Socialized Medicine = less sick people (by less sick people I mean more dead people)

[robrr2000]

The government is by its very nature, wasteful, inefficient, and often provides mediocre customer service compared to private industry. That's no surprise when you consider the reams of red tape, seniority based promotions, and the lack of accountability that we see in most government programs.

So what happens when your health care is socialized and your doctors and nurses are employed by the same bureaucratic leviathan that produces crabby IRS agents and hebetudinous DMV worker?

People die.

Just look at the comparison between our health care system here in the states and the socialized medicine practiced by our British cousins across the pond, and you'll see how many corpses are produced when the government gets into the business of "making you well."
Ralph R. Reiland (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/reiland/s_307614.html) has the goods..

In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal health care system. Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."

Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British health care." The reason isn't that we sue more in America and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."

More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a bypass.

...Taken as a whole, Britain's universal health care system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.

"Having a diagnosis test beyond an X-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need," writes Bartholomew. "In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., 5 percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist."

Ronald Reagan once said,

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

If we ever get socialized medicine in this country, many Americans will find out how right Reagan was....

Co. RWnews.com (www.rightwingnews.com)

[Ninjaman09]

Awesome post! Thanks a lot for the article, that was very interesting. It's nice to see some hard statistics like these. And I agree, socialized medicine is a terrible idea and always has been. Competition always benefits the consumer, or in this case, the patient.

[DaveW]

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top."


You can explain that as being due to American men getting prostrate screening more often and the cancer being caught early.

British men avoid doctors like the plague, and they certainly wouldn't let one stick his finger in their ass.

[Rakeesh]

Something that stuck out to me the most in that article was the preventative medicine. In a socialized system, preventative medicine would be discouraged, because it only adds to government defecits. In a privatized system, preventative medicine is encouraged because it helps the doctors earn more money, and not only that but it is fully funded by the insurance companies, because their risk assessment shows that it helps them save money which keeps the costs to their client base down as well. Everybody ends up winning in the end.

I didn't know people died more in Britains system though, I thought theirs was actually sustaining, only it costed a lot more in the end. Canada is always the one where I hear stories about people dieing or waiting two years in order to actually see a doctor.

IIRC the last time I had surgery on my knee, it was all over and done with in a period of 2 months, and the whole thing cost me $20. They even offered me a few weeks worth of free rehab, but I declined it.

[DaveW]

Awesome post! Thanks a lot for the article, that was very interesting. It's nice to see some hard statistics like these. And I agree, socialized medicine is a terrible idea and always has been. Competition always benefits the consumer, or in this case, the patient.

Except in the US there is no competition. The drug companies drive the industry, routinely make up new diseases just to sell drugs, and their products are ridiculously overpriced. The insurance companies hide the costs from the consumer to prevent them from shopping around to encourage competitive pricing.

Where is the competition? When was the last time a hospital said "this will cost 15000 dollars" and the patient said "hah! ill go to the hospital on the other side of town where it only costs 12000". When was the last time a patient went to a pharmacy and they said "these pills will cost 80 dollars" and patient said "hah, ill go to walmart, its only 60 dollars there".

[DaveW]

Something that stuck out to me the most in that article was the preventative medicine. In a socialized system, preventative medicine would be discouraged, because it only adds to government defecits. In a privatized system, preventative medicine is encouraged because it helps the doctors earn more money, and not only that but it is fully funded by the insurance companies, because their risk assessment shows that it helps them save money which keeps the costs to their client base down as well.


No, its the opposite way around. Preventative medicine saves money in the long run, so a social system will invest in it. In a private system they want you to be sick, because that makes you a paying customer. It costs a few pennies per person to advise people to avoid transfat, but the healthcare industry makes thousands of dollars in profit each time they do a heart bypass and put someone on cholesterol reducing medication for the rest of their lives.

[Rakeesh]

I've never had to bother with drugs myself. Course I always make it a point to never take any drug except as a last resort. I don't even take pain killers, cough medicine, or sleeping pills.

[Rakeesh]

No, its the opposite way around. Preventative medicine saves money in the long run, so a social system will invest in it. In a private system they want you to be sick, because that makes you a paying customer. It costs a few pennies per person to advise people to avoid transfat, but the healthcare industry makes thousands of dollars in profit each time they do a heart bypass and put someone on cholesterol reducing medication for the rest of their lives.

