[BartSimpson]

http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwy ... -operation

Quote:

It’s a bit like a supermarket manager dying of starvation or a bottled-water distributor dying of thirst: In the U.K., a former National Health Service (NHS) director died while waiting for medical care — at her own hospital. The Daily Mail reports:

Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex.

But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.

Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust — the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors.

He said: "I don't really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off."

Not to be cruel, but the reason is simple.
It’s called government-run health care.

And while Nobel laureate Paul Krugman reassures us that these “scare stories” about health care in Britain “are false,” there is no shortage of them (unlike actual health care in that nation) — and they’re starting to seem an awful lot like truth. In 2008, a woman named Linda O’Boyle was dying of cancer and “was denied free National Health Service treatment in her final months because she had paid privately for a drug to try to prolong her life. [She] was told that as she had paid for private treatment she was banned from free NHS care,” wrote The Sunday Times. Lucinda Adam tells us about Joshua Halliday, a five-year-old with a broken arm who had to seek treatment 50 miles from home because seven closer hospitals turned him away. His mother, Sharon, said, “I was ashamed to say that I worked for the NHS. How can a very distressed five-year-old child with a painful broken arm be expected to be put in a car and driven for an hour and a quarter?” The Daily Mail’s Amanda Lynch reports on the sad case of Katie Hilliard, who was denied a smear test after two requests because she was “too young.” She was not, however, too young to get sick. “[T]he 24-year-old now has cervical cancer and despite a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the disease has spread to her lymph nodes and lungs. Doctors have given Katie at best two years; at worst 11 months,” writes Lynch.

Another person who was too young for treatment but not disease is British author Terry Pratchett. After being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s three years ago, he was told that the NHS didn’t cover the Alzheimer’s drug Aricept for people of his relatively tender years (he was 65). And then there is grandfather Jackie Knight — who perhaps was too old. Despite being informed by a consultant that the best treatment for his liver cancer was a drug called Sorafenib, the NHS denied him the medication saying it wasn’t “cost effective.” Now, what were socialized medicine advocates saying again about how health care shouldn’t be about dollars and cents?

As for the case of Margaret Hutchon, it is notable that her having been an NHS director didn’t save her. I guess we can say that, at least in this case, socialized medicine upheld its principle of equality.

But be careful what you wish for.

Case in point: Walter Williams reported on the story of “Mr. D,” a Swedish multiple sclerosis sufferer who was prescribed a new drug that held the promise of mitigating his symptoms. Well, you guessed it, the government refused to pay for it because it was too expensive — 33 percent more than the old medication. But then there’s something you wouldn’t guess.

The state didn’t even allow him to pay for it himself.

Why? They claimed it would set a bad precedent and violate the principle of equal access to medicine for all. But here is that principle, properly translated: If you can’t save everyone, it’s better to let everyone die than save some.

Of course, despite this talk of “equality,” I doubt these horrible outcomes would befall David Cameron, Tony Blair, or the Queen. And had Margaret Hutchon, Katie Hilliard, Jackie Knight or some of the other victims of statist compassion had enough pull or the resources to travel overseas, they, too, might have found that they were more equal than others.

But, hey, who says that the best predictor of future outcomes is past outcomes? I’m sure that in America, with our 308-million population, huge underclass, bloated budgets and endless debt, government-run health care will work out just fine.

[Mr_Canada]

Health care could be better across the world, and remain public.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Health care could be better across the world, and remain public.

That can be said of many things and while it is a noble thought, it is proven to be impractical.

The example of the Swedes where people are barred from paying for their own care echoes what Hillary Clinton had proposed for the US back in 1993.

Myself, I don't mind the government offering a subsidized insurance plan for low income folks, but I take umbrage when people are forced into it and then their choices restricted.

If a government plan cannot exist except by force and by eliminating private competition then that tells you all you need to know about both the government and the health care plan they force on people.

[Brenda]

What exactly is the problem with a standard healthcare package for everyone, and if you want more, you insure yourself for whatever extra it is that you want, with the insurance company of your choice, who is also mandatory offering the standard package?

[BartSimpson]

Brenda wrote:

What exactly is the problem with a standard healthcare package for everyone, and if you want more, you insure yourself for whatever extra it is that you want, with the insurance company of your choice, who is also mandatory offering the standard package?

To reiterate:

I'm fine with some sort of national health care insurance provided by a government sponsored corporation (the same as National Flood Insurance, for instance).

