Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Merrill Matthews :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Failures of Government-Run Healthcare
by Merrill Matthews
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in a rare moment of honesty on what he’d really like to do about health care reform, recently asserted that if we were starting from scratch he would probably choose a single-payer health care system.

That’s a system in which people pay higher taxes and the government pays most medical bills.

Obama’s not alone in that opinion. Filmmaker Michael Moore took his “Sicko” audience to England, among other places, where we learned that doctors in that single-payer system made good salaries, had nice homes and cars, and patients were very satisfied.

But anyone who reads the English press will find a different message, including waiting lines, angry patients, rationed and often subquality care. Consider these recent news stories about England’s National Health Service (NHS) quoted directly from the British press.

• Twice Katie asked for a [Pap] smear test, but was told she was “too young” to need one. Now 24, she is dying from cervical cancer, one of many young women who have fallen victim to a scandalous change in health policy. (London’s Daily Mail, June)

• A man with terminal cancer has been refused a drug by the NHS that could extend his life — despite offering to pay part of the cost himself. . . . David Swain's offer to meet the monthly £2,000 cost of Erbitux was refused, he said, because the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [a government body] ruled it was too expensive. (Yorkshire Post, March, emphasis added)

• Health service dentists have been forced to go on holiday or spend time on the golf course this month despite millions of patients being denied dental care. . . . Many [dentists] have fulfilled their annual work quotas allotted by the National Health Service and have been turning patients away because they are not paid to do extra work. This is despite the fact that more than 7m[illion] people in Britain are unable to find an NHS dentist. (The Times of London, March)

Does that sound like your idea of a great health care system? The British press — as well as the Canadian press and other countries — regularly runs stories like these about patients who are denied treatment because they are too old, too young, too sick or too costly.

Indeed, The Times of London ran a story in 2006 asserting: “Patients are being denied appointments with consultants in a systematic attempt to ration care and save the NHS money, The Times has learnt. . . . Leaked documents passed to The Times show that while ministers promise patients choice, a series of barriers are being erected limiting GPs’ [general practitioners] rights to refer people to consultants.”

If you want to read these stories and others like them for yourself, just go to the “Health Care Horror Stories” at BigGovhealth.org, which regularly posts the negative press coming from those government-run health care countries (which has to be a full-time job!).

The fact is that every government-run health care system struggles to make ends meet. Money for health care in those systems has to compete with money for other government programs like education, defense and pension programs.

That’s why other countries spend less on health care. It’s not that their systems are better or more efficient; it’s because politicians control the funds and have to make trade-offs. That often means the more expensive treatments, the marginal members of society, and even preventive care and screening can get axed.

Yes, many people in those countries are satisfied with their care. And yes, everyone in those countries is “insured” — the apparent goal in the current health care reform debate. But having coverage doesn’t count for much if patients can’t get quality care in timely manner.

Health care reformers often claim or imply that the U.S. health care system is terrible, while countries like England provide quality care for everyone, and for less money. That’s simply not a balanced assessment.

U.S. health care is excellent, but it can be very expensive and, a not unrelated fact, too many people are uninsured.

But copying other government-controlled systems isn’t the solution. They have their problems; we have ours. Let’s fix ours problems without importing theirs.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.

Nationalized Health Care
I had four cousins, three in Canada and one in England. All three died waiting for help after massive heart attacks. One was waiting for an ambulance, which took 3 hours to arrive, in a suburb of London, two were waiting to see a cardiologist in Toronto and the last one died because he was misdiagnosed in an urgent care facility. It would have taken four months for an appointment with a cardiologist.
When my aunt took ill, here in the United States, she had a very bad ache in her left arm (indicates cardiac oxygen insufficiency) we called 911 and had an ambulance at her door within 8 mins. The lady, at 77, was rushed to hospital, stabilized and got a quadruple bypass that very night. She lived another 11 years to the ripe old age of 89.

God Bless America and our health care system. America does not owe anyone health care. Health Care is not a right. It is a product.The country owe any citizen health care as much as it owe us cars.
Reaganite - Glenn J. D'Abreo
Reaganite@hangright.org
http://www.hangright.org

What is an elephant?
A mouse built to government specs.

INSURANCE IS NOT TOO EXPENSIVE TO AFFORD. My husband and I shopped around. We asked several agents to look at several different policies, at several differnt levels of coverage. We settled on one with a $3500 deductible (each), 100% coverage after that up to $3,000,000 over our lifetimes, that costs $150/month for both of us.

Take a look at your paystubs. That's likely what's being held out to suppliment what your employers are paying.