You say that but I don't think it holds up in practice. In canada you will have to wait too long to even get a diagnostic before its too late anyways, let alone be able to request one.

When I had surgery on my knee, my knee really wasn't even in that bad of shape, it just bothered me a bit. I show up to an orthotic surgeons office with a $20 copay. Doctor orders an MRI which costs the insurance company $800, looks at the results and recommends surgery to repair a slightly torn meniscus tissue. I just casually say ok, when do we do this? His response is in 3 weeks at the CHW hospital. I show up, get the general anesthetic, wake up in what to me feels like 3 seconds with the surgery completed.

In a socialized system they use the most bureaucratic HMOs that the world has ever seen. First I would have to schedule an appointment with a general nurse practitioner who I wouldn't get to see for two months. When I see her, she says my knee isn't really that bad off so I should just wait to see if it would just heal up since she isn't even sure whats wrong with it. Finally it swells up to the size of a melon, I schedule another appointment, wait another two months, then she sends me to an orthotic surgeon who I have to wait six months to see. Both of these visits were unnecessary and cost the social system a lot of unnecessary money, because in my private system I just went straight to the orthotic surgeon.

When I see the orthotic surgeon, he schedules an appointment to get an MRI in three months. Two months after that he gets a chance to analyze the MRI results. Then he schedules me for surgery at a hospital which I have to get in an eight month waiting list for.

The social system gave me a much longer wait, and the total cost was a lot greater.

[oldsk00l]

as botched and screwed up as our system is thanks to the liberals, I don't think America is prepared to listen to them on how to fix it.

About the best way I know of to fix our current problems is to abolish Medicare and Medicaid in their entirety. Just in utter entirety, end both of those programs in all forms and let the states run their own indigent care programs. Revenues would sharply increase within the same quarter after abolishment. Deductibles would go down drastically by the following year.

[oldsk00l]

No, its the opposite way around. Preventative medicine saves money in the long run, so a social system will invest in it. In a private system they want you to be sick, because that makes you a paying customer. It costs a few pennies per person to advise people to avoid transfat, but the healthcare industry makes thousands of dollars in profit each time they do a heart bypass and put someone on cholesterol reducing medication for the rest of their lives.

You're partially right, except that a social system won't invest in preventative medicine. The private system already does, in well funded insurance pools/groups preventative meds cost nothing to the patient, and saves the pool money overall.

The problem is that in a social system the preventative meds go over the line, and the dr just milks it because it's there. "Yeah, I think you need an adjustment....twice a week" because he knows it's paid for. Whereas someone comes in with a regular insurance and he'll say once a month.

[oldsk00l]

You know what, to go further, generally for surgery patients that are funded by a private insurance surgeons/facilities will prioritize them over medicaid/medicare patients too. This is due to the cost of the contractual agreement they make with medicare and the medicaid required adjustment. With the overhead, it costs more money to perform 3/4 of all inpatient surgeries on gov' funded patients than they will get a return on. To make up for this, they perpetually inflate the cost to their other revenue sources to subsidize the loss. In a social healthcare system, we'll be seeing more of the waiting lists on critical surgery patients due to the overhead in conforming to the regulations. As a consequence, more patients end up being referred to IP treatment when they SHOULD get an OP surgery.

This post on socialized healthcare epitomizes my deep seeded hatred of any type of social healthcare system. If Bush declares himself the holy prophet of Bushianity, and heralds the times of revelations and declares war on all non-patriotic countries and re-instates a draft to begin WW3, I'd have still rather had Bush than Kerry because of his "let's federalize medicaid"

That alone would throw our economy into havoc as we get more employee strikes, deductibles start going into the 10,000 and higher mark, and unless you get on a government program healthcare is just largely inaccessible.

[oldsk00l]

and you wanna know what else?!?!??!

All the STUPID IDIOT FREELOADERS WHO THINK THEY ARE JUST ENTITLED TO FREE HEALTHCARE CAN KISS MY ASS!!!!

You don't get FREE electricity do you? Why should you be "entitled" to healthcare at MY dime because YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO WORK!!!

F--K YOU!

