--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > [snip] > > *None* of the Euro nations -- IMO -- have a "lock" on > the "best" or "most efficient" way to provide quality > health care to their citizens. *Every* system I have yet > encountered on the European continent has its good sides > and its bad sides. But *on the whole*, the Euro approach > brings *compassion* for one's fellow human beings into > the equation, and the U.S. system does not. >
Many Euro countries (UK excepted IMO) do seem to have come up with good solutions. Or "least worst" at any rate. We now have many "health tourists" going to the continent (including Spain I believe) to attempt to get better and/or faster treatment. The problem with the UK's system is that it is a huge top-down bureaucracy. Very cold war, East European. Yes it's true that the founding ideal was compassion, but the outcome has so often proved to be the exact opposite. Such institutions are capable of the most cold-hearted cruelty. As an example, my father broke his hip at the age of 85. He was left on a trolley in a hospital corridor for nearly three days while waiting for treatment. But his story is quite normal and not nearly as bad as it gets! The treatment of the elderly by the NHS seems to be particularly heartless. On the face of it yes, one could claim that the U.S. has spent her wealth on the military, whilst Europe has "invested" in health care for her citizens. But that rather ignores the benefit Europe has had from being able to shelter behind American skirts since 1945, no?
