Socialized Medicine Isn’t Free; It’s Just Allocated by Gov’t Bureaucrats
Socialized medicine promises free, unlimited access to health care, but even socialists can’t ignore basic economic principles:
According to one tally, there are at least eight NHS trusts which have introduced some form of restriction for non-urgent operations on the overweight.
Such measures, which range from patients having to prove they have tried to lose weight to straightforward refusal to refer those above a certain BMI (body mass index), received something of an endorsement from then health secretary Patricia Hewitt earlier this year.
As a scarce economic resource, health care has to be allocated. British bureaucrats target the obese because they’re easy pickings, but they’re not against hitting the elderly either:
The Government admitted that more than 5,000 sick and elderly people - a figure derided by Age Concern as far too low - had been forced to find thousands of pounds a month in nursing home fees when the NHS should have been paying.
The total amount of compensation over the long-running scandal of NHS ‘ continuing care’ is likely to be over £100 million - with some payments certain to include reparations for the homes elderly people were forced to sell.
Kind of interesting to see “big hearted” socialists picking on the elderly since they’re least capable of fighting back.
Free health care indeed! Putting health care allocation decisions in the hands of the government doesn’t strike me as a better system for allocating this scarce resource. If you think your HMO is bad, wait until Hillary Clinton is making those decisions for you.
Archived in: Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Liberalism, Socialism, United KingdomDecember 26, 2007 at 12:11 am | Trackback
20 comments
Pretty soon the Canadians won’t be coming to us for health care anymore. When Hillary gets into office, our health care will be just as bad as theirs.
p.s. love the site’s new look.
The irony in all this is that these countres need to import Third World “workers” to finance the ridiculous system they have now.
Even worse, the collectivist thinking behind these triage decisions contains a discriminating morality, which stands upon the fact that some citizens are more equal than others. Approved behavior is virtuous, and non-conforming behavior must be scarlet-lettered.
Anyone who believes that these systems can function without authoritarianism is either mad or an authoritarian.
can’t you be both authoritarian and mad?
MA’s answer to this insanity mandates all healthy under thirties to insure themselves against strokes, heart attacks, incipient tubbiness and pellagra.
Like the Social Security Ponzi scheme favored by liberal government, this extracts operating capital from the well to service the indolent afflicted.
There will always be isolated incidents which can be used argue for or against a certain position. But the fact is, preventative medicine and healthier lifestyles make more sense physically and economically than dramatic surgeries to rectify obesity. And, many elderly including family members of my own, have seen that surgeries and expensive treatments will not always extend lives when put into perspective of other illnesses and age. And the discriminative morality that Hotspur mentions is much more obvious in a system where money talks and true need gets sent packing.
“Socialized” medicine as you call it is not authoritarianism…that term is much more fit for the Bush administration and his oil pals. It would be better described as a system that favors doing what is right rather than favoring those that can pay.
And lastly, has it ever occurred to any of you that we already have these types of sytsems in place for the same reasons? Education? Health care for veterans? Medicare? Medicaid? And bash social security all you want…it is a program that has supported millions of lives in retirement including many of your elderly conservative friends no doubt. And in a country where the average citizen saves a negative amount of money yearly…dont you think that makes some fiscal sense? What do you think would happen to our elderly if SS went away?
You all are delusional and paranoid.
Thank you for the pithy remarks, Midwest Realist (sic). It’s impossible to untangle all your myths, assumptions, and emoting lumped together in a way that would arouse your interest, but your comment serves as an argument of for your side. It makes you feel better.
We’ve discussed Nationalized Health Care here before, in ways neither delusion or paranoid. There are three groups of people in need of coverage…the currently insured, the transitional, the unwilling and the poor (second group combined), and the elderly. Each group requires a different approach.
That you would include Education and Social Security as examples of competent systems is, one might say, delusional, and both Medicare and Medicaid are headed for disaster. Look at the figures if you have the intelligence to understand them.
The most appalling assumptions you lefties make is not in the fictitious successes of the collectivist nightmares you adore, but in your snarky whining about conservatives, about oil money, about ditching Social Security, and all the other tropes that you clowns use as substitutes for thought.
Try a course in reading comprehension. The post wasn’t about Social Security or Bush. When you’re done, pick up a dictionary and look up “authoritarianism”. The word doesn’t fade to meaninglessness just because you’re in favor of the authorities.
Hotspur, I didn’t know you lisp as you type. “Thank you for the pithy remarks,…” Oh well, we know what you did mean.
Yes, thanks for the response, I think. And the name calling. You really legitimize yourself when you have to resort to that. And golly, you really argue well.
You are wrong on so many points…the point of national healthcare system is true improve the collective health of our people. It is proven that a healthier public is happier, more productive, and relies less on social services. The result is a stronger economy. The point is not to cover the elderly and the unwilling. You have to be willing to think differently about this topic instead of just using today’s malapropism like socialized, or communist, or whatever. What about labor unions? What about agricultural cooperatives? There are so many other examples of systems that are built on the principles of doing what is right for the people instead of what the market will bear.
