Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
This is England: NHS Edition
As the music nerds that frequent H&R will be well aware, Tony Wilson, co-founder of Factory Records (New Order, Joy Division, Happy Mondays, etc) and the infamous Hacienda Club, died last week after a long battle with kidney cancer. Like many of the patients featured in Michael Moore's Sicko, Wilson, who claimed to have never made any money in the music business, couldn't convince his insurance provider, Britain's National Health Service, to cover the cost of his prescription drug regimen. From the BBC:
Doctors recommended he take the drug Sutent, after chemotherapy failed to beat the disease.
Members of the Happy Mondays and other acts he has supported over the years have started a fund to help pay for it.
He says his condition has improved and he believes the drug has stopped the cancer in its tracks.
He was turned down by the NHS, while patients being treated alongside him at The Christie Hospital and living just a few miles away in Cheshire are receiving funding for the therapy.
...
"I've never paid for private healthcare because I'm a socialist. Now I find you can get tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery on the NHS but not the drugs I need to stay alive. It is a scandal."
Wilson, socialist until the end, wrote an effusive letter to the NHS back in February.
In other NHS-is-a-mess news, Scotland's Daily Record reports that NHS patients are "still waiting up to seven months for [cancer] treatment":
Patients are supposed to be treated within 62 days of urgent referral.
But figures out yesterday showed only three areas in Scotland were meeting those targets every time.
In the worst cases, sufferers were kept hanging on for 220 days.
The figures, for the first three months of the year, show 85.4 per cent of patients across Scotland were seen within 62 days.
The target set two years ago is 95 per cent.
Bonus YouTube video of the late, great Ian Curtis.
(Hat tip: Kurt Loder)
|8.17.07 @ 2:57PM|#
I've never paid for private healthcare because I'm a
socialist
Ha ha ha ha ha... Oh right, sorry.
squarooticus|8.17.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Patients are supposed to be treated within 62 days of urgent
referral.
What?? This is supposed to be some marque of quality? If a doctor
finds I have operable cancer today, in all likelihood I'm having
surgery in TWO days, not sixty-two!
|8.17.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Post is imcomplete enough to be misleading.
Sutent is experimental and expensive. Your insurance here (if you
have it) likely wouldn't pay for it either. And a recent court
decision has it that you don't have a RIGHT to experimental
treatments. So he likely wouldn't be better off here.
He WAS getting the drug, paid for by other citizens. He's dead
anyway -- possibly of a heart attack (instead of cancer).
There is indeed an issue about epxensive experimental treatments,
but Reason didn't couch it that way -- it just paints a picture of
the Brits NHS not paying for a drug. I'm dissapointed in Reason.
Raise the issues, but do it honestly.
Yoda
|8.17.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Hat tip: Kurt Loder
Did he send you an e-mail, or were you watching MTV?
Was Wilson as big of a twat as was portrayed in 24 Hour Party
People?
|8.17.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Many of the people included in Sicko were denied coverage for drugs deemed experimental, like the kid refused a second cochlear implant. As the BBC story notes, "Sutent has doubled the life expectancy of some patients in trials." And yes he was getting the drug, paid for by private citizens. That's the point...So is the BBC being dishonest? Click on the story and note that nowhere does it mention that Sutent is experimental. Indeed, they note that "patients being treated alongside him at The Christie Hospital and living just a few miles away in Cheshire are receiving funding for the therapy" from the NHS.
|8.17.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"I've never paid for private healthcare because I'm a socialist. Now I find you can get tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery on the NHS but not the drugs I need to stay alive. It is a scandal."
I don't know what he's complaining about. That IS socialism! When
Marxist utopianism collides with reality, that is what you get.
|8.17.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Michael
I said that you we being dishonest, not that NHS was being
dishonest. If you didn't know that Sutent was experimental, you
didn't do enough research -- I read it today, and you could have
too.
I don't know the circumstances about the other patients who did get
the drug; I don't know the circumstances about Wilson really,
either, coverage being superficial so far and probably
forever.
If you're going to treat the subject matter, I think you should go
deeper and not just use the first 3 superficial factoids to take a
cheap shot.
I like Reason. I'm dissapointed. I want you to do better.
Russ 2000|8.17.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Maybe the NHS was just getting back at him for releasing Happy Mondays records.
|8.17.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Since Wilson died while taking the drug, why is it an argument
against NHS that it refused to pay for his treatment? Moynihan is
denouncing NHS for not offering unlimited coverage. Private
insurers won't do that here. If they did, they would go
bankrupt.
This was booted around on Andrew Sullivan's site. Suppose Wilson
was living in the U.S. without insurance. Then he wouldn't get
Sutent because he wasn't rich. And Michael Moore would make a
documentary about how private enterprise killed him.
|8.17.07 @ 3:46PM|#
I'm with squarooticus. 62 days is the target? For an "urgent referral"? If you break your arm or leg do you get one of these urgent referrals? What about regular referrals? Man I can't wait (sorry) until we get socialized health care in the USSA.
|8.17.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Yoda,
So am I dishonest (not including information that still doesn't
change my point...which I didn't know, incidentally, because, as
the BBC pointed out, it is drug available to others in the same
hospital) or lazy (not doing enough research on a blog post)?
