I was interested that Jim Michaud (Letters, Nov. 14), having read one British newspaper article, felt qualified to critique the U.K.'s National Health System. As someone with experience in both the U.S. and U.K. health systems, I probably have a more informed view on the subject.

Both systems have major shortcomings and can be wasteful -- the U.S. through insurance company bureaucracy, while Britain's NHS, as Mr. Michaud reports, has its own internal bureaucracy. In simple terms, in the U.S., someone with a good job and company health insurance will fare hugely better than those without, while in the U.K., all patients are generally treated equally and will receive treatment that is sometimes excellent and sometimes may entail long waiting lists and real hardship. Private insurance is, however, also available in the U.K. to those willing to pay.

For an alternative, and presumably neutral opinion on the subject, the World Health Organization ranking for the health systems of various countries, rates France and Italy as first and second, the U.K. 18th and the U.S. 37th. It may be a surprise to Mr. Michaud that France and Italy both have essentially socialized medical systems.

Gordon Crawford, Richland