[Subtestube]

I'd just like to note, quietly, that in a country where we have a reasonable public healthcare system it seems entirely unreasonable to even begin to suggest something like abolishing it. It _IS_ true that the system is
a) less efficient and
b) often unnecessarily beareaucratic, however
it is utterly unnacceptable to my mind to suggest that privatised healthcare is the only way forwards.

I find it somewhat plausible when people complain of 'paying for other people's service', but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people can't afford the often crippling costs of private healthcare. I suppose it depends on what degree of public responsibility you subscribe to as institutionalised parts of society. I personally am happy to pay somewhat higher taxes so that those who are less well off than myself can enjoy the possibility of some kind of healthcare at all.

While I do agree that pretty much all publically run groups, at present, need to be streamlined and have some of the deadweight cut away. What that does NOT mean is firing nurses and doctors or reducing the numbers of beds in modern public hospitals. Again, I suppose it depends on where you place the onus in terms of what the government should and shouldn't regulate. Here, although it still needs more funds and substantially better organisation, we have a public health system that functions adequately. I for one am thankful for that.

Edit: As an aside, I know nothing about the US public healthcare system, and am not directly commenting on it - I'm only talking about that which I have direct experience of. Additionally, I want to stress that this is just my opinion.

[robrr2000]

I just don’t understand how anybody who has ever waited in line at the DMV for 4 hours to get a license renewed, could ever think that it would be a good idea to have the same batch of morons running our hospitals, clinics, emergency rooms, ect...
I can’t think of one private entity that the government could take over and do a better, cheaper and more efficient job of running.

[Ninjaman09]

Except in the US there is no competition.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one. No competition, huh? Well I'm sorry to say that there is actually quite a lot of competition in the prescription drugs market and I happen to research it on a daily basis. The biotechnology & drug market is a multi-billion dollar industry with several major drug manufacturers making competing treatments. Some of the more notorious ones recently would be Vioxx or Celebrex and other antidepressants. Keep in mind that most HMOs and insurers cover prescriptions at a minimal deductible.

As for medical equipment, the story is the same. While I agree that health care costs are out of control, it has less to do with the industry itself and more to do with the bureaucracy associated with it. Frivolous litigation is also driving costs up like crazy and needs to be addressed.

Man, this was a lazy post. Sorry, I'm tired. :)

[DaveW]

What I meant was there is incentive to maximize profits, not the kind of healthy competition that provides the lowest cost to the consumer.

Speaking of antidepressants. Did you know that St Johns Wort is an effective treatment for most forms of depression and can be purchased from the "dietary supplements" isle at Walmart for 5 dollars a bottle? So why don't the big drug companies mass-produce and run TV ads for St Johns Wort? Because they don't make $90 dollar profit on each bottle, thats why.

[oldsk00l]

I'd just like to note, quietly, that in a country where we have a reasonable public healthcare system it seems entirely unreasonable to even begin to suggest something like abolishing it. It _IS_ true that the system is
a) less efficient and
b) often unnecessarily beareaucratic, however
it is utterly unnacceptable to my mind to suggest that privatised healthcare is the only way forwards.

I find it somewhat plausible when people complain of 'paying for other people's service', but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people can't afford the often crippling costs of private healthcare. I suppose it depends on what degree of public responsibility you subscribe to as institutionalised parts of society. I personally am happy to pay somewhat higher taxes so that those who are less well off than myself can enjoy the possibility of some kind of healthcare at all.

While I do agree that pretty much all publically run groups, at present, need to be streamlined and have some of the deadweight cut away. What that does NOT mean is firing nurses and doctors or reducing the numbers of beds in modern public hospitals. Again, I suppose it depends on where you place the onus in terms of what the government should and shouldn't regulate. Here, although it still needs more funds and substantially better organisation, we have a public health system that functions adequately. I for one am thankful for that.

Edit: As an aside, I know nothing about the US public healthcare system, and am not directly commenting on it - I'm only talking about that which I have direct experience of. Additionally, I want to stress that this is just my opinion.


I'm not denying that people need healthcare. However if the costs are to be controlled and made reasonable to the common person, there has to be a free market. In a freemarket they drop the cost of entry when their clientele falls, and then you see more stuff like a private institution's or office's indigent program where low income families get access. In most cases, such a private indigent care system serves the patient better, and brings in more revenue for the dr/facility.

