The Perils of Socialized Healthcare
by Tom Blumer
This is a difficult column to write, because there’s a glut, not a lack, of pertinent material.
You see, the state-run British National Health Service (NHS) has been decaying steadily for years. Even the formerly fawning British media, after decades of kid-glove treatment, has taken to regularly exposing the NHS’s dark side.
Here are just a few of the most recent sordid examples revealing a system at its breaking point.
The first comes from just outside of many British hospitals (known as “trusts”), in the UK Daily Mail:
A&E patients left in ambulances for up to FIVE hours ‘so trusts can meet government targets’
Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets.
Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour pledge.
The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 999 calls.
Doctors warned last night that the practice of “patient-stacking” was putting patients’ health at risk.
You don’t say? Ambulances sit; sick patients get sicker; injured patients’ wounds fester. When was the last time you heard about a US ambulance not unloading its human cargo on a timely basis?
Upon admission, the quality of care is, uh, less than perfect:
- “Patient’s anger at cancer retests” (BBC, Jan. 19) — Women with cancer were told they didn’t have it until a year or so later because of botched
biopsies. - “Throat cancer patient ‘starved to death’ after feeding tube
blunder” (Times Online, Feb. 15; HT Socialized Medicine Blog). - “Neonatal unit closed after fungal infection kills baby” (Times Online, Feb. 15; HT Socialized
Medicine).
I would suggest that those who obsess over “medical mistakes” in
the US would have their hands full if they crossed the pond.
Well, if the NHS is to do something about all those parked ambulances, and all those treatment mistakes, they’re going to have to deal with utilization, right?
Here’s one “briilliant” idea, originally written up in the January 28 UK
Telegraph:
Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
But wait: Wasn’t the whole idea of socialized medicine “free care to everyone”? Instead, we see eugenics not-so-light.
Here’s yet another utilization control measure, from an IBDeditorials.com opinion piece.
“Instead of going to a hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out ‘self-care’ as the Department of Health tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending,” the (UK) Telegraph explained.
Yet it’s liberals who accuse conservatives of advocating a “you’re on your own” society.
Perhaps you’re one of those “unhealthy” folks who wants to stay alive, and for whom “self-care” is not an option. Even if you’re filthy rich, you’ll be in for the shock of your remaining life, as shown in this UK Daily Mail report from late January (bold is mine):
Sentenced to death by idiocy
….. Mrs. (Colette) Mills, a former nurse who has breast cancer, was told back in September that her local hospital trust would not pay for Avastin, a drug which would double the time her disease was kept under control.
Colette, 58, and her husband Eric, said they would buy the Avastin out of their savings. Imagine their shock when they learned that, if they purchased the drug, the mother-of-two would have to pay for all her future NHS care – to the tune of £15,000 a month (about $29,000 US — Ed.).
Health Secretary Alan Johnson has ruled that patients can no longer combine private and NHS care as this creates a “two-tier” system.
Who knew that the NHS’s lousy health care was “worth” about $350,000 a year? So Colette Mills’s choice is to go broke in the private “tier,” or die sooner in the public one — liberal “compassion” at its finest.
These stories rarely receive US Mainstream Media coverage. Even news about Massachusetts’s imploding state-run Commonwealth Care, a.k.a. RomneyCare, rarely gets beyond the Bay State. Reporters there incredibly still refer to it as a grand experiment,” and a “landmark.”
Why? It’s simple:
- Despite all of the contrary evidence, mainstream media reporters persist in their belief that socialized medicine can be made to work better than “evil, profit-driven” healthcare.
- Two of the three remaining viable US presidential candidates advocate socialized medicine, aka “universal healthcare.”
- Ergo, the serious problems at NHS and in Massachusetts must be ignored.
If we ever see a nationwide state-run healthcare system in the US, the mainstream media will have played a large role in its arrival by ignoring its myriad failures, both overseas and at home.
Tom Blumer is a CPA based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.






“…the mainstream media will have played a large role in its arrival by ignoring its myriad failures, both overseas and at home.”