The problem with expensive insurance is when people demand to have copays or no payment at all when they visit a doctor for any reason, when insurance is meant to cover catastrophes.

When the government gets involved, the little things are what are covered while the catastrophes get ignored. Little things are cheap. Catastrophes aren't.

http://theantisoma.blogspot.com

What's the Insurance Worth?
"But having coverage doesn’t count for much if patients can’t get quality care in timely manner."

You nailed that one right on the head! Anyone can offer health care and say that you're insured, but what do you get for your money? The health care system in the United States isn't perfect, in fact far from it, but putting it under government control will make it worse based on the government's performance in other industries.

Prices come down and quality improves when you have competition and liquidity. We need more of it in the health care sector like we have for auto insurance. Because you have the option to switch your auto insurance carrier, they have to keep their prices down and their customer service up. We do not have that option in health insurance (at least not as easy) and handing control of it over to the government will move us further away. Prices will go up in the form of tax increases because there will be a huge, new item in the U.S. budget that will be nearly impossible to cut without cutting benefits.

But if you are really set on being insured regardless of the actual benefits, I'll insure you for the low, low rate of $10/month. You won't get a lot of benefits, but at least you won't be one of millions of uninsured people :-).

Erbitux
"A man with terminal cancer has been refused a drug by the NHS that could extend his life"

Erbitux costs $12,000 a month, and it has "not been shown to prolong life." (1) That's a lot of money for a drug that doesn't work. If you are in the US and one of the 40-plus million without insurance, it is doubtful you can afford Erbitux. Even if you have insurance, it will cost you $3,000 a month for the copayment(see experience of Jim Lemieux in note 1 - Erbitux costs double what Avastin does). Initially, NHS patients were not allowed to pay just the copayment for drugs. You either had to be in the NHS system or not. That has changed. The NHS is now allowing copayments. (2) That means all patients in the UK now have access to these insanely expensive drugs that do little or nothing, and US patients do not. See my post on May 13, 2007 7:34 AM (note 3) for an explanation of why drugs like Erbitux and Avastin actually cost lives.

1)http://tinyurl.com/6aqoby
2)http://tinyurl.com/6kqqu2
3)captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009946.php

Not limited to government health care
A few years ago HMOs came to be the dominant player in our privately-owned, privately-run health care system. They ration health care. Period. And there are correlations between the quality of health care people get and the quality of their health insurance in this country. What Americans believe is that because health care is a product, it should be handled like any other product in the market. This means, of course, that if you've got the money, you get a better product.


Anecdotal observations are not proof
Health care is an extremely complicated issue, and this essay poorly addresses the problem. I’ve lived both in Canada and the US, and I can assure you that Canadian newspapers are full of horror stories about American health care as well. Indeed, this sort of tactic is precisely that used by Moore. By any ‘useful’ metric of judging a nation’s health care (infant mortality rates, life span, cost per GDP) America does poorly.

The global consensus is quickly moving towards a highly regulated ‘market’ or government system for health care, and with good cause. Like it or not, America will soon follow. Why? It’s simple really. Consider the example of fire insurance. Each year you renew, and your costs may change a little based on such factors as proximity to a fire department, or the addition of sprinklers. But basically, not much changes. The risk of your house burning down has not changed significantly, so the payments stay the same. Now, what would happen to your payments if you knew, and so did your insurer, that your house would burn down with a probability of 90% in 2012. Good luck getting a reasonable rate on your insurance then.

This is what is happening to health care. The biggest expenses are chronic illnesses. You get hit by a car, you can sue. Who do you sue when you get colon cancer? Our understanding of who will get what disease and when increases with each passing year. If you believe in free markets, then you’d better believe the insurance companies are interested in knowing who is going to get cancer at 35 as well. And when you turn 35, they’ll hike up your payments beyond your ability to pay. That's how they make money after all.

This is not a philosophical argument. It’s a mathematical one. Insurance is based on a pooling risk. In a “free market” system, insurance companies make money by insuring those who don’t need insurance, and pricing out those who don’t. With diagnostic technology rapidly evolving, this problem will only get worse.

More reasons to reject NHC
The government can decide what diseases exist and which do not. For example, thousands of people are suffering from chronic Lyme disease are told by the IDSA (as supported by the complicit CDC) that chronic Lyme does not exist and that long-term antibiotics do not help. I have chronic Lyme, and can assure you long term antibiotics kept me off of disability and incorrectly being treated for Parkinson's Disease. People from Europe, Canada, and Australia come here for treatment- I personally knowe many.