All that government healthcare does is remove the barrier to entry, effectively removing the supply/demand equation of a free market and just drives up cost. Plus the cost of conforming to the policies and procedures (rules and regs, rather to the hospital/office biller) creates an unnecessary overhead that causes the dr/facility to generate more revenue to counter the overhead cost.

Fact is, physicians who go into private practice and accept cash only, are less expensive, give better care, and are vastly cheaper to get services from. Their quality of care also usually rates far higher than physicians who treat from a hospital based clinic of a group practice.

Free market is THE ONLY way to go, otherwise it's a disaster. It's the pure essence of capitalism working to create a productive society. To go any other route is the communist model that has CONSISTENTLY FAILED.

I have a beef w/this, I have managed 5 million dollar accounts receivables before, billed out for a 100 million per year facility, and a 7 physician practice. I've seen what happens and I've managed the revenues. Medicaid is the great knife in the back of society, I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

[Ninjaman09]

What I meant was there is incentive to maximize profits, not the kind of healthy competition that provides the lowest cost to the consumer.

Speaking of antidepressants. Did you know that St Johns Wort is an effective treatment for most forms of depression and can be purchased from the "dietary supplements" isle at Walmart for 5 dollars a bottle? So why don't the big drug companies mass-produce and run TV ads for St Johns Wort? Because they don't make $90 dollar profit on each bottle, thats why.
Ah, I see what you mean. Well that's true but ultimately the best way to maximize profits is to run a tight business plan and provide excellent service to your customers (though prescription drug companies don't deal directly with patients).

And no I had no idea that St. Johns Wort is a good treatment for depression. I'll have to read up on that. :D

[saturnotaku]

I'd like to know how the liberals think they can implement socialistic health care in a nation of nearly 300 million. It's hard enough to get to doctors in the nations that have it, and they have 1/10 the population or less.

Medical reform needs to start at the legal end. End frivolous lawsuits, which in turn will lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors, lessen the amount insurance companies have to pay and then lower the cost for the consumer. Malpractice insurance is a major issue here in Illinois. A lot of doctors are fleeing because those costs can run in excess of $40,000 annually here compared to less than $10,000 in places like Indiana and Wisconsin.

I would be pissed as hell if my doctor had to leave because of this because he does a damn fine job.

[evilchris]

The drug companies drive the industry, routinely make up new diseases just to sell drugs, and their products are ridiculously overpriced.




You don't know much about Biotech do you... My wife works for one of those evil "drug companies". Some drugs cost over 10 billion dollars to research and take 30 years to get approved. Once approved, 20 years of sales can go by before a profit is seen. Overpriced? Whatever....

When you see that 90$ bottle of pills, don't look at just the materials contained inside and assume that they are "cheap to make"

[evilchris]

And no I had no idea that St. Johns Wort is a good treatment for depression. I'll have to read up on that. :D
Don't take medical advice from an nvnews poster....

[evilchris]

Speaking of antidepressants. Did you know that St Johns Wort is an effective treatment for most forms of depression and can be purchased from the "dietary supplements" isle at Walmart for 5 dollars a bottle? So why don't the big drug companies mass-produce and run TV ads for St Johns Wort? Because they don't make $90 dollar profit on each bottle, thats why.

There is quite a physical difference between someone who is clinically depressed and someone is "feeling a little down". St. Johns Wort won't help a clinically depressed person at all.

[Ninjaman09]

Don't take medical advice from an nvnews poster....
Heh heh, well I ended up looking it up anyway and discovered what you said in the above post. :D

I'm also not a big fan of "natural medicine", since I think it's mostly a crock.

[oldsk00l]

Heh heh, well I ended up looking it up anyway and discovered what you said in the above post. :D

I'm also not a big fan of "natural medicine", since I think it's mostly a crock.

Be wary of greedy Doctors too, advice given to me BY a doctor is that unless it's cancer related, don't go in unless you're:

missing an appendage
been stabbed deeper than 1 inch
have a laceration longer than 4cm
went blind
are suddenly deaf
passed out
turn blue
always feel like an appendage went to sleep
sudden HORRIBLE chest pain

Otherwise you're fine, and you DON'T NEED A F&*$#KING DOCTOR!!!!!!!

[Drumphil]

Otherwise you're fine, and you DON'T NEED A F&*$#KING DOCTOR!!!!!!!

I have some friends who would be dead if they had that attidude.