|
|
May 9, 2007US Cancer Care 10X better than socialized UKGaius tells it: Seriously, do you really think socialized medicine is a good idea? Do you really believe that the code phrase “Universal Health Care” is anything but socialized medicine? Read this article from the Telegraph before you answer. Read it all the way through because the really important information is buried toward the end. Because it matters. Gaius highlights a bit: British cancer patients are substantially more likely to die of the disease than those in other western European countries because of poor access to the latest drugs, according to an authoritative report to be published today. It seems very strange to me that while Canada, Britain, France and the other countries with socialized health care systems find those systems in steady decline, the Democrats keep telling us that socialized medicine is the way to go. It’s certainly the way to put an enormous amount of money and citizen control within the power of the Government…but will it save you’re life? Not if there’s a waiting list, and not if - as I suspect - availability of treatment will only be sanctioned by the government if you have lived your life by their standards. ‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! Money and power…I can’t think of any other rational reason why the Democrats want to push us toward a health care system that clearly does not work. The other thing that worries me about socialized medicine is that there is no incentive there for the best-and-the-brightest to undertake the arduous work (and heavy cost) of obtaining medical degrees, so that they can be under the power of the Government, rather than allowed to strike out on their own. Then who will be our next doctors? The second tier students? The third? Socialism too often is a showcase for mediocrity. It doesn’t work. The private sector is imperfect, and there are certainly issues within our health care system that need addressing, particularly for the un-insured, but throwing us into this fresh hell is not the answer. Seems to me with all the big plans out there, already in existence, there should be a way for un-insured folks to participate for a manageable fee. People don’t need to be “given” things - all that does is strip them of their dignity and their sense of self-pride [See comments section for an expansion of that thought - admin]. But there must be a way to include them in some sort of discounted participation. We need some new people in government, with new ideas. These tired, old ones need to be put to bed. Ed Morrissey picks up on the story here. Tigerhawk quotes a doctor who left medicine once it was taken over by his government. Don’t miss it. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/05/09/us-cancer-care-10x-better-than-socialized-uk/trackback/ 13 Responses to “US Cancer Care 10X better than socialized UK” |
May 10th, 2007 at 8:27 am
You don’t have to wait for full socialization for the best and the brightest to avoid entering the world of medicine. My aunt is an oncologist with two daughters. Either of them would make fantastic physicians, but my aunt told them not to bother. Government interference was already too much.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Amen to this!
I maintain that any American who supports socialized healthcare should spend some time in the military’s healthcare system, or on Medicare/Medicaid. The patient exists as a social security number, and new or alternative treatments are rarely covered.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:10 am
It seems to me that the high-medical-cost problems that we have experienced in this country all started when we began down the road of quasi-socialized medicine with the HMO model of health care, where every tiny little thing was paid by someone other than the recipient of the care. Of course, I was only a kid at the time, but it seems to me that things were better when “health insurance” actually meant “insurance,” that is, it covered unexpected events such as accidents, hospitalizations, and other major medical costs, but regular office visits and drugs were all out-of-pocket. Back then, people could actually afford to pay for office visits and routine health care. Now with so-called insurance, more properly called “health plans,” covering such routine care, providers have priced them beyond the ability of “non-insured” to pay.
.
Socialized medicine — whether directly involving the government or a quasi form involving big insurance companies — doesn’t work at cost containment or at the provision of quality care, just like socialized education has caused tuition and education costs to skyrocket while the quality of education has gone down.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Germany has socialized health care and I am often told that many are willing to pay out of their own pockets to get the service they really want. However, it gets really expensive going that route.
Socialized medicine is great for those who can’t afford insurance…but I agree with you, there should be a way for low income people to buy insurance at a reduced cost. It is a disgrace that in a country as rich as the States, are people that are going without health coverage because they can’t afford it. Something needs to be done.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Excellent.
See this for a real look at a one of the BETTER socialized healthcare system.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/health/index.asp?snav=he
As I like to say, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
[...] 10th, 2007 The numbers are in and the Anchoress offers up the analysis. In US Cancer Care 10X Times Better Than Socialized UK, she notes that It seems very strange to me that while Canada, Britain, France and the other [...]
May 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
If Cuban health care is so splendid, why did Senor Castro send away for a Spanish physician to come treat him when he was stricken with cancer?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Hmm…”People don’t need to be “given” things - all that does is strip them of their dignity and their sense of self-pride.”
Actually, right now it helps to pay the bills. I think I can trade a little dignity for being able to have a roof over my head, personally.
As fas as plans go, there are some. The rub is, if you work making more than $5/hr at a job, you are ineligible for those plans-you make too much. That’s why we battle so much getting helth inusrance for my best friend and my godsons. She’s a cake decorator at Wal mart, and she makes too much money.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Stephanie, I think you of all people understand my meaning. As I did say in my piece, there should be a way for people to buy into existing health plans, paying what they can. It makes the difference between feeling like a “failure” and a “welfare case” and feeling like a person who is in the game, working hard and trying to do right.
‘
As you know, Steph, I’ve been poor; I know the drill - I know what it is to roll coin to afford a haircut, or to go to work with a purse that contains a dime, a subway token and a bottle of clear nail-polish, in order to try to salvage one more wear out of a pair of pantyhose that is threatening 100 runs.
