NHS Meltdown: Spending Doubles for Bureaucracy
It would be one thing if the NHS bureaucrats were delivering improved care. But for years now, under the general heading "NHS Meltdown," I have chronicled failure after sometimes deadly failure of the socialized medical service to the people of the UK. But that hasn't stopped spending for centralized controllers from shooting through the stratosphere. From the story:
Government spending on central bureaucracy in the health service has more than doubled in five years, research has found.
Opposition politicians said the figures demonstrated that the NHS had become a "bureaucratic black hole" under Labour, with money diverted away from the front line to pay an increasing army of administrators.
And get this!
The report found that while staff numbers rose by 18 per cent in five years, the amount spent on them rose by 48 per cent. The rise in the number of administrators outstripped the rise in numbers of doctors and nurses.
Ai, yi, yi: If half of this is true--and the NHS disputes--centralized control is clearly not the way to go. And certainly, we don't want utilitarian bioethicists calling the shots as to who gets care and what procedures are or are not covered--as happens in the UK with the Orwellian named National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Alas, there are reports that the foundations for just such a committee have already been laid here in the USA--and they would apply to both public and private health care. The expected denials have also been filed.
I am told by sources closely connected to Big Time Washington DC to expect a law requiring universal coverage to pass this year. The red lights are blinking like mad and the sirens are blaring about what kind of system we should work hard to avoid. Then there are the intractable issues of whether to include abortion in basic coverage, illegal aliens, mental health, etc. And make no mistake: Futile Care Theory will be part of this mess.
If mandatory universal coverage gets pushed this year, and it is unlikely to be next year because of the elections, it is going to be an A # 1 political conflagration.
I am told by sources closely connected to Big Time Washington DC to expect a law requiring universal coverage to pass this year. The red lights are blinking like mad and the sirens are blaring about what kind of system we should work hard to avoid. Then there are the intractable issues of whether to include abortion in basic coverage, illegal aliens, mental health, etc. And make no mistake: Futile Care Theory will be part of this mess.
If mandatory universal coverage gets pushed this year, and it is unlikely to be next year because of the elections, it is going to be an A # 1 political conflagration.
Labels: NHS Meltdown. Bureaucrats. Increased Costs. USA Health Care Controversies.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:39 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Or why not look just to the north to Canada, where we wait 4 to 6 months to see a specialist? Granted some things are speeded up, such as unusual mammograms get follow up quicker, but an unusual EEG took me 4 months to see a cardiac specialist.
Those who want universal healthcare are not aware that it really does not function as well as private health care.
Now, I am not saying that those who cannot afford health insurance should not be treated, there has to be a humane approach to this.
But universal health care seems to result in the poor waiting for hours in emergency for things that could be treated in a doctor's visit; it appears to them to be easier to use the services of the hospital, thereby costing the system more and more.
Of course Futile Care will be part of the mess. Unfortunately, I think the universal health care thing will pass, if people have become as much sheep as they seem to have become. It's downright unAmerican. But people have been brainwashed into health insurance, which only makes health care more expensive, which makes them fear not having health insurance. This is just the next step.
I don't believe in health insurance; I just said why, plus I don't like the idea of giving up independence and having one's interests mixed in with others' that way, nor do I care for gambling, and insurance is a lottery kind of thing -- and the house always wins. I'm lucky, I know, basically healthy and sturdy, at least up to now; the way I look at it, if something happens to me it's either my own fault and my own responsibility, or someone else's, in which case that's what negligence law is for. But a lot of people aren't willing to look at it that way, and that's how we've lost our rights; insurance is a fear-based industry; people think they are taking a gamble by not carrying it, not that they are giving up their freedom by having it. Give up one freedom, others are lost, and it ends up with futile care theory and a universal health plan. Is everyone going to have to do this? Like taxes? Crimony! Is there anywhere to go, I mean another country, if it passes where one can just find a good doctor and pay him or her? Of course it's going to pass. It started a long time ago when if you went to a doctor's office and they asked how you were going to pay and you told them with money, here it is, they had no idea what to do, only how to handle insurance forms. The culture of insurance takes hold, the culture of other shibboleths do, next thing you know there is "palliative care" and an "endoflife" culture and everyone has a "living will" and there are "ethics committees" and nine million social workers and administrators are running a hospital instead of doctors, who aren't even what doctors are supposed to be any more. Get rid of insurance and "medical billing specialists" no longer have to be paid; how much integrity and sense can people hold onto when to have a job, they have to do that. Can't they teach kindergarten or raise children or work in a factory or on a farm and do something productive instead? That would reduce medical costs right there. Why can't a person just go to the doctor or hospital and pay? If they want universal health care, why not get rid of "coverage" and set aside a bunch of tax money and when someone needs health care just give them the money? If people can't be trusted on that level without nine million verifiers of every reason they go to the doctor or hospital, why provide health care for them anyway, to perpetuate a society of cheats? If people have to be told to have medical savings accounts, are they really smart enough to deserve health care in the first place? (I know, sounds like Singer, but my point here has to do with nanny government.) There shouldn't have to be an "alternative" to insurance; just get rid of the insurance companies -- and we'll live a lot longer. They don't have them in places where people live to advanced ages in good health and they don't seem to need hospitals and nursing homes the way we do, and they do just fine. Medicine is a profession, not a business, and unless that concept is revived, it doesn't matter whether it's what we've got now, or universal health care; it's still going to be a mess. Meanwhile, how dare they tell me I have to have insurance, or anyone else that they do. How dare they.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home