[drjulie]

I’m a psychologist, used to be a nurse and have served on a Board of Health for many years. I’m not sure that I can answer your question precisely but will share what I know about centrally planned “care”. I’ll start with a personal example. My husband recently has had problems with lightheadedness. Initially we thought it was a virus but after it persisted longer than 2-3 weeks (with some chest pain), the NP thought we needed to do tests to rule out “the big dogs”. He had a cardiac cath and an MRI. It only took a matter of days to get these both done. We wanted to rule out CAD, brain tumors, etc. However, in reality the probability of either of these was pretty low and given that we haven’t found anything thus far, his lightheadedness will likely go away on it’s own (it will be self-limiting). If we were in Canada, Ireland, etc. we probably wouldn’t have gotten these tests so quickly. We might have been put on a waiting list and by the time his name would come up he would be better (most likely) or very sick or dead (much less likely). In public health we tend to look at the big picture and probabilities - doing the most good with the resources we have. Centrally planned health care is similar...how can we do the most good with the resources we have - think utilitarianism if you are into philosophy. Many neurological problems are rare (brain tumors really aren’t common) and/or can wait, so I imagine this is one explanation for why resources in this area are limited. Read Daschle’s book. He talks about having a “board/group” make decisions as to the “standards of care” and allocation of resources.

[jeffc]

But what, in socialized medicine, cause such long waiting times? Obviously, I'm not familiar with any of it. I gave an example of my county's free clinic. Their problem seems to be a lack of resources for the number of people needing care. Is that the answer I'm looking for? That it (socialized medicine) is just way more expensive than the government realizes and they start out with "good intentions" (and the guaranteed votes and the chance to spend lots of taxpayer $$), but soon realize it's an impossible task?
It is then that they create a two-tiered system of healthcare - one for them (quick, easy access to quality healthcare), and one for the "masses" (slow, antiquated, pray-they-don't-kill-you service in run-down facilities staffed by those who stopped caring about helping people long ago and just wish you would die stuff).

Am I getting close to understanding it? At least this is my impression of what people are saying. I fear for us if we come to that.

Why doesn't the government expand college grants and loans to those who attempt to enter the healthcare field, and why they are at it, give tax breaks to those colleges (mostly two-year ones) that offer AS degrees in healthcare.
I'm on a waiting list to get into the Cardiovascular Technician program at my local community college - 180 applied for 60 seats. As popular as the program is, and the real need for such technicians, they should be expanding the program.