The struggles of the National Health Service (NHS) in the U.K. are frequently cited as a reason to oppose publicly funded universal health care in the U.S. Yes, there are wait times, but they are due to chronic underfunding. Per capita spending on health care in the U.K. is only 45% of that in the U.S. Despite the underfunding, patient outcomes — maternal health, for example — are frequently better than they are here.

For 26 years, I lived in England, where the NHS cares for everyone from cradle to grave. Everyone contributes their whole working life, and care is free at the point of service. If we fell ill, we only had to worry about our health, not about finances.

When my daughters had their babies here, I couldn’t help comparing their experience to the extraordinary care I received in England. It seemed that here, mother and baby were left to their own devices. In England, on the other hand, the midwife came to the house every day for two weeks, with her scales and wisdom. When it was established that all was well with both mother and baby, this care tapered off until the health visitor took over. I was guided from nursing to the first solid foods, and more. I was spared any postnatal depression or other problems.

I am convinced that here in the U.S. we could deliver better care for less than we do now. We should demand it from our elected representatives.

Valerie Dornan
Hancock