More on the joys of socialized medicine

Gotta pick up the kids, so no comment here.  Read and draw your own conclusions.


8 Responses

  1. I guess the take home lesion is, even in socialized economies, the market forces work. That is, if you don’t pay for it, it won’t be there. And if anyone wants to say “but the demand is there, where is the supply?”, my response is, you are confusing desire with demand. In economics, demand is the money to pay for what you desire. Without the money to convert your desire into an economic demand, you are simply begging.
    And if I sound callous, it might have something to do with the fact that that marvelous “Schip” healthcare bill for children which Hillary and the rest of the Libs are championing, has a provision in it which prevents doctors from owning hospitals.
    They want control of all medicine. They must be stopped, or there will be no place to put our premature babes.
    Or any of the rest of us.

  2. Al –

    Well, in this case, a “take home lesion” may be just as appropriate as a “take home lesson.”

    I recently decided to go back to school to become a nurse. We are told over and over how bad U.S. health care is and that our infant mortality rate is behind 32 other countries. While it is acknowledged that this “may” be due to data-gathering differences, the emphasis is always that it is mostly due to lack of resources and the lack of access to health care. We are told, “there is just no excuse for this.”

    But might there not be REASONS for it? I think there are several reasons but one that really interests me is the fact that an awful lot of women in the U.S. (and Canada) are choosing to have babies much later at life (at a greater risk to themselves and their babies) simply because they can.

    I’m all for having babies but it must be acknowledged that the new fertility treatments are allowing women who would never have had children in the past to have them now, and they often are having multiples. Older women, or women who have certain health problems, and/or the birth of multiples increases the likelihood of having babies with health problems. Hence the increase in NICU and other newborn specialty healthcare.

    What is so fascinating is that all of the people who hail the socialized health systems never seem to realize that you can’t have both cutting edge technologies, capabilities and medications (all of which are used extensively in the baby-making industry) AND full, unrestricted access for everyone all the time.

    Regardless of the system, the resources have to be allocated somehow and in a socialized environment, the latest and greatest probably won’t win very often.


  3. According to the BEEB (TV text news), British hospitals can no longer staff its neonatal care wards. And Germany, which has a complex medical system, has uninsured and is losing doctors to immigration. I guess only Cuba is left as a model.

  4. This quote struck me as very interesting.

    “”We clearly want to see more capacity built in the Canadian system because it’s also expensive for taxpayers here to send people out of the country,” Dix said.”

    I agree that they need “more capacity built in”, but how do you go about it, especially in a socialist, highly controlled system?

    To me this exposes the fatal flaw in socialized medicine: The law of unintended consequences. In a system rigidly controlled and highly bureaucratic, responses to problems are extraordinarily sluggish or even non-existent. Unresponsive and uncaring, the system slogs along. If you think our current system is inhumane, just wait until you experience this.

    Delivering acceptable health care to a small town is a lot easier than delivering it to a nation of 350 million people. The numbers will always stagger you when you try to get your head around them. A socialist bureaucracy, with power and decision-making solely at the very top, simply cannot accomplish it. I fear what is coming.

  5. Of course, expat. Individual initiative and innovation are not encouraged by a bureaucracy, because they are not quantifiable and can’t be reduced to a well defined administrative protocol. People at my particular fed agency joke that the agency motto is “innovation without change.”

  6. I think I’ve mentioned before that I live in a border town, and the number of Canadians who show up at the hospital here is fascinating. When you run back and forth over the border fairly frequently, which I do; and you talk to people on both sides, you discover a very interesting and very under-reported reality: The “safety net” to Canadian medicine is – and has always been -US medicine!

    They don’t really have much. And as far as new treatments, or innovations are concerned – they have zero. This is because, of course, it takes money to experiment, and money to bring a new drug to market. There isn’t a whole world of Canadian innovation in medicine (or anything else – sorry), and those huge Canadian international drug (tongue-in-cheek-alert!) companies don’t seem to be cxoming up with new mediucines the way they used to, either.

    I get really bored with hearing about how wonderful Canadian medicine is. What’s interesting – and again, hugely under-reported – about that is: So do they.

  7. Deana, there is no question that the trend to have babies later in life is contributing to the premature baby population.. It also contributes to many of the other developmental problems, learning and motor disabilities, chromosomal derangements, in short, all the things that require further expenditure of scarce medical funds.
    Where to put what you have, and who decides that , is a problem. I vote for more individual decision making and individual responsibility.

  8. It’s worse than you think. Imagine if Hillary is elected. With border patrols told to cool it, so that more votes can be imported and bought, millions of illegals will come to the U.S. demanding instant medical care of the highest quality. Of course, it can’t be done, but some smart-ass Yale Law Students will file a class action suit to compel the impossible. Doctors with any brains will just opt-out, somehow, and form boutique practices. We’ll end up with a worse two-tiered system than we already have. Maybe Cuba will become our safety net; ask Michael Moore. I am old enough to remember when doctors made house calls, and medicine was an honored profession. Once medicine is federalized, what is next? Atty. Mike Agranoff, Ellington, CT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: