Socialized Medicine Is Bad For Your Health

[Pale Rider]

Socialized Medicine Is Bad For Your Health



by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The following article was originally published by Grand Junction Free Press on February 5, 2007.

The drumbeat for socialized medicine grows stronger. Hillary Clinton wants it, as do Barack Obama, Bill Ritter, and The Denver Post. Meanwhile, the Republicans offer as a "compromise" socialized-medicine light, as exemplified by President Bush's massive expansion of Medicare.

But the last thing we need is more forcible intervention in medicine. Doctors and patients need the freedom to voluntarily enter into arrangements that best suit their needs, rather than the alleged "needs" of some presumptuous politician who enforces medical decisions ultimately by men with guns.

Boulder law professor Paul Campos unintentionally reveals the absurdity of the argument for socialized medicine in his January 30 column for the Rocky Mountain News. Campos notes that "in America the government pays more for health care, per person, than any other government in the world." Just a few paragraphs later, Campos calls the problem "an example of market failure."

The truth is exactly the opposite of what Campos concludes. American medicine is suffering from government failure, not "market failure." Existing problems were created by the forcible interventions of politicians and their hordes of bureaucrats. Medicine has problems precisely to the degree that it has already been socialized. The solution is not to socialize medicine more completely -- that would only make the problems much worse. The answer is to return to liberty and respect the rights of individuals to make medical decisions free from political force.

One problem with American medicine is that health insurance is often tied to people's jobs. With life insurance, we purchase a policy as individuals directly from an insurance company, and that policy stays with us. But many people lose their health insurance if they lose their job. This destroys the ability to purchase a life-long policy in their youth, before possible health problems arise. It also creates the problem of employees buying into an employer-paid plan only when they get sick.

Is this a "market failure?" No, it is a failure of government intervention. As Dr. David Gratzer discusses in his book The Cure, in the 1940s the federal government did two things that devastated the market for individual health insurance. First, the government imposed wage controls. In response, companies compensated by offering medical benefits, which weren't counted as wages. Second, the IRS ruled that employer-paid medical benefits were not taxed, a move that strongly tied medical insurance to employment.

Bush has offered reforms to begin to reverse this problem with his medical savings accounts and his more recent proposals to reduce the tax distortions.

Another problem with American medicine is skyrocketing costs. In part, costs reflect an aging population taking advantage of the dramatic improvements in medical treatment. But many medical costs are artificially inflated, again because of government intervention.

In a genuinely free market, most people would find it in their interests to purchase insurance for high-cost emergency care and pay for routine expenses out of pocket. Similarly, we purchase auto insurance to cover accidents, not gasoline, tires, and tune-ups.

But the government-promoted employer-pay system also encourages benefits that cover routine medical care. The result is predicted by basic economics: if something is "free" for consumers, they use more of it, without regard for the real cost.

The gigantic welfare programs of Medicaid and Medicare place the poor and the elderly at the mercy of national bureaucrats, even as they subject everyone else to higher taxes. Those in the middle are doubly victimized: they are forced to pay the medical expenses of others, even as their own health costs go up because of the welfare programs.

Bush made a terrible program worse with his prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D). As Gratzer notes, "Under current law, Medicare will consume 25 percent of federal income-tax revenues by 2030... The unfunded liability of Medicare... is $68.3 trillion, or more than five times the present GDP of the United States."

Those spending other people's money have little incentive to seek medical treatment economically. Again, people use more of something if it's "free." And the massive federal bureaucracies have largely taken over American medicine, determining which treatments are offered and how much doctors are paid for them, resulting in a nightmare of paperwork and compliance costs.

On top of this, politicians impose huge regulatory costs on drugs, then they drive up insurance costs by mandating types of coverage.

Everything that's good about American medicine -- the amazing technology, the research into new drugs and treatments, the widely available care -- is the result of what freedom is left to provide and consume medical services according to the interests and judgments of the individuals involved. Everything that's wrong with American medicine -- the distorted insurance markets, the artificially high costs, the expansive bureaucracies -- is the direct result of political force.

The disease is socialism. The cure is liberty.

http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/02/thecure.html

[nevadamedic]

This is simular to a thread that is already going, this is just the other side of it.

[Pale Rider]

This is simular to a thread that is already going, this is just the other side of it.

Please, I asked you once before, you don't have to copy the whole article back into a response. You're just wasting bandwidth.