The MSM is the enemy of Western Civilization. Those who are employed by these various media outlets are subconsciously out to destroy our society. We must marginalize them by ceasing to buy their products. They must be bankrupted. We are not allowed to physically harm them—but we are not obligated to financially subsidize these fools.
The U.K. instituted a plan for reform. Notice what the #1 goal was:
NHS Improvement Plan and Creating a Patient-Led NHS goals:
1. Increase spending
2. More patient choice of providers
3. Increase preventive care, patient education
4. Increase convenience and coordination of care
5. DRG-type payments [Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs)]
firm grasp of the obvious tom. outcome comparisons are even worse.
We’re actually having a lot of those same problems here. The question is, what is the solution?
People get left in ambulances here. Spending is being increased across the board for less and less benefits. It’s a government operated monopoly here, basically a socialized medicine without the “benefits” of socialized medicine. You have to have health care, and the companies providing it have the power to charge and do whatever they want to you.
Pre-approval for an emergency ambulance? Are you kidding??
$500 a month for health insurance to cover 25% of all PRE approved expenses and all emergency expenses up to 50%, with $2500 deductible????
It’s easy to say X is not the answer, but what is the answer is what we are trying to explore? Whatever method we choose you know the US will execute it better than any other country ever could. But right now we’ve let it degrade to nothingness.
Socialized healthcare will also lead to government control over lifestyle choices to “protect” us from poor choices, such as fast food, smoking, pregnancy, etc. Government intervention always has many unintended consequences that simply feed into more intervention.
THE CANADIAN VIEW
I’m 65 and remember a time when I had to purchase Blue Cross. Thank heavens those days are gone. For all its shortcomings I can go anywhere in Canada and have medical care at a basic level, all drugs included and with no bill at the end! Our hospital costs are about 1/3 those of the U.S. That is the price you pay for your health care for profit system. All our citizens are covered. Bad mouth the socialised medicine all you want but you won’t find the Brits or Canadians opting for the American system. We have heard about the millions with no health care and the insurance that is structured not to pay out. Thank you but no thank you.
Wow, you learn something new every day. I never realized the UK was the only country in the world with socialized healthcare, which means the failures of its medical system would constitute an indictment of every other such system worldwide (if there were any, which there apparently aren’t).
I suppose the folks in Norway and France are just thrilled with their employer-funded for-profit PPOs. Why doesn’t the MSM ever report about that??
Tom, does the word “conflict of interest” mean anything to you? You list on your company website three major pharmaceutical companies– Abbott Laboratories, TAP Pharmaceuticals and Hospira Inc–among your clients. Shouldn’t you at least disclose this before writing an article that promotes your clients’ interests? Readers should at least be aware of this conflict of interest. I’m very disappointed in Pajamas for this.
Tom, does the word “conflict of interest” mean anything to you? You list on your company website three major pharmaceutical companies– Abbott Laboratories, TAP Pharmaceuticals and Hospira Inc–among your clients. Shouldn’t you at least disclose this before writing an article that promotes your clients’ interests? Readers should at least be aware of this conflict of interest. I’m very disappointed in Pajamas for this.
I knew the usual morons would be out in this thread, flinging around words and concepts they barely, or don’t, understand.
Tom, does the word “conflict of interest” mean anything to you?
So, anyone who works for the government who advocates more government intervention in health care markets also has a conflict of interest, right? I mean, their job security increases if the government is more involved in health care.
Seriously, crawl back under whatever rock you crawled out from under, peabrain.
“Ray,” in case you’re interested, I have a response here:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/02/22/latest-pajamas-media-column-the-perils-of-socialized-healthcare-is-up/
You could easily have contacted me to get clarification as to why I don’t believe those past client associations matter, or require disclosure. So why didn’t you?
Also, if you had read carefully, you would have understood that the three companies involved are not “my” clients. But yet you commented as if they are/were. That’s either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. Which is it?
venividivici’s point is also well-taken. Every politician who advocates socialized medicine has a conflict of interest, because its adoption enhances his/hers and the government’s monopolistic and non-competitive power and influence.