Cheap shot? Geez, I even linked to Wilson's paean to the NHS. So is
Wilson being dishonest when he is quoted as saying "Now I find you
can get tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery on the NHS but not the
drugs I need to stay alive. It is a scandal."
I'm sorry your "disappointed," and even more so that I don't
exactly understand why.
Russ 2000|8.17.07 @ 3:49PM|#
why is it an argument against NHS that it refused to pay for
his treatment?
What's the point of having socialized health care if the insurers
behavior is exaclty the same as the non-socialized version? Just
the good feelings of paying more?
|8.17.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Again, the flaw with the healthcare "access" argument rears its ugly head: access to what? Two months for urgent care? Ha!
|8.17.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Good thing no one is ever denied the medical care they need in the United States.
|8.17.07 @ 4:11PM|#
MIchael,
Overall the coverage is superficial, agreed? I'd like to know more
details.
Tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery? I'm probably with him on that (if
it's just regular "face-lift" stuff--different if someone was
disfigured in a fire, say).
It appears that most of the patitents getting Sutent were paying
privately, a smaller number were clinical trials, and about 10 were
funded by NHS.
NHS questioned the effectiveness versus the cost. They may have
called it wrong. They might change it in the future. But it's a
serious questions. The stuff costs 3500 pounds a month, about
$7000. I read that it tend to extend life 5 to 11 months. Certainly
the clinicial trials should continue. Also certainly there's a real
issue about when to pay for expensive treatment. Wilson said he
felt better. OK. I'm just saying that there's a bonafide question
here. Wilson likely would get the stuff over here either.
Actually he WAS getting it.
NHS didn't kill him, and a quick read of your article makes it
sound like they did, and that's my gripe.
Yoda
Fritz|8.17.07 @ 4:16PM|#
So, is everyone from the British 80s post-punk scene a
socialist? Of course. Supporting free private markets would be
like, Thatcher, man!
You don't wanna be like Thatcher, do you?
|8.17.07 @ 4:20PM|#
At least Tony Wilson had the choice of going to a private insurer, unlike Canadians, who are only allowed to use the government insurance. [Unless they are wealthy enough to go to the US and pay for their own care.]
Episiarch|8.17.07 @ 4:33PM|#
I have always found the socialist tendencies of supposed "punk"
rockers to be fucking hilarious. Considering that punk was supposed
to be anarchistic, you'd think that they'd be anarcho-libertarians
or something. But instead, many of them are the exact
opposite--they are lovers of the state, big government, and
therefore authority.
This is one of the reasons why I never took punk--which I like as
music--seriously.
|8.17.07 @ 5:12PM|#
of, course punk is liberal!! you guys don't remember that ramones song about socialized medicine? oh, wait....
|8.17.07 @ 5:28PM|#
The only good Socialist is a dead Socialist. Perhaps I could
sell the Brits on a new advertising campaign.
NHS and Socialized Medicine: Making good Socialists since 1948.
|8.17.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Jimminy Chrissmas, can we stop it with the "look nationalized or single payer health care plans have to turn down care" stories. DUH. Every concievable health care system will turn down something. The question is comparative: which system (private vs. single payer or nationalized) would turn down more treatments, and of those treatments which are the most needed (what will be the criteria that determines the turn down). Let's all be grown up and realize this issue is not an easy one. I mean, we have a humongous amount of folks in our "blessed" system which have little or no coverage period, so they will effectively be turned down for just about everything.
QSL|8.17.07 @ 8:04PM|#
From where I'm sitting, the post's point isn't that x amount of
American citizens are without medical insurance. This nugget is
repeated as a matra on a daily basis the world over, usually said
in conjunction with how wonderful socialized medicine is. So I
don't get the whole "But, All Americans Don't Have Coverage!"
retort.
And even if said socialized medicine has its conceivably good
points, the idea that public money is being allocated to face lists
and tummy tucks, as opposed to medicine (regardless of what
experimental stage it's in), illustrates one of the common concerns
with this system.
Chavez is a thug|8.17.07 @ 8:58PM|#
62 days? I was diagnosed with cancer on April 2, 2003 and I was
in surgery April 4, 2003. I have had eight surgeries in total and
have never had to wait more than a week to be seen. I have seen
patients who would have been dead within 62 days. For christ sake,
by 7 months their bones would have been dust. Please explain to me
why socialized medicine is so great. As a judge in Canada so
eloquently stated: "Access to a waiting list is not access to
care".
As for access to care for life-threatening situations for those
with little cash, most states hospitals are compelled by law to
provide the necessary life-saving care, regardless of ability to
pay. So please spare us the "blessed system" sarcastic crap.
"This was booted around on Andrew Sullivan's site. Suppose Wilson
was living in the U.S. without insurance. Then he wouldn't get
Sutent because he wasn't rich. And Michael Moore would make a
documentary about how private enterprise killed him"
I am glad this was discussed on Sullivan's site, instead of a site
hosted by someone prone to hysteria and fits of intellectual
inconsistency. Oh wait...
