The following are excerpts from this paper.

In the NHS, “People found that the best way to strengthen their case for more resources was by doing a poor job with what they had. If they were efficient, they would be forced to subsidize the inefficient. They also knew that if they improved the quality of their services, they would attract more patients but not the additional resources to care for them…The best course for one’s career was to please the people in the hierarchy who control one’s budget and career, rather than innovating to make things better for patients.”

“Governments systematically favor provider interests over consumer interests; competitive markets generally do the reverse.”

“People who reside in areas served by inefficient hospitals get fewer services than do those living in areas served by efficient hospitals. The principle of fairness suggests that the inefficient hospitals should be paid more money so that their patients are not disadvantaged by the hospital’s inefficiency. But this would reward hospitals for their inefficiency.”

“The NHS culture is dominated by unions and professional societies, not by efficient customer service.”

It’s not so much granny vs baby, but other determinations which concern me.

___Will the disease lobby of choice be allocated more health care dollars (as was/is done internationally with HIV/AIDS vs. malaria, which disables and kills far more people)?

___Will the ethinic lobby of choice get more health care dollars allocated?

___Will the uppity-ups get moved to the front of the line, have their own separate health care system, etc. (as happened in the USSR)?
Will the drug makers influence which diseases get allocated the most dollars?

We don’t have a good track record already on these issues. Just imagine when even more petty beaurocrats get their mitts on more power.