Though I agree that the U.S. needs health care reform, I don’t agree that the use of flaws in another county’s health care should equate to the belittling of concerned American citizens (“A lesson on health care” (letter, Aug. 20).
The transformation of a nation’s health care system, or lack thereof, should be up for debate and discussed at great length. They are the hypocritically uneducated who would criticize health care protesters, but support freedom of speech. Where people are affected, they should be heard. Period.
The British health care system is not perfect. To be honest, I don’t believe that the federal government needs to be involved in health care. Why can’t the state and local communities and churches step in? Why can’t local and religious leaders help the poor and others in need? Wait! That would take effort, and socialized health care is free.
In the military, I have a free and socialistic health care plan. I pay little, if anything. I offer one “pro” and one “con” to this system:
When my daughter needed heart surgery at 4 years old, the Army sent us to one of the best children’s cardiac facilities in the world. Our experience was wonderful and we paid absolutely nothing. However, undergoing fertilization treatment has cost my wife and me years of potential childbirth because every doctor we have to see (we can’t always keep the same one) wants to run his own tests or make his own prognosis. Military transfers and hospital changes cause medical record and history loss. Now we face paying thousands of dollars out of pocket or abandoning our attempts at another child.
Debate is brutal and I’m sure that Michael Moore’s film integrity shows an honest depiction of health care around the world.
Capt. Michael MitchellForward Operating Base Marez, Iraq