For drugs this expensive, many, if not most, drug companies
themselves offer programs that provide drastically reduced prices
or even free drugs to individuals who do not have insurance and
cannot afford them.
Of course, if we lived in Cuba we wouldn't have any problems at
all. How do I know? Because the Castro regime says so. Isn't that
right joe?
"Good thing no one is ever denied the medical care they need in the
United States."
Nobody said they weren't. But then again, those partial to the US
system aren't making grossly misleading documentaries in which they
serve as propaganda tools for a brutal, mass-murdering dictator
either. Thankfully most Americans aren't stupid enough to swallow
whole the propaganda put out by an oppressive communist regime; you
were in the minority joe.
It's amazing that the individuals who yell the loudest about how
awful the U.S system is are proposing a replacement system that is
even worse. And it is hilarious and pathetic that they would even
try to use Cuba to bolster their argument. As your past posts
comparing the American healthcare system to various socialized
systems have shown, your ignorance of both joe is so breathtaking
it makes your pronouncements on the subject less than useless.
|8.17.07 @ 9:52PM|#
"As for access to care for life-threatening situations for those
with little cash, most states hospitals are compelled by law to
provide the necessary life-saving care, regardless of ability to
pay. So please spare us the "blessed system" sarcastic crap." So do
you support these laws Chavez? Because I always think it funny when
hard core libs rail against the state's coercion and involvement in
health care, and then you point out that since so many folks have
no coverage they are just sol, and they often say "but Medicaid (or
some law) covers them." Of course our whole point is that
government coercion or $ should step in, but this kinda goes
against the whole libertarian argument, eh? Kind of like "The
private system is great, and hey sure it has these humongous gaps,
but that's what government does!"
"From where I'm sitting, the post's point isn't that x amount of
American citizens are without medical insurance." One of the
greatest concerns from critics of our system is that it leaves a
huge chunk of people with no coverage. None. And if you think about
it that is inherent in a market system (lots of people don't have
houses in our housing market, and that'll always be the case in our
lifetime). So yeah, we think it's funny when private system
defenders point out that nationalized systems "ration" or turn down
stuff. Our insurance systems do it too of course (both have to).
But then we have this whole chunk who get turned down on absolutely
everything. Again though, free-marketeers usually realize a private
system will leave many people unprotected so they remarkably then
suddenly advocate some two tiered system where the government fills
the crappy gaps in our "blessed" system...
The private system is the best, except for all the parts where it
sucks and of course we'll keep government around for that...That's
just bizarre.
Now I criticize what I see as the more juvenile critiques of
nationalized care, but I'm certainly not sold on it. There are
multiple indicators of a health system and we do quite well on some
of these...Also, I have a good job and fat insurance, and any
nationalized system may make that worse, and I'd oppose it (hey,
we're supposed to be self-interested). But I'm big enough to admit
that for society overall our system has some serious flaws...
|8.17.07 @ 11:21PM|#
Good thing no one is ever denied the medical care they need in the United States.
You are missing the point joe... Socialized medicine is sold as a
system where no-one will be denied coverage, because health care is
"universal". We are told that everyone gets healthcare when they
need it under socialized medicine.
If people are going without medical care under socialized medicine,
if people are forced to pay for their own treatment because the
government will not give it to them, what is the point? Why have
socialized medicine if people aren't going to get the treatment
they need, either way.
Unless they are wealthy enough to go to the US and pay for their own care.
I know Canadians who weren't wealthy enough to afford private care,
come to the U.S. for treatment... They got the treatment that
Canada's "universal" healthcare system refused to give them, for
free in the United States (courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer of
course!).
Chavez is a thug|8.18.07 @ 1:03AM|#
"So do you support these laws Chavez? Because I always think it
funny when hard core libs rail against the state's coercion and
involvement in health care, and then you point out that since so
many folks have no coverage they are just sol, and they often say
"but Medicaid (or some law) covers them." Of course our whole point
is that government coercion or $ should step in, but this kinda
goes against the whole libertarian argument, eh? Kind of like "The
private system is great, and hey sure it has these humongous gaps,
but that's what government does!"
I have never written that government should have absolutely no role
whatsoever in health care. Nor have I ever said that the health
care system of the United States is not flawed. No system is
perfect. What I do object to is the ridiculous notion that
socialized medicine is the answer. The systems in place in England
and Canada are absolutely abysmal. Do you really want to export
that here? If access is such a huge problem, why do you advocate a
system where people have to wait months and months for even the
most rudimentary care? For christ sake, the average wait in Canada
for basic diagnostic testing such as MRIs is over a month; in many
cases that wait alone would be lethal. Individuals who bash our
system and then claim socialism is the panacea for all that ails us
have, frankly, zero credibility. Jesus, do you people who advocate
socialism, be it socialized medicine or anything else, not have any
knowledge of 20th century history? Or maybe you lived in the
Bizarro world where socialism was actually a success. How many
stories of huge wait lists, filthy hospitals, lack of basic medical
necessities etc., do you have to read before you finally say to
yourself: "Gee, socialized medicine might not be the answer."
