To the Editor:

Having just read the Jan. 18 issue in regards to the article on the Bethlehem Morning Voice Huddle [“Across the country: Last year’s Women’s March gave rise to ‘huddles’ to effect change,” The Enterprise, Jan. 18, 2018], I see one of the things it backs is single-payer health care. From what I understand, in places like Canada and the United Kingdom, they have it but is it not true that people have literally died waiting for treatment for various illnesses?

In the U.K., I’ve heard of backlogs so severe that you literally have people waiting in the back of ambulances to be treated; that getting to see a dentist over there is near impossible; and that, if you have cancer, it’s a literal death sentence.

There’s also a case where you had this little child with a rare genetic disorder. His parents wanted to bring him here for treatment but their doctors refused by British law and that’s how the child died. Meanwhile, why is it that Canadians when they can, come here for medical treatment? In our own country, you have the Veterans Affairs system which is entirely run by the government. How well has that worked out?

In closing, let me say that, yes, there are definitely things we can do to make our health-care system better. I should know. I’ve lost to death a grandmother, grandfather, and a cousin to medical incompetence.

But, in light of what I’ve just pointed out, is a single-payer health care system really the best answer?

Richard E. Fisher

Howes Cave

Editor’s note: Richard E. Fisher said he heard about the problems with health care in the United Kingdom that he cites in his letter on the conservative talk radio show hosted by Mark Levin.

Actually, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United Kingdom first overall among developing countries’ health-care systems while the United States ranked last. The U.K. was first in quality care (effective, safe, coordinated, and patient-centered), in access, and in efficiency. The annual health expenditure per capita was listed at $3,405 in the U.K. compared to $8,508 in the U.S.

European courts ruled that Charlie Gard, an 11-month-old British baby who was born with a rare and fatal genetic disease, should be taken off life support, as there were no effective treatments for his condition. His parents, who had sought experimental treatment, dropped their legal effort last July, saying it was time to let their son die.