Posted on 03/03/2009 10:57:35 PM PST by pissant
Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.
Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.
"OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.
Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.
Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."
These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."
bookmark
The world has been taken over by Ayn Rand villains.
Why in the world do people do this to people? Why in the world do people let them do it?
bookmark for later.
This is ammunition to throw against those that would still listen, We all need to do what we can to oppose this encroachment, and expose the true intent of Obamaism/Socialism/marxism. I’ll do what I can pissant, but I’v got a tough crowd extended family wise, but I do have one thing on my (thier) side, tax payers all....
We’ll see.
"I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying."
For later read
With all our might?
Yep because, whether we believe it or not, they are fighting US with all their might as well as enlisting all of our foreign enemies might.
When people stand in line for food stamps, AFDC or any other government handout, they see nothing wrong in waiting. Same goes for Medi-cal(caid) patients who wait to see a doctor (if they can find one willing to be paid less than 20 bucks to see them). Waiting is fine if it’s free. They bring their entire families with them while they wait.
I noticed this myself. I finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time just yesterday, but for the past week or so I've been reading quotes in the news and wondering "Did Rand write that dialogue?"
The hallmark of this sort of ''thinking'', btw, is the frequent appearance of the phrase ''for the common good'', or any of its equivalents.
Nostradamus, move over.
Bump it Up
Tell them the truth about socialized medicine.
Tell them that their 75 year old mother will not get her cancer treatment because the resources are better fit for a 40 year old Mexican citizen who crossed the border to get his cancer treatment.
Well, I generally can tell that the quotes weren’t written by Rand, because they aren’t eight pages long.
Both Americans and Swedes could boast of world leading medical care, but I wonder if much could be gained from trying to remodel the American system into something resembling its Swedish counterpart or vice versa.
What works fairly well in USA might not work at all over here in Scandinavia due to the differences in terms of cultural, economic and political structures and the other way around.
To some unaware people, Sweden appears to be the evidence that Socialism works. However, such prominent thinkers deliberately(?) refrain from giving recognition to the fact that Sweden's prosperity comes from successful capitalist multinationals and a strong tradition of entrepreneurship and self governance (before Europe was industrialized, many inhabitants of the European continent suffered under feudalism, while common Swedes were running their own farms and enjoyed representation in parliament).
One of the main reasons why Sweden has a nationalized health care system is because of the, potential, ECONOMICAL damage that could develop as a consequence of lower income groups not being able to afford proper medical treatment.
At least in theory, this could lead to severe loss in productivity. Unlike, for instance, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Sweden is a nation heavily dependent on citizens who are healthy, well educated and able of hard work at assembly lines, in forests and in mines.
On the other hand, the Swedish efforts for a universal, democratic, health care has lead to an overabundance of ridiculous and costly bureaucracy - something which is illustrated in the article above.
Liberals like Bill Clinton claim that the American health care system is inefficient and that the US has got a lot to learn from us Swedes, but I fail to see how anyone could view the way our health care is being administered as a wonder of efficiency.
The US seems to have too much of lawyers and insurance company bureaucrats involved in the field of medical treatment, yes, but would it do the average American patient/tax payer any good if the government employed them instead?
This will happen in the US too, if that arrogant, pos, pres_ent has his way!
We have no choice but to fight. We are truly in the fight for our lives!
Walter Williams BUMP!
This p.o.s. President Dumbo is going to ruin America beyond repair.
The stimulus bill contains provisions for a central Busybody Office to second guess every decision made by every doctor as to diagnosis, prescription, and whether or not the patient may be treated at all. All this and we still pay up front for our medicine. Where are folks going to go for their operations when they are older and it "costs too much" and the patient is no longer likely to go back to work long enough for the operation to be "cost-effective?" Same for the more expensive medicines, orany medicines.
- While I'm convinced both America and my continent, Europe, will survive Obama, it's worth ponting out that the policies of Obama also constitute a major threat, not only to America, but THE WHOLE PLANET.