What is even more obnoxious is how socialized medicine's
cheerleaders actually claim that a hell-hole like Cuba has better
care than the United States. It is absolutely irrefutable that the
hospitals for the natives lack even the most basic of necessities
including aspirin and clean bed sheets, yet we are told ad nauseum
how great they have it there. Apparently Castro took enough time
out from his busy schedule of torturing people and imprisoning the
entire nation to build, according to idiots in this country, the
best hospitals in this hemisphere. The fans of socialized medicine
would be wise to stop citing Cuba as some sort of success story if
they wish to have any credibility at all.
As I said before, the Unites States is not perfect as far as
healthcare goes, but when it comes to certain aspects of
healthcare, it is by far the best in the world. The American
healthcare system leads the world in important medical research and
innovation. Call me crazy, but socialism is not exactly known for
fostering innovations in anything except perhaps its unique ways of
duping morons into believing they are getting something for free
when they are actually paying taxes out the ass for it. Obviously I
would prefer it if health care were cheaper, but government
meddling has only increased the cost, not decreased it. Do I wish
everyone had access to health care? Again the answer is yes. But as
this story and 100's of others have proved, socialized medicine
does not provide that access and it would be a detriment to the
things that our system does do well.
We would be wise to look for ways other than socialized medicine to
solve the problems in our health care system. One would have
thought individuals who frequent a libertarian message board would
not have to be told this over and over again.
By the way, do not call me Chavez.
|8.18.07 @ 2:00AM|#
Please see the movie "The Barbarian Invasions" for a critique of Canadian socialized medicine (with a great sense of dark humour). Also do a google search for "King Drew Hospital" and read about the recently closed Los Angeles hospital that was the the model of govt run care.
|8.18.07 @ 3:01AM|#
That the socialized systems in Canada and England are
"absolutely abysmal" compared to ours is a hard thing to show. You
argue they are abysmal because of wait times for certain
procedures, yet the proponent of these systems can just as easily
cite the millions under our system with absolutely no insurance who
must not only wait but who feel they cannot get many procedures as
well (such as emergency care). Yes, it's dangerous to make a person
wait a month for their MRI; it's also bad to tell someone they can
only have their finger re-attached for $60,000 or worse yet that
certain preventative care is too cost prohibitive.
I'm equally unsure as to how government meddling in health care can
be shown to increase overall costs since our system has
comparitively the least government meddling but some of the highest
costs.
To add Rhino's comments to yours anti-Chavez, to say those of us
who are interested in nationalized health care think that people
will get "coverage" for everything is not true. We realize that no
system will "cover" everything. What we mean (or I should say they
mean, I'm nost sold on nationalized care as I pointed out above) is
that every person will have some "system" of coverage, some plan
that will cover some things for all (like getting your finger
re-attached or heart attacks) but of course not everything (like
experimental cancer drugs). Currently our system does not offer
even that to a huge chunk of people, except for governmental
programs and coercive laws. Thank God for these programs and laws
since without them the uninsured would be incredibly bad off.
|8.18.07 @ 3:06AM|#
BTW-the Cuba comparisons are a rhetorical device Moore et al. use meant to embarrass the hell out of our system. It's supposed to be counted on that we realize Cuba is a third world shit-hole: the idea is that if this third world shit-hole can provide everyone with certain basic care then surely we can to. Moore is a fool in his inability or unwillingness to call Castro on the carpet for being a ruthless and inefficient despot. But his point is supposed to be to say "if Cuba can guarantee certain basic care to all, then surely we can too." Of course for us other wealthier nations would be the comparison model (Britian, Canada, France). It's interesting that in these nations the people are of course free to vote out their health systems but no serious candidate advocates abolishment of them (tweaking yes, but abolishment no). They must not be that abysmal.
|8.18.07 @ 7:09AM|#
There is a punk band (or maybe you would consider it more of a
new-wave kinda band...whatever) that was pro-capitalism - Oingo
Boingo had a pro capitalism song back in the day. But they're from
the US, so maybe that makes a difference.
And who was the one dissing the Mondays? They were great. Gotta
love the beginning of the rave scene in the UK back in the early
90's - so much fun and creativity that is still being carried on to
this day.
On topic - one of my friends says that no one should have to bleed
to death because they don't have health coverage, and I would like
to know if there are any actual cases of someone not being given
emergency care in such a case, with or without insurance. This
friend was once a libertarian who has now, for some reason, slid
waaaay over to the socialist side of things.
Anyway, sorry to hear about his troubles and (now) death. A shame,
regardless of all the finer points.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 7:45AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
"Moore is a fool in his inability or unwillingness to call Castro
on the carpet for being a ruthless and inefficient despot."
If someone is going to insist on being a ruthless despot I would
rather that person be inefficient at it.
"It's interesting that in these nations the people are of course
free to vote out their health systems but no serious candidate
advocates abolishment of them (tweaking yes, but abolishment no).
They must not be that abysmal."
Just because something is popular does not mean that it is not
abysmal. Many things have been popular in the past i.e. slavery,
kicking Cherokee off their land, and various unjust wars. Their
popularity at various times did not make them less than
abysmal.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 8:07AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
"You argue they are abysmal because of wait times for certain
procedures, yet the proponent of these systems can just as easily
cite the millions under our system with absolutely no insurance who
must not only wait but who feel they cannot get many procedures as
well (such as emergency care)."
