skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Although the NHS might not be the role model Americans are looking for, the government-run British health-care system is not evil.
Previously published by Blogcritics
With the health care debate raging in the U.S. currently, the spotlight has been thrown on Britain's National Health Service, NHS for short. Americans are worried that they, should President Obama manage to pass his health care bill in Congress, will be strapped with an inefficient government system that alone will determine how they are looked after.
Inefficient the NHS might indeed be—and this is because not only does it have to care for the needs of 61 million people, but those of illegal immigrants as well. There have also been horrifying examples of neglect, such as at an NHS hospital in Stafford, where up to 1,200 people died from neglect. The NHS also likes to dictate who receives what treatment and when due to cost-cutting.
But the NHS, despite its struggles, does the best that it can, burdened such as it is. And it is not, in the words of that renowned Rhodes scholar Sarah Palin, "evil."
There was a time, during my early years in England, when I scoffed at the NHS. Nothing was guaranteed to make my blood boil more fiercely than Brits who couldn't seem to understand why we Americans won't endorse any form of socialism. I had long arguments with my wife over why the NHS was a waste of money and resources as well as, due to the aforementioned socialist nature of it, immoral.
But then, when I was in need myself, my view toward the NHS ameliorated somewhat. When you are in such pain that you cannot think straight, views are bound to change a little.
In May 2005, I had a serious kidney stone attack and I was in such bad shape that I required an ambulance to take me to the hospital. I was assessed at one hospital, had x-rays and blood taken, and then transferred across London to another hospital with a urology department so that I could be given specialist treatment. I was in this hospital—Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital near London Bridge—for four days. At no point was I uncomfortable, at no point did I think I deserved better. The paramedics, the doctors, the nurses, the consultants: they were all wonderful.
You'll understand my feelings here, dear reader. If I bash the NHS, I bash these people who looked after me when I was in agony. I can't do that.
Over the years, I have come to appreciate being able to see the doctor without filling out cumbersome forms. I won't say it costs nothing, because that's not true. But I have already paid for it through taxes. The tax rate in Britain has consistently been around 23 percent. That is not unreasonable (even if I say that as a 17% flat tax supporter). The majority of Americans pay the same rate, and they don't have a government health care system.
Sure, the NHS is a bureaucracy and in these lean times, and with more and more people living in Britain, it has shown signs of incompetence. But private health care exists in Britain, for those that demand it, and even that is considerably cheaper than American health care. Unlike Canada, Britain does not demand that everyone use their government-provided health care. The NHS is there for those who cannot afford private health care.
Britain, in my opinion, needs to get serious about trimming welfare rolls, stop doling out cash for every baby born (let people pay for their own children), and strike all but emergency care for illegals. There is plenty of waste to be tackled and any money that is freed up can better assist the NHS.
In the U.S., the situation is different. There are 300 million people to look after. If $10 billion of taxpayers' money is to be invested every year over five years to move American health care toward a standards-based care system that exludes no-one, it's bound to be tricky—and it's no wonder that it's scaring the pants off Americans. From the July 27 issue of The Weekly Standard, Fraser Nelson & Irwin Stelzer report that "patients suffering from diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and other chronic conditions will do it the Obama-Biden way or else be excluded from insurance coverage." Canada all over again.
Americans are in no mood to experiment. They do not like their current health care system, but they fear what they might get—or not, as the case may be—with government-regulated health care. According to Stryker McGuire's report in the August 15 edition of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, "[A] solid majority (62 percent versus 32 percent) is in favor of giving Americans the option of a government insurance plan. But that's all they agree on ... By a 55 to 35 percent margin, they're more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than that Congress will not act to overhaul the health care system. By a similar margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds 'significantly' to the deficit, and by a much wider margin (72-21 percent), voters do not believe that Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health-care system without adding to the deficit."
You could write a book—in fact, many have been written—on the inequities, inadequacies, irregularities and idiosyncracies of health care. I obviously do not intend to do that. In fact, my knowledge of the intracacies of health care is hardly in-depth. I know what everyone else does: that drug companies have too much say, insurance company lobbyists are too influential, malpractice lawsuits are a constant worry, and the obesity-producing lifestyle habits of the nation are hardly conducive to a cheap and easy delivery of health care.