‘
Sometimes people need a hand-out, yes, but making it a way of life has never ended up being a positive - as we see in the UK - and in no way does it help a person to strive to reach their fullest potential if everyone is simply “given” things. No handout can replace the sense of pride one gets by accomplishing things on one’s own.
‘
It is very difficult for me to fathom that a mom making $5 bucks an hour and trying to support two kids does not qualify for some sort of help. Food stamps, WIC these things are in place…there SHOULD be something in place to help out such a mom (and for all I know there is something in place, that we’re unaware of). There should always be something in place to help those who are really struggling and trying to make it. That’s very different than a socialized, universal health care system that lowers the quality and availability of care for everyone.
‘
Do you really disagree with that? I will be surprised if you do.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Tess:
As an active duty healt care provider in the military, your one liner about Tricare and the military health system sound a little glib. The idea that the military does not offer cutting edge and/or alternative treatments is just plain false. When it comes to surgical procedures or cancer treatment, all active duty patients get the best care. Granted, Tricare may not be perfect, but it’s not like people aren’t getting the treatment they need. I’d prefer to see more specific examples of how bad military medicine really is….and don’t try to unfairly us the problems at WRAMC to back up your point.
As for “socialized” health care, or whatever that means, most people have the misconception that those who advocate universal health care mean something along the lines of the what the UK has. Most UHC advocates are pushing for universal health care insurance, not socializing the entire health care industry. Our employee based system clearly doesn’t work for the lower income bracket, and depending on the “free market” is a fallacy. We can’t depend on the market forces to ensure that the poor have access to basic health care. And I’m not so sure that using this one study about the availability of cancer drugs in Britain should lead one to conclude that socialized health care is a bust; the issue is a lot more complex than that. Notice the Anchoress conveniently forgets to include the data from other European countries who have socialized health care “The researchers, whose report is published in the journal Annals of Oncology, found that Austria, France, Switzerland and the US were leaders in using new cancer drugs.” It’s also interesting to note that Avastin, while it may be more available in the US, it costs 50K a year to use it, and probably even higher for lung and breast cancer. And remember, this is a drug that extends life a few months for advanced colon cancer, so we’re not talking cure. That’s problem when you take a one-liner from the Torygraph and use it as predictable prop for free market fundamentalism. The free market is not a panacea, and the government isn’t always bad!
May 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I have some first-hand experience with military health-care re a family member, and I’m inclined to think that for the most part it’s not the horror story some would suggest.
‘
As to socialized health care - in my archives (I’m rushing out) one may find other pieces which link to stories about heart patients in England who are flown to India to get treatment, about thousands of French patients who died during a heatwave, while under treatement, and about people in both Germany and Canada who purchase supplemental health insurance so that should they become ill and need treatment, they may come to the US and get it in a timely fashion, without being subject to a decision as to whether they’ll be treated due to age or lifestyle choice. That matters, because we’re already seeing articles - in “socialized” countries, suggesting that older patients are being denied care or being delayed care because “hey, they’re 68, this guy’s younger, so the procedure will be more worthwhile.” When the nanny staters start deciding that YOU should not get treatment because you were a smoker, or you had a few drinks, or you had unprotected sex…it won’t be pretty.
‘
Church is for sinners and doctors are for sick people. Neither institutions should determine how much help someone gets based on how good they’ve been, but it’s coming to that, in the health care industries. Under government control, you can count on it happening.
‘
And Kouger, no, I didn’t link to more of the article - I try not to tempt the bandwidth budget - but I DO link, so everyone has access to the full article. Also, I think it is safe to say that Hillarycare was in every way, shape and form “socialized” medicine. We don’t need it. We DO need, as I said - and I think you agree - something to allow the underinsured and poor participation in some sort of health care collective. But I distrust the ability of government - any government’s one from the left or the right - to really come up with such a plan without it immediately becoming bloated and unmanageable.
‘
And life and humanity being what they are, even after the introduction of such a program…there will still be poor, there will still be sick, there will still be those who do not get medical coverage. There always will be. That’s just life. None of that means we can’t worth TOGETHER to create something practical. Sadly, we just won’t. We can’t when political gameplaying has replaced leadership.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“It is very difficult for me to fathom that a mom making $5 bucks an hour and trying to support two kids does not qualify for some sort of help. Food stamps, WIC these things are in place…there SHOULD be something in place to help out such a mom (and for all I know there is something in place, that we’re unaware of). There should always be something in place to help those who are really struggling and trying to make it. That’s very different than a socialized, universal health care system that lowers the quality and availability of care for everyone.”
First I have to say you’ve caught me on something of a despairing day, Anchoress-it’s been a rough week. I don’t disagree that there’s a large difference between helping someone while they’re down and giving them a lifetime handout. But I don’t see our system helping people while they’re down. That costs money- which is why a mother making $5 can’t get government assistance. Given the limited budget to go around, the money just isn’t there. At least that’s that’s the answer we keep getting.
I’m a moderate- i don’t disagree that some of the socialized societies out there go too far with subsidies. But I also believe we don’t go anywhere near far enough.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Friday Afternoon Links…
Adding to blogroll: Theo Spark, under Anglosphere. The charmer on the right with the nice smile is borrowed from Theo, who posts lots of mostly-political graphics. Hmmmm, is the pool open yet? Where my Ray-Bans at? Ya gotta love this globalistical w…