Pre-Conditions for National Health Care

Vanity | 11-25-08 | Me

[John123]

OK... since the liberals are so determined to have National Health Care...

We will give it to you under the following condition:

Everybody and I mean everybody is required to stand in line for a doctor. No cutting in... so special cases... don't even care if you are the freakin' President of the U.S.! All senators, representatives and WH officials must wait for their turn to see a doctor. And their families... No exceptions!

Violators must be sentenced for long prison terms and pay big fines.

The real truth of the matter is this... Nationalized Health Care is a liberal plot to create political dependency rather than being a humanitarian goal. Anyone who thinks differently should listen to what the English, Canadians and Cubans think about their medical care...

[Angostura]

Well, as a Brit, I think the national health service is excellent. No it’s not perfect, but it gave my 80 year-old father state-of the art back surgery which turned him from a stooped old man to a regular guy. It save my wife’s life (and my youngest) when she had to have an emergency C-section.

Sure, my father had to wait 3 months for the surgery. Sure, the hospital wards can sometimes be a bit depressing. But when push-comes-to-shove it is very good.

... and if you want to go private and jump the queues you can. My mum has private health insurance and used it for a hip operation. She got faster service, nicer food and a swankier room. But the surgeon was just the same chap as would have treated her on the NHS.

[silverleaf]

the lines don't begin for “doctors”
the lines begin for “gatekeepers” who decide who- in their opinion- needs to see a doctor

Then they send those selected to another gatekeeper
who makes an appointment
the timing of your appointment will depend on how seriously ill the appointment at gatekeeper thinks you are

Oh and the gatekeepers?
Full employment EEO hires
Including people who failed the test for TSA screeners

All supervised by ACORN staffers

Yah I can't wait for all the old farts in FL who voted for Obama and CHANGE to start waiting in line to see if they get to even SEE a doctor ... and after waiting in line being told “NOT TODAY”

[goodwithagun]

Even Teddy “the waitress sandwich” Kennedy?

[M203M4]

Needs:

1. Separate purse - new source of funding based on income levy. No other forms of government revenue can go toward system.

2. three options: all-in; or 90% opt-out (emergency care only); or 100% opt-out (no government-funded provision of emergency care mandated for opt-outs).

3. tort reform

Let it compete with the free-market. Everyone is happy.

[John123]

... and if you want to go private and jump the queues you can.

Then I have a question for you... our politicians and insurance companies want 100% participation in the public health plan... is the British plan similar?

[Angostura]

Err, actually in the UK (again since it was cited in the original post) you just phone up your local General Practitioner and make an appointment. For non-urgent cases that may be 2 or 3 days. If I phone up and say ‘I’m worried about my kid, I think it may be serious’, that will be the same day.

The GP decides whether you need a hospital referral, in the vast majority of cases the GP can fix you up just fine with medication, or minor surgery.

[Angostura]

Yes. If you want to ‘jump the queue’ that’s your right but you pay that in addition to the standard universal taxation that pays for the NHS.

The private sector is almost entirely used for non-urgent or elective treatment, the private hospitals simply aren’t geared up for heart surgery, transplants etc.

[John123]

So are we "jumping the gun" about socializing medical care?

I'm not too sure how long the British had the current plan but if possible, can you give us a short comparison before & after?

Would you say that the standard universal taxation you pay now is more or less than what you paid for the previous medical plan?

[evaporation-plus]

Yes. If you want to ‘jump the queue’ that’s your right but you pay that in addition to the standard universal taxation that pays for the NHS.

I guess this is where our politicians, hollywood types, professional athletes, and lawyers fit in !!

[Angostura]

It’s difficult to make direct before and after comparisons since the UK has had the NHS since 1948. Before that there was no “plan. Before the NHS healthcare in the UK was almost entirely based on charitable foundations. Many of London’s teaching hospitals were started by wealthy philanthropists and pre-NHS, consultants would sometimes work for free, as a charitable donation of time.

It was a different world, which makes the direct comparison between UK and U.S systems difficult.