But I do not blame my fellow Americans for protesting government health care; in fact, I'm proud of them for it. We are all heirs to Thomas Jefferson's limited-government mindset. His legacy is something we are right to defend so robustly. (One wonders that if Hamilton had won the day, would Americans still be agonizing over health care in 2009?) It is certainly preferable to letting the government control every aspect of our lives as they are wont to do in Europe, where nearly everyone believes that the state will look after them and they'll all live happily ever after as a result. Americans don't believe that rubbish, and more power to them. As Jefferson said himself, a government that big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.
But the point is, despite all that is wrong with government-run health care, the immorality of socialism, the inadequacy of insurance options, what have you, Britain's NHS is not evil.
You will know from this entry, dear reader, that I take the correct usage of the English language seriously. Well, as correctly as you are capable of. I don't always use it properly in speech or writing myself. I, too, make mistakes. But, at the ripe old age of 39, it doesn't take much imagination on my part to confidently state that I am better at using English than 95 percent of the current crop of high school graduates (or "school leavers" as they are bluntly known here in Britain). And it annoys me.
The latest shining examples of our future recently received their exam marks. Just as with the past few years, the results were apparently tremendous. Listening to all the social commentators on TV or in the newspapers, you'd think every baby-faced young adult now trying to enter the job market was a budding Einstein.
However, people above the age of 35 contend that the exams are too easy. I don't think there can be much doubt about that. Is a yout' of today really as intelligent as a graduate from fifty, forty or even thirty years ago? If these kids are so bright, how come they possess a nearly total inability to express themselves coherently in writing? They have no idea of punctuation, cannot use "big" words, struggle with verb conjugation, and the role of the apostrophe is a foreign concept. It's one thing to not "get" math or another science, but proper language is fundamental to our society, our culture, ourselves.
Of course, criticizing the little darlings comes with risk, as I found out courtesy of the following diatribe which a particular young person—who is very much aware of my stance—sent me via e-mail. I beg you to remember that fact: an e-mail, not a text message. Now then, for your reading pleasure, I submit the following evidence to you, verbatim.
"OY, pal, I think its really bad that you poke fun of our exam results ... they were specktacular acros the bord why you got to hate on us ... the results wot me and my mate's got were brilliant ... the problem with u peeple is u think we all on drugs ... oh we no good. dont you beleeve it. Was u not a teenager onse ... your a wanker."
Got to hand it to him, folks. He's got a brilliant career as a social worker ahead of him. Or a politician, only that would require him to spell "Parliament" correctly as well as signing his name.
As controversial as he was—the drowning at Chappaquiddick, support for the I.R.A.—the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy gives me pause for thought.
If I admire anything about Ted Kennedy, it's that he continued to fight for what he took seriously—even if the rest of the nation didn't—despite not being very well for several years. He still went to work and fought for the mandate that his fawning "Massholes" gave him. He was almost tireless when he should have been constantly falling over from exhaustion.
I'm also glad that he's no longer in any pain. A brain tumor is rough (my wife witnessed her father suffering from one) and I feel a tad guilty for mocking his alcoholism with my entry the other day ("Kennedy's Been Hitting the Bottle ...") It was, I admit, an inopportune time to pick on the man.
Nonetheless, you can't help but feel karma at work here. Drowning is also a rough, and very scary, way to die. Given that he did not die painlessly of old age in his sleep, dying from cancer was Kennedy's comeuppance.
Justice, at long last, for Mary Jo Kopechne.
Scotland's release of Abdul al-Megrahi from his prison sentence is indeed a mistake as well as an outrage. But do Sens. Kennedy and Kerry really feel our pain?
Previously published by Blogcritics
Imagine a letter that berates a foreign government—a U.S. ally—for releasing a terrorist from his prison sentence on compassionate grounds. This letter decries the terrible impact the terrorist's act had on Americans, terming it a "heinous crime," asks the government in question to "oppose acts of terrorism," and respectfully demands that there be "no deviation this [the terrorist's] sentence."
It is not hard to imagine this letter because it really exists. What is considerably more difficult to imagine is that such a strong statement was put forth by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, also signed by Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy, and sharing its sense of consternation with the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill went ahead with the decision to release Pan Am flight 103 bomber Abdul al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, given that al-Megrahi is terminally ill from prostate cancer. The British Government claims it had no say in the releasing of al-Megrahi, stating that it was purely a Scottish affair, though time will tell if Downing Street did have any impact on the decision, as furious MPs who opposed Megrahi's release are demanding an inquiry.
The Americans are also outraged at Scotland for releasing al-Megrahi from his prison sentence, and rightly so. Why should we show compassion toward Megrahi? If the Scots jailed bin Laden, would they also release him on "compassionate" grounds should he fall terminally ill? Whose compassion are we more concerned about, Megrahi's or that of his victims? As with so many other instances in today's society, it's the criminal that is treated fairly; the victims just get walked over.
Nonetheless, it was heartening to see Obama declaring al-Megrahi's release "a mistake"—though "an outrage" or "a slap in every American's face" would have been much more appropriate—and Mrs. Clinton urging MacAskill to not release the Libyan.
It was even more pleasantly incredulous to witness Sens. Kennedy and Kerry getting so worked up over al-Megrahi's release and what that means to the families of his victims. John Kerry, in a moment of absolute brilliance and clear-headedness, even went so far as to declare, "Megrahi showed no compassion to the innocent passengers and Scottish villagers he murdered; he should not receive our compassion now." I can't help but think, if only they'd stick up for America on a much more consistent basis, they might actually be considered patriots.
I'm inclined to think that Kennedy may have been hitting the bottle so hard lately that he's forgotten where he stands, but I wonder what Kerry's excuse is?
I like to think of myself as, if not exactly a tough guy, then something somewhat approaching it. However, I now realize an uncomfortable truth about me. I'm a geek.
I've become a bit obsessed about the building I work in. It's a hunk of rubbish with a brick exterior that should have been condemned at least ten years ago. But that's what makes me so curious about it.
The company I work for is the only business left in that building, occupying one half of the second floor. As for the ground floor, the first floor, the third floor and the other half of the second floor—they are all empty. On my breaktimes, I used to wander around all the empty office rooms and even a disused cafeteria before I started getting the creeps about it. Now I enjoy standing in the parking lot, looking up at all the empty rooms from the outside, and trying to spot phantoms.
It is, of course, typical of the company I work for that we'd be housed in this creaky edifice, which looks like a prison or an austere schoolbuilding from most angles, right up until its demise. It is scheduled to be imploded in September 2010, to make way for a hotel. The freeholders (the building's owners) actually put a FOR LEASE sign up at the front, though I can't imagine any business being so desperate for space that they'd consider this building, with its capricious-minded elevators, stained carpets and flickery lighting. Indeed, only me and my co-workers have that particular joy.
The building was built in 1953 and used to house the British social security offices. They had the sense to move away five years ago. The environmental agency offices on the first floor followed suit soon after. The travel training agency on the other side of the second floor moved house last year and the business on the third floor moved out just a few months ago. Now we are truly alone. As I say, it's a bit creepy around there now.
But I still can't help but wonder: Who occupied our space on the second floor before our company moved there in 1996? What did the building look like in its heyday, when it was a place you actually didn't wrinkle your nose up at the thought of going to every weekday? I find it incredible that there's an actual cafeteria on the third floor. The thought that at one time dinner-ladies worked there cracks me up; it's so unbelieveable given how forlorn the building is these days.
It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking of asking the security dude (he's only there because of us) if he knows of any old pictures I could look at and any history of the building I could read about. Why do I even have the slightest interest in any of it? I truly don't know, and that's the sad part.
I guess it's because I'm desperate to know if this building ever looked nice. Or I'm just a geek. You've heard of trainspotters? Maybe I'm a building-spotter.
POSTSCRIPT: I direct you, dear reader, to this particular entry (click on the purple words) for further evidence of my buidling-spotter credentials!
When a theme park banned "tight trunks" for men without placing similar restrictions on women, they re-inforced society's prejudice against the male form.
Previously published by Blogcritics
Recently, Alton Towers, a theme park here in England, banned swim briefs for men, declaring them in "bad taste" as they are a "family venue."
