MISFORTUNE befell the Evening Press' new political correspondent this week.

On Monday, an unpleasant infection caused my right eye to throb painfully and turn the colour of an England away shirt - bright red.

Resembling something from the Conservative Party's infamous Demon Eyes campaign poster, I was ordered to hospital and forced to wait in A&E.

For eight long, boring hours.

Now, there are more pleasant ways of spending eight hours. Why, I thought, gripping a patch to the offending eye, I could be wandering in the sunshine around York's cobbled streets, visiting the majestic Minster and historic Castle Museum, enjoying a boat trip on the Ouse or popping into the King's Arms for a riverside pint.

But soon, patients might be able to do both.Under plans outlined this week by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Opposition leader Michael Howard, patients should be given much greater choice in how and where they are treated.

"Right to choose," trumpeted Mr Howard, firing the first shots in what threatens to be a protracted election campaign. Mr Blair hit right back, pledging to deliver "a personalised health service with real choice."

Put simply, if your local hospital is not up to scratch, you should have the right to travel for treatment to the next hospital. Or the next one. Or the one after that. Under Tory proposals, patients would receive a "passport". National Health Service funding would follow them wherever in the country they chose to be treated.

Yesterday, Health Secretary John Reid told the Commons that by 2008 every patient referred by a GP will be offered the choice of treatment anywhere in England - including foundation hospitals and facilities run by the private sector.

How would this leave under-used hospital units? Health Minister John Hutton came clean. They would close, he admitted.

Ultimately, this means a patient in London with, for instance, an eye virus and eight hours to spare would not be forced to sit staring blankly at the grey walls of their local A&E department.

Instead, they could travel to King's Cross railway station, catch a high-speed GNER train north and be in York less than three hours later.

After a stroll and a spot of lunch, they could visit the city's hospital and receive treatment by a specialist.

Then it would be a cab to York railway station, a high-speed express back to London and a Tube ride home: A day out and a diagnosis all in eight hours.

This scenario is, admittedly, simplistic. In reality, patients demanding an operation away from their local hospital would need to be booked into a slot weeks in advance. There could be no turning up "on spec".

Few people would be willing to splash out hundreds of pounds to travel hundreds of miles for non-urgent treatment. But it does highlight a fundamental flaw in both the Tory and Labour health manifestos.

Most sick patients are not "consumers". Most of them, weaned on the NHS, the best model of its kind in the world, do not want to "shop around" for healthcare.

Whether or not they have suffered a broken bone, are going through a pregnancy, needing a heart bypass operation or undergoing chemotherapy, they want to rely on their local hospital unhindered by waiting lists and other delays.

It doesn't take a doctor to prescribe this: people want medical excellence on their doorstep - not the freedom to choose where they are treated.

Updated: 10:44 Friday, June 25, 2004