Doctor shortages will be met with government "incentives" for people to attend medical school. This will not attract the best and brightest, and you will be assigned to marginal physicians. Also, gov't employees will be in charge of scheduling appointments- guess whose friends and family will get preferential treatment? We already do this in mental health- don't say it won't happen- it has.

We will be providing health care for the entire world, not just American nationals. Other countries protect their systems out of necessity.

The elderly/infirm must take any open bed in care facilities, even if they are 100 miles away. This is common in NHS.

Furthmore, those of us who wish for the same private/alternative care that the Obamas will surely enjoy will no longer be able to pay for it.

Single payer system?
Is there any single service provided by governments in the U.S. that is run efficiently and to the satisfaction of its citizens--think Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, public schools, motor vehicle administrations, FDA, FEMA, etc. Now imagine these same people administering and rationing health care services.

Now think about the fact that the U.S. population is 5 times as large as the UK, almost 10 times as large as Canada, more than 3 times that of Germany, and 15 times as big as Australia, the countries that are most often held up as examples of successful socialized medicine. How can these models possibly apply to a country of our size and complexity.

Now think about the corruption that has been found in the Medicare system on the part of patients and doctors and the cost to taxpayers in medicare deductions and premiums.

And now ask yourself why everyone of the countries mentioned above has dual systems and require businesses and individuals to pay insurance premiums above and beyond the taxes they already pay for socialized medicine if they want comprehensive and timely health care for their employees or themselves.

Anecdotes are not useful in judging the overall success of a health care systems, but perhaps these questions might be.

There is no question that our health

care system needs to be improved.

BUT, that does NOT mean that SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE is the answer! In fact, it is NOT the answer...

Sadly, what reaganite shares is ALL TOO TYPICAL of SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE in both England and Canada.

And, keep in mind, if we end up with Marxist Obama as pres. (heaven forbid) Socialized Health Care (which is at the top of his "To Do List") is the first major step toward becoming a Marxist/Communist country. And his vote against health care for babies who survive abortion is a perfect indication.

Think long and hard and analytically about this before you decide that SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE is the answer... Because it isn't!



Gestell
With NHS- if you've got money, you get private care. Except that fewer people will have money to pay for private care who can and want to pay for it now. Only politicians, Hollywood stars, and other proponents of NHS will be able to afford to avoid actually using it.

We need managed borders, tort reform, mandatory birth control for the government dependent (until able to be self-sufficient), and expansion of use of holistic medicine. The price will handily drop.


Dentists
"This is despite the fact that more than 7m[illion] people in Britain are unable to find an NHS dentist"

Here is a list of the population to dentist ratios for EU countries vs. the United States, from best to worst:

Greece 908
Denmark 951
Iceland 981
Sweden 1011
Finland 1041
Norway 1089
Germany 1358
Belgium 1363
France 1464
Luxembourg 1491
Switzerland 1499
Italy 1561
United States 1691
Austria 2197
Netherlands 2223
Portugal 2472
Ireland 2549
UK 2645
Spain 2688

US data here: jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/136/5/668
EU data here in Table 8: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/health/sacd-06.asp

The US comes 13th out of 19.

Arugula:
"Anecdotal observations are not proof"

Every story that exists in the entire world that claims US superiority over other health systems consists entirely of anectotal stories. That is because every comprehensive comparison that exists has the US at the bottom.

Dentists Part II
In addition to comparing population to dentist ratios, you can also look at the spread within countries. For example, the worst ratio within the UK “was found in Walsall (3,359 residents per NHS dentist).”:

nature.com/bdj/journal/v190/n10/full/4801032a.html

This is the worst that it gets in the 2nd worst country in the EU. What about the US? In the US, a dentist shortage is a particular area is deemed an HPSA (Dental Health Professional Shortage Area). There are 1,480 of these in the US. But what level is considered a “shortage”? A shortage is when the population to dentist ratio exceeds 5,000 to 1:

“Four thousand six hundred and fifty dentists are needed to remove the 1,480 HPSAs in which 31,405,876 people reside (to reach a population to dentist ratio of 5000:1). Approximately 6,380 dentists would need to be added to achieve the HRSA standard of adequate access.”

bhpr.hrsa.gov/medicine-dentistry/actpcmd/report2001.htm

So in the US, we have nearly 1,500 areas (containing 31 million people)that have a ratio that is much worse than the worst area in the second worst nation in the EU.


ambulance diversion
From “Health Care Horror Stories” at BigGovhealth.org, given in the above article:

"Joshua Halliday, 5, was forced to travel 50 miles to be treated for a broken arm after doctors failed to find him a place at seven hospitals."