And no it's not. It is a direct argument to the opposite. One for, one against. You see?

[Hugh Lincoln]

P.J. O'Rourke once said,

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."

[nevadamedic]

Please, I asked you once before, you don't have to copy the whole article back into a response. You're just wasting bandwidth.

And no it's not. It is a direct argument to the opposite. One for, one against. You see?

I don't know how not to copy the article, I just click quote. I don't copy anything?!?!?

[Yurt]

I don't know how not to copy the article, I just click quote. I don't copy anything?!?!?

hit "reply" not "quote"... Get it, quoting is actually taking what they said and reposting it...

You should be able to see the quote above what you post :poke:

[Yurt]

A good comment from a surprising source:

As We See It: The realities of health care
More and more, people are starting to envision a government-sponsored health care system.


At a recent health care symposium, a government program, often called "single payer," was proposed to a receptive audience that obviously felt it was time for the government to expand a Medicare-like system to all Americans.

We understand that such a plan sounds great. Probably most of the supporters of the plan envision a situation where patients can drop in at a clinic just about anytime and get immediate and excellent service without much wait — and without having to pay for it.

Even the redoubtable Michael Moore has stepped forward with another cinematic "op-ed" called "Sicko," in which he castigates the health care industry and then proposes to do away with the entire health care insurance industry.

His movie will receive plenty of support, again from those who envision a government-run system that will bring better health care for all.

We agree that the current system has many, many flaws. And it's easy to go out and find those who aren't being served by the complex system as it exists.

Any system, whether here in the United States or in Canada, or Britain, carries with it strengths and weaknesses. Certainly it's the job of storytellers like Moore to point out when things don't work. This very newspaper over the years has published stories about people who have fallen through the safety net.

But this newspaper has also told the story of doctors that have saved lives. The successes of American medicine are easy to overlook. But miracles are performed at the nation's hospitals every day, and nowhere on earth [not even in Cuba, Michael Moore] have new technologies and medication saved as many lives as here in the United States.



Some get apoplectic over the idea that there are those in medicine who have made a lot of money either in developing new treatments or in discovering new ways to save lives. But count us among those who are happy that the United States is home to some of the greatest medical advances anywhere.

As for a government-run program, take a look at something as simple as enforcing new passport regulations.

Arguably, the idea of enacting tighter passport regulations and then supplying passports to those who apply is a much easier task than something as complex as a new system.

And the government has flat failed in its passport restructuring. People can't get their passports sent to them. Imagine a government-run heart transplant.

For those who blame recent federal failures with only the Bush administration, just think back to other major fiascoes — at Housing and Urban Development, to name to just one.

Health care is expensive; medical procedures and treatments don't come free. Yet a portion of the population expects these things for free. Certainly there are ways in which our delivery of health services can improve. But expecting a well-run, technologically sophisticated and free system is a fantasy.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/June/24/edit/stories/01edit.htm

[nevadamedic]

hit "reply" not "quote"... Get it, quoting is actually taking what they said and reposting it...

You should be able to see the quote above what you post :poke:

I did that before and people told me to quote it because they didn't know who I was reffering to.

[Pale Rider]

I don't know how not to copy the article, I just click quote. I don't copy anything?!?!?

When you hit quote, you can then "edit" any or all of the post you're quoting. It's really quite easy. Check it out next time.

[Pale Rider]

The Canadian Healthcare Nightmare



I doubt if anyone would be surprised to hear me say the Canadian Healthcare system stinks. After all, I'm just a right-wing sell-out, beholden to the almighty dollar, and willing to do anything to aid the evil corporations, in sucking every last penny from ailing grannies, right? Could be, but it doesn't take a heartless conservative to see that our socialized health care system - the primary symbol of our national identity - is a wasteful, ineffectual, burdensome mess.

Capitalism Magazine's Steve Tennett, has a good article, on some of the pitfalls, of socialized medicine. It acts both as a sharp condemnation to anyone who would defend such a system, as humane - as well as a warning to Americans, about where this road will lead them.

The biggest obstacle to having a rational discussion, about health care, is the impression we have that "free medicine, for all" is a cornerstone of our national identity. But why is it? Because the Liberals say it's so? Or because it's the opposite of what the Americans do? Or do we really believe that making people wait in line, for essential services is a symbol of supreme social justice? Columnist Mark Steyn once called it "universal access to crap" - I think that's just about right, and if that's what the Liberals want our national identity to be, I'll pass. Steve Tennett puts it in a way that gives it a bit more perspective:

Only two other countries on earth have such “powerful symbols of national identity” – Cuba and North Korea. Every other country with national health insurance recognizes its shortcomings and allows private insurance as a safety valve.