His plans for giant increases in US government expenditure will drain the world's financial system from resources, making it harder for well run countries - like the Scandinavian ones - to fund things like necessary investments in infrastructure etc.
Furthermore, Obama doesn't seem like much of a believer in free trade. The world needs more of this, not more of 16th century protectionism.
If the US has got something to learn from Sweden it is how to cut government expenses.
The reason Scandinavia today is rich is not primarily because of Norwegian oil or nationalized health care.
Since 1990, the Scandinavian countries have:
- steered away from outdated Socialism
- launched massive income tax cuts
- stimulated business life and investments through low corporate taxes and various other measurements
- reduced their national debts
- invested heavily in education and research
Rest assured we will continue down this road.
If Obama thinks he could learn something from our corner of the world, the richest one of the whole planet, he should study our present and the way we plan our future, not try to imitate the mistakes we made in the past.
I hope MDs speak out against nationalization of health care here in the US. Their jobs are on the line. The way I understand it, private practice isn’t allowed in the socialist health care utopias, because it would be “unfair” to the regular schmucks who have to wait weeks or months to get treatment from the government.
Easy answers:
1. Because the world populace is becoming more obsessed with bleeding their hearts out for just about anyone, along with equalizing everyone, no matter how it may lower everyone's opportunity;
2. Because Western nations have become complacent and forgot what made themselves successful.
- In fact it is.
Because of the long waiting list for government medical treatment, lots of people here in Europe choose to consult private owned clinics and hospitals instead.
This way, they have to pay both for the health care they do not receive from the government (through taxes) and for the treatment offered by private clinics/hospitals.
A lot of the people who work in the domain of health care over here in Europe are most admirable and very competent, but there's too much of costly bureaucracy involved in the whole business.
Yup. Sad how no one noticed that little "amendment" in the trillion dollar Porkulus bill. It actually created a Fedgov agency to over-see such decisions. It is Universal Health-Care lite. The final solution will come with the Obami/Reid/Pelosi dictatorship within this year or next.
We are beyond screwed - we are already there.
Got provisions? If not, see: www.thereadystore.com
I do not think Sweden and America make for a good comparative, anyway. We have twice as many people here illegally as they have in total population. When you are dealing with roughly the population of NYC and are an entire country, then these failed Socialist programs are going to be markedly less complex to execute. With less than spectacular results, I might add.
They do extract payment. Here's how the scam works. A new drug goes onto the market after extensive expensive testing to get approval.It gets to Canada and they say: your price is too high, lower it or we will not protect your patent. Rather than lose it all they lower the price and pass the extra costs back to America.
The medical provision is probably the most important part of the whole bill. And it is a done deal now and will not be retractable. Even if conservative Republicans take over the Congress in 2010 they will not undo this. Most of them are always afraid that the socialists might actually be right. It would take 60 Reagans in the Senate and hundreds in the House.
Aren’t you from Gothenburg? Here’s an article about the place...
EXACTLY!
* Price fixing by Government Pinheads that do not cover the cost of care!
* Reams of regulations that take time and energy away from patient care.
* Reams of documentation to avoid the 'John Edwards' of the legal profession.
* These problems infect the health care system at every level, from production of devices, medicines, supplies, you name it.
+ Get government out of health care!
+ Reign in the trial lawyers and most of these problems will solve themselves.
Mark
Interestingly enough, "Hillary-Care," the "health care" system that Hillary Clinton, through the Clinton Administration, tried to foist on us, actually spelled out criminal penalties for going outside the system. Private practice was outlawed under that plan.
Mark
Power over the populace. Revenge on those who can pay for good service in the name of those who can't.
Why in the world do people let them do it?
Those who want "free" stuff are also too ignorant to understand this means NO stuff. And the informed people who understand this are outnumbered by the ignorant dumb-masses.
What's ironic is that the proponents of government healthcare do so in the name of people's "right" to exploit other people's labor and property towards their own personal health. Yet as this anecdote shows, in the name of this made up "right" the system will actually take away our real and legitimate right of self-determination and autonomy. It's positively Orewellian.
Well written reply WC!
We have our own funny med story from Gothenburg.