It is not authoritarian… come on. Healthcare for profit is more authoritarian than this.
Typical, You post a comment calling anyone who disagrees with you “delusional and paranoid” and then get all offended when someone dares to insult you in a reply. Oh, and let’s not forget the trollish comments that I deleted from you that linked to a picture of Bush flipping the viewer off.
Grow a back bone before you dish it out next time. Trust me, Hotspur held back in his reply, I doubt you’ll be so lucky next time.
As for your argument, you say “It is proven that a healthier public is happier, more productive, and relies less on social services. The result is a stronger economy.”
Can you name me one country with universal health care that is “more productive”, “relies less on social services” and has a “stronger economy” than the United States?
Midwest Realist, go here and read before clashing your gums together again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....lth201.xml
Then read this. http://www.news1130.com/news/l.....01452_5180
Finally, get a real grasp on fascism as practiced by the Left.
You can’t reason a person out a position he didn’t reason himself into. Especially someone of this calibre.
He also has a midwest education. A malapropism, genius, is a phonetic misconstruction…the word you seek, and still use incorrectly, is “misnomer”.
Thanks, NER. It’s futile, though. MR still doesn’t know what “authoritarian” means, and Cheshire’s dise dose of Reality will be ignored. The guy’s just no coherent.
Listen, Midwest. The question of universal coverage is both moral and practical. You haven’t made a case for either one, chiefly because your self-righteousness and hatred of conservatives blinds you to the problem and the solution. You know absolutely nothing worth considering.
PS: Questions:
Which former rustbelt region is MR from?
How close is he to Madison, Wisconsin?
Is he a Kucinich supporter?
What does he think of the war in Iraq. There’s a puzzler!
Holy usage!!! I said “phonetic” when I meant “verbal”; although a malapropism can be phonetic too, MR is gonna be all over me on that one. A malapropism: “National Health Care is a sociable solution to bad health”. Correct: “National Health Care is a socialist solution to good health.”
Hotspur:
Ok, I’ll leave you to your little blog so you can feel smart and powerful. But please, practice what you preach.
Authoritarianism:
Favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
{{You think you have individual freedom when it comes to healthcare today? If so you are delusional like I said originally. And a national program would likely expand your choices, not narrow them.}}
Malapropism:
Ludicrous misuse of a word, especially by confusion with one of similar sound.
Misnomer:
A misapplied or inappropriate name or designation,
And PS, there was no basis for attacking Iraq. The scant opinions were doctored up while accurate assessments were covered up.
And PPS, I have a PhD …what about you??
NE Repub:
I posted the picture in response to the ludicrous picture that the author posted. There were no other comments. Touche’. The country? Canada. Here, read this: http://www.nchc.org/facts/economic.shtml
Chesire:
Perhaps you should re-read the first article, are there not two opposing arguments being presented here? And the second is thin and prescribes no reason behind the cuts…but I skimmed. And PS, Bush et al. is a facist to the letter.
So keep up the lunacy friends and keep those heads in the sand. It’s too bad you wont see the world pass you by.
Ooooooh, he has a PhD. That explains the complete lack of common sense.
It’s laughable to say that Canada is “more productive”, “relies less on social services” and has a “stronger economy” than the United States.
I truly hope that some day you have to live in a real fascist country to see how ridiculous your last statement is. Of course if you did, you would probably be fearing for your life for daring to post your opinions online.
I see you’ve been in the dictionary, Midwest. Good for you. It’s a start.
Malapropisms are HUMOROUS misconstructions, you jackass. No one with a PhD (I’m guessing here, since PhD’s are some of the dumbest) could possibly employ such usage and think he’s correct. Much laughter here over the credential fiction. There isn’t a diploma mill in the US, as bad as they are, that would turn you loose with a doctorate. Some committee you had. Larry, Mo and Curley.
Bush is a FASCIST? You sir, are a moron. I refer to you my own post on the word, in the slight hope that you’re not too challengedo to understand it. Bush is many things; not all of us agree with him here at NER on all the issues, but to say he’s a fascist is quite mad. Pathetic.
At NER, we encounter cranks like you less frequently than in the past. I don’t know where you folks go when you tire of making fools of yourselves…I suppose you gather together and align your idiocies for more effective presentation. You seem to have help with your latest observations.
What a pitiful clown.
Yes, Midwest, and by the way. I’ve had the feeling from your first comment that you’re a fifteen year-old girl whose grandparents were hippies.
Hey, Midwest, stick around. Will you answer some questions?
Hotspur, perhaps you are right. I deluded myself about the MR’s antecedents. I thought MR PhD claimed to be a cross dressing eunuch.
FYI MR, I hold a PsD.