Well, well, well… It was inevitable that we’d hear these reports, and I’ve been mentioning it for a long time.
My recent mini-series of essays criticizing Socialism in all its corrupted forms, focused occasionally on Socialized medicine; specifically on the British “National Health System,” or: the NHS.
I mentioned that Britain had implemented something called the “Liverpool Pathway” as part of the “Health System,” which was simply the path on which you would find yourself when the bureaucrats decided it was no longer worth the cost to keep you alive. At that point, they’d give you palliative care — really they drugged you up so you wouldn’t complain that you were being left to die — in the “Health System!” — and then you’d die.
Well, some people didn’t like that, so they got rid of the “Liverpool Pathway,” and instituted “Priorities for Care,” ostensibly a kinder, gentler system. Still, though, a system in which you were going to die, and, most importantly, you were no longer under the umbrella of the NHS!
That meant that your “unfavorable outcome” couldn’t be counted against the NHS’s numbers — because you were no longer on the NHS! And the NHS always reported nice, shiny numbers so that everyone was aware of just how effective, and humane, and caring they were as a health system! Pretty clever, eh? All while for every single case, some bastard of a bureaucrat was evaluating whether it was worth it or not to provide you with healthcare. Healthcare for which, by the way, you had “insurance.”
Just, as it turns out, you didn’t have healthcare insurance you could use to obtain actual… healthcare.
Well, I said it, and many others said it, but gainsayers in these pages assured me that, no, it just wasn’t true! And yet… and yet… One more piece that shows that everything I’ve been saying all along has always been true. It’s here: National Review Online.
The headline is: “The Deadly Failures of Britain’s National Health Service” and it’s written at National Review Online, one of the few media outlets which would publish such a piece, of course, because of its Conservative leanings.
However, National Review always follows a process that I call: “Iron-cladding.” They know they’ll hear immediate accusations of, “You’re right-wingers! Of course you’d write a piece like this!” So, they never fail to point out when their ideological opponents make their case for them, as the writer did in this case.
After the headline, near the top we see this passage:
“The United Kingdom’s National Health Service is in rough shape. Even the Guardian, Britain’s foremost left-leaning newspaper and editorial defender of the NHS, has admitted as much:
This week it emerged that the NHS is facing the most intense strain on its resources in decades… In Portsmouth yesterday a hospital said it would investigate after an 88-year-old woman died following a seven-hour wait for a bed. And earlier this week an 81-year-old woman was found dead in her house after waiting almost four hours for an ambulance.
You could be forgiven for thinking this reporting refers to the stress the NHS is under right now on account of the coronavirus. But it doesn’t. It was published by the Guardian on January 6, 2018, almost two years ago to the day”
You can read between the lines of the two incidents in question and picture, as I mentioned at top, “some bastard of a bureaucrat evaluating whether it was worth it or not to provide these elderly ladies with healthcare.” Healthcare for which, by the way, they had “insurance.” Remember: This was in 2018! No one had even heard the word “COVID” at that point.
If you’re thinking this was probably just a blip in the system… a momentary glitch that just needed to fix itself, the National Review writer, Cameron Hilditch, reproduces headlines in each of the preceding years pointing to bed shortages, going back to 2013. The NHS has been denying healthcare to people who have healthcare insurance, for at least seven years, but really for a lot longer than that. I’ve said it time and time and time and time and time again: Health insurance is useless if you can’t use it to obtain, you know… actual healthcare. That, at least, shouldn’t be in the least controversial!
Hilditch summarizes it this way: “The NHS has proven itself comprehensively and consistently incapable of dealing with a regular flu season, something that crops up at the same predictable time of year in every country north of the equator. It has long been obvious that Britain’s single-payer health-care system isn’t fit for purpose even in normal times, much less during a global pandemic. Yet the NHS’s failures are systematically ignored.”
“…comprehensively and consistently incapable of dealing with a regular flu season, something that crops up at the same predictable time of year” — It’d be difficult to come up with a more crushing indictment of a system, than to point out the glaring fact that the system fails to handle even regular, well-known, perfectly predictable medical phenomena year after year after year after year after year.
Hilditch points to the work of Kristian Niemietz:
“Kristian Niemietz, the head of political economy at the Institute for Economic affairs, documents the system’s shortcomings in his book Universal Healthcare without the NHS: In international comparisons of health system performance, the NHS almost always ranks in the bottom third, on a par with the Czech Republic and Slovenia. In a ‘blind test’, in which we look at health outcome data, and guess which data point represents which country, the UK could easily be mistaken for an Eastern European country. We would certainly never mistake the UK for Switzerland or Belgium.“
“In international comparisons of health system performance, the NHS almost always ranks in the bottom third” — Remember: this is a system that has been in place for… decades.