My wife went into labor at Pizza Hut in Nordstan shopping mall. We had to walk back home to Gotabergsgatan after her water broke. We called Molndal hospital to come in - they said they were too busy to have the baby there but to call the other hospital - Ostra. We called that one and they said they were too busy too.
We called Molndal back and they said sorry, no room. My wife’s labor pains were about five minutes apart by that time. They suggested we drive to Helsingborg or Boros.
Being rude Americans, we said NO. We are coming to Molndal. Turn us away at the door if you want.
We ended up having the baby there but in a regular room. No equipment at all in the room, just Nitrous Oxide and a midwife.
My takeaways were:
Sweden’s medical staff feel their job would be great if it weren’t for these sick people coming all the time.
No emergency is so big that we still can’t quit when our shift is up.
There is an real lack of healthcare facilities in Sweden. Only two birthing centers in a city the size of Gothenburg is disappointing. A city that size in the US would probably have 10-15.
If the Swedish healthcare model were used in the United States, it would absolutely break down and be a complete failure.
In Sweden, it works pretty well because patients are orderly and smart. The staff, though aloof, really do a good job. Here in the US, inner city healthcare staff would be terrible. I think the work ethic for lower skilled healthcare workers in the US, and the poor behavior of the innercity patients would doom socialized medicine in the US.
Wonderful post.
People don't listen when it's happening in Sweden, UK, Canada. "We are not them, it won't happen here, it will just be free," they will say.
Now, point them to experience of Massachusetts and the failure of the "one size fits all, and everybody pays" health system, and you'll have people sit up and listen, and realize that it will be much worse and more bureaucratic and expensive.
Then point out that states can bankrupt themselves same way if they want to, there is no need to test it on national scale. Then you'll begin to win this battle for hearts and minds.
BTTT!
It saddens me to hear about how badly some of those VA hospitals are run. I remember when the Walter Read story was big news. They’ve supposedly turned things around there and I hope that’s true.
We have outstanding health care in private hospitals and clinics. It can be expensive yes but we don’t have to nationalize to make it more affordable. I’m afraid if we go down that road, we will lose one more thing that makes America exceptional.
The fact is that they are by now demoralized and have seen their patients, election after election, vote in worse and worse socialists, ending up with this one, who probably will complete the destruction of American medicine.
The people are happy to see socialized medicine, because they will not have to pay, in their minds, for care, and, oh yeah, they can also take the doctors down a notch by doing it too...
Fair enough, people, but don't expect the now-80-hour a week working physicians, who will now lose everything they have worked for, to give two sh*ts whether the patients have to wait a year for a diskectomy.
Too late smart.
By the way, see how long you have to wait for an appointment when the MD works 35 hours a week.
“Well, I generally can tell that the quotes weren’t written by Rand, because they aren’t eight pages long.”
Yeah, I actually might have finished Atlas Shrugged if it had been about half as long.
“I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying.”
I’d like to see Congress’ reaction if it were made law that they had to sit in a waiting room in Southeast DC to get seen.
Excellent point. I would most prefer to pay my own way, and in a subsidy free economy I could afford to. But Medicare alone has quadrupled the costs of medical care in the last ten years or so. Given that, I would rather have Blue Cross or some other private enterprise, with all their a-hole lawyers and "Provider relations" jerkoffs, but subject to market forces and competition, than the stonefaced Government bureaucracy. From them there will be no appeal.
In the US HMOs might let you die, but you have choices. In Sweden, the government is the HMO and they will expidite your departure, regardless of the law.
How boring and stable are Swedish/Scandinavian banks? This is the true test for sobriety. The most stable banking system is Canada’s. So freepers can mock Canada’s socialist health care but due to bank stability they can carry it
Socialism works better in nations that are pretty much one ethnic group. This way if there are screw ups, stealing and inefficiencies you can go along with them because they are done within your own blood, your own tribe
This tribalism also conversely makes for less cheating in such socialist schemes.
One of our nurses is convinced that they all come just to poop in our bathroom.
Disclaimer: 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.