NYTIMES: BRITS FLOCKING TO PRIVATE HEALTHCARE BECAUSE NHS SUCKS

AND THE SOCIALISTS DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT!

NYTIMES:

Created 60 years ago as a cornerstone of the British welfare state, the National Health Service is devoted to the principle of free medical care for everyone. But recently it has been wrestling with a problem its founders never anticipated: how to handle patients with complex illnesses who want to pay for parts of their treatment while receiving the rest free from the health service.

Although the government is reluctant to discuss the issue, hopscotching back and forth between private and public care has long been standard here for those who can afford it. But a few recent cases have exposed fundamental contradictions between policy and practice in the system, and tested its founding philosophy to its very limits.

... the health service is riddled with inequities. Some drugs are available in some parts of the country but not in others. Waiting lists for treatment vary wildly from place to place. Some regions spend $280 per capita on cancer care, Professor Sikora said, while others spend just $90.

• TESTING THE FOUNDING PHILOSOPHY!?!?
• SHEESH: THAT WAS PROVEN BANKRUPT IN 1989 WHEN THE BERLIN WALL WAS TORN DOWN.
• SINCE THEN, SOCIALISM HAS BEEN IN RETREAT - MAKING UP EXCUSES, AND PATCHING ITSELF UP HERE'N THERE ALONG THE WAY. BUT IT'S POINTLESS.
• OH OH OH: SOCIALISM IS NOT IN RETREAT IN ZIMBABWE OR VENEZUELA - WHICH ARE NOSE-DIVING LIKE THE USSR DID.
• IF IT DOESN'T WORK IN THE UK - WHERE THEY'VE BEEN TINKERING WITH IT FOR 60 FREAKIN' YEARS, THEN IT WON'T WORK HERE.
• WHY TRADE OURS FOR THEIRS - WHICH IS "RIDDLED WITH INEQUITIES."
  

IF THE GOVERNMENT DID THINGS BETTER THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAN WE'D ALL BE DRIVING YUGOS.