Protestors call for an end to the "crisis" in Britain's state-run National Health Service this week.Daniel Leal-Olivas
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..................................................................................................................................
Early days of the NHS
Discussing the economic woes of Britain's National Health Service in an era of "austerity-inclined politicians," Konrad Yakabuski notes that all Western health-care systems face problems of sustainability given "the demands of an aging population and the wrath of tapped out taxpayers" (Is Our Health System Destined To Follow A U.S. Trajectory? Feb. 8).
Characterizing these systems as "born in the postwar era of abundance," Mr. Yakabuski seemingly endorses the view that current society can no longer afford the luxury of universal health care. This argument is not well-grounded on a reading of history.
When the NHS was created in 1948, Britain was in economic crisis. With the country reeling in debt and a balance-of-payments deficit, the Labour government adopted a policy of austerity that lasted well into the 1950s. Wartime controls on the marketplace were extended. A case in point: Bread rationing was introduced after the Second World War, not during it. Viewed solely in economic terms, Britain could not afford the NHS in 1946. That the NHS was created speaks to a conscious decision on the part of government to prioritize health care and social services. Ultimately, what a society can or cannot afford is a policy decision.
Mariel Grant, associate professor, department of history, University of Victoria, Victoria
.....................................
Whatever drove the creation of the NHS, it was not abundance. Historian Tony Judt in Postwar, his magisterial survey of that era, points out that Britain continued to maintain the illusion of being a great power without the resources to do so. Part of its resources went to paying the huge war debt to the United States, part to military expenditures. One result was that food rationing in Britain went on till 1954 – long after it had ended in the rest of Western Europe.
The creation of the NHS was a courageous decision by the Labour Party to radically improve the lives of British people. It benefited most sectors of society – hence the continuing broad support for it. Mr. Judt comments on the timing of the NHS's introduction: "Precisely because times were difficult, the postwar welfare systems were a guarantee of a certain minimum or justice, or fairness." We should be grateful that politicians once thought like that.
Christopher Petty, Winnipeg
.....................................
As a seven year old in 1948 postwar Britain, I remember workers wearing surplus army clothing, food rationing and shortages of everything including coal. I suspect the same conditions existed in other European countries.
I do not remember the abundance until 1952 when my family emigrated to Canada, which incidentally did not have a publicly funded national health care system at the time.
David Ankrett, Port Perry, Ont.
.....................................
Art for art's sake
Once again the confusion of art and life continues to restrict art's utility in life (Should An Artist's Behaviour Disqualify Their Art? Feb. 9). And once again the conventional thinking of separating the creator from the creation is being challenged by moralists who want to create how the art is to be perceived.
Such a push for control of art should be resisted by the general public. Creativity is a wonderful attribute when employed by artists for art's sake, but when it is employed by moralists, it produces the ugly politics of censorship.
The unique nature of art is that once created it exists independently of its creator. Consequently, observers can perceive it as is. In fact, the artistic process is such that the originator is transcended, left behind.
Thus those moralists who insist on putting the life of the artist in front of the art can do it for themselves. However, they should not be empowered to place the art in the shadow of the artist for others.
Tony D'Andrea, Toronto
.....................................
Monster mergers
Carolyn Wilkins, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, made a good point in a speech when she said "that too much market and pricing power in the hands of a few companies raises concerns about monopolistic practices" (Bank of Canada's Wilkins Calls For Intervention To Prevent Tech Giants From Stifling Competition, Feb. 9).
The article noted the Bank of Canada apparently has also been promoting a "European-style interventionist" approach to corporate mergers. But I would point out that the European Union is about to approve the merger of Luxottica (an Italian firm) and Essilor (a French firm) that combined would have about 50 per cent of the worldwide market for lenses and eye wear.
Each of these two firms has the scale to innovate on their own, so the real reason to merge is to gain more market pricing power. This merger will increase their combined profits, result in lost jobs in the name of efficiency and, of course, make their shareholders happy. Readers of this letter will probably be doing so through one of their products (Luxottica alone sells 28 different brands of glasses) but will unlikely be a shareholder of either company. And so it goes.
David Enns, Cornwall, Ont.
.....................................
Tune back in
In view of mounting evidence showing that untreated hearing loss often leads to social isolation, withdrawal, cognitive decline and dementia (What We Know About The Link Between Hearing Loss And Dementia, Jan. 29), Hugh McKechnie should reconsider his decision to abandon the use of hearing aids (A Costly Mistake, Feb. 7) .
Sure, they can be expensive. But like automobiles, hearing aids come in a wide range of prices. One doesn't need the latest fully loaded BMW for a trip to the corner grocery store. I am confident Mr. McKechnie can find a purveyor who can supply reasonably priced devices with retainers, which prevent accidental loss, that will suit him just fine.
Jaffer Sunderji, Toronto
.....................................
Resource reviews
As part of the overhaul of environmental legislation, the federal Liberals stated that consideration of Indigenous rights would be mandatory in all reviews of major resource projects (Liberals Unveil Overhaul Of Environmental Legislation For Major Resource Projects, Feb. 8).
While this appears to be a small step in including Indigenous peoples in the process, it is at present very unclear what this means. There are established science parameters that have been peer-reviewed with respect to resource development and the environment. Are we to assume that established science precedents are somehow inferior to anecdotal Indigenous knowledge, or are we to assume that this knowledge should be treated on the same level and is contingent on granting project approval? Everyone involved should know exactly where we stand, before any project proceeds.
Jeff Spooner, Mt. Tremblant, Que.