- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
National Health vs. USA
Question of the Day
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
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
Get Breaking Alerts
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Pentagon wants extra $19M to equip, train Ukrainian troops
- Ted Nugent slams 'lying freaks' at liberal media: I'm 'doing God's work'
- Houston mayor: Sorry that police put man's blind dog on road to die