[socialismisinsidious]

In this country Socialized Medicine is about something more than health care...it's about freedom! It's about the Constitution and what is/isn't a "right". It's about a Representative Republic vs. socialism. It's about taxation. It's about innovation, imagination and free market capitalism. We The People lose our freedom when medicine (or any entity) is nationalized and innovations whither on the vine.

Government is just too inefficient, slow to react and too much about socially engineering. Government makes mandates, government regulates and government rules; government will begin to make decisions for the Individual that they have no business making. We are a people who love our freedom.....at least we use to.

[socialismisinsidious]

I don't usually ping out a vanities but it's a slow night and I thought Angosura's post is of interest.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!


Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.

[Angostura]

I don’t think you and I are likely to agree, but yes I understand that decisions about the healthcare system are bound up with all kinds of other ideological questions.

In practical terms yes, the public sector in the UK is often cumbersome and slow to react. Over the years the system has been tweaked to try and pass as much autonomy as possible to ‘Primary Care Trusts’ which are accountable for healthcare in a fairly local area.

In terms of freedom, well as I say said earlier, you are free to ‘go private’ if you wish to pay the extra.

In terms of innovation, many practical innovative techniques have been pioneered by the NHS - the first “test-tube baby” was conceived and born in an NHS Hospital, the NHS is a leader in stem-cell research.

In terms of mandating and controlling, the government passed off control of what drugs can and cannot be prescribed on the NHS to an independent body.

Putting aside the ideology, the system can be shown to work pretty well. You say “Socialized Medicine is about something more than health care...it’s about freedom!” In this country the government is hell-bent on giving patients choice. If you get a hospital referral the GP will these days give you a choice of location and surgeon etc.

Many people are actually irked by this freedom over here. Faced with the “choice” they get irritated - “just give me the best surgeon who is closest to home” is the response.

[socialismisinsidious]

In terms of freedom, well as I say said earlier, you are free to ‘go private’ if you wish to pay the extra.

You mean, 'go private' after you've already paid how much in tax dollars for health care? And all that wonderful care that your family got...it doesn't bother you at all that it required the sweat of someone else?

Putting aside the ideology, the system can be shown to work pretty well.

And the system we have has been shown to work even better. Obviously you don't understand that I don't want to be under a health care system that requires government to do things right; they have a history of doing too many things wrong.

Putting aside the ideology ....uh, the Left is all about ideology which is why they are willing to give up freedoms. People with ideologies have no clue of unintended consequences or history. You're new here: ever heard of DU?

Many people are actually irked by this freedom over here.

Sigh, that's just pathetically sad. It's not like socialism/fascism doesn't have a history with you people. How does the saying go: Those who have no clue of history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, this time there are so many of the Loony Left persuasion here I doubt we'll be of help.

[Angostura]

And all that wonderful care that your family got...it doesn't bother you at all that it required the sweat of someone else? Not really. I paid my National Insurance for about 20 years before making substantial demands on the health service. I don't waste the NHS's time and money, so that's pretty much my sweat. Do I mind if some of my sweat goes to help some sick kid? Absolutely not. In just the same way that I don't care whether some of my sweat goes to help someone who's house is burning down. And the system we have has been shown to work even better. It has? That's great. I thought people thought some people thought it needed reform, but if it works fantastic. Obviously you don't understand that I don't want to be under a health care system that requires government to do things right; they have a history of doing too many things wrong. You know what, I do understand that - but here you are back putting your ideology in front of the practicalities. Yes governments have a history of doing things wrong, but in my experience they also do a fair number of things right. There is nothing that dictates that all government action is intrinsically poor. That would be like me looking at BP's oil-refinery explosions and saying - "see, the private sector is incompetent". ....uh, the Left is all about ideology which is why they are willing to give up freedoms. One man's ideology is another man's pragmatic decision to let a centralised goverment handle some functions. One man's lost freedom is another man's willingless to let the council bin-men take away the trash, rather than bury it in a hole every week himself. People with ideologies have no clue of unintended consequences or history. You're new here: ever heard of DU? As I say, you haven't really convinced me that I'm the ideological one here - I favour mixed economies with private sector and government chipping in where appropriate. I was merely pointing out that government-run healthcare in one country can, and does work well, if not perfectly. Sigh, that's just pathetically sad. It's not like socialism/fascism doesn't have a history with you people. How does the saying go: Those who have no clue of history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, this time there are so many of the Loony Left persuasion here I doubt we'll be of help. Ascribing stupidity and ignorance to people who disagree with you seldom wins people around. I have a fair knowledge of 20th Century history, but you have yet to show me how relying on my local doctor's expertise to find the appropriate surgeon, will lead to the return of the gulags. There are Loony Left people in this world, just as there are Nutty Rightwingers. I'm sure that neither you nor I fall into either of those categories. Obviously you don't understand that I don't want to be under a health care system that requires government to do things right; they have a history of doing too many things wrong.