I need only, I hope, report that no such ban on bikinis for women applies to prove the point that what is good for the goose is absolutely not good for the gander.
We belly-ache over the subject of sexual equality. We talk of liberating women from the stringent dress codes of hard-line Islamic societies, which is all very well and certainly has my support. But we ignore the trend taking place in Western society, which in 50 years' time will expect all men to wear burlap sacking from neck to toes, lest the sight of a male elbow or ankle offend anyone's sensitivities.
I will never understand what it is about Speedos that gets some people so worked up. For all you women who say you don't like it, I submit the following scenario to you: You and your man are both sunbathing on the beach. You, of course, have the freedom to bare as much as you please while your male company is wearing baggy, flowery board shorts. Now comes night-time and you're looking forward to a bit of playing around. Your partner peels off his shorts to reveal the following: a tanned chest and abs, pasty white thighs and tanned calves. And you expect to say, with a straight face, that this turns you on? Please, ladies. Next you'll be telling me that all drinks should be spiked with GHB, and probably saying that with a straight face as well.
OK, I do realize that the bald, ugly, beer-bellied, chicken-legged contingent has given swim briefs a bad name. But why should fit, handsome men have to pay for their crime? There are some women out there who I believe should never wear skirts above the knees, because their legs are a horror show. Yet, you'd think me crazy to declare short skirts off-limits to good-looking, in-shape women simply because some pudgy-legged females dared to bare as well.
At my workplace, shorts recently became a banned item of clothing. Yet, men can wear 3/4 trousers. Have you ever seen a more ridiculous fashion item than 3/4 trousers? What's the point in wearing something that's not quite shorts but not quite pants either? And furthermore, does the management even realize where these 3/4 trousers originated? From that moronic "music" and "lifestyle" known as hip-hop. So, basically, our workplace is saying that a nice, crisp, respectable pair of khaki shorts, down to the knees, is not acceptable during the warm weather in our supposedly casual office, but some ridiculous claptrap from the "gold chains, no brains" world of rap is.
I remember when shorts down to the knees used to be considered conservative. Now men can't even show their whole calves anymore.
Who defends this sort of ridiculous fashion? It seems no matter how baggy and how long summer gear for men gets, there's always plenty of people who will defend it and declare it sexy. I don't know: I'm guessing society is just mad about ugly clothes on guys. It's the only explanation.
Why can't we simply admit that, as a society, we are severely prejudiced against the male form? That would at least be a laudable dose of refreshing honesty for once.
On the bright side, when I was at Discovery Cove, the specialist park set up by Sea World in Orlando, I saw a Latino guy wearing Speedos. This is a family-friendly destination as well, yet no-one told him he couldn't wear his briefs. He was the only one there wearing them, albeit—I'd opted for the wetsuit—but no-one was telling him off for his preferred swimgear. Furthermore, a survey conducted by the Metro newspaper found that while 58 percent agreed with Alton Towers' Speedos ban, 42 percent said they were in the wrong. Forty-two percent may be a minority, but it's a large one.
So, fuck you, Alton Towers. Your "bad taste" logic works both ways. You ban fashion freedom for men, I'll ban you from ever receiving any money that I earn.
Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Time for a foray into the ridiculous.
A recent survey conducted here in Britain found that women prefer men with beer bellies, body odor and rough body hair to "well groomed metrosexuals."
This survey was conducted by Lion Bar Ice Cream. Now then, if a confectioner's survey on what turns women on can really be trusted, then I certainly wouldn't be interested in abiding by it. So women prefer slobs? They're welcome to them.
Honestly, this survey was biased from the start. Look at the choices here: fat, out-of-shape oiks with rough body hair or preening, fashion-conscious twinks.
No in-betweens? What about men with smooth, silky, plush body hair as opposed to living Brillo pads? What about men who like a beer or two but don't let it go to their bellies? What about men who dab on a splash of cologne but don't care for man-scara or guy-liner? Seems those type of men don't exist, according to this survey. You're either a girly man or a fat slob.
But this is the world according to Lion Bar. Are we really all that surprised?
More ice cream, ladies?
