" "Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right
now; we cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because
domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our
country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus--
mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts--in
order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests.
" - a quote from Chairman Mao.
It seems amusing that Patricia Hewitt claims to be representing 'the
people' and so called 'patient choice' with her never-ending cascade of
reforms, just as Chairman Mao claimed he was protecting the 'people's
interests'. It is sometimes clear that politicians are doing the exact
opposite of what they say they are doing. This seems to be the case with
Patricia Hewitt's 'improvements' and 'reforms' to the health service.
After all the word 'reform' is meant to get across the idea of improving a
particular thing, Patricia Hewitt seems to be doing the exact opposite of
this. Can anyone see the irony in comparing Chairman Mao's 'cultural
revolution' to Hewitt's 'healthcare revolution'?
Competing interests: No competing interests