On the other hand, even if these companies WERE current clients (which I would have disclosed if relevant), for you to justify your holier than thou-ness, you’d have to show that my opposition to socialized medicine would somehow benefit them as opposed to benefitting Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, etc.
Taken to your extreme, I may be allowed to have an opinion, but I’m not allowed to publish it. Horse manure.
The following is obviously anecdotal, but nonetheless:
I am a Canadian who immigrated to the U.S. some years ago. I can state with near certainty that my father, who has suffered three heart attacks (from a genetic defect causing blood clots) would be dead right now if the last two of those attacks had occurred in Canada (he nearly died from the first one in Canada). The difference in treatment and service he received in the USA vs. Canada was like night and day. He currently struggles to pay his health insurance bills, but he’d much rather be in debt than deceased.
My grandfather still lives in Canada, and he is currently dying from a curable form of cancer because he was forced to wait MONTHS on a waiting list before he could begin to receive treatment. By then his cancer had spread.
I personally have experienced both health care systems. The Canadian system is a disaster. Waiting lists for everything except the most basic service. Need to see a specialist? Get in line and wait for months. Hospitals in shocking states of disarray and with service you’d expect in a third world country. Oh, but their prescription meds are cheap. Hurray.
The American system: it is the best in the world. The brightest, most qualified doctors. The best, most professional hospital staff. No waiting lists for lifesaving treatment. Do we pay too much for it? Yes. But that’s because of lack of competition, overly stringent state-by-state regulations on allowable insurance policies, and countless hidden costs courtesy of the trial lawyers. We CAN fix this. But in the mean time, I’d rather be in debt than dead.
Competition is the hoe as corruption is the weed….
Ideas are the flowers as freedom is the seed….
What is the motivation for an emergency room to be under-staffed?
Who can you sue for errors in a national health care system?
What will encourage invention?
What will encourage solutions?
What can we do to reduce cost and corruption?
What will keep the masses happy?
We must do something: for if we sit and let the harshness of the “EDGE” of the market system roll past the suffering without compassion, they will find a way to take us down. It plays too well to the Progressive Socialist Democrats marketing. Feed the poor or they will eat you. The poor people leaning to socialism is a natural economic reaction to improve their lot, wrong though it may be.
Beware of the Progressive Socialist Democrats SPIRAL OF CONTROL.
If a business of a reasonable size does “it” wrong. It goes out of business. If a Government does “it” wrong, it raises taxes and increases regulation to try and fix “it”. So the obvious solution is to keep business and government to a reasonable size.
It is easy to make the U.S. health care system cheaper, but Americans won’t stand for it – rationing. Limit access, innovation, choice, and autonomy, as they do in socialized and hybrid systems and we’ll be just as cheap.
I am happy for Canadian Dave as he seems to have found his definition of perfection in America. Unfortunately, Dave is out of touch with the current state of waiting times and treatment in Canada. In the past year the wait times for heart and cancer treatments have been cut to weeks from months. Also, we are seeing more private clinics doing colonoscopies etc. and billing the province for the cost. Canadians are adamant that they want to preserve their universal health care system. Getting changes is a slow process with much public resistance. If the system is so flawed why do we cherish it so?
I lived in the Netherlands from 1996-2000. During that time we paid a family health premium of about US$75.00 per month and that included dental as well as medical. The Dutch provide much preventive care as part of the service. That premium provided top level health care including all drugs, therapies etc. with NO bill ever presented. I developed a neurological problem and within two weeks I had seen my GP, a neurologist and had cat scans + other tests in our local hospital. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned there. The impression from America is that anything socialised is somehow tainted and unpatriotic. Until Americans can remove the blinders they will not be able to correct the obvious flaws of your health care system.
Worked in both systems as a nurse. Both systems have their good stuff and their flaws.
I’d like to point out a couple of issues with the assessments made here:
1. NO ONE in the US is rejected from hospitals. It don’t matter if they don’t have insurance. There’s these laws that are basically “anti-dumping” laws which state that no one can be rejected from a hospital for not having insurance. Anyone who tells you that happened to them is stupid for not threatening to sue and report the hospital or is lying. Or left by their own choice.
2. There are plenty of people who never pay their hospital bills. When I worked in the NICU, we called them half a million dollar babies. If the parents were homeless crack addicts who would never pay their bills, did we suddenly shut off the baby’s ventilator? Of course not. That’s stupid.
3. Who bills the insurance companies for care? That would be the hospitals or the doctors. So whose fault is it that health care bills are through the roof?
Canada:
1. My uncle waited 3 years for a left knee replacement. Shoved off the waiting list four times. Now he’ll need the right one done because of all the stress it was under. Back on the waiting list he goes.
2. My grandpa waited 6 months with lots of arthritic pain for a hip replacement.
3. My other grandpa is having health care rationed to him for being over 80 and having heart probs. He needs a pacemaker and they keep putting him. Guess what they’re waiting for?
4. Those babies being transferred from Calgary to Montana for treatment, guess why?
The real question is: Why do people come from all over the world to the US for health treatment of weird diseases and junk? Because socialized medicine does not provide enough impetus to develop new drugs/treatments. People like to make money. Drugs and health care treatments can make people money. Guess which system supports this?
Governmental fingers in the health system pot is a dangerous thing. Look at the disaster getting a passport is. Do you really want the idiots who mess that up on a regular basis dealing with your healthcare?
In 1993 the State of Washington passed a health care reform that, I’ve read in various places, strongly resembles what Obama and Clinton are proposing.
Soon there were widespread complaints that the reform was driving the cost of privately purchased health insurance up, while the insurers were complaining that the reform was draining them of cash. Many insurers stopped selling individual or family health insurance policies in the state.
In 1995 almost the entire thing was repealed.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/washington_4-9.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG1121.cfm
The root problem with the health care system in both the U.S. and countries with nationalized plans is the same: The buyer/user is not the payer. We buy health care like no other service. Who makes a benifit vs cost analysis of health care? No one. The medical industry knows this and exploits it for profit and research. Until the user is forced to make a better buying decision, cost will continue to increase. Medicare is a prime example of this disconnect. The elderly, by far our wealthiest demographical group, is given basically free health care while we debate how to tax their estates. Obviously we need a system to take care of those who can not pay, but allowing those who can to shed all payment responsibilities leads to the untenable situation we have today.
“The real question is: Why do people come from all over the world to the US for health treatment of weird diseases and junk? Because socialized medicine does not provide enough impetus to develop new drugs/treatments. People like to make money. Drugs and health care treatments can make people money. Guess which system supports this?”
Really, if I were in one of those socialized medical systems piggy backing off all the innovation that comes from the US, I would be on my knees praying that the US doesn’t opt for “free” healthcare.
Right now, the USA health care system serves as the safety valve for the Canadian heatlh care system.
When the Canadians have a shortage of places for premature infants, they can and do send pregnant women to the USA to deliver.
If the USA istitutes a Canadian-style system, will Mexico’s health care system be OUR safety valve when our system begins to develop inevitable shortages of various types of care?
Are those of you who think that socialized medicine is so great aware that in Britain, many hospital patients are treated in mixed-sex wards? The British are always making the elimination of these wards a “top priority” but something always comes up to cause the money to be spent on something else instead. Other than emergency rooms and intensive care wards, I haven’t heard of ANYBODY in the USA being treated in anything other than a private or semi-private room for decades.
Socializing medicine might not make care in the USA immediately worse than it is now, but I’ll bet you that there will be tremendous stagnation.
Suffice to say just let Canadians keep their universal health care system. It is evolving but I have not experienced a system I liked better. The U.S. system is down the list. Oh yes, we develope drugs too – heard of insulin?
About passports. I received my passport renewal today. I handed my application in 15 days ago and I live in the country.
To those who pay healthy premiums I say God loves you and so does the insurance industry.