"Idiots Who Want National Healthcare in US, Read This"
The Digg headline says it all. It links to a piece in the UK Telegraph about life under national health care:
The scale of the failure at Staffordshire General Hospital almost defies belief. Dehydrated patients forced to drink water from flower vases, accident victims left untended for hours, clinical judgements being made by receptionists. To call this Third World treatment is an insult to the Third World.This appalling, incompetent management has exacted a terrible price. Anything from 400 to 1200 patients may have died unnecessarily as a result of the neglect. Not since Harold Shipman was still in general practice have NHS patients been so dreadfully betrayed.
The independent Healthcare Commission was alerted to the scandal by the high mortality rates in what it calls an "early warning system". That was in March last year, three years after the hospital had descended into chaos and a month after it won foundation status. Some early warning system.
...This scandal was allowed to run unchecked for three years before the NHS's watchdog lumbered into action.
And the fact that the hospital was able to gain foundation status despite such primitive levels of care indicates that the Department of Health is simply not doing its job. Heads should roll, and not only in the trust - but of course, they won't.
I would estimate that maybe 5% of my federal tax dollars are spent properly. 65% pad the pockets of the bureaucrats in government, and the remaining 30% goes to stupid people who make bad decisions. Even government programs that are not directly labeled "welfare" are still only here because some boob thinks we must protect the stupid from themselves.
So last night I watched some incredibly giant lardasses waddling around in the movie 'Super Size Me' and caught a glimpse of why people want nationalized health care.
Congratulations - if you have made wise decisions and worked hard, the money you make will be taken away and given to those who have done neither. And now, if you educate yourself about food, eat properly, and get plenty of exercise, well, you can at least be glad that the government hasn't found a way to take the lard off fat people and transfer it to your body. But it will take more of your hard-earned dollars and pay their medical bills.
Yeah, yeah, someone's going to pipe up with a sad story about their poor hard-working grandma who has health problems through no fault of her own, and for the record she has my sympathy. But that just isn't the case for most Americans with health problems. Cause #1, smoking, Cause #2, obesity - both of which are ENTIRELY within the realm of individual control.
My misanthropic gland is in high gear today.
Pirate Jo at March 18, 2009 9:19 AM
My favorite nationalized healthcare story is the one about the Canadian from a maritime province who got fed up waiting for a procedure to be done at home so he committed an armed robbery in Toronto bevcause he knew as a prisoner he could get it done.
Another one is the guy who got tired of waiting for an MRI so he convinced his Vet to give him one.
sean at March 18, 2009 9:52 AM
@PJ: How would nationalizing health care prevent you from paying for the fatties? If anything, it'll do exactly the opposite.
kishke at March 18, 2009 10:01 AM
Ah, kishke's back with complete lack or reading comprehension.
Where did PJ indicate that she even mildly supports nationalized health care?
Oh yeah, she didn't.
brian at March 18, 2009 10:15 AM
I'd like to see what would happen if everyone with a Social Security number just got an annual voucher, similar to a school voucher system.
Of course, it would have to be revenue neutral (at the very least). So, just take the budget from Medicare and Medicaid and just reapportion it. Anyone who's already using the old service with be grandfathered in, and anyone who's not just gets a voucher in the mail. And the best part is that if they don't use it, it expires.
No one will have an excuse for not having catastrophic coverage---at the very least.
It would be interesting to see it attempted by one state in the Union, to see if it could actually work.
Tyler at March 18, 2009 10:24 AM
"three years after the hospital had descended into chaos"
It's hard to believe that this could go on for three years without anyone knowing about it. Were there no visitors? Did someone come in to find Mom drinking out of a vase and not complain?
Steamer at March 18, 2009 10:29 AM
If the vouchers expire, wouldn't that just encourage wasteful useage of the system? Going to the doctor for the sniffles because its December 20th and they haven't used up their "share". I think I'd prefer to save them up in case I need some expensive drugs or treatment later.
Kinda hitting home right now as my dad is getting 4 doses of a cancer drug that is showing promise for vasculitis treatment. It's going to cost $20,000 and that's up here in Canada where healthare is "free"! He's been through three years of every other "standard" treatment with no reprieve and so far is responding well to this, but it aint cheap!
moreta at March 18, 2009 11:11 AM
At the moment my family is trying to find a new place for my mentally disabled aunt to live. She's pretty high functioning and very social.
I've seen the places that Medicaid would pay for. She would essentially be living under house arrest, sleeping in a living room turned dorm for 6 girls, allowed 72 hours away from the home (prearranged) a month with a one week vacation every year. The curtains are thick and the garden in the front yard is dead. It's a converted suburban home. Entirely government subsidized.
No thank you. We'll pinch our pennies and go with the Catholic run organization that's on acres of beautiful property, where she'll have 1 roommate, and family time is encouraged.
Elle at March 18, 2009 2:31 PM
WHere's Chezburger? Wasn't this his pet topic?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 18, 2009 3:00 PM
@PJ: Brian's right. I see now what you meant.
kishke at March 18, 2009 3:09 PM
I could not be more against nationalizing healthcare. It's just one more "making life fair" piece of crap from liberals. Making life fair, of course, means taking money from those who earn it and giving to those who don't, or in this case, lowering the standard of care for most to make sure the few get some. Great.
momof3 at March 18, 2009 5:42 PM
There is a difference between making life fair, and making life's outcomes equal
Everyone should have the same chnces presented to them, what the outcome is depends on the choices made by the individual
lujlp at March 18, 2009 7:14 PM
@moreta:
I didn't mean vouchers for health care, I meant vouchers for health insurance. That way, everyone would be able to at least get some catastrophic coverage. Like, you get cancer or some other very expensive illness. Being sick shouldn't have to bankrupt you.
I was thinking about something along the lines of what Walmart starting offering their employees; basic, cheap insurance to cover them if they got really sick.
I was also thinking that it would be a way to reduce the massive unfunded liability of Medicare/Medicaid, which dwarfs that of Social Security.
Tyler at March 18, 2009 7:32 PM
All I know is, if I ever have to go to a nursing home it will be at the VA, and I heard they give you straws for the vases there.
Norman L. at March 19, 2009 5:11 AM
I would estimate that maybe 5% of my federal tax dollars are spent properly
This is not just a federal thing, it's an organizational / bureaucracy thing. The most efficient way to do anything is to minimize the distance between actions and consequences. The fundamental principle is called "motivation".
I'd like to see what would happen if everyone with a Social Security number just got an annual voucher, similar to a school voucher system.
I am very skeptical of government vouchers for anything (incidentally that's possibly my biggest objection to the Fair Tax.) Why should the government give me a voucher for anything when they could lower my taxes instead? (Let's not inflate the number of people so poor that they need public assistance to survive.) In addition gov't then start to think that they can have some say in how I spend that money (example: AIG executive bonuses).
The way to solve or minimize problems with the current health care system is to demolish barriers between actions and consequences. Government might have some role to play but the unintended consequences of government action are so huge and ruin so many lives that a great deal of caution is warranted.
Pseudonym at March 19, 2009 5:36 AM
My father just had a stroke and needs round-the-clock care that neither my family (I have to care for my autistic son) nor my brother's family (with two-month-old baby) can provide. We cannot afford private care and he will have to go into a nursing home when he gets discharged from the hospital.
The worst thing, the most horrifying part, is that his mental faculties are intact. He can still talk ballet and opera with me, but his body has given out. I've seen the way the hospital staff treats him (like a five-year-old), and it sends chills up my spine to think how much less respect and care he will receive in a Medicaid-paid-for nursing home.
All this has made me change my mind on end-of-life issues. I would rather die from a stroke than have 911 called and end up surviving, like that, under those circumstances.
Melissa G at March 19, 2009 8:38 AM
Even a poorly run NHS hospital like Staffordshire General is better than having no realistic access to healthcare provision.
In any case, citing that example as being indicative of the whole system is like citing a certain 20th Century fascist as a stereotypical German.
I truly don't understand the aversion to publicly-funded healthcare in the States.
Aren't you at all embarassed that Charities that were previously operating in third-world Africa, providing basic medical and dental care, have identified the need to start operating in the supposedly first-world US?
Aren't you appalled that cancer sufferers either have to run into debts of many tens of thousands of dollars just to be treated, or choose an early death?
