Good points from an editorial in The Bahamas Journal on the NIH Debate:

"If we were to do some research into the background of those people who have reservations about the NHI in its present form, we would probably find that many of them have been donating their time, talent and treasure to help the poor for many years through scholarship programmes, working with and in charitable organizations, and even donating to cookouts. At the same time if we were to research the background of the many vociferous voices who vigorously support the present proposal, we would probably find many of them having done very little to assist their brethren in need. We just may find that many of them fall in the category of those who are often expecting something for nothing. In this regard, we are reminded of a parent who complained when high school tuition was raised by some $50.00 per term, when he was spending that amount on weekly drinking social gatherings. One might say that his priority was all screwed up, a state in which we often find many of our people.

At the moment the demonisation barbs seem directed at the outspoken doctors, the same ones, no doubt, on whom the success of the scheme will depend. From the onset they must be feeling somewhat demoralised, like mere pawns on a chessboard. At the moment doctors are being projected as materialistic hounds in pursuit of wounded prey. We wonder how the demonisers of the legal profession would feel if and how they would be behaving if government similarly pursued the introduction of a national legal aid programme. Would they feel the same if they had to forgo lots of their lucrative legal fees in favour of working in a government controlled system of legal aid, where they had to donate time, talent and treasure or work at the fairly reduced salary similar to the teaching profession or other professionals in the public service."