[socialismisinsidious]

First of all, use paragraphs.

Secondly, there isn't one single thing that government does better, more efficiently and with less bloated bureaucracy than the private sector. No matter how much you tout Nationalized health care the private sector is more efficient, has less rationing, has quicker turn around, and has more accountability. In a nutshell that is because of more competition, less bureaucrats. You can argue all you want that your system is OK but the fact remains that the US has the best health care in the world. That's b/c it isn't fully government run...yet.

I favor mixed economies with private sector and government chipping in where appropriate

That is not socialized medicine. What you have isn't a private system with gov. "chipping in where appropriate" (whatever that means) but rather you have a gov. system where individuals are ALLOWED (woohoo! talk about freedom) to buy private if they have the money. It's pathetic that a people think it's special that the government allows them to buy outside its own system.What happens when the government decides you may no longer buy outside its system? Then what? Your description is the US system....private with Medicaid/Medicare (although the chipping in where appropriate is more like chipping away to socialize the entire system)

....show me how relying on my local doctor's expertise to find the appropriate surgeon, will lead to the return of the gulags.

Again, that's not socialized medicine. In socialized medicine one relies on government to pay for/allow their medical care. Sounds nice in the terms of "oh my Doctor just tells me where to go" but the reality is the government has to say you are ALLOWED to go to the doctor in the first place.

Why would any individual want to be beholden, be allowed by government to get medical care?! Not to mention that government interference always drives up prices and results in rationing. I don't want government health care simply b/c there is a better way.

Check out Venezuela if you don't believe that nationalizing huge chunks of a nation's economy can't lead to a loss of freedoms.

[Angostura]

Sorry about the paragraphs, they were there in the original, but disapeared on posting, I should have caught it in the preview.

You say that there isn't one single thing that the government does better than the private sector. That's seems a rather extreme view which implies that there is nothing that a group of people can do together that can't intriscally be done better when the profit motive is involved. It also implies I suppose that you would like the U.S Army to be replaced by a private force, like Blackwater and and for foreign policy to be set by the chairman of Exxon and environmental policy by the CEO of BP. But I may be misinterpreting your opinions.

You say that the U.S healthcare system is the best in the world, but by what metrics? In 2006 the U.S had the second worst new-born death rate in the industrialised world. Latvia was worse, the US.S was tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. Certainly, the U.S appears to have improved since then, but it's not a great record. So what measure are you using exactly, to make that claim of world pre-eminence?

When I say I favour mixed economies, I mean in general, not particularly in the health service. I don't think it is particularly "special" that the government lets us buy outside the system. I do think it is special that we, as a democracy decided to club together and use our combined cash to make sure that everyone receives healthcare free at the point of delivery. There's nothing particularly pathetic about that.

Looking at your last point: "the reality is the government has to say you are ALLOWED to go to the doctor in the first place.". I'm afraid that's nonsense. I phone up my local surgery, I get an appointment, same day if urgent and I go. If it is after 6pm, and urgent I walk in to my local accident and emergency department in the hospital and take a seat. Yes, if it is a busy night I might have to wait, But compared to trying to get an appointment from my privatised cable operator, it's extremely easy.