A libertarian does not see this as a choice between "The U.S.
system or socialism." The U.S. system ALSO has its problems.
Problems that are caused by government regulations and the red tape
created by these regulations. There are also problems caused by
frivolous lawsuits that are often the result of a socialist mindset
"He can afford it, he is a rich doctor." I do not know where you
live but we in the U.S. do not have a true free market system. If
we did there would not be so many people who cannot afford health
care. It would be far less expensive, far higher in quality and far
more efficient.
ed|8.18.07 @ 8:47AM|#
co-founder of Factory Records (New Order, Joy Division,
Happy Mondays, etc)
Who?
claimed to have never made any money in the music
business
Oh. Never mind.
|8.18.07 @ 9:01AM|#
Should I be so surprised to see so many un-Reason-able comments
under this banner?
The fundamental question in organized society is "Should any
product or service be provided at the point of a gun?"
Mr. Wilson claims to be a socialist. Ergo, he 'feels' it is okay to
stick an AK-47 in all your backs to provide any product or service
that the "killers, thieves and liars" in charge "feel" are in some
"unnamed public's undefined good". As long as he doesn't personally
have to do the "wet work".
He was hoping 'his medicine' was part of that so called 'public
good' instead of his neighbors. Starnesville, anyone?
He ignored the true nature of the state. He believed the answer to
the first question was "yes". He just received the death penalty
for his IDEAS!
For more on the nature of government, visit my buddies over at
AdventuresinLegalLand.com. Click the Audio tab and listen to the
first hour of the oldest show.
|8.18.07 @ 9:56AM|#
"I do not know where you live but we in the U.S. do not have a
true free market system. If we did there would not be so many
people who cannot afford health care. It would be far less
expensive, far higher in quality and far more efficient."
Of course you realize this is the exact same argument that Marxists
made and make: communism would have worked if only we ever had a
really "true" communist system. All the imprefections were due to
the fact that we never really tried it, or due to the small
capitalist (they would say 'bougeoise') elements that remained in
place. That's bullcrap when both sides pull it. You need to explain
why the US has one of the most expensive and inefficient systems
(especially relative to outcomes) when it has the LEAST amount of
government interference. You have two models, one with
comparitevely less government interference, one with more. The
former has more problems than the latter. To then blame the
former's problems on the respectively lesser amount of government
interference is truly a feat of mental gymnastics (tumble, flip,
roll, plant, and yes, I'm still a pure libertarian!).
The tort law you complain of was of course developed by fairly
conservative common law principles that evolved in classic
Hayekian- described fashion and are based on the whole idea of very
limited responsibility FOR others (if I drive by and see you
choking and could have stopped and helped I owe you no duty under
common law) but personal responsibility when you INVADE the rights
of others. When doctors enter into contract with you and hold
themselves out as professionals they are under a duty to exercise
reasonable care in providing that service and are rightly liable
when they are negligent under that duty. Of course the AMA and
other $ interests feed horror stories to libertarian and other
"market" proponents as if tort law was something bad for markets
(see Russia for a market with weak judicial enforcement of tort and
contract law). And you buy these people's speical interest
pleadings as if being a libertarian entails believing in such
nonsense. Just because they bankroll your think tanks doesn't mean
they are libertarians...
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
"You need to explain why the US has one of the most expensive and
inefficient systems (especially relative to outcomes) when it has
the LEAST amount of government interference. You have two models,
one with comparatively less government interference, one with more.
The former has more problems than the latter."
For the same reason that "privatizing" what is essentially a
government service often is. What we have is a chimera of
government regulations and bureaucracy and an organization of
mostly "private" businesses that work within that system. There are
laws that require someone to be treated even if that person cannot
pay, even if that person is an "illegal immigrant" by government
standards.
If you have a desire to hear a litany of complaints ask a physician
how well Medicare and Medicaid have treated them. These are
government programs with their own bureaucracy that are trying to
work within this private / public chimera we call the U.S. Health
Care system.
|8.18.07 @ 1:32PM|#
As for access to care for life-threatening situations for
those with little cash, most states hospitals are compelled by law
to provide the necessary life-saving care, regardless of ability to
pay.
When you finally start bleeding from the anus because you couldn't
get that thing checked out, the hospital will be required to spend
an absurd amount of money on late-stage treatment with a low
probability of success.
Gee, what could anyone possibly be worried about? Don't you know
that a public system of insurance would be inefficient?!?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
"The tort law you complain of . . . "
I am not complaining of the tort law itself. I am complaining of
the socialist mindset that leads to its abuse both by greedy or
envious patients of physicians / nurses who did all that was
humanly possible to help them and stupid or envious juries that
either want to "Soak it to the rich" or are swayed by others who
do.
Plant immigration rights suppo|8.18.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Joe,
"Gee, what could anyone possibly be worried about? Don't you know
that a public system of insurance would be inefficient?!?"
Yes it would be and so is the chimera system we have now.
|8.18.07 @ 1:39PM|#
You are missing the point joe... Socialized medicine is sold
as a system where no-one will be denied coverage, because health
care is "universal".
