given this to Congress to resolve. It has rightly become a national debate and of course it will be heated and hard fought.

So long as the poor benefit, then its a win. For me I do not care how the services are delivered, so long as they get them.

Sir,

Humbly I beg to differ.

I will say that I support the NHS and support the need to provide the poor with healthcare in the US. I also see extreme language used by those who oppose these moves in the US. Hannan has not used extreme language, he has stated his opinion and used facts as he sees them. The video shows how we should have a balanced debate no more. If the statistics are to be believed then I am alarmed regarding the prostate cancer survival rates. What do you think of those numbers?

I understand that he has a bad reputation with some on the left because of his attack on Gordon Brown. I think we have some personality politics going on here. Again I restate my point, why cant we accept that there is right on both sides and find common ground? Why does it have to be that becuase he is a conservative, everything he says must be wrong?

No he's not. Watch it again.

Either you didn't listen carefully or you have deliberately misstated what the great Hannan said.

He said that the total NHS workforce was 1.4 million, most of whom were administrators and managers (who outnumber the doctors and nurses). That is, he said, the electoral block.

There are lots of ways of having healthcare free at the point of demand. I think no other country has copied our way of providing it. As Mr Hannan explained, our model is a product of the time when the NHS was created: a time of state control and mass mobilisation. It is possible, I suggest, that there may be other, better ways of achieving free healthcare at the point of demand. Unfortunately, any suggestion to this effect produces the boneheaded, kneejerk reaction "privatisation".

I was more interested in the figures which came up on the screen for waiting times and 5 year survival for prostate cancer.

What do you, at LabourList, think about the waiting times? (Taken from the BBC this year)

The 5 year surivial rate for prostate cancer in the USA was shown as 100%, in Canada at 95% and for us at 75%. What do you think of that?

He is talking about managers at one point, but actually he says "doctors and nurses" when referring to the electoral bloc...

You have to hand it to Hannan, he is a supremley articulate and well informed individual.

He argues his corner well and I agree with much of what he says. He is not aguing against the NHS but the issues. That mut be applauded. Those who have paradigm's need to be fought for better services for all.

Your comments around electoral bloc pertain to managers and hence the article is twisting what he said.

We don't have to love the NHS to love Labour so what a puzzle that you should bring to the notice of Labour List such a positive spin on Hannan.