Skip to comments.
Government Medicine Kills - The U.K. and Canada prove it.
National Review Online ^
| August 07, 2009
| Deroy Murdock
Posted on 08/07/2009 10:09:56 AM PDT by neverdem
August 07, 2009, 0:00 a.m.
Government Medicine Kills
The U.K. and Canada prove it.
By Deroy Murdock
Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: “Maybe I should pick up smoking.”
The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:
Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”
“Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.”
Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.
Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.
“In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.”
Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks — nearly nine months — to visit an orthopedic surgeon.
Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli
v. Quebec, “This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”
Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America’s system. This is false. The public option — for which Democrats lust — would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?
A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”
Barack Obama seconds that emotion.
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That’s what I’d like to see.”
And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn’t government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn’t Americans have universal access to fine dining?
All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.
— Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhohealthcare; breastcancer; danielhannan; deathcare; deathpanel; deathpanels; democrats; endoflife; fascism; geezers; govthealthcare; hawking; healthcare; heartattack; nhs; obamacare; prostatecancer; singlepayer; socialism; socializedmedicine; stephenhawking; ukhealth; ukhealthcare; wreckinghealthcare
posted on 08/07/2009 10:09:56 AM PDT
The socialists are taking over. Stalin and Mao would be so happy.
posted on 08/07/2009 10:43:16 AM PDT
Naw...you see, the magic Kenyan says ours is gonna be better. So you can;t go by these figures...these are probably fanatical right wing statasticians throwing these numbers together. They are probably getting beaten by union thugs as we speak.
posted on 08/07/2009 10:43:57 AM PDT
by oust the louse
(This Country now has a smelly BO problem.....)
I guess author Deroy Murdock and poster “neverdem” are on Mr. Obama’s Hate List now.
I'm going to my second protest in seven decades today. The first one was against higher property taxes, the second is to tell the world that I love this nation and don't want it to be surrendered to the Marxists without a whimper.
I hear union and Acorn thugs will be there waiting on us this afternoon. Please, anybody out there who reads this: Please support lawful resistance to the assault on America. Show up at the rallies and protests. They call us mobs, but we are good, decent Americans...and it's High Noon.
posted on 08/07/2009 10:44:38 AM PDT
(Remember the price paid for your freedom.)
The horror stories of the Brit and Canadian systems would pale in comparison to the ineptitude of our federal government taking on health care. Our government can't handle the digital TV conversion and people are considering putting them in charge of our lives?
posted on 08/07/2009 10:48:28 AM PDT
Government Medicine Kills - The U.K. and Canada prove it. That’s the reason Obama likes it remember what his rev said in church about American?.
posted on 08/07/2009 12:04:25 PM PDT
The horror stories are many. I think the UK is worse than Canada as they don’t ration drugs here. But the waiting times are outrageous. I waited 19 months for a hip replacement. I am appalled at what has happened to our once good healthcare. I was an RN for years but I would never work in this cesspool we have now. Yesterday for instance I went to the local hospital with my sister to pick up her husband who had had a melanoma removed from his back. He was in hospital for 2 days as they did the groin (lymph) surgery first before the back. When I walked into that hospital on his ward I was just appalled. The place was a total mess. The hallways had supplied stacked all down one side of the hallway for as far as you could see. The rooms were dirty. The nurses were very good and the doctors, but the physical situation is completely unsustainable and likely to get worse as baby boomers age. Don’t go for it!! CO
posted on 08/07/2009 1:26:41 PM PDT
by Canadian Outrage
(Conservatism is to a country what an antibiotic is to an infection - Healing!!!!)
posted on 08/08/2009 6:09:43 PM PDT
("You have the responsibility NOT to be SILENT!" -- George Crossley)
posted on 08/12/2009 9:12:06 AM PDT
(Obama thinks himself a wit and he's only half right..)
No, they are not Socialists. They are Marxists and they will not succeed, they will fail.
posted on 08/12/2009 9:59:40 AM PDT
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for the people to remain silent.)
posted on 08/12/2009 10:11:04 AM PDT
(Tired of Left/right coast globalist party power brokers? How 'bout THE HEARTLAND AMERICA PARTY??)
Since when were Stalin and Mao Socialists?
Isn’t Socialism the philosophy of ideal social and economic equality. So while all governments have policies influenced by socialism, it would be inaccurate to call any government or nation “Socialist.” It’s just an ideal, like Capitalism, that has a strong influence over policy but is never the only influence.
Communism, on the other hand, refers to a type of regime that seeks to enforce Socialist policies through centralized control, like the Kenyan is trying to do.
So, while Communism is necessarily Socialist, Socialism is not necessarily Communist.
posted on 08/12/2009 10:18:28 AM PDT
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for the people to remain silent.)
“Since when were Stalin and Mao Socialists?”
Always and forever.
posted on 08/14/2009 12:39:23 PM PDT
“So, while Communism is necessarily Socialist, Socialism is not necessarily Communist.”
Communism is ultimate socialism, but even a little socialism is worse than no socialism. It's like saying a little cancer is good but a lot is bad. Cancer like socialism is always bad, and poisons society in direct proportion to the amount of socialism employed by that society.
posted on 08/14/2009 12:48:27 PM PDT
“... Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?”
We need to use that analogy a lot!
posted on 08/14/2009 12:56:12 PM PDT
by Let's Roll
(Stop paying ACORN to destroy America! Cut off their government funding!)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson