Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The government already runs health care
Supposedly the Democratically-controlled Congress and President Bush are heading to a showdown over the future of health insurance for more than 10 million children. Not that I doubt for a nanosecond that Bush is against the idea of health insurance for poor children. I just don’t know if I’m ready to believe congress is willing to actually fight for anything unless it’s a worthless non-binding resolution.
This from the New York Times:
The president says the measure, which would renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, costs too much and would be “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.”
An incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American? The government already runs health care in America. They control everything related to our health care. They control who can become a doctor. They control what drugs or procedures a doctor can administer to a patient.
There is a reason doctors in this country cannot prescribe marijuana to their patients suffering from glaucoma. It’s not because marijuana has not proven to be highly effective in treating glaucoma. It’s because the government wont allow doctors to prescribe it.
Americans are already used to having their health care micromanaged for them. The difference is that health care in this country is run by corporations interested in profit, not in the health and well being of the insured.
There is a reason every other country in the industrialized world has national health care.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
“There is a reason every other country in the industrialized world has national health care.”
Right…and it’s pretty sub-par care with long, long waits for even the most basic procedures. Our system is by no means perfect, but it’s sure better than that lousy socialized medicine. The fact that it’s also financially breaking the backs of the countries that practice it is something nobody ever talks about.
Has Mark Engblom has undergone medical attention in a country other than the US? I’m skeptical.
No, but there’s plenty of information available to prove health care in countries with socialized medicine isn’t the Heaven on Earth so many of my liberal-minded friends are assuming it to be.
It seems to me we’d be trading one batch of problems for another.
Oh, and one more comment on Rick’s initial post:
“Americans are already used to having their health care micromanaged for them. The difference is that health care in this country is run by corporations interested in profit, not in the health and well being of the insured.”
While the profit motive can become a monster in and of itself, I’d still prefer that model over…what…the benevolence and “efficiency” of the United States Government? With absolutely NO profit motive, how do we expect a health system administered by the U.S. Government to excell or provide good service? Who is their oversight. Keep in mind you’d be turning over the administration of your personal health to the same institutional apathy and glacial bureaucracy that fuels the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Post Office….poster children for bloated inefficiency.
Mark, I’m not saying that other countries have health care that is Heaven on Earth. Ours just isn’t is good as all the others. The ironic thing is that we pay a lot more money for health care then every other country in the industrialized world, yet we still have around 50 million Americans that don’t have health insurance.
“Ours just isn’t is good as all the others.”
“Good” in what way? The actual quality of the health care itself or the access to it? Because if you’re talking quality, there’s absolutely no comparison between our system and socialized medicine’s. If you’ve got real information showing higher quality of medical care in a socialized (government run) system, I’d love to see it.
U.S. ranks just 42nd in life expectancy (MSNBC)
Ranking nations’ healthcare: US isn’t No. 1 (Christian Science Monitor)
U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says (CNN)
Survey: Americans Rate U.S. Health Care Among Worst in Industrial World (FoxNews)
U.S. ranks just 42nd in life expectancy (MSNBC)
This article cites the access to health care. No impact on the overall quality of the healthcare. Also, later in the article, an epidemiologist is quoted as saying “it’s not as simple as saying we don’t have national health insurance,” said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not that easy.”
Ranking nations’ healthcare: US isn’t No. 1 (Christian Science Monitor)
The article breaks various treatments into groups, where the United States naturally lags behind various other countries. But my point is that the overall healthcare of the United States is better than any other nation. Not a procedure here or a procedure there. In fact, according to the New York Times, “the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html
U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says (CNN)
Again, you’re transposing access to health care with quality levels of healthcare. The U.S. doesn’t have the second worst newborn death rate because the quality of the healthcare is compromised. Plus, the article stressed that mothers with lower educational attainment were associated with higher newborn mortality, which points more to the perpetual chaos and disfunction of that societal segment than the quality or access to our healthcare system.
Survey: Americans Rate U.S. Health Care Among Worst in Industrial World (FoxNews)
Here’s a telling excerpt from the article:
“But experts said the overall health picture for Americans is marked by inefficiency, duplication, and a lack of coordination that often leaves patients to navigate the system with little guidance from a doctor or other expert.”
Tell me…do you seriously think the federal government would be less inefficient and uncoordinated than the present system?
I agree there needs to be reform….but the “cure” of socialized medicine is far worse than the disease.
Let’s check in across the pond in the Socialist Havens of Europe to see how it’s working out for them:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2098276,00.html
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21213573.shtml
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/personalfinance/s/133/133762_heart_patients_die_on_waiting_lists.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson13.html
etc, etc, etc, etc
Mark, if our health care system is really so great, why are so many Americans unhealthy when compared to the rest of the world? Why is our life expectancy so bad when compared to the rest of the world? Why do we pay more money then the rest of the world, yet have so many of our citizenry without any health care?
The best health care I’ve ever had was when I was in the Air Force. It was a health care system managed by the government that managed to do a very good job. When I needed medical care, I got medical care. I didn’t have to write letters or get approval or jump through hoops. You would be surprised how efficient something can be when profit is not the motive.
“You would be surprised how efficient something can be when profit is not the motive.”
Yes, that would surprise me.
“Mark, if our health care system is really so great, why are so many Americans unhealthy when compared to the rest of the world?”
You can have the greatest healthcare in the next five galaxies and it won’t do your people any good if they don’t take care of themselves. There’s only so much Nanny Government can do to stop people from eating, smoking, drinking, drugging, and TV-watching themselves to death. Most of our chronic health problems stem from unhealthy or disfunctional lifestyles, and no amount of free healthcare can fill those black holes.
The solution to the rampant obesity in this country isn’t lack of access to healthcare….it’s putting down the #$% sandwich and taking a walk. Do we give up? Of course not. Does the healthcare/insurance racket need serious reform? You bet it does. Do hard working health care workers (my RN wife included) do the best they can despite all the complaining and caterwalling? You’d better believe it.
Is the answer replacing it all with government healthcare? God, no.
The next big scandal that will break in the next couple weeks is the shameful treatment of wounded soldiers and vets at the Walter Reed center. The VA, with its bloated beurocracy and terminal non-profit apathy, can be looked at as a sneak preview of what government run healthcare would look like. As admittedly maddening as our current system is, do you honestly think handing one-seventh of the national economy over to the government is the way to fix it?
It’s fashionable to decry “socialist Europe” in one’s tirades against government-subsidized health care, but Europe is just one slice of that cake (plus, it makes one’s use of the word “socialist” look like a knee-jerk reaction). Where are all the condemnations of “socialist Canada?”
“Socialist Argentina?”
“Socialist Australia?”
“Socialist Japan?”
It would do your cause a world of good to have some first-hand experience in the matter, Mark. Next you’re going to say, “America’s cell phone technology is more advanced than South Korea’s. I mean, I’ve heard.”
“It would do your cause a world of good to have some first-hand experience in the matter, Mark.”
People don’t necessarily need to experience something first hand to know it’s not a good thing. I’ve never walked through the desert with no water…but I know it’s not a good thing.
I don’t think I need to experience socialized medicine to know its serious drawbacks. There’s enough information out there for people to read and compare and make up their own mind. Myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that socialized medicine isn’t the solution to our problem….others still pine for that particular utopia.
Just as they will pine for the better health care that wealthier people can afford once government healthcare inevitably kicks in here.
“The next big scandal that will break in the next couple weeks is the shameful treatment of wounded soldiers and vets at the Walter Reed center. The VA, with its bloated beurocracy and terminal non-profit apathy, can be looked at as a sneak preview of what government run healthcare would look like. As admittedly maddening as our current system is, do you honestly think handing one-seventh of the national economy over to the government is the way to fix it?”
Walter Reed Army Medical Center isn’t part of the VA. The scandals surrounding Walter Reed have more to do with the fact that it is severely over burdened with the never ending war in Iraq and less to do with the fact that it’s not a profit driven entity.
Advancements in battlefield medicine have resulted in a substantial drop in mortality rates. Wounds that were once always fatal now more and more instead result in injury. This puts a much higher burden on the existing military health care system. The system hasn’t kept up.
Okay, drop the VA as an example. Let’s look at the world’s government-run healthcare systems themselves. Are they models of access and efficiency? The data I’ve seen suggests they are not. Sure….everyone theoretically gets care….but on a much lengthier timetable than even some of the waits we experience here in the United States.
Once again, my point isn’t “don’t fix U.S. healthcare”…but rather, “be careful what you wish for”.