Rex, if you can find a single person who has ever said that
universal health coverage means that no procedures will ever be
denied, I'll buy you lunch.
BTW, the reason Chavez and Rex talk so much about the
Canadian/British/Cuban system of nationalized health care is
because the systems that offer something similar to the univeral
coverage system American liberals propose rank so much higher than
ours.
Of course, people who can't discern the difference between the
issue of access and the issue of quality - I'm looking at you,
Chavez - can't be expected to discern the difference between the
nationalization of health care and a universal insurance
system.
|8.18.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Plant Immigration Rights Supporter,
What is that, anyone? Someone in favor of backpackers brings in
trashbags of weed from Mexico?
Once upon a time, western democracies like ourselves and England
did have what you call "free markets" in health care.
The results were so abyssmal that they ran screaming from them.
|8.18.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Yawn. Thieves sticking AK47s in people's backs. You know, the
collection of taxes in exactly the same manner as those used to
fund libertarian-approved programs like the Army, the police, and
the courts.
People who have a passionate belief that something should not be
done can't be trusted to make honest evaluations of whether it can
be.
Paul|8.18.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I've never paid for private healthcare because I'm a
socialist
Live by the... die by the...
joe:
Good thing no one is ever denied the medical care they need in
the United States.
Joe, let's return to our "access" discussion. It's the National
Health Service. Read: No one gets denied. The National Health
Service was described by Nigel Lawson as "the national
religion."
Now, every single person has access to quality health
care that is financed through progressive taxation, that
is, from each according to his ability to pay, to each according to
his needs as a patient.
Ah, the NHS. 100% guaranteed access, joe. But as I said before,
they're giving you access to something that doesn't exist. The
United States doesn't guarantee 100% access to healthcare, yet
healthcare is more accessible.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Joe,
If by abysmal you mean "less technologically advanced" you are
right. We knew less about medical science. But automobiles and
architecture and aircraft were as well. The answer to technological
development is not to stick a gun in people's ribs and threaten to
put them in a cage if they do not follow rules set down by people
who won a popularity contest.
|8.18.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Paul,
It's the National Health Service. Read: No one gets
denied.
Holy unsupportable leap, Batman! Or rather, wholly-unsupportable
leap in logic.
Did it ever occur to you that the treatment this man was denied by
the NHS is the same one he received from his friends, and didn't
work?
The guy had access. He just wan't given useless treatments. He was
given access to quality health care; he just wasn't given access to
useless health care. Not quite the same thing as a pregnant woman
being denied prenatal care because she had a pre-existing yeast
infection, is it?
You can keep making the naked assertion that Americans have better
access to health care than anyone else. Actual data-backed studies
of the issue prove you wrong.
|8.18.07 @ 2:13PM|#
PIRS,
If by abysmal you mean "less technologically advanced" you are
right. Nope.
Please, try to actually respond to what I write if you're going to
call me out by name.
The western world didn't adopt programs - Medicaid in the US, NHS
in Britain, and all the rest - to spur technological development.
They adopted them because too many people could not afford to
receive even the then-current level of care.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Joe,
I was responding to what you wrote. It just was not specific.
"They adopted them [Medicaid in the US, NHS in Britain etc.]because
too many people could not afford to receive even the then-current
level of care."
Whenever you make a value judgment such as "too many" or "too much"
or "too expensive" an important question to ask is "compared to
what?" if the "what" is a real existing, working model this
judgment can be useful. Otherwise, it can not serve as a
justification for sticking a gun in someone's face and forcing them
to follow the whims of people who won popularity contests. For
example, I could claim "The result of these programs is that, in
the UK too many people have to wait too long (some of whom die) and
in the US it is too bureaucratic and expensive." Of course if I did
this you would have a perfect right to come back with "Compared to
what?" What I can say is that some of the very problems those who
advocate socialized medicine in the United States complain about
are caused by the very government they would trust to run our
health system.
|8.18.07 @ 3:22PM|#
PIRS-Look, France, Canada, England have much more government intervention than we do in our health care system. Yes we have extensive public intertwinement (which as joe correctly points out was chosen by voters because of the private systems obvious failures to many citizens), but LESS so than those nation above. Now, are you claiming that our problems, which you seem to admit to (that we have some), are caused by our relatively low level of government intervention? Then by reason shouldn't France et al have these problems to a higher degree, since they have more of the variable that is the cause of the problem? Or is it the mixed nature that causes the problem? If that is what you think then a complete nationalized system should be prefereable to the mixed one we have now, right (though I guess you would argue not as good as a complete private one)?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.18.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
"Then by reason shouldn't France et al have these problems to a
higher degree."
They have a different set of problems to a higher degree.
QSL|8.18.07 @ 4:01PM|#
> "At least Tony Wilson had the choice of going to a private
insurer, unlike Canadians, who are only allowed to use the
government insurance. [Unless they are wealthy enough to go to the
US and pay for their own care.]"
Even if I have some major misgivings about a publicly-funded
system, I somewhat understand the opposing side's underlying
premise of covering everyone. But what really bothers me are the
ultra-lefties who want the parallel private choice banned as
well.