This *one* case relates to the issue of ambulance diversion. In the US, an ambulance is diverted EVERY MINUTE. (1)

This is a problem even at the best hospitals in the US:

“…it's not just small community hospitals. Even world-renowned medical centers go on diversion, and not just once in a while. Last year, the Johns Hopkins ER turned away ambulances over a quarter of the time. During the first half of last year, the Cedars Sinai ER was closed a full 35 percent of the time, while The Cleveland Clinic ER was on diversion nearly half of the year 2000...” (2)

1) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-118268323.html
2) CBS News Transcripts
July 3, 2002 Wednesday
SHOW: 60 Minutes II (8:00 PM ET) - CBS
No vacancy; tragedies involving ambulance diversion
ANCHORS: VICKI MABREY

This must be repeated
Reminder to reply #6:

Which federal agency is a model of efficiency and customer satisfaction? None are! That's why they must be resisted.

Because the DMV is only servicing my car's right to be on the road I can put up with it, because public schools educate brains that can, thankfully, later be re-trained I can deal with it, but when it concerns my health, (you know, life and death) you better believe I would rather go to a person concerned about repeat business than one concerned about anything else.


Lucentis
From “Health Care Horror Stories” at BigGovhealth.org, given in the above article:

"The Echo (UK publication) launched its 'Save Our Sight' campaign last year in a bid to make Lucentis and Macugen - another vital drug - available on the NHS."

The campaign was successful, and Lucentis is now available through NHS:

guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/27/nhs.health

Lucentis costs $2,000 an injection for macular degeneration. Avastin cost $40. Evidence says that Avastin is just as effective as Lucentis. Genetech will not test the two head to head, because they want to sell the more expensive Lucentis, and health care is about money, not health. The NHS cannot consider Avastin for the eye, because it is not approved for that. So they approved Lucentis, and Genetech's scam worked. Patients in the US get Avastin, if they have insurance, and even then they still pay the copayment. NHS patients now get the far more expensive Lucentis: FREE.

Now I'm Scared
I will be 61 years old in two months. There were stories a couple of weeks ago about some think tank or another recommending that men over 75, not have prostate exams. Now this is not something I relish, but once over, I'm glad for the good news (so far good news). The rationale for not doing exams is that at 75, it would be a waste of resources even if cancer is found. In 14 years, if I last that long, medical care for me would be a waste of resources. This does not even cover those of us who have not led exemplary lives. If you are going to have "universal" health care, everyone must be treated, no matter the circumstances. If not, then don't monkey with a system, that basically works OK.

World-Class Health Care
Right now, America has world-class, tree-top health care. Why ruin that? That's not change I'd like.

The citizens of the U.K., France and Canada would agree with me.

Herceptin
From “Health Care Horror Stories” at BigGovhealth.org, given in the above article:

A story about Nurse Marie Robjohn was given which told of red tape surrounding her NHS payment of her Herceptin. This is the reference given:
“Cancer patient won’t have to pay for drugs” The Bristol Evening Post, By Julie Harding (July, 3 2006)

The reason this person had to go through some administrative hassles is because Herceptin had just been approved by the NHS for early stage breast cancer on June 9 of that year:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5058952.stm

Because the Nurse Robjohn story was written less than one month later, the NHS was still dealing with refunds, etc. So what.
So when was Herceptin approved for early stage breast cancer in the US? Not until November 16, 2006:

fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01511.html

Herceptin was not approved in the US until 5 months after the NHS had approved it.

What about cost? Herceptin cost about $36,000 a year in the US. For people without insurance, it is highly likely that they won’t have the money for it, so they don’t get it. And even for those with insurance, copayments can still be quite high. This woman who has insurance still pays $9,600 per year out of pocket for her Herceptin:

usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-costs_x.htm

In the UK, Herceptin is FREE.

So you can live in the UK and get Herceptin for free 5 months before those in the US, or you can live in the US and get it later and pay $9,600 if you are lucky enough to have insurance, and $36,000 if you do not.

What a pointless article
Nobody's talking about a government run system you witless dolt.


What you failed to mention is that the staus quo is untenable. And let's not pretend the insurance companies are actually participating in the free market here. They're taking advantage of people. Of course taking advantage of people is last thing a witless dolt like Mathews would notice.



The right of it
The post by Holly above has the right of it. As for the article itself, I would not trust “horror stories” from the liberal press in Great Britain. Their chief aim is to get the amount of money dedicated to health care and other socialist programs increased to the point to where there is nothing but socialism.

