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.
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.