Earlier we reported that the World Health Organization was calling for universal health care in order end inequities in health care. And they gave as an example of an inequity the life expectancy disparities of youths in Scotland. Where upon I was forced to reveal that Scotland has universal health care in the form the U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS).
Well, guess what? The NHS is admitting to its own failings at dealing with inequities. People in poorer areas of England have less chance of surviving cancer.
Cancer patients in poor areas of the country, particularly in the north of England, have less chance of being alive five years after diagnosis, according to the national statistics office. Its study of NHS trusts in England found "significantly lower" survival rates for both men and women across a range of cancers in the 62 most deprived areas of the country . . . What? If you live in a poor part of the U.K. your have less chance of surviving cancer than if you live in a more prosperous part? But the U.K. has universal health care, the dream of all liberals and most Democrats (and Barack Obama's stealth plan for us all). We've talked about the failures of the NHS before (and Canada's health care system). Scary reading it is. But with all it's faults, universal health care can't even make everyone equally miserable.
Comments