| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| National health insurance: the wrong Rx |
| 2005-03-22 |
| Preaching to the choir, I know. But still a good piece. EFL. THERE IS a bumper sticker on the car ahead of me as I drive down Interstate 93. In white letters on a navy background, it proclaims: "Single-Payer Health Care!" That's it. There is no argument, no attempt at logic or emotion or humor -- just an impatient demand for the drastic transformation of one-seventh of the US economy. And note the exclamation point. That is to communicate earnestness, certitude, and indignation -- classic elements of the liberal approach to policymaking: When promoting radical change, passion and good intentions are what matter most. Real-world consequences count for far less. As it happens, the real-world consequences of single-payer healthcare -- also known as socialized medicine or national health insurance -- are well-documented. Single-payer care exists in Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and much of Western Europe. And wherever it has been tried, writes John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, ''rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain.'' *snip* Lengthy waits are not trivial. Delays in Britain for colon cancer treatment are so protracted that 20 percent of cases considered curable at the time of diagnosis are incurable by the time of treatment. Last year a lawsuit was filed against 12 Quebec hospitals on behalf of 10,000 breast-cancer patients who had to wait more than eight weeks for radiation therapy. A ''right to healthcare?'' Socialized medicine guarantees only the right to stand in line -- and often to get sicker while you wait. That'll go over really well with most Americans. NOT. But when you finally do get to the head of the line in a single-payer country, at least the quality of the care you receive will be top-notch, right? Alas, wrong. During your last medical appointment, did the doctor have more than 20 minutes for you? The answer is yes for 30 percent of Americans -- but for only 20 percent of Canadians, 12 percent of Australians, and 5 percent of Britons. Because the number of doctors in Canada is artificially restricted, the country suffers from overstressed physicians and undertreated patients. Thus, while the average US doctor sees 2,222 patients annually, the average Canadian doctor must somehow make time for 3,143. Consider another measure of medical quality: access to lifesaving technology. British scientists helped develop kidney dialysis in the 1960s, yet today Britons use dialysis at one-third the rate Americans do. If you need a coronary bypass, you are five times more likely to get it in the United States than in Canada (and eight times more likely than in Britain). Access to CT scanners? MRI machines? Lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones? Angioplasty? When it comes to one kind of high-tech medical procedure after another, the average American patient is far likelier to get treatment than his single-payer counterpart. [Emphasis added.] I can imagine the screams if Americans couldn't get medical treatment, not because they can't afford it but because there's a waiting list for diagnosis and treatment. Yeah, that'll go over real big. The real question is, why do the people of Canada, Britain, etc., put up with it? That is why Americans often have a better chance at beating a condition -- such as prostate cancer, renal failure, or heart disease -- that would kill them elsewhere. The Spectator, a British journal, summed up the issue in the headline of its Feb. 12 cover story: ''Die in Britain, survive in the US.'' Hmmmm. Think maybe the Brits are finally "getting it"? I'll have to go look up that article. The American healthcare system is far from perfect, as Goodman and his co-authors make amply clear. But more government control of that system -- and less private-sector choice -- will not make it better. As our friends in Canada, Britain, and other countries with national health insurance can attest, single-payer healthcare looks better on a bumper sticker than it does in real life. If we want real healthcare reform, we'll get the government OUT of the healthcare system. We also need for people to realize that they are responsible for their own cost of healthcare, the same as the cost of their food, housing, etc. (That's what insurance is for.) As long as people think a doctor's visit costs $10 and "someone else should pay for it," we'll never be free of this nightmare. And don't even get me started about healthcare being a "right." |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
| #3 "A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: 'If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies.' " http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=596051&page=1 |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-22 1:15:50 PM |
| #2 From each doctor according to his ability, to each patient according to his "need." Anyone wanna guess how much more need there is than ability? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-03-22 1:03:43 PM |
| #1 THERE IS a bumper sticker on the car ahead of me as I drive down Interstate 93. In white letters on a navy background, it proclaims: "Single-Payer Health Care!" I usually see them on the back of Volvos. Yeah, I'm surprised, too... |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-03-22 12:59:36 PM |