I'll wait until a few of you suffer a redundancy that wipes out your medical insurance cover (or your company stops offering it as a cost-saving measure) and THEN find out that getting treated for a major illness is a choice between the drugs you need or a roof over your family's head. Then I'll pop back and see whether your hard-line stance has changed.
BTW, I'd find it interesting to see whether certain people will continue in their rose-tinted appreciation of the IDF in light of what's started to come out (from the horse's mouth as it were) about the last incursion:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
I'm sure Amy, in the interests of balance, will see fit to post the article extracts.
James H at March 19, 2009 9:32 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/idiots-who-want.html#comment-1639113">comment from James HI'll wait until a few of you suffer a redundancy that wipes out your medical insurance cover (or your company stops offering it as a cost-saving measure)
Health care should not be tied to employment. It's one of the stupidest things about the American system -- also one of the more unfair. I pay for my health care in after-tax dollars as a self-employed person; employees of companies are not taxed on their health care.
Furthermore, I've had an HMO which I've paid for by myself for over a decade. It's more expensive thanks to walking obscenities like Nadya Suleman shitting out 14 children, but still affordable. Also, I got in in my 20s -- I didn't wait for some condition to develop and then seek insurance, and then weep that I couldn't. That's kind of like letting your house burn down and then trying to get a policy.
I know some people have conditions from the get-go, but I'm guessing most people are just cheap (better to spend the money on a TV, etc., and hope you don't get cancer) or they're on employer health insurance.
I have a friend who can't leave her job because she can't lose her employer health insurance.
As for cancer, I pay the highest rate at Kaiser -- although I'm quite healthy and take great care of myself -- because I need to be covered in case of any eventuality. It's around $300 a month for the highest rate for my age group (just turned 45).
Amy Alkon at March 19, 2009 10:10 AM
I truly don't understand the aversion to publicly-funded healthcare in the States.
It's because of the widespread (and frequently demonstrated by all levels of government) belief that very little that is publicly funded works well.
Everything the feds throw a billion dollars at ends up crashing and burning. What makes health care different?
Pseudonym at March 19, 2009 10:41 AM
I have a friend who keeps his sailboat in a slip in Boston Harbor. He's not rich, he's self employed and the boat is worth about $40K. The slip costs him $6K per year. He was complaining one day about how he couldn't afford the "outrageous" cost of health insurance. He's in his late 50's and he's not planning on buying health insurance. He's betting that he won't get sick before he's eligible for Medicare. I pointed out that he could afford health insurance if he got rid of his boat. He just shrugged.
He's another statistic in the healthcare "crisis". A guy with a boat in Boston harbor. A true victim.
Take any figure you hear about the number of "uninsured" in the US and cut it in half. That will give you the number of people uninsured not by their own choice.
That number ends up being less than 9% of the US population.
9% does not sound like a "crisis" to me.
sean at March 19, 2009 10:58 AM
Melissa, sorry to hear about your Dad but exactly the reasons I hope if I ever have a heart attack or stroke, I just flat out don't survive. I'm fiercely independent, I'm now somewhat lame and hating even that little bit of loss. I hope your Dad fares well and there's at least one intelligent caregiver who doesn't treat him like a baby. My sympathies.
As for the rest, I have mixed emotions. I see the ups and downs to both sides of it. I have insurance and still can't always afford everything I need and still have to wait months for some doctors. Plus, if I'm ever unable to work for a time, I will not be able to afford to COBRA and will lose even that coverage.
I suspect somewhere in the middle is going to wind up being the best solution. We just haven't figured it out yet.
T's Grammy at March 19, 2009 11:58 AM
James -
Nationalized healthcare is a bad thing for one simple reason.
Rationing.
In other words, the end result of any nationalized system is people having a better chance of dying while waiting for treatment than actually receiving that treatment. This is by design.
Dead people don't cost the system anything.
If you'd been paying attention to the ongoing debate in this country, you would be aware that the "universal health care" brigades in this country have actually stated that goal as their opening gambit and added a provision to the so-called "stimulus" bill to provide for an office to look for new ways to deny treatment to individuals who are too expensive to keep alive.
Quite frankly, I don't want some shit-for-brains bureaucrat who couldn't find honest work deciding that I ought to die.
brian at March 19, 2009 12:26 PM
"Quite frankly, I don't want some shit-for-brains bureaucrat who couldn't find honest work deciding that I ought to die."
You'd rather some shit-for-brains, lawyer-controlled, bonus-driven ex-accountant in a private company (like AIG for instance) do the very same rationing for you instead?
Private doesn't automatically mean better.
James H at March 20, 2009 1:13 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/idiots-who-want.html#comment-1639225">comment from James HWell, since we do have private insurance instead of national insurance, we have a choice. I chose Kaiser. It's pretty good.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2009 1:39 AM
"Well, since we do have private insurance instead of national insurance, we have a choice. I chose Kaiser. It's pretty good"
That's what everyone thought of AIG....
and Bernie Madof, and Lloyds TSB / Barclays / JP Morgan / BoA / Citigroup etc etc.
I'd rather have a faceless bureaucrat in charge of healthcare provision than some spiv in a sharp suit with a dodgy taste in ties.
I'm a lot less likely to get shafted by the former (however imperfect they are) than I am to fall foul of the latest profit-driven nit-picking 'incentive' that the latter has dreamed up, just so that he gets the Ferrari this year instead of the Porsche.
In any case, I have a choice too. I don't know of one European country (the UK included) where private provision isn't also available. I have healthcare insurance through my workplace, and very generous it is too. I've never used it, but the option's there.
I'm very happy, in the meantime, that my hard-earned NI contributions are funding a fantastic (though not perfect) service that will treat anyone and everyone based on their need, not their ability to pay.
Your country already spends a good chunk more of its GDP on healthcare than even the Germans or French do and for what? A sub-standard package that you can only call on if you're very old, very very poor or an inmate serving at your Government's pleasure.
I appreciate that you dislike this level of spending, and would rather have self-sufficiency over dependance on the State, but your private healthcare system isn't efficient, and the level of contributions required from you (as individuals) keeps increasing annually at a far higher rate than inflation or average wage increases.
Your rates of infant mortality, longevity and survival after major illness are not significantly better than ours either - so how does your system benefit you?
Your system rations the care it gives - it just does so in a far more brutal (and frankly inhumane) manner than 'mine' does. The rich benefit and your "huddled masses" just suffer.
James H at March 20, 2009 3:15 AM
Hey, one more time...
There is a way to "get government out of your life" for the bulk of medical issues: pay for it yourself.
And I think I have the solution.
Here's the message I sent my Senator:
-----
Dear Senator Graham:
I believe I have a model for health care which could revolutionize the industry, improve efficiency and even put you in the White House. Bold claim, no? Well, let's see.
I think you and your staff know the issues with health care today, so I won't bother you with outlining the status quo. I'll get to the point.
We should set up the "Medical VISA Card".
For easy consideration, here are features and points, in no particular order:
1) This card would either be issued by an existing Federal agency or designee to every person attaining majority, and to the guardian of every person for whom one is appointed, or be elective. There would be benefits to this - see below. I call this a VISA card just because that company has all the assets in place to do this already.
2) The card would be usable ONLY for prescription medicine and for visits to licensed doctors and dentists.
3) The card would have a nominal limit. Reaching this limit would trigger agency review of the use of the card. Think, "$20,000", or a value determined by the person's economic status. That could be determined by their tax return.
4) The balance would be due from the holder to the agency, exactly as bank and other credit cards apply today.
5) An interest rate on outstanding balances would be established to collect two things: direct cost of the program, and an investment fund to be used for catastrophic illness and disability. A minimum payment would be required of the holder monthly.
6) Legislation could require preference for reducing the card's balance, to prevent holders from running up bills on other credit cards, paying them and leaving the Medical VISA Card unpaid.
7) Card holders could be setup with on-line and telephonic instructions for getting medical attention, and encouraged to avoid using emergency rooms for routine care. Emergency rooms can require the medical card to divert patients to other clinics.
8) Unlike with credit cards - which purpose is to make money for the card company - Medical VISA card holders could be encouraged to invest in their own, portable (not job-dependent) medical insurance through building a positive, interest-paying balance in their medical account.
9) Make no mistake about the fundamental nature of this card: up to the spending limit, the holder MUST pay. People simply won't be careful with other people's money.
Senator, people understand credit cards, however woeful the current credit situation might be because of public confusion between ownership and possession. I myself am mystified by my own Blue Cross, Blue Shield statements, which routinely say my treatment cost twice what anyone was paid.
It's time to re-establish the patient-doctor relationship. This will do that.
I recognize that a lot of work would be necessary to turn this into reality; I don't pretend to know this field as well as you and your staff must, just to run your office.
But I suggest that this is a good start.
Very Respectfully,
(me)
-----
If you think this is a good idea, pass it on.
Radwaste at March 20, 2009 6:51 AM
You'd rather some shit-for-brains, lawyer-controlled, bonus-driven ex-accountant in a private company (like AIG for instance) do the very same rationing for you instead?
It wouldn't be the very same rationing because the existence of an open competitive health care market would lower costs and increase treatment options. Barring a post-scarcity scenario some rationing will always take place, but in the absence of government control there is more supply.
Private doesn't automatically mean better.
An open competitive health care market does automatically mean better, if by "better" you mean "greater supply, lower costs, more people getting care, and quality of life increasing across the board," and if by "automatically" you exclude external factors like "what if a nuclear war occurs."
Pseudonym at March 20, 2009 12:40 PM
Unfortunately for the "open, competitive health care market", the presence of insurance (which is markedly different from car insurance) forces some processes which have nothing whatsoever to do with treating the ill.
Right now, it's paying the light bills for a buncha office buildings with nary a doctor in sight. Insurance is not medicine.
Radwaste at March 20, 2009 1:15 PM
"because the existence of an open competitive health care market would lower costs and increase treatment options."
Do you have any concrete examples of where this miraculous process is actually taking place? Because it's nowhere to be seen in the US.
Health premiums continue to rise at well above the rate of inflation or the rate of average wage increases. Getting halfway decent health cover has never cost you such a large proportion of your income, and that's a trend that shows no signs of slowing down.
James H at March 20, 2009 3:01 PM
James -
I have no trouble getting medical care at all. You know why?
My doctor takes cash.
Have you ever stopped to think about why health-care insurance premiums rise at a rate far greater than inflation, and greater than the actual cost of medical care itself?
I'll give you a hint - when you hide the true costs of care, then people will overuse it.
To answer your stupid question from above - I'd prefer that I make the decisions about my care, and not some bureaucrat with nothing to lose if I croak.
Offer me actual insurance, and I'll buy it. What's being offered now is a "you pay me and I tell you to fuck off" system. I just don't see the value proposition there.
brian at March 20, 2009 4:20 PM
Do you have any concrete examples of where this miraculous process is actually taking place?
Yes, and I'm glad you asked: cosmetic surgery. It's typically not covered by insurance, so people pay out of pocket and providers compete on price and features. Over the years prices have decreased, options have increased and more people have been served.
Pseudonym at March 20, 2009 6:00 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/idiots-who-want.html#comment-1639379">comment from PseudonymMore indeed. Half of female Los Angeles has duck lips.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2009 6:27 PM
Amy -
Ducks don't have lips.
brian at March 20, 2009 9:12 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/idiots-who-want.html#comment-1639408">comment from brianThey do here:
http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/category/bad-collagen-in-lips/
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2009 9:16 PM
"The rich benefit and your "huddled masses" just suffer."
You've obviously never been in our hospitals. No one gets kicked out for inability to pay, and nurses actually bring you ice water carafes hourly. When possible, you'll be transfered to a county facility instead of private, but private ones have to stabilize you first if that's where you go first. Hell, even felons in our country illegally get care, capable of paying or not. That would be the issue that upsets me the most, actually. If we'd fix our leaky southern border, our healthcare costs would improve dramatically.
So would these "huddled masses" be the ones who own boats and pay for boat slip rentals, and take vacations yearly but "can't afford health insurance"? Are they the ones you're talking about? I don't think any of us feel sorry for them.
Plastic surgery is hella innovative. If you get a procedure today, it will be done very differently and better a year from now. Free market, baby. If only I could afford a little mommy makeover.
momof3 at March 21, 2009 7:48 PM
Leave a comment