The fact is that very people in the U.S. are NOT covered by some kind of heath care. That bogus 47 million figure floating around is based on a Census Bureau report that included illegal aliens who could get gov health insurance IF they would go home and young people who have opted to NOT have heath insurance because for them it is a “bad” investment.

The only thing that Holly leaves out is that even with high deductibles people who have prior health problems can not get insurance through private companies, or if they can it is very very high cost and does not cover their existing condition.

LOOK THE LANGUAGE ON OBAMA'S WEB SITE
All you need to know about how ObamaCare would look like is right on his website. Do yourself a favor and look at the language and count the number of times you see the phrase "will require". Notice the heavy handed, government-in-control language. Do yourself another favor. Notice the overall well being of doctor's offices that see a lot of State Medicaid patients in your area. Also, what is the overall state of affairs at your local Department of Motor Vehicles? Last time I checked, neither of these were pictures of efficiency nor were they a place where the employees liked what they were doing. And this is the direction some people want to take health care?

Reply to vic
"That bogus 47 million figure floating around is based on a Census Bureau report that included illegal aliens"

According to the report, 4.3 million are illegal aliens. That means 42.7 million are Americans. Still a large number. Read the report:

iom.edu/CMS/3809/4660/17632.aspx

figures lie and liars figure
Uh-huh. And how many of those 42.7 million are young people who choose to gamble that they won't get sick--or hurt? How many of them are newly unemployed who will be covered as soon as they find a job?

And I'm sure this will irritate some, but I've seen it happen, since this applies to the social strata I was born into. How many are honest-to-God welfare queens who've come off of Medicaid after thier post-natal care, and simply haven't gotten pregnant again yet?

As for those who have previously existing conditions--they ought to get jobs in govt.(teaching, post office, etc). Then they'll be covered, and so will their conditions.

dave472from the top of the class
I never said all 47 million were illegals. Learn to read and I have read the report. You go back and read the report as soon as you afre finished kissing the Vomit's ***.


reply to vic
"I have read the report"

That's funny. You read the report, and you think that a certain group out of the total number should not be included. Even though your disputed group amounts to less than 10% of the total, you still use this as a basis to call the entire report "bogus," and don't bother to explain what's wrong with the other 90-plus percent. That's good science. Since you read the report, why don't you be specific and tell me exactly what makes the report "bogus" regarding the 90 percent of the people you have not addressed.

The Dumb Americans
I am from England and yes our "Health Care System" is imperfect.There are many cases where people do not receive proper care when required.However, the aforementioned also occurs in America,with a payer/premium system.What Americans fail to understand,is the newness of the current "Single Payer" model.This model offers many advantages but it must be vetted through trial and error.My grandfather,a Doctor,taught us to look at health care in broader terms years ago.Therefore, we have an advantage because we realize the economic opportunities, that are inherent in such a system.If America had the "Single Payer" system 50 years ago,the auto industry and others would be healthy now.How very SAD!!!Most Americans are married to "Capitalism",not realizing,it's a one-sided marriage.Real Capitalism, died in America,with the Depression of 1892.

uninsured
The site linked to in this story brings up a couple dozen individual examples of shortcomings in the NHS system. In reality, many of these stories actually relate to issues that show the superiority of the NHS system, and where the stories do show shortcomings, it turns out those same issues are far worse in the US.
As for the uninsured in the US, the number of people who die as a result of this problem is 18,000 every year. That's six 9/11's each and every year. That about 120,000 since 9/11. The website with the list indicating shortcomings of the NHS is going to have to make that list a lot longer to equal 18,000 deaths per year.

I know the answer alreay: "That 18,000 number is bogus."

Killer
Killer, the British Empire died in 1892. America had to save you socialist ingrates twice in the last century. Because of capitalism we had the economic might to rush to your aid, just like we're defending you now.

The rest of Western Civilization has had the luxury of not having to pay for its defense, relying on us evil Americans who you condescend.

But on health care, I watched Tony Blair speak to Parliament and brag that under his leadership, the waiting list for non-elective surgery had decreased to 9 months. Nine months! For non-elective surgery!

I'm looking forward to national healthcare because I want to be entertained by seeing stories of fat, pampered Americans jousting with minority Federal employees, former welfare mothers, trying to get approval of life saving measures, or trying to reconcile billing disputes, and coping with illiterate morons with attitudes.

Anyone who's had to deal with the IRS or any other government agency is simply going to love nationalized healthcare.

Hey Brit, I notice you're here in America. Why is that?

