- George Zimmerman signs autographs at Orlando gun show
- GOP lawmaker faces fire for NBA crime tweet
- Taliban vow to ‘use all force’ to disrupt Afghan elections
- Atheists sue to remove ‘Ground Zero Cross’ from 9/11 museum
- Bishop in Aleppo: ‘We Christians live in fear in Syria’
- Oscar Pistorius vomits during graphic testimony
- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford flubs daylight saving time advice: ‘Turn your clocks back’
- Americans don’t support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine
- Florida lawmakers move to wipe corrupt ‘Boss Hogg’ town from map
- N.C. math whiz to unveil secret of March Madness picks
National Health vs. USA
PORTADOWN, Northern Ireland
For the past month, I have watched British media report and comment on the American health care uproar. American cable networks also are available here. The back-and-forth reporting and commentary resemble a replay of the War of 1812, this time with verbal salvos.
Conservative American politicians and commentators fire at the British National Health Service system, and the British fire back, sometimes on the same program, repeating the Democrats’ mantra of how 47 million Americans are “uninsured” and how medical treatment in the United States depends on how much patients, or their insurance companies, will pay. Here, they say, health care is “free,” thanks to taxpayers, a minority of whom (i.e. the successful) bear ever-greater amounts of the burden.
A conservative British politician trashes the NHS on Fox News, and the BBC carries an excerpt, along with a defense of the NHS by other British politicians, including Tory leader — and prime-minister-in-waiting — David Cameron. In an apparent effort to outflank the critically ill Labor Party, Mr. Cameron promises to strengthen the NHS.
The British media are conflicted. They patriotically defend the NHS while simultaneously acknowledging its serious shortcomings. One example: A recent Daily Mail editorial praised the NHS for its free care and universal availability but then added, “Our survival rates for breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancers are among the worst in Europe, despite huge additional expenditure.” Free is nice, but best is better.
Beyond the headlines are some disturbing trends within the NHS that ought to serve as a warning to Americans, should they wish to abandon, rather than improve, our current system for treating the sick.
Last week, a London Times story began: “Hospitals Creaking Under the Strain as NHS Vacancies Are Left Unfilled.”
The story reported that socialized medicine has created a shortage of doctors, nurses and other clinical staff. As of March 31, a survey found a 5.2 percent vacancy rate in these critical fields, compared with a 3.6 percent vacancy rate a year earlier. According to the Times, “Qualified nurses and midwives are retiring at a greater rate than newly trained staff can enter the professions.” A poll by the Royal College of Nurses found that among 8,600 young people, ages 7 to 17, “only 1 in 20 considered nursing to be an attractive career.”
Anthony Halperin, a trustee of the Patients Association, said: “Nursing staff see that there are higher rewards in the private sector while doctors and dentists no longer see medicine as a career for life, or are having their hours cut back by European legislation. All of this has negative outcomes for patients.”
A man attending a town meeting in America who opposes the Democrats’ reform plan said on Fox News (replayed on BBC): “Have you seen British teeth?”
Anyone wishing to revise America’s medical system and model it after the systems in Britain and Canada ought to thoroughly examine how those health care systems function before plunging into the same pool. A reasonable conclusion is that these systems require long waits and treatments (if you can get them) that are inferior to what’s available in the United States, based on government “guidelines” that frequently approve care only if the patient is deemed “worthy of the investment.”
As a symbol, Adolf Hitler has been overused, but the philosophy behind the horrors he unleashed can be found in the beliefs of some of those who would use the power of the state to determine who gets help and who doesn’t.
The 1933 Sterilization Law was one of Hitler’s first acts after taking power. Called the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, it required compulsory sterilizations for those deemed by the state to be “racially unsound,” including people with disabilities.
In a posting on the Huntington’s disease Web site, Phil Hardt, who along with his wife visited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to study the Third Reich’s view of medicine and the sick, reached this conclusion: “Perhaps when you reduce a human being to nothing more than an ‘element,’ they somehow become easier to abuse and later kill.”
As with a journey, so it is with inhumanity: Both begin with a single step.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
Get Breaking Alerts
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Senate Democrats, Republicans spar over restoring unemployment benefits
- Rand Paul wins 2014 CPAC straw poll, Ted Cruz finishes a distant second
- CURL: Today's GOP really is Reagan's 'Big Tent' party
- As Crimea falls, Obama takes Key Largo golf vacation, Biden hits Virgin Islands
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: 'We are going to crush them'
- Arrest made in Ohio bar shooting that killed 3
- SAUERBREY: Taxing Marylanders until they flee
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Florida lawmakers move to wipe corrupt 'Boss Hogg' town from map
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Time for feckless president to show resolve
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama reserves 'Chicago way' for GOP
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Public education would wither in free market
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults