From the UK Telegraph:
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today. . . .To read further about the horrors of socialized medicine, click here.
In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.
The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS. . . .
Government. It's so wonderful. It can do so much for you.
13 comments:
Don't believe the hype. If you ask people in these countries (ie every single western industrialised nation) about their health care, all of them will grumble about how it could be better.
But none of them will say "the government should get out of health care". No. What they say is "the government should spend more to make it better".
All of which may be true and none of which changes what the UK Telegraph is reporting. Is the UKT exaggerating? Is there a counter report in another part of the UK press? It seems like we are getting these type of horrible stories about twice a week now.
It seems like we are getting these type of horrible stories about twice a week now.
Yes well the US healthcare lobbyists are happy to use their $$$ to promote all sorts of nonsense about how bad universal health care is.
Remember - every single western industrialised nation has government funded universal health care.
In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) has been around since 1946. That's 63 years. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister she introduced all sorts of market reforms to the UK aimed at moving the country away from socialism. The one thing she did not touch was the NHS. Had Thatcher attempted to stop universal healthcare the result would've been revolution or at least a severe loss at the next general election.
I am Australian. Here in Australia we have had a conservative, market-friendly government in power between 1996 and 2007. John Howard, our PM, and his party worked very hard to reduce the size of government. The one thing they didn't touch? Our universal health care system - they knew that if they did, they would lose the next election.
In short, universal health care is very popular in those countries that have it.
Yes, contrary to Marx or Lenin, "religion" is not the opiate of the masses, government hand-outs are. Nothing like keeping the prols happy by giving them something. So I have no doubt there is truth in what you say about the popularity of some of these programs in many quarters, but I doubt it is so universal and rosy as you portray it.
I will take issue with some of your conspiratorial tendencies as evidenced in this quotation:
Yes well the US healthcare lobbyists are happy to use their $$$ to promote all sorts of nonsense about how bad universal health care is.
The report I linked was from the UK Telegraph. Are they part of some "US healthcare lobby"? The other reports I referenced have been likewise from foreign news services. These "US healthcare lobbyists" are some pretty powerful people. (snort)
Well I naturally take issue with an ideology which says that government spending is the opiate of the masses. You're arguing that all these countries are full of idiots for wanting universal health care.
The Telegraph reports problems with the NHS. That's all it does. It's probably true as well. But as I pointed out in my original reply, the solution seen by most people is for the government to spend more, not less, to solve the problem.
As for my conspiratorial overtones. You are aware that cigarette companies fought for years to convince people that smoking was okay and employed their own scientists and doctors to promote that idea? Same thing here - the health industry in the US represents 15% of GDP.
Oh, just a quick question. Do you think our rights - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - require government?
Another way to ask this question would be, if we had no government, would our lives, our liberties and our happiness be removed/lessened?
I'll put your comments in italics and my replies in bold for clarity.
You said: Well I naturally take issue with an ideology which says that government spending is the opiate of the masses.
Tom replies: My ideology does not say that "government spending" is the opiate of the masses. I said that government "hand-outs" were an opiate of the masses and what I meant by that is that they are used to buy votes. This has been true since Rome. Ever heard of bread and circuses? Where do you think the phrase "the public dole" comes from?
You said: You're arguing that all these countries are full of idiots for wanting universal health care.
Tom replies: That's your caricature of my argument. I made no assessment of their intelligence. I merely noted that many people become addicted to government hand-outs and that an entitlement mentality is very easy for our human nature to adopt. Tell me, why should I work if someone else promises to take care of me even if I don't? Or better, why should I work hard or harder than I have to if someone else will take up my slack? Where's my incentive?
You wrote: The Telegraph reports problems with the NHS. That's all it does. It's probably true as well. But as I pointed out in my original reply, the solution seen by most people is for the government to spend more, not less, to solve the problem.
Tom replies: It seems to me you are backing up. Am I wrong? Regardless, these problems simply do not occur on anything close to this scale in the US. If they did, in our system the simple solution is to change health care providers. It's this little concept called competition and it forces providers to provide some level of excellence or lose profits (oh those evil profits!). The UK has no competetition within the system, thus the problems reported by the Telegraph.
And, yes, the liberal solution is always to throw more money at it. Isn't that the solution to every problem? The problems with that solution are multitudinous, not the least of which is that the government--don't miss this--has no money. That is, it has no money except for that which it takes, by force, from honest producers.
So, let's just ask Atlas to shoulder more burden. What do you do when Atlas has enough?
You wrote: As for my conspiratorial overtones. You are aware that cigarette companies fought for years to convince people that smoking was okay and employed their own scientists and doctors to promote that idea?
Tom replies: Yes, I am aware that they fought within the arena of ideas and under the protection of the bill of rights to preserve their self-interests. In the end, they lost the argument. The only real winners, however, were the trial lawyers.
You wrote: Same thing here - the health industry in the US represents 15% of GDP.
Tom replies: First you tried to assert that the UKT report I cited was just the product of the "US health care lobby." Then, when I called on you for evidence, you backed up and admitted that perhaps their report was accurate. Hmm.
I still see no evidence that this is just some overblown report, part of a propaganda effort by the US health care lobby, as you have implied.
And now for your question:
You wrote: Oh, just a quick question. Do you think our rights - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - require government?
Another way to ask this question would be, if we had no government, would our lives, our liberties and our happiness be removed/lessened?
Tom replies: Government is necessary, absolutely necessary, to protect individual rights, to promote justice, and to provide for defense. When a government goes beyond this, it is stepping on the responsibility and liberty of individuals.
I would also assert that there is nothing that government does that cannot be done better, and more efficiently, in the private sector.
You might want to read this in response to US criticisms of the UK NHS.
Government is necessary, absolutely necessary, to protect individual rights, to promote justice, and to provide for defense. When a government goes beyond this, it is stepping on the responsibility and liberty of individuals.
So there's no "promote the general welfare" (as per constitutional preamble) for you then?
I would also assert that there is nothing that government does that cannot be done better, and more efficiently, in the private sector.
That is an ideological belief not rooted in fact. It is the same sort of belief that led Communism down the drain, because the Communists argued the same way saying that government was best.
What you need to do is set aside blind ideologies and look at real facts.
A blind ideology will say "private enterprise will always be better than government". A more circumspect person would say "let's look at different sectors of the economy and see how government and business perform in each of them".
And the facts are these:
* US spends 15% of GDP on health care (mainly privatized with some government involved)
* Other industrialised nations spend 8-10% of GDP on health care (mainly government with a significant minority of private)
* US health care statistics (death rates, infection rates, vaccinations, etc) are poor compared to other western nations.
Conclusion: A health care system run by the market is less efficient than a universal health care system run by the government.
Infant Mortality Rates - CIA World Factbook. This shows that a higher proportion of children (under 1 year old) in the US die compared to other western nations.
Life expectancy - CIA World Factbook. This shows that Americans live shorter lives than other western nations.
HIV infection rates - CIA WOrld Factbook. This shows that there is a greater chance of contracting HIV and AIDS in the US than in most other western nations.
Medical debt is the principal cause of most personal bankruptcy in the USA. This is unheard of in other western nations. link.
How much do other nations spend compared to the US? click here.
"Promote the general welfare", per James Madison and others, simply keeping a level playing field--maintaining justice. It does not mean robbing the doers to give to those who do not. The founders would have opposed social democracy to a man.
Dude, you linked to some New Zealander's blog? I asked you for news source. Do you want me to answer some other guy's opinion piece now? All I wanted was an alternative news piece that offered a different perspective or perhaps some important facts that may have been omitted by the Telegraph.
OSO asserted: And the facts are these:
* US spends 15% of GDP on health care (mainly privatized with some government involved)
* Other industrialised nations spend 8-10% of GDP on health care (mainly government with a significant minority of private)
* US health care statistics (death rates, infection rates, vaccinations, etc) are poor compared to other western nations.
Conclusion: A health care system run by the market is less efficient than a universal health care system run by the government.
I have to laugh at you. You set up a certain set of facts designed to lead to your pre-conceived conclusion and then you pretend you've proven something. The fact is we have so tremendous a health care system in this country that people from all over the world, those who have the money, come here to have cutting edge procedures and treatments done, procedures and treatments they can't get anywhere else. These innovaions eventually work their way over to the the rest of the world, but they originate here. Let me tell you why. Because here we still have, at least partially, a free market at work in our health care industry. It pays to innovate, research, discover. There is profit in it. The cutting edge medical research and discoveries are made here, my friend. Not in Europe. Not in Asia. Not in Australia. Oh, some may happen elsewhere every once in awhile. But the percentages lie with us, sir, and it is not because we are superior in any way either geographicaly or genetically. It is because we have more freedom. Period.
Do Americans spend more on health care than other countries? Of course, we do. We have more money to spend! We live longer! At the same time, housing is cheaper, food is cheaper, fuel is cheaper, living is cheaper. I have friends who have lived in the UK. I know from what they have told me that everything there is more expensive than here and that jobs are more scarce. They have also told me about the long lines to see a doctor or get that free care.
Do you want to know how long I have to wait to see a doctor if I get sick? I promise you if I came down with flu-like symptoms tomorrow I could get in to see my physician within an hour of arriving at his office which is about ten minutes from my house. If he looked at me and was worried it might be something bad, he would recommend a specialist and I could get in to see that guy, depending on the seriousness of my condition, the very next day or within a week.
All of this with or without insurance or even demonstrating I have means to pay.
It's not that efficient in Canada. It's not that efficient in England. I'm betting it's not that efficient where you are either.
Is our health care expensive? Oh, yes. It's not nearly as expensive, however, if you pay cash. And any hospital will work that out with you, even allowing you to make payments at your own arrangement and without charging you interest.
Part of the reason it has become so high in recent decades can be laid directly at the feet of government intrusion. When government only reimburses a medical facility or doctor so much for guaranteed care under medicaid or medicare, who do you think makes up the difference? That's right, the regular payers wind up having to pay more.
Another problem that drives up costs is the incredible price doctors must pay for malpractice insurance due to an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits.
It's not a perfect system by any means and it could certainly use some reforms. But scrap it for something like yours? Not on your life.
I hope you recognize that all of this is just secondary argumentation anyway. Even if your dream-world were true and a government-run system were more efficient than the private sector, it is still profoundly immoral to take by threat of violence one man's property and give it to another.
BTW - there are things that your cited statistics are conveniently leaving out, things that skew the "facts". Things like the fact that Americans are more likely to die prematurely due to auto accidents or violent deaths or other causes. We probably have more bad habits. Our excessive eating habits are probably not good for us. These cannot be laid at the feet of health care. These are lifestyle and moral issues. To take them and apply them solely to the health care debate is patently dishonest.
Post a Comment