Costs and our hybrid medical system.
Health care costs have risen 78% in the last 8 years, whereas peoples incomes have not remotely kept pace. At the same time, the US has the highest costs of health care in the world. In point of fact, we have a Mercedes system when what most people need and can afford is a Ford or Chevy system that works. And, just as there are mistakes made in single payer systems, if you look you'll find that there are plenty of stories as to mistakes made in countries having semi free market systems such as ours.

Out system, after all, is not a free market system. it's a hybrid. Medicare, Medicaid, the Drug Entitlement Act, the Veterans Administration etc., and cities and counties who by law must provide free emergency rrom care to the uninsured, all have significant control over the health care system. Taxpayers, in sum, already heavily subsidize health care - and with that subsidy comes government regulations and control.

This issue isn't going away, regardless of who is elected in the fall. The US is aging, and health care costs are outstripping peoples earning power - taking an ever larger portion of their income.

The bottom line is that we do not have a "free market" health care system. We have a heavily taxpayer subsidized health care system. And if costs continue to rise, then the pressure on government to increase subsidies will continue to rise.

The bottom line is it's fine to drive a Mercedes if you can afford it, but if you can't, then you need to buy a Ford. The problem in health care, of course, is that everyone thinks they should be able to have the Mercedes, whether they can pay for it or not. And when the can't - and the majority can't, they then expect someone else to pay the bill.

The problem is...
...our health care system is 52% socialized. The problem is people don't realize that our current system is 52% socialized. The problem is the people that don't understand that the problem with U.S. health care is that it is 52% socialize.

If you add to that, that the insurance industry is largely socialized, that the medical schools are largely socialized, that education is largely socialized, that the pharmaceutical industry is largely socialized, and that many other related industries are largely socialized, a truer picture of the problem emerges. What is the answer...more socialism?

Demo Dave and His talking points
In actuality the report does NOT discuss illegals at all. What it gives in table 7 on page 22 and in the discussion under it is that people of Hispanic origin make up 32.7%. Non-citizens have an uninsured rate of 45%. They have obfusticated the numbers as much as they can to disguise what they are doing. They also omit the fact that the “children” listed as not having insurance are in fact covered by other government programs.

The simple fact is that only a small percentage of people who don’t have insurance are American citizens who need it and want it.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

Cicero
In WWI,the Americans only fought for 8 months,when the Germans were almost fatigued.In WWII,the Americans entered the war when Roosevelt realized,that the ports held by Japan were closing.If you don't have PORTS,you don't have a NAVY!!!We thank you for your help,but don't BRAG.Please...MONEY?

Rationing Health Care
Nothing amuses me more than reading the "horror" some express when people are forced to wait for some non life threatening "elective" surgery procedure. In Britain one reports that people wait 9 months, and this is bad. According to some. Those that point his out seem to assume that people do not wait in the US for these same procedures. When, in point of fact, they do. The state of Oregon, years ago, recognized that since by law it had to balance its budget yearly, that it could not pay unlimited and uncontrolled medical costs - regardless of what they were. So, the legislature prioritized all medical procedures. Life threatening were always paid now, others were delayed according to the money in the budget. And this involved choices. It raised quite a stink with those of the get everthing for free right away world. I see some of this same horror on this board.

Do any of you even know what "elective" surgery means. Or what it means in, for example, England? And do you really think that Americans, the Insurance Industry, and our own state and federal governments don't already "raion" health care. For goodness sake. Go read your insurance policy - if you have one. Do you seriously think that your policy will cover a breast implant, a facelift, and literally hundreds of other procedures? Read the exclusions. They read the copay's.

And then consider that much of the cost of "elective" surgery is not covered by a majority of those insurance policies, nor by governments. So, if you want it, you'll have to pay some, most, or all of it yourself. Meaning - you wait. The only difference is that the author didn't actually try to figure out how long most Americans wait to have the same surgeries that the Brit's are waiting 9 months for.

In part, because he might have found out that for many - the wait could well be longer - or never performed at all because they couldn't afford it.

look at LSU
If you want a good idea of what health care is like with government, look at the Louisiana system. It is the oldest socialized system in our counry and does it have problems.

I have a site devoted to this a http://www.lsu-unofficial.com that tells the story, read it and weep.

Vic
The report that is quoted constantly in the media about the number of uninsured in the US is issued by the Institute of Medicine, not the US Census. I gave the link, but here it is again:

iom.edu/CMS/3809/4660/17632.aspx

The report is titled “Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations,” and was published in 2004. When you said you read the report, I guess I assumed it was the correct one. Silly me.
The data I gave in my previous post was cut and pasted from a couple of years ago, and I cannot remember how I arrived at my data. Looking at the data again, on page 164 the numbers are broken down by “Immigrant and Nativity Status.” The numbers are different than what I quoted below. Total uninsured is 43.5 million. The number of uninsured “noncitizens” (what you would term “illegals”) is 8.9 million. So the number of uninsured American citizens is 34.6 million. Please tell me why these 34.6 million people are really not uninsured, or why, if they are, it is their fault.

Redlac: wait times
The reason we can talk about wait times in the UK and Europe with great accuracy is because they keep detailed records of this data. This article points out that "there is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S.":

businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm

Isn't it strange that a country that presumably has the shortest wait times refuses to keep data on it? You would think they would like to do so to point out their superiority. Because the US does not record this data, it is difficult to make comparisons, but the article did say that:

"In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

The article points out one area where the US did come in first place:

"The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close."

I think I know what the response might be. My source, Business Week, is just a pogressive rag.

Dave
No the media does NOT discuss the 2004 report. The oft quoted report is the 47 million BS report that was released late last year.

You are the typical Commiecrat Vomit supporter. It doesn't matter what is out there or what the facts are. You live in your cloud of communism and can not recognize anything but the big lie.

I am done talking to you.

The British System
I worked with a Brit just over here when Clinton first mentioned copying their system. So I asked him about the system there.

"Best system in the world," he said.

So I asked about the care.

"It takes three days to get in to see the doctor AFTER you arrive for your appointment. The place is packed with people who have no problems but also nothing to do. Since the care is free, they come as a form of entertainment, to see who else shows up and what they have. Also, the doctor is paid by the number of people he sees, so he makes appointments every five minutes. And he is paid the same thing regardless of what disease or injury you have."

How do you get in to see a doctor in an emergency?

"I pay him 150 pounds per month retainer. Then he gets me in at once. But since I don't have an appointment I have to pay the total cost of the treatment myself." (I pay less than that a year for insurance premiums.)

Do they do research?

"No, all research is done in the U.S. They don't get paid enough to do any."

What about hospitals?

"They are paid the first of every year a lump sum for that entire year. That has to last them. So most of them have to cut back on people and beds. It takes up to six months to get in for tests or not critical treatment."

What of equipment?

"The hospitals can't afford any equipment. They have to share things like EKG's. Each hospital gets the use of one for a week every six months. You have to wait to use it until it shows up."

"But it's the best system in the world!"

Do we want this system here?

Vic
"No the media does NOT discuss the 2004 report."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-23- uninsured-edit_x.htm

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EFD81030F936A25752C0A9629C8B63

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/25/Columns/Sure_cure_for_hea lth_.shtml

“Culminating the most detailed, authoritative examination of the impact of leaving millions of Americans without health insurance, a committee of the academy's prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) for the first time formally recommended that the United States guarantee health insurance for every citizen… With the number of uninsured Americans at more than 43 million and rising…”
The Washington Post
January 15, 2004 Thursday
Panel Urges Health Care Coverage for All by 2010
Rob Stein

“The Institute of Medicine said today 18,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance and that universal health coverage should be implemented by 2010. The group said taxpayers are paying for 43 million uninsured Americans anyway, footing a much bigger bill than if those people were covered.”
The White House Bulletin
January 14, 2004 Wednesday
Institute Of Medicine Calls For Universal Health Care Coverage.

I realize that the census numbers are used as well, but so are the IOM numbers. The IOM numbers come from a much more detailed study. I think I know why you do not want to discuss it. I understand.

Reply to 45caliber
It's strange that you record conversations with your friends so you can quote them directly later.

Your firend said (quote): "all research is done in the U.S. They don't get paid enough to do any."

Has your friend ever heard of GlaxoSmithKline?

45caliber
In England ECG machines are used.These machines only take minutes.The machines are found in many smaller communities such as;Darwen,Newcastle,Worchestershire and others.More machines are found in southern England.The machines are not costly only about $650.00.I would tell you the key reasons for their use,but you tried to insult England.You may ask the Italians!!!Did you know that the first EKG machine was manufactured in 1908 in Europe?Sorry...

Dave, killer:
Hey, I'm only repeating what I was told. If you have EKGs, great! Same for research. On the other hand, why do so many Europeans come to the U.S. for treatment and surgury if the system there is so great? I live near Houston and there are probably several hundred here at any one time. In fact most large hospitals here, like Herman, has a facility for the family to stay while the patient is being cared for.

To be Honest,
I never could figure out why the Brit was so sure they had the best system in the world while he was telling me these things. Actually, I never could figure out why HE thought it was great.

