Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(235)
-
▼
Aug 2009
(12)
- The Media and a Man
- Thank Bush
- When Police Become the Criminal
- To the Pure...
- Define It
- Nanny Statism Leads to Social Pathology
- Oh, To Be a Dog in England
- We are All Josh Hamilton
- There But For the Grace of God...
- Idolatry
- Reason #155 on Why Not to Trust Environmentalists
- Reason #154 on Why Not to Trust Environmentalists
-
▼
Aug 2009
(12)
Labels
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Dalrymple wrote a humorous piece this week for the Wall Street Journal comparing the health care received by humans in the UK to that given to canines.
In the last few years, I have had the opportunity to compare the human and veterinary health services of Great Britain, and on the whole it is better to be a dog.
As a British dog, you get to choose (through an intermediary, I admit) your veterinarian. If you don’t like him, you can pick up your leash and go elsewhere, that very day if necessary. Any vet will see you straight away, there is no delay in such investigations as you may need, and treatment is immediate. There are no waiting lists for dogs, no operations postponed because something more important has come up, no appalling stories of dogs being made to wait for years because other dogs—or hamsters—come first.
The conditions in which you receive your treatment are much more pleasant than British humans have to endure. For one thing, there is no bureaucracy to be negotiated with the skill of a white-water canoeist; above all, the atmosphere is different. There is no tension, no feeling that one more patient will bring the whole system to the point of collapse, and all the staff go off with nervous breakdowns. In the waiting rooms, a perfect calm reigns; the patients’ relatives are not on the verge of hysteria, and do not suspect that the system is cheating their loved one, for economic reasons, of the treatment which he needs. The relatives are united by their concern for the welfare of each other’s loved one. They are not terrified that someone is getting more out of the system than they.
...
Nevertheless, there is one drawback to the superior care British dogs receive by comparison with that of British humans: they have to pay for it, there and then. By contrast, British humans receive health care that is free at the point of delivery. Of course, some dogs have had the foresight to take out insurance, but others have to pay out of their savings. Nevertheless, the iron principle holds: cash on delivery.
But what, I hear social philosophers and the shade of the late John Rawls cry, of British dogs that have no savings and cannot afford insurance? What happens to them? Are not British streets littered with canines expiring from preventable and treatable diseases, as American streets are said by Europeans to be littered with the corpses of the uninsured?
Strangely, no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
That is awesome!
Thanks, Darius!
Post a Comment