I take exception when anyone is forced to buy it or pay for it and I'd also take exception to any private company being forced to provide it.

If it is good enough you won't need to force anyone into it and you won't need to force any company to support it.

If it can only work by forcing people into it then I oppose it.

We have Social Security in the USA and you don't have to pay into it if you don't want to. Some people opt out of it and that's their right.

So long as people can say no to this program then I'd abide it.

[RUEZ]

Bart if you're going to call universal health care "socialized medicine" you better start refering to your police services, fire departments, and military as socialized protection services.

[BartSimpson]

RUEZ wrote:

Bart if you're going to call universal health care "socialized medicine" you better start refering to your police services, fire departments, and military as socialized protection services.

Many parts of the USA still have 'fire companies' who only provide fire protection to paid subscribers.

We also have a lot of volunteer fire departments that exist on donations and fund raisers and there's also a lot of reserve law enforcement (like myself) who volunteer to do neighborhood policing.

The military is the only thing that the government is mandated to manage. Police services in the USA only came into vogue after the US Civil War and fire departments became common only after WW2.

Right now there are cities across the USA that are disbanding their police and fire departments due to cost issues and citizens in those areas are being asked to step up to the plate as volunteers.

Meaning that police and fire protection are not mandatory. There's nothing in the Constitution creating any such mandate.

On an aside, I oppose the requirement of Obamacare that says that every citizen has to prove they have health care when the Obama administration says that no one, including Mr. Obama, has to prove that they are a citizen.

[Brenda]

So only citizens are having mandatory health care?

[BartSimpson]

Brenda wrote:

So only citizens are having mandatory health care?

That's right. So there's the irony that it's supposedly unConstitutional to ask people to prove that they're US citizens, but then the same folks who say that want to force you into their health system and make you prove you have health care if the health care cops come for you.

I'm just not seeing how that will pass muster in the courts.

[Brenda]

So residents don't need it? That is ridiculous.

[herbie]

Sorry Bart, the Death Panels already called her number. They just forgot to tell her.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Quote:

Now, what were socialized medicine advocates saying again about how health care shouldn’t be about dollars and cents?

It shouldn't be. But, they could always go to a system whereby they have only a capitalist health care system with private insurers that will then tell them they can't have a certain procedure done cuz it costs too much. Sorry, I'm failing to see much difference here.

Quote:

Of course, despite this talk of “equality,” I doubt these horrible outcomes would befall David Cameron, Tony Blair, or the Queen. And had Margaret Hutchon, Katie Hilliard, Jackie Knight or some of the other victims of statist compassion had enough pull or the resources to travel overseas, they, too, might have found that they were more equal than others.

Speaking of equality, I wonder how many Senators, Congressmen and other high ranking politicos in the US have been denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ wrote:

Bart if you're going to call universal health care "socialized medicine" you better start refering to your police services, fire departments, and military as socialized protection services.

+1

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Speaking of equality, I wonder how many Senators, Congressmen and other high ranking politicos in the US have been denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

Quote:

Health Care Provided to Members of Congress - wikimedia
While over 46 million Americans remain uninsured and millions more underinsured, members of Congress receive health-related services that many in the U.S. will never see.

Few would deny that a health care crisis looms large in the U.S. In a country with millions of uninsured and underinsured citizens, health care has become more a privilege than a right. Indeed, the United States remains the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t guarantee health care to all its citizens.

But this isn’t the case for members of the U.S. Congress. Representatives and Senators alike receive some of the best health care benefits in the country, much of it paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet these same members seem unable - or unwilling - to extend similar protections to the rest of America.



Read more at Suite101: Health Care for U.S. Congress: Politicians Receive the Country’s Best Care - at Taxpayers' Expense http://www.suite101.com/content/health- ... z1IgF42Wnd

Or as Bill Kristol told John Stewart "American people don't deserve the same level of health care as the military."

[stokes]

Health care in Britain is not the same as it is in other countries and I would say that this is the most extreme case I have read about. Even in Canada if you can afford to have treatment elsewhere you are not cut-off from health care and in some cases if you keep your receipts the provincial health authority may reimburse you if you received a comparable level of care only faster.

Now if we do things the American way, hopefully those poor poor people start dying in droves so they are no longer a drain on those of us who are lucky enough to have health insurance....not that I think it is right.