45caliber
“Europeans come to the U.S. for treatment and surgury if the system there is so great?”

You and everyone else at this site like to make statements like this routinely. They are called baseless facts. You never give any evidence to back up your claim. Also, you never make a comparison. The only way to evaluate two different systems is to compare them to each other as accurately as possible. So you bring up the issue of medical tourism. This was an issue brought up on a conservative blog a while back. They said that 70,000 UK citizens went to other countries for operations in one year. This was their reference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490233/Record-numbe rs-abroad-health-treatment-70-000-escaping-NHS.html

That’s great, but you need to compare things to evaluate them. What about medical tourism in the US? As I said before, the US refuses to keep statistics for things like this, but somewhere between 150,000 and 400,000 US citizens travelled abroad for health care in 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/0 7/06/AR2007070600682.html

That is a large range, but it is very likely that the real figure is closer to the 400,000 figure, if not more. Consider that in one year, 55,000 US patients were treated in Bumrungrad International Hospital in Thailand. 55,000 in one hospital:

http://www.healism.com/Medical_Tourism/Overview/Advantages_ of_Medical_Tourism/

If you take into account the population difference, the rates of medical tourism are about equal.
Therefore, the issue of medical tourism means nothing. Also, did you know that if you are going to another country for a non-cosmetic surgery, the NHS will still pay for it? Is that the case in the US?

45caliber:medical tourism
I found a more recent article. It looks like far more Americans are traveling abroad for operation than UK citizens are:

"About 750,000 Americans headed abroad for major health care last year and an estimated 1.5 million will do so this year, according to the report. Based on several years of data from sources including the Medical Tourism Association trade group, top brokers arranging such trips and economic development agencies in countries doing the surgeries, the Deloitte report projects the number could jump to anywhere from 10.4 million to 23.2 million in 2017, with 15.8 million the most likely number."

money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/d5273df003a3af30008ec02b759026a1.htm

Why is that, since we have the best system in the world?

I have gov't healthcare
in the Tricare system, the one part of Hillary care the clintons were able to push through. It has its good points and bad points, but I think the bottom line is that gov't healthcare is no panacea.

The fee-for-service option (AKA standard) sets low reimbursement rates, so doctors don't want to take you. I suppose if the system was nation-wide, doctors wouldn't have any choice. The HMO option (prime) is dependent on the availability of gov't clinics/hospitals and annual cost controls. Every year they complain that medical costs are too high and want to find ways to shift more costs onto their "customers".

Vic
"No the media does NOT discuss the 2004 report"

Lou Dobbs:
“More than 43 million Americans don't have health insurance. For some, it's because they have lost their jobs. Others simply can't afford to pay premiums. A new report from the Institute of Medicine, which is one of the national academies of science, says our health system is in crisis and its recommends a controversial approach to fix the problem.”

January 14, 2004 Wednesday
SHOW: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT 06:00 PM Eastern Standard Time

A personal story...
A colleague of mine, who was born in Germany, is now a professor at Oxford in GB. He told me recently about his experience with "free health care":
His tooth was causing him considerable pain, so he got an appointment with a dentist. The dentist said "Yes, that tooth HAS to come out". My colleague said, "Great, when can we do it, this tooth is killing me". The dentist replied "I think I can fit you in in about SIX MONTHS"! My colleague flew to Germany and paid to have his tooth extracted!...Please, lets leave the FREE health care to the more sophisticated Europeans.

dave742 re: 08/26/2008 - 10:26 PM EST

I am not sure what your conclusion reflects: "The US comes 13th out of 19."

Are you saying that it is bad that United States has a 1691:1 patient to dentist ratio?

Or are you saying that United States, even with a 1691:1 patient to dentist ratio, is better off in that anyone/everyone can see a dentist?

Do you think that having government run health care will improve the ratio? I think not. For evidence I present the your stat: UK at 2645:1.

Or do you think that government run health care will improve the service? Just citing problems in the US does not justify those same problems existing in UK. For this kind of change, the advocates for change must show an improvement. Evidence shows that there is no improvement.

It is my impression that government health care will level the playing field. Those who get good to adequate care now will be brought down to be level with the lowest possible denominator. For my evidence, I present any/all government run agencies and departments to show the bureaucracy and inefficiency associated with the government. We, the people, will always be better off with a competitive market place than a regulated one.

One thing I would guarantee is the likes of Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, et al. will never have to wait in line and will always get the best and most effective care under their plan, whereas you and I will get what they think is cost effective.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.