Tell This to Michael Moore
A young UK woman named Laura Price, age 30, has died waiting for a vital brain scan from the NHS. From the story:
I agree that the US system is badly in need of reform. But a socialized system like that in the UK ain't the answer.Laura Price...was found dead in her home just hours after she had been discharged from casualty. The evening before she died, Miss Price...had begged a junior A&E doctor for anti-seizure drugs but had been told they could only be prescribed by a neurologist.
Two days earlier she had visited a specialist at Charing Cross hospital and was told she would have to wait six weeks [emphasis mine] for a brain scan. She had felt "concerned and afraid" at having to wait that length of time for a test before being treated for a recurrence of childhood epilepsy, Westminster coroner's court heard.
She had not had a seizure for more than 10 years, but after a series of "strange episodes", including a numb face and flashing lights in her vision, she had visited her GP and was referred to the specialist.
Labels: NHS. Inadequate Care.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 6:24 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
Wow. That's astounding. Do you have a link to the full story, or is it subscription only or something like that?
Forgot the link. Sorry. It's up.
I find it very interesting that just about every bio-ethicist I know personally or I have read about does not support socialized medicine. End-of-life issues are probably the main reason for this, although the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to pay for your own health care, but you can for your pets, is also relevant.
Ethics is an issue that the political left seems to be ignoring, but then again, its the political left that have been consistant advocates for abortion, human cloning, and embryo research. Even the Trans-humanists are socialists!
I think it has to do with a fundamental philisophical divide between left and right. social justice vs moral justice; equality vs. liberty, material determinism vs personal responsibility, flesh vs soul...ect
It seems the left places too much value on all things material or functional, and do not even consider anything to have absolute intrinsic moral value (other than the concept of material equality of course!)
It's not really fair to the debate to consider Britain as the example of a socialised system when there are so many more effective subsidized or socialised systems out there - including most of the 20 countries with better outcomes than the US.
Having your insurance company/employer decide what procedures you can and cannot have is not much better. If she was in the US, the neurologist would probably have not been in her network, and she would have died while waiting for the insurance company to agree to direct her to one.
Speaking as a Canadian expat in the US, for all the flaws in my native countries system, I'd take it any day. At least then I had access to wellness care to prevent serious illness. Now I have no insurance (can't afford it), plus I pay twice as much as the insurance companies any time I do visit a doctor or hospital. Thank God I'm young and relatively healthy still!
Kate: Canada's isn't good either. I was in Toronto a few years ago and the headline in the Globe and Mail was that 900,000 Ontario residents couldn't get their own primary care physician, and so they might as well have been uninsured. Plus long waits for surgeries etc.
We need a mixed system, I think. What I call a combination of Ralph Nader and Steve Forbes: Mixing public protection for catastrophic cases, subsidized private insurance (like the Medicare drug benefit) with various preset national coverages, and health savings accounts with fair-sized co-payments to prevent over-utilization.
There's always going to be less medical care available than meets immediate demand, so the only question is what system is used to control access. Socialized medical insurance is not a panacea to be sure, but it is demonstrably better than the US system in pretty much every case.
And it certainly makes more sense given your ideology. If all human lives are equally exceptional and valuable, then they ought to have equal access to medical care.
Except socialized systems ration against the weak. And rationing rewards the politically powerful groups at the expense of the politically weak.
I do indeed want people have access to a basic level of health care. The question is how best to get there.
There are going to be very big hurdles to get over to get anything passed.
1. Are illegal immigrants to be included in coverage other than for emergency care? Explosive politically.
2. Is abortion going to be covered? Push for yes, and the pro lifers will stop passage. Push for no and the pro choicers will stop passage.
3. Is mental health going to be covered? If so, to what extent?
I will reiterate: I think the best way to get a plan that would cover most people in the country--which is the goal--is for there to be subsidized private national policies-doing away with state-by-state underwriting--similar to the way Medicare prescription coverage was established (now with an 80% plus approval rating in polls) or Medi-gap policies. The standard coverage would be basic, with increased coverages at extra cost. There would be deductibles and co-payments and the right to medical savings accounts to cover those expenses. Have the Feds guarantee catastrophic costs to ensure that the insurance stays relatively affordable. If necessary, create a hard-to-insure pool that all carriers would underwrite and continue Medicaid for the poor.
Except socialized systems ration against the weak. And rationing rewards the politically powerful groups at the expense of the politically weak.
And capitalistic systems work at the expense of the economically weak. The difference is that socialized systems are at least equitable in theory, whereas capitalist systems don't even try.
It's probably not worth debating the fine points of health policy here -- I agree that it's going to be incredibly hard to make any changes at all to our very broken system.
But I am somewhat surprised that you are not more enthusiastic about universal health care. Does human exceptionalism only apply to those carrying an insurance card?
Moore's movie vastly oversimplifies the issues and his portrait of France as a healthcare paradise is not very believable. And yet -- when I got sick in Paris decades ago, they took excellent care of me, no questions asked. A French tourist who came down with a serious illness in New York would, in all probability, be denied care. Which system has more respect for basic and universal humanity?
I used to be for universal health care. Remember, I am a Naderite. I just don't think it works. I would like to learn more about the German and French systems which might be better. But from what I have seen, I think a mixed system is the best we can hope for. And done right, it would cover almost everyone, at least to some degree. Even you don't want pure socialized medicine, I assume. Canada, is a mixed system at the delivery end, after all.
It works reasonably well in other countries. Which is not to say it would here even if it could get past the political hurdles. If I had my druthers I'd probably go for single payer universal health care, which people would be free to supplement if they wanted. There ought to be no reason we can't do what every other industrialized country manages to do.
If we can have a socialised fire department and a socialised police department, why can't we also have socialised health care?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home