Now, I am not a huge fan of mixing the public and private systems, only because I really am a capitalist, that believes in the fairness of a free-market, even for health care, and any compromise to a free-market system, will inherently always have a lack of balance and fairness. I do however, recognize the need to have a public-access (free) medical system, to accommodate those who are either unable or unwilling to make provisions, for their own physical wellness. There will always be those who would rather have the nanny-state care for them, than be expected to care for themselves, and any attempt to eliminate this option, would come against so much opposition, as to deaden the debate, and remove the private option, completely. So, instead, I'd like to see the Canadian public become more receptive to the integration of more private options, to help alleviate the stresses, on the current system.

Take as an example:

We have 10 people in line for surgery, at an average wait time of 18 weeks each, from time of consultation, to day of surgery.

A private clinic opens up, offering the same procedure, but not covered under medicare, and the surgery can be completed within 1 week.

3 of the 10 people can afford to pay, for the private clinic, and are willing to do so, to shorten their wait time.

This leaves 7 people in line, for public service, but their wait is shortened by the length of time it would have taken, to treat the other 3.

My question is: Why would anyone consider this bad? Because rich people will get their surgery in a week, and the poor people, who have to use the public system, will still have to wait longer, than that? Because it's unfair? I, mean why should they get their treatment any sooner, right? Well that's just narrow-minded, and very poor logic.

If you allow the more affluent people, who would prefer to pay for their medical care, to leave the lines and seek it elsewhere, it will free up medical services, to allow more people, faster access to the public system, that is their only resort. Sure, richer people will get their services faster, than poor people - but the poor people are waiting anyway. Wouldn't it be reasonable to propose doing whatever is necessary, to shorten their wait times, by as much as possible? Wouldn't that be REAL social justice?

In regards to the issue of private practice draining medical staff, from the public system, I have this to say: If the doctors and nurses are fleeing the public system, in droves, it's the best indication that your system is not only massively flawed, but also set up to punish and exploit those it needs most. After all, what doctor would want to spend the time and money, required to get a medical license, when he is assured that the government will unrealistically cap his income, and force him into the service of the state, or force him to move to another country. You want to talk about fairness - How about giving a little fairness, to the men and women who dedicate their life, to helping those who are sick and injured. Forced state-servitude, is hardly the way to do it, and it's shameful.

For some Americans who would look to this model, as an inspiration to implement a public health care system, in their country - don't be fooled. It is not the shining social dream that Hillary Clinton would have you think, and I seriously doubt, if she would have opted to have Bill get his heart-bypass surgery here, instead. Our own political grand-standers - the ones who so zealously defend the public system, will more often, opt to fly down to the U.S., and pay for their own health care, there. It's nice that they have that option, but why would they deny their own citizens the ability to have that kind of access, without having to leave the country?

All this debate comes at a time, when it seems as though the Canadian public is becoming a little more open, to the concept of choice. The Canadian Supreme Court ruling, in favor of George Zeliotis' argument, that long wait times were a violation of a patients' "liberty, safety and security", is a good start. Opening up people's minds and keeping Jack Layton's mouth, firmly taped shut, would be the next big hurdle.

Update: I suppose there's a few things I should clarify, about my position here. I am not rich. I do not have money coming out of my eyeballs. My family doesn't want for any of the essentials, but our savings are little, to none, and even one missed paycheck would cause problems. The chances of me opting into private services are slim - unless it was for one of my children, and they were in pain. If it were myself, I would suffer, and save our money for other things. I'm sure my husband would feel the same way.

Thing is, I believe that regardless, of whether or not I personally would use it, I should still have the choice, to do so. That's what this is about - Choice. But it's also about responsibility. I absolutely cannot afford to pay $1500, on Thursday, for my daughter to have dental surgery, but we do not have insurance, and she needs to have it done, so our family will find a way to do it, because that is what responsible people do - They make provisions, and sacrifices, in order to account for their needs - They don't expect others to do it, for them.

My health, and the health of my family is far too important, to leave at the mercy of the government, their waiting lists, and the people who think everyone should suffer, for the sake of those who choose to - I work too hard, for that.