If I'm following the law and paying into the public system (via
taxation), there's no excuse why I shouldn't be able to use my own
'leftover money' to buy supplemental private care, if I want it.
But I guess that would ruin the "equality utopia".
|8.18.07 @ 9:19PM|#
PIRS-so the problems we have with the uninsured here (who are
covered in emergencies under government programs), these are
problems that France et al don't have, right? And they don't have
it because of government intervention, right (universal coverage)?
So forgive us those who see some pluses to their system and
conclude that some more government and less private would help us
with that particular problem.
I'll agree that this solution may make some other face of our
health care system worse off in some way, in fact that is why I'm
on the fence about it.
But it's goofy to think that our uninsured problem would be fixed
by less government, or is the result of our current low levels
(comparitively) of government intervention, considering that
nations with more extensive intervention don't have that
problem.
Chavez is a thug|8.18.07 @ 9:53PM|#
"When you finally start bleeding from the anus because you
couldn't get that thing checked out, the hospital will be required
to spend an absurd amount of money on late-stage treatment with a
low probability of success.
Gee, what could anyone possibly be worried about? Don't you know
that a public system of insurance would be inefficient?!?"
Yeah, because as the above story makes clear, it is 100% efficient
with no wait lists at all.
If history has proved anything it is that huge bureaucracies are
the very epitome of efficiency, totally void of corruption. Or
maybe you are actually stupid enough to argue that universal health
insurance would not require a huge state apparatus to
administer.
Joe, why the fuck do you continue to argue about health care access
issues? I had an argument with you about a month ago and you made
so many false statements it was mind-boggling and pitiful. You
continue to do so. Remember when you told me that my DMD and MD
didn't mean anything because you had a masters degree, you little
twit? You are once again wrong about the rendering of emergency
care in life-threatening or non-life threatening situations. Forget
about bleeding from the anus, because when you are dead owing to a
seven month wait, your anus will become terminally
irrelevant.
"can't be expected to discern the difference between the
nationalization of health care and a universal insurance
system."
Actually, I can discern quite well. That is why I criticize
nationalization of health care in an article about England. What I
find quite amazing at this point is that anyone takes anything you
have to say seriously on this issue. Whether it be your ridiculous
pronouncements concerning the superiority of the Cuban healthcare
system or your prior erroneous statements concerning access to
emergency care in this country or your reliance on extremely flawed
surveys that claim to rank healthcare quality, you have next to no
credibility on the subject.
"Actual data-backed studies of the issue prove you wrong"
Why don't you cite them for us then. You will probably cite the WHO
survey and once again the people on this board will have to smack
you down because that survey and all the others place entirely too
much emphasis on factors that are outside the realm of the
healthcare system. Any survey that can claim Canada has minimal
waiting periods is simply not serious.
Chavez is a thug|8.18.07 @ 10:16PM|#
But it's goofy to think that our uninsured problem would be
fixed by less government, or is the result of our current low
levels (comparitively) of government intervention, considering that
nations with more extensive intervention don't have that
problem.
Why is the number of uninsured cited as the be-all end-all of
healthcare quality by some on this board? Quite a few of the
individuals in this country choose not to have insurance because
they do not want to pay for it, even though they could easily
afford it. As a million freakin people have pointed out on these
boards, lack of insurance does not mean you do not receive medical
care.
If the numbers of uninsured in this country are to believed, 260
million people in this country are insured. That is five times the
entire population of England. Please do not try to claim with a
straight face that nationalizing a health care system that huge or
even providing insurance to those 45 million people would not
result in catastrophic wait lists. Wait lists do not equal access.
The fans of socialized medicine in this country do not seem to want
to accept that fact.
Furthermore, the bureaucracies necassary to run such a system would
be rife with corruption and political favoritism. If you think our
tax system is overly complicated because of pandering politicians,
I would hate to see the havoc those idiots in Washington could
wreak with our health care system, if given more power. For god
sake's, how much "ink" has been spilled on these boards, by people
of all political persuasions, concerning how generally horrible our
politicians are. Do you really want to give those idiots more
control over something so important as healthcare? I sure as hell
don't.
Chavez is a thug|8.18.07 @ 10:18PM|#
The 1st paragraph in the above post of mine should be enclosed in quotation marks, as it is a direct quotation of someone else's recent post.
GILMORE|8.19.07 @ 2:03AM|#
Was Wilson as big of a twat as was portrayed in 24 Hour
Party People?
Probably not. I liked that movie and thought it actually offered
some angles of sympathy towards him. But the movie needed to make
him into a one-dimensional dick to make it the funny movie it
was.
|8.19.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Plant Immigration Rights Supporter,
if the "what" is a real existing, working model this judgment
can be useful. Otherwise, it can not serve as a justification for
sticking a gun in someone's face and forcing them to follow the
whims of people who won popularity contests.
Your purple prose aside - I've been paying taxes all my life, never
had a gun stuck in my face - SAYS WHO? You?
