The powerful US Health Lobby is at it again, this time subjugating that right-wing mouthpiece (ahem), the Associated Press, and forcing them to promote their sinister propaganda. We hope that the people's best interests shall prevail over these powerful corporate interests. (ahem)LONDON — A group of senior British doctors expressed concern Thursday about the treatment of the terminally ill, saying some people are dying prematurely because of guidelines for dealing with patients in their final hours.Complete AP aticle is here.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph newspaper, the six palliative care specialists criticized the "tick-box approach to the management of death" in guidelines used by hundreds of hospitals within Britain's universal health care system.
Britain's system has been at the center of debate at home and in the United States, where opponents of health care reform have used it to attack President Barack Obama's plan for national health insurance. U.S. conservatives have used the British system as a negative example, saying it provides rationed care and allows bureaucrats rather than doctors to make life-and-death decisions.
On Thursday, a leaked consultants' report recommended drastic cuts in the U.K.'s National Health Service to help cope with the ever-rising cost of supporting universal health care — a development that opponents of the U.S. health care reforms are likely to welcome.
Most in Britain defend their NHS, but complaints about bureaucracy are common.
But bureaucracy is so much more efficient . . . I'm still trying to figure it all out.
3 comments:
The issue you're trying to push here is that government bureaucracy in health care can lead to people dying.
That's true. There's a problem.
But the problem is not about government, it's about whether the system is efficient or not. And governments can be efficient, and governments can recognise inefficiency and make steps to improve things.
But inefficiency and bureaucracy afflict the private health care market too.
It is a common practice amongst health insurers to practice Rescission - cancelling health insurance benefits because of "pre-existing" conditions. What happens is that, for example, a woman goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with breast cancer, she then books an appointment in a hospital for an operation but her insurance company cancels her policy because she didn't disclose she had the mumps when she was seven. She is then forced to pay for the operation herself, a fact which either drives her to bankruptcy or forces her to cancel the operation.
Read this about rescissions.
The fact is that just as government red tape can sometimes lead to people dying, so too does the profit motive behind health insurance companies. People are dying all the time in the US because the health care companies want to save money.
In short, private enterprise makes the same, if not greater, death-causing mistakes.
Although I would disagree with your last statement, I do agree that there are problems with the health insurance industry, not the least of which is egregious government regulation. A good argument could be made that de-regulation could open up competition, allow people more choice in coverage, so on and so forth and this would help bring down premium costs.
But the main reason I posted this was just to tweak you. :)
Of course, I could argue, as I already have, that all government systems are inefficient. Again, however, that is not the most salient point.
The bottom line is this. In a free market, where inefficiency and bureaucracy exist, the choice still remains to go somehwere else. Even when the choices are very limited, it is often the result of poor individual choices in the past. Nevertheless, in a free market, the individual is still free and responsible. If he dies prematurely, it is his fault. When it is not, legal recourses are available.
But in the government system there is no choice. You are left with the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy without recourse. Unless, of course, you live close enough to the border to leave Canada and drive to the US. :)
I also want to look at your example.
The woman is scheduled with her doctor and a hospital for an operation. Her insurance suddenly scrambles and drops her.
(I would argue that this is rare, very rare, and that insurance companies pay out gazillions annually for things just like this, but we'll go with it for the sake of your argument.)
A company which does this with any regularity will not stay in business. Who is going to go with a company which has a reputation for things like this? Arguably, the bad PR would be more costly than the operation. And while I'm sure things like this probably happen somewhere, sometimes it has never happened to anyone I know personally, and I have known a lot of people who have had a lot of operations, including for breast cancer. In short, poor business practices will get you out of business.
But let's say it happens. What are this lady's recourses?
As you mentioned, she could pay cash. Expensive, yes, but what is your life worth? The hospital will work out a payment plan, as will some doctor, even if it is not her original doctor (she may have to settle for less quality or experience). There will be no interest charged. There are also numerous, numerous charities which work closely with hospitals to help people in situations like this. She will not go without the operation.
Will it cause her to go into bankruptcy? Maybe. But, even bankruptcy laws are pretty lenient. I have known businessmen who went bankrupt and never missed a step in their day-to-day business operations. They just changed the name of their business and kept on going. Bankruptcy does not end things, it actually allows you to start over.
But people get their operations around here, even if they are expensive and even if they never had any insurance at all. Do you know how many times I have dropped a couple of bucks into a jar at a convenience store because someone in the community was having an operation and needed help?
By law, nobody, not even illegal aliens, can be turned down for life-saving medical treatment.
Post a Comment