Why would any individual want to be beholden, be allowed by government to get medical care?!

I'm not beholden. The taxpayers agreed to club together to pay for it collectively. You say a pure private sector approach provides a better approach - and that's great, if you believe it, but I have yet to see the evidence.

Not to mention that government interference always drives up prices and results in rationing.

Actually the government seems to have done quite a good job of bludgeoning the private sector into dropping prices through buying in bulk.

Re: Venezuela, yes of course vast amounts of nationalisation can lead to curtailed freedoms, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Eating two pounds of salt will kill you, but I like a bit of salt in my soup.

[socialismisinsidious]

Sigh. This is getting old.

You're right. The one thing government does right is war. And funny thing it's the one thing that our government is constitutionally obligated to do. In all else the private sector rules.

New born death rates: it's all in (or not) the reporting. Statistical reporting is not standardized internally so there can be no comparison. The US saves babies (23-24 weekers) that other countries allow to die b/c we have the ability to do so. US saving those babies is a tribute to our technology but hurts our statistics. One country's stillborn-23 weeker left to die and not counted as a newborn death-is our 23 weeker that we tried to save and when it died was counted as a newborn death. Bottom line: no matter what numbers the WHO/UN (uses statistics to further an agenda) throws out there the US does have the best health care in the world.

I do think it is special that we, as a democracy decided to club together and use our combined cash to make sure that everyone receives healthcare free at the point of delivery.

Good for you but let's call it what it is: socialism. It's interesting...all the euphemisms that you use for socialism. The left does that here too..."pooling of money" and "club together" sound so nice, but socialism is what you've described.

In this country 40% pay no income tax so to pretend that they would be a part of this wonderful pooling of money for health care would be pure stupidity on my part. No thanks to the government as a money middle man. I'm already carrying half the country on my back and have no wish to carry more of them....it's not like I'm not already paying for their health care...I am (NO ONE is turned away from health care in this country. Some don't have health insurance but every single persons has access to health care..even Illegals) but if I give the government mandate to TAKE even more of my money in the name of health care then I'd be a fool.

Reminds me: what % of your income (if you pay taxes) goes to health care? You may not be paying a lot but someone is...b/c you can call your health care "free" but there is no way it is. Someone is paying for it.

and that's great, if you believe it, but I have yet to see the evidence.

Um, my telling you I believe it should be enough evidence. Any how...it's not too hard to see: just study socialist societies now and throughout history...they rot from the inside. People slowly (or quickly if the socialism is at the point of gun) lose their freedoms. Not worth the risk.

[Angostura]

Really? The U.K doesn't count severly prem babies in the statistics? No. In fact the latest research in the U.K caused consternation since figures for severely prem baby survival have not improved in the last decade.

For the record, UK survival rates are:

23 weeks - 26%
24 weeks - 47%
25 weeks - 67%

So, I'm still interested by what measure you are claiming that U.S healthcare is the best in the world. You might be right, I'm just interested in the factual foundation.

Good for you but let's call it what it is: socialism. It's interesting...all the euphemisms that you use for socialism. The left does that here too..."pooling of money" and "club together" sound so nice, but socialism is what you've described.

I've no problem with calling it socialism if you like. (We don't actually find the word scary on this side of the pond) It's one aspect of society that we've decided to organise on socialistic principles, but other areas are completely captalistic free-market. As I've said before - a mixed economy.

Regarding the amount I spend on NHS. I'll try to dig out the figures for you. I don't have them to hand and it's late, but I'll look. I'm a high-rate tax payer - so quite a lot, I should think. Note that I never said that healthcare was free, and no-one here does either. the phrase is "free at the point of delivery.

As for your final point, well yes - in an ideal world I would take your word for it. But you seem to conflate societies which allow the government to run certain functions such as healthcare, with totalitarian socialists societies. You might want to believe that there is an inevitable slippery slope - but there doesn't appear to be.

Still, as you say. This is getting old, I think it unlikely that we will agree. My original point, the system over here works well enough, still stands.