Then, Hilditch points out the real world consequences of the NHS’s incompetence and corruption. He quotes Niemetz’ calculations:
“…age-standardized survival rates in the U.K. for the most common kinds of cancer are well below those of other developed countries, which translates into thousands of needless deaths: “If the UK’s breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer and bowel cancer patients were treated in the Netherlands rather than on the NHS, more than 9,000 lives would be saved every year. If they were treated in Germany, more than 12,000 lives would be saved, and if they were treated in Belgium, more than 14,000 lives would be saved.”
How can this be, you and I naturally wonder? Why don’t Brits rise up and demand the abolition of this “Health System,” that really ought to be called a “Death System?”
Hilditch turns to another long-time observer of the British scene for a theory, Nigel Lawson:
“Britain’s irrational attachment to this failed system becomes intelligible in light of Nigel Lawson’s observation that “the NHS is the closest thing the English people have now to a religion.” The idea of health care provided free at the point of access has become grafted onto the vine of British national identity to such an extent that no amassing of data or evidence can persuade the public to abandon it.“
This passage — “The idea of health care provided free at the point of access has become grafted onto the vine of British national identity to such an extent that no amassing of data or evidence can persuade the public to abandon it” — is the best possible description for the opposition that I’ve encountered against the overwhelming evidence I’ve produced in my recent writings that Socialism is a disaster everywhere it rears its ugly, blood-soaked head. Here’s the rephrasing of it that says it: “The idea of Socialism has become grafted onto the vine of Socialists’ identity to such an extent that no amassing of data or evidence can persuade them to abandon it.”
Socialism is the closest thing Socialists have to a religion. And if you criticize either Socialism itself, or corrupt offshoots of the poison tree — like the NHS — then you’re criticizing what Socialists see as the most fundamental aspect of their very selves! Hence, the fervent, often irrational, frequently out-in-left-field silly, argumentation you see from the likes of RP and others.
Hilditch concludes with this stunning condemnation of the NHS:
“The excess deaths that the U.K. is suffering this winter along with the crushing physical and mental burdens borne by British doctors and nurses ultimately redound to this long-term failure of British culture. By transforming a medical institution into a cultural institution for the sake of forging a new, progressive national identity, Britons have underwritten decades of deadly failure.”
“Britons have underwritten decades of deadly failure” — Ouch! Yet, the last four words are the perfect summation of ALL of Socialism: “decades of deadly failure.” If by “failure” you mean: failure to deliver on ANY of the bright, shiny promises made when implementing it.
Failure is indeed what has happened in every Socialist country, and every institution ever based on the principles of Socialism: From the Soviet Union to Red China, to North Korea, to the British National Health System, to the American Educational System, to the Veterans Affairs Administration, and so on.
What has been the toll of all that failure? Well, the slaughter of more than 140 million people in the past century alone; the cultural and financial impoverishment of billions around the world; and the intellectual impoverishment of billions as well.
Hilditch’s piece concludes with this warning:
“…there is still time for American progressives to pre-emptively end their irresponsible love affair with single-payer health care. American policymakers of both parties should see the NHS for the failure that it is, and look elsewhere for inspiration when seeking to reform the nation’s health-care system. Countless lives will be saved if they do.“
Doubtless some will say, “But they just didn’t do it right! We’ll get it right when we do it!” And how many times have we heard that one before? Well, we’ve heard it every single time there’s criticism of the death and destruction that Socialism has brought with it. Bernie Sanders says, “No, no, no! He means DEMOCRATIC Socialism!”
So does the ubiquitous air-head, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’s “DEMOCRATIC Socialism,” you see!
A weirder contradiction in terms you’d be hard-pressed to find. Socialism is the problem. It doesn’t make the slightest difference how you implement it. Would it be okay if — perfectly democratically — we voted that 10% of the population must eat cyanide? Would that make eating cyanide okay? The problem isn’t with the implementation, it’s with what’s being implemented!
Socialism kills. It’s important to note that wealthy Brits don’t have to subject themselves to the incompetence and corruption of the National Health System. They can buy private care and bypass the deadly bureaucrats altogether. And they do.
Socialism kills… and it preys most on the poorest among us. It’s like the predator stalking the herd of wildebeests, and plucking from the herd the weakest, the frailest and those least able to defend themselves.
Western Civilization has long represented mankind’s best and noblest effort to overcome and banish the law of the jungle. Socialism is the return to the jungle.