https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19089/socialized-medicine
Claiming that conservatives are less compassionate because many basic needs are not offered for free can miss the point. Too often what is offered are words; what is actually ends up being delivered may be sorely lacking — as disillusioned citizens in places such as Venezuela and Cuba have found out the hard way.
Of course, one does not become a “better person” by voting for giveaways that are all too often fraudulent or semi-fraudulent — a bait-and-switch in which what is delivered ends up being far from what has been promised, if delivered at all. For many people, however, it might satisfy a need to be perceived as being on the side of the “good” — which social promises always are; why else would a public buy into them?
Over time, as governments began to separate themselves from religion, many responsibilities of the church became transferred to the state. The gradual progression of socialist and Marxist thought, meanwhile, further increased the divide, while at the same time expanding the remit of governmental reach into people’s daily lives.
Immigration, changes in the workplace, a massive increase in disability payments (along with what constitutes “disability”), the length of time people remain unemployed and an increasingly bloated bureaucracy have all contributed to breaking the back of an outdated system.
If your needs are immediate, the struggle for medical care is even more uphill: the NHS is now advising patients to consider private healthcare.
Then there is dental care. As long ago as 1952, the British state’s initial offer of “free” dental work (and visits to the optician) had to be dramatically reined-in: the reality of the economics was not adding up.
The high rate of taxation in Britain, with a top income tax rate of 45% (for those who earn more than £150,000) and an “ordinary” rate of 20%, has many wondering if their “national insurance” deductions could not be better spent on private care when needed. As things stand, the majority of people — those without chronic medical conditions — appear to be paying for the few — the same business model as for private insurance companies.
Taking into consideration the challenge of rampant illegal immigration, the divisive nature of “woke” ideology that pits citizens against one another, the criminalisation of speech that constitutes “hate crimes” law, the softly-softly approach to fundamentalist terrorism, as well “transgender” infiltration into women’s sports, locker rooms and restrooms, media race-baiting and so on, it seems we have a bit of a problem on our hands.
The over-loading of the NHS, which would be alarming enough on its own, is merely [with the ever-increasing number of immigrants] the icing on a hugely unappetising-looking cake. Indeed, the total cost of providing healthcare to visitors and immigrants alone, was estimated at two billion pounds per year — as far back as 2013.
To compound matters, when exceptions to the rules are made for certain residents — such as allowing men in polygamous marriages to claim for wives who do not even reside in the UK, the bitterness can only grow. To blame the inevitable backlash on “racism” or “xenophobia” might seem to many a ruse to silence dissent.
Year after year, as the population has grown, the inevitable demand for state aid has risen, stretching resources, while breeding bitter rivalry amongst those vying for help — be it healthcare, social housing or state benefits. The dynamic between altruism and gratitude, has been replaced it with an increasingly authoritarian-looking bureaucracy on the state’s part, coupled with what many might regard as a cynical sense of entitlement in those expecting help.
Far from seeming like a comforting “safety net”, welfare now feels more like a soul-crushing method of state-enslavement.
There may well be little doubt that the state has good cause to implement anti-social measures to counteract the anti-social behaviour of some of its dependents, but inevitably such action creates a paranoid, suspicious landscape entirely lacking in empathy.
Sadly, the “safety net” we have in the UK today bears little resemblance to what its benevolent pioneers envisioned. Perhaps suggestions could be offered how constructively to improve it.