So what? You didn't win any elections. Democracy is the worst
system in the world, except for all the others.
|8.19.07 @ 12:25PM|#
You're right, Chavez-lover. I should stop arguing with you about health care. You're utterly incapable of understanding and considering the actual points I make, and constantly pointing out that you're making arguments up and assigning them so me so you might have a chance of holding your own has grown tiresome.
Citizen of Ancapistan|8.19.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Joe,
What I see as the great irony of democratic socialism (i.e. a
democracy with socialized medicine) is that if enough people care
about an issue that polititians sit up and listen and do something
about it you don't need the government to do it anyway. If people
who care about medical care for the poor donate money to political
campaigns, protest in front of the capital building(s), distribute
bumper stickers, go door to door with perticians and vote in
popularity contests why could they not put all of that time, energy
andmoney into actually doing something about it themselves? Why do
they need to authorize people who won popularity contests to stick
guns in peoples faces????
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.19.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Joe,
"Your purple prose aside - I've been paying taxes all my life,
never had a gun stuck in my face - SAYS WHO? You?"
I thought you would understand this but it is a metaphore.
"So what? You didn't win any elections. Democracy is the worst
system in the world, except for all the others."
Really? Tell me. Do you follow the democratic model for most things
in your life? Do you poll your neighbours to decide where to go for
dinner? Do you hold a straw poll to decide whom you should date? If
you get married and still deeply love your spouse after four years,
do you then hold an election consisting of your neighbors to decide
if you should stick with him / her after another four years?
Democracy may be the best POLITICAL system but it is not the best
way of deciding how to run any aspect of your life.
|8.19.07 @ 12:50PM|#
It's a lame methphor, and a cheesy attempt to seize the
rhetorical highground.
And the government's policy towards health care is not a part of my
private life, but of public policy.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.19.07 @ 1:10PM|#
What happens if I refuse to pay my taxes? Some people in
costumes with guns will throw me in a car and take me to a cage.
What happens if I don't like what these people in costumes are
doing and resist? The more I resist the more force they will use
and eventually they will shoot me, they will kill me. What happens
if I somehow escape from the cage they put me in? They will call me
a fugitive and come after me with guns. The more I resist, the more
force they will use. If I resist enough they are willing to kill
me.
Now, does this make it more clear why I call this sticking a gun in
your face? They are.
You say your health is not part of your private life? This is very
strange. I consider the inner workings of my body to be very
private, very personal. How much more "personal" can you get? A
physician is usually the only person besides a spouse or lover who
gets to see any part of your body just by asking.
|8.19.07 @ 1:28PM|#
A libertarian government would equally throw you in prison if
you refused to pay the taxes that funded the military and courts.
So what?
I never misunderstood why you deploy that lame metaphor, just
pointed out how lame it is.
Do courts, the military, and police become immoral because taxes
are involuntary?
You say your health is not part of your private
life?
Nope, I didn't. Why don't you take another crack at what I wrote,
and see if you can figure out what I actually said was not a part
of my private life.
I'll give you a hint: it's the seven words that appear immediately
before "is not a part of my private life."
You're really trying to drive home how determined you are to battle
straw men, aren't you?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.19.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I did not say I supported any form of government, "libertarian"
or otherwise.
Why is it "lame" to point out the method of enforcement of
government laws? It is the gun at the end of the arm of someone
wearing a costume.
If the government has a "policy towards health care", the
government is involved in your health. If you are skeptical about
trusting the government with your phone records you should be
doubly skeptical about trusting the government with your health
records. If the person holding a scalpel over your chest works for
the government, the politicians have your life in their hands. I do
not want to give that much power to politicians.
|8.19.07 @ 2:03PM|#
OK, PIRS, if you are a principles anarchist, then I take it
back.
Too often, I see this "point of a gun," "taxation is theft"
nonsense put out by libertarians, who aren't even the slightest bit
shy about collecting taxes (coercively! With FORCE!! At
GUNPOINT!!!) to fund those government actions they support, but
pretend to be aghast at the thought of exactly the same methods of
tax collection when the government carries out a program they
personally disagree with.
BTW, I don't believe in making health-care-providers civil
servants, like in Britain. We've seen the shortcomings of that
system. I support something more similar to the French system,
where the providers are private but the insurance is publicly
funded.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.19.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Because there is so much overlap, many anarco-capitalists do not mind working with libertarians, even within the L.P. if they believe doing so will ultimately either increase overall liberty or prevent / slow the overall reduction in liberty. Likewise, most libertarians I have met, even non-anarchists do not mind the help. Also, many anarco-capitalists (including myself) started out as non-anarchist-libertarians. One odd result of this is that very often we adopt one another's arguments and ideas for increasing liberty. Sometimes it works very well, other times not-so-much.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|8.19.07 @ 2:50PM|#
"I support something more similar to the French system, where
the providers are private but the insurance is publicly
funded."
I have not studied the French system, perhaps I should, but it
sounds very much like what some sundry conservatives try to do when
they "privatize" what is essentially a government service. This
causes its own kinds of problems. Bribery, kickbacks,
no-bi-contracts and the kind of scandals you see at Walter Reid
Medical Center. I am a strong supporter of free market health care
but at least with a complete government operated system you would
have a kind of accountability that does not exist in a chimera
system.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245