Update: Captain Ed weighs in on the healthcare debate.

August 15, 2005 | Permalink

http://www.northamericanpatriot.typepad.com/a_north_american_patriot/2005/08/the_canadian_he.html

[Pale Rider]

Enough to convince anyone it's a disaster... The Problem With Socialized Health Care. (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html)

[Pale Rider]

Socialized Medicine Leaves a Bad Taste in Patients' Mouths



Hospital food is rarely mistaken for gourmet cuisine anywhere, but at least in Michigan it is not an issue over which major political campaigns are waged. In Canada, however, it is—and the lesson it provides for American health care is profound.

Last fall, a colleague of mine visited the Canadian province of Manitoba. With just a few days left before the elections, political campaigning there was at a fever pitch. My friend was astonished to observe that the dominant issue was indeed hospital food.

The patients of Manitoba's hospitals had complained for months about the introduction of "re-thermalized food"—cut-rate meals prepared 1,300 miles away in Toronto, then frozen and shipped to Manitoba where they are nuked in microwaves and served. Peter Holle, president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, explained that re-heating meals was a cost-saving "innovation" of government bureaucrats employed by regional health authorities.

"Never mind that they taste like cardboard," says Holle. "Never mind that individual tastes and circumstances might dictate decentralized food services. Re-heated meals became a symbol of efficiency for the supposedly compassionate do-gooders in government. Why pay hundreds of workers in dozens of Manitoba kitchens when we can just zap up frozen dinners from Toronto?" As it turned out, the incumbent government in Manitoba and many of its supporters went down to defeat. Vile victuals were a key reason.
According to a national poll, four out of five Canadians are unhappy with their socialized health care system. Doctors in Manitoba apparently agree: Almost half of them have left the province in the past decade alone.

How does hospital food become a political issue? The same way anything—from the important to the utterly inconsequential—becomes a political issue: socialize it. Take any matter that people normally resolve quickly, peacefully, and privately by their own choices, turn it over to government, and watch as factions arise, conflict ensues, and problems appear.

Minor problems become intractable because government decisions are financed by taxes and imposed with police power. Government coercion guarantees that somebody, if not everybody, will be unhappy. If people cannot escape the system because they are forced into it, then they will bicker and fight endless and often silly battles. Politics is simply no way to run a kitchen or a car factory or a whole lot of other things.

But hospital food is probably among the least of Manitoba patients' concerns. According to a national poll, four out of five Canadians are unhappy with their socialized health care system and believe it has worsened noticeably in just the past five years. Doctors in Manitoba apparently agree: Almost half of them—an astonishing 1,800—have left the province in the past decade alone.

David Gratzer, a Canadian health policy commentator, published a blockbuster book last year entitled Code Blue. Gratzer revealed that the quality of care Canada's system provides to ordinary citizens matters less to its apologists than the quality of care it denies to the so-called rich. The egalitarian impulse that drives Canada's "universal" health care system calls for treating everybody the same; all patients get "free" care in the public system and are generally denied the option of getting faster or better care for a fee in the private sector.

Gratzer asks, "With health care, is our true goal that Mr. Smith, who owns three cars, not be allowed to get a quick (private) cataract surgery? Or is it that Mr. Jones, who just makes rent every month, gets (publicly funded) heart surgery when he needs it? The way [the system's] advocates carry on, you'd think that it was fine that Mr. Jones suffered crushing chest pain after walking three steps just as long as Mr. Smith had to stumble around blindly for six months."

Thanks to this idiocy, an estimated 212,990 Canadians were on hospital waiting lists for surgical procedures in 1998. The average total waiting time of 13.3 weeks was up from 11.9 weeks in 1997 and up a shocking 43 percent since 1993. No wonder that when former Quebec Premier Bourassa was diagnosed with cancer, he avoided "free" care in his home country and instead sought treatment in Cleveland.

Advocates of socialized health care in America—including the Clinton administration and Michigan Congressman John Dingell—would like to move us toward the Canadian model one step at a time. Indeed, Dingell's bill, the National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 16), would take us more than just a few steps in that direction.

But if the sorry state of Canadian health care tells us anything, it is that politicians and their bureaucracies should not be trusted with the care hospitals provide any more than they should be trusted with the food hospitals serve.


#####

(Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Michigan. More information on economics and health care can be found at www.mackinac.org. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the author and his affiliation are cited.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2748