The case against socialized medicine

[audtatious]

Health care reform may have receded slightly as a campaign issue this year, as focus shifts to even more immediate concerns like the cost of filling our cars with gas. Although a bad employment picture can cost some Americans their health care coverage, it may also be true that the goal of guaranteeing coverage to every American sounds more like a luxury and less like a moral imperative during bad times.

Nonetheless health care reform remains a central issue this year, as it should, given that the election of Barack Obama would likely pave the way for socialized medicine in this country.

In her Sunday Examiner editorial, Sally Pipes demonstrates how tragic this development would be. She does so by comparing the health care outcomes in leading nations that have adopted forms of socialized medicine -- with the accompanying restrictions on access to doctors, hospitals, medical procedures and drugs -- and health care outcomes in the U.S. For example:

"According to an August 2008 study published in Lancet Oncology, the renowned British medical journal, Americans have a better than five-year survival rate for 13 of the 16 most prominent cancers when compared with their European and Canadian counterparts.

With breast cancer, for instance, the survival rate among American women is 83.9 percent. For women in Britain, it’s just 69.7 percent. For men with prostate cancer, the survival rate is 91.9 percent here but just 73.7 percent in France and 51.1 percent in Britain.

American men and women are more than 35 percent more likely to survive colon cancer than their British counterparts.

It’s no wonder then that foreign dignitaries living in countries with socialized health care systems routinely come to this country when they need top-flight medical treatment.

When Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery in 2006, he traveled to the Cleveland Clinic — often considered America’s best hospital for cardiac care. When Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach, who had denounced a two-tier health care system for Canadians, needed breast cancer surgery herself in 2007, she headed to a California hospital and paid out of pocket."

So much for the “free” health care they could have received at home.

But what about the cost advantages of socialized medicine? According to Pipes, the are "illusory":

"True, other developed nations may spend less on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States does — but so does Sudan. Without considering value, such statistical evaluations are worthless.

And one of the primary reasons health care costs more in America is that we are a wealthy country that demands the best. And, we’re investing a lot more in medical research.

The United States produces over half of the $175 billion in health care technology products purchased globally. In 2004, the federal government funded medical research to the tune of $18.4 billion. By contrast, the European Union — which has a significantly larger population than the United States — allocated funds equal to just $3.7 billion for medical research.

Between 1999 and 2005, the United States was responsible for 71 percent of the sales of new pharmaceutical drugs. The next two largest pharmaceutical markets — Japan and Germany — account for just 4 percent each."

Pipes concludes:

"While no one can deny that there are significant problems in the American health care system, overall it provides exceptional value. The ideologues who claim we’d be better off under socialized medicine are massively wrong. Government-run health care has proven to be heartless and uncaring — and the inferior treatments it provides come with a very steep price tag."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...5.php

[telcoman]

I tend to agree with you that socialized medicine run totally by the government is not the solution.The present system is broken with over 47 million Americans having no health insurance at all and many using the hospital ER as their primary care facility.Health Care Executives earning hundreds of millions of dollars while denying care, and refusing to pay claims in a timely manner to policy holders and denying claims to doctors and hospitals needs government oversight. The drug companies are a similar problem.

Our government needs to step in and fix the problem. Its a very complex problem.Hillary tried once before and hopefully this time around the health care issue will be addressed. She learned a lot and has a good background so no matter who wins the election I'm sure she'll have a hand in fixing our healthcare problem? Generally the democrats will do a better job for the poor and middle class.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

The Gov needs to stay out of it. Hillary-Care would have been a big screw up. Every time the Gov steps in to "fix something to make it fair" they screw it all up and it's worse than before.

[ishkabibble]

Yet another "case" which selects out a few data points and then states a foregone conclusion not necessarily related to them. The writing shows almost zero critical thought/analytical ability.

Just goes to show that, in general, the right lacks objectivity and rational analysis. They seek out data to support their predetermined "conclusion".

Socialized medicine does not pre-empt the existence of private medicine. What the Dems are proposing isn't even socialized medicine. It's mandated insurance.

[audtatious]

When the left comes up with a solution that does not involve digging into others peoples pockets to fund one of their socialist projects then I may have reason not to complain about their policy then.

[szh]

My aunt, who lived in the UK, used to work for the British NHS.

Her biggest fear was that she would one day have to get treatment in the system.

Z

[audtatious]

My wife is kinda looking forwad to it because it makes her job easier as she won't have to give as much care to the patients under the rules of socialized medicine. Of course that is simply from her job perspective as the rest sux.

[ishkabibble]

Well, at least the left is trying to do something (albeit the wrong thing)... the right thinks the system is fine and dandy as it currently stands.

[Soravia]

Just to point out. Hillary wasn't running on Health Care, she was running on Health Insurance, (ie is pay out and not service). And it was more of a direct competition to private companies than just replacing them all together.