PDA

View Full Version : The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide



tacitus
03-05-2009, 06:02 PM
Bandow, Doug. "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide." The Cato Institute. February 17, 2009. 5 Mar 2009 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981

Health care "reform" is in the air, but to its leading advocates, that means a government takeover of the medical system.
American health care is an inefficient hybrid of public and private, costing more than it should for the care provided. The problem is too much, not too little, government intervention.


The political bias toward socialized medicine reflects a mixture of ideology and misinformation. Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute and a Canadian immigrant to the United States, ably dissects the case for increased public control in "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care."


For instance, government health care programs are supposed to be more efficient than private medicine. Yet, Ms. Pipes notes, "tens of thousands of foreigners come to the United States every year for medical treatment. They're usually seeking advanced and sophisticated procedures that are simply unavailable or rationed in their home countries."


It is still widely argued that government administration is more efficient than private insurance, yet Ms. Pipes details how "government itself is the middleman," with extensive state and federal regulation and expensive cost-shifting by Medicare and Medicaid. She observes: "Studies show that Medicare officials waste as much as $1 out of every $3 the program spends. That's hardly a system worth expanding."
...
Last but not least is myth 10, that foreign government-run systems are better than America's system. Her short critique is devastating: Nationalized systems deliver waiting lists rather than treatments; outcomes are not better overseas; care is rationed; and access to advanced procedures and pharmaceuticals is limited; people suffer and die from bureaucratic and budgetary imperatives.
.........

read the rest at the link above.

Gingersnap
03-05-2009, 08:41 PM
Anyone who follows overseas health care is well aware of the problems. The cancer death rates in the U.K. are appalling compared to the U.S.; particularly for women.

But if none of that was persuasive, it should still be crystal clear that when the State has a paying interest in your health, the State can dictate your lifestyle to its own advantage. This means using a ruthlessly pragmatic calculus to determine access, treatment, and personal behaviors.

Since the object is too provide the cheapest care to the largest number of potential taxable workers, kids with funny diseases, old people, those with conditions that make them permanently unemployable, and the unborn are not a part of the universal "coverage". At least in practice.

The only object is return workers to their jobs.

Since cheap care can return most workers to their jobs for a worthwhile period of taxable employment, there is no pressure to innovate or experiment. Sure, a weird treatment might save a few and it might lead to a wider application someday but it's not cost-effective today.

Look to India to take the wheel in medical advancement in the future. They will be able to experiment and tinker with those who can afford to travel there for treatment.

PoliCon
03-06-2009, 12:50 AM
People don't care about realities when it comes to health care. All they want is to not have to pay for it.

tacitus
03-06-2009, 12:55 AM
People don't care about realities when it comes to health care. All they want is to not have to pay for it.

You usually get what you pay for, and in the case of socialist medicine it isn't much. It is pretty obvious that those that actually want socialist medicine don't have a clue what they are really going to get. If they were smart enough to read, they'd be running the other way. But we know they can't be too smart, after all they voted for change and that is exactly what they are going to get.

PoliCon
03-06-2009, 09:49 AM
You usually get what you pay for, and in the case of socialist medicine it isn't much. It is pretty obvious that those that actually want socialist medicine don't have a clue what they are really going to get. If they were smart enough to read, they'd be running the other way. But we know they can't be too smart, after all they voted for change and that is exactly what they are going to get.Pay for? That's the point. They don't want to pay for it. They want someone to give them a high end antibiotic every time they get the sniffles - because hardship and pain are anathema to these people. They would rather hand off their freedoms to have a little security. :rolleyes:

aerojarod
03-06-2009, 02:28 PM
Remember kids:
"Government big enough to provide everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything you have."