Ask Me Help Desk - The Government Healthcare Systems

Mark Levin (radio host and author of Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto) has done a wonderful service by pulling together articles about government-run healthcare and putting them on his show's website.

Here's the link:

The Problems with Socialized Health Care

The problems of government-run healthcare in other countries is also available on the same page.

For those of you who argue about how wonderful your experiences have been in the Candian system, how do you explain the systemic problems discussed in these articles? These articles show serious flaws in government-run health care, where thousands of people not only fall through the cracks by accident, but are deliberately pushed through the cracks.

I know, I know, you will all point out the "46 million Americans" without health insurance. 15% of the American population, you'll say.

Let's leave aside the fact that the 46 million figure has been exaggerated, and is really about 10-15 million (3-5% of the population). I've explained that before based on the Heritage Foundation's analysis, and I see no reason to rehash that again here.

But the fact is that we already have government-run healthcare that is designed to cover such people. Medicare and Medicaid are there specifically to help those with disabilities who are unable to afford health insurance, or are there to help those with insufficient income who cannot afford health insurance. Medicare and Medicaid cost roughly 20% of the budget of each state in the USA... 20% of everything we spend is Medicare and Medicaid, which are specifically designed to cover those most in need. We are supposedly spending 20% of all the government's money to cover just 3-15% of the population for medical care.

And yet that system fails. It fails to cover anywhere from 15-45 million people, depending whether you accept the Heritage Foundation's analysis or not. Those who criticize the US medical system are right about that... there is definitely a percentage of the population that is not covered.

But it is a failure of the GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM that is at fault. Private health insurance is covering exactly who it is supposed to cover... those who pay for it. There has been no failure in coverage there. If you pay for insurance, you have insurance. The failure is in the government-run Medicare and Medicaid system, which is supposed to be covering those not otherwise covered, but is not doing so. Government-run health care is where the problem lies, not private health insurance.

So let me get this straight...

1) Knowing what we know about the failures of the Canadian health system and other government-run health systems,
2) Knowing that the US Medicare and Medicaid systems are already failing to do what they were created to do, which is to cover those who are not already covered due to lack of employment or disability
3) Knowing that government has failed in running such things as social security, the VA Hospital system, and even the US Postal service with anything approaching efficiency,

Knowing all these things, why would anyone push for a government-run health system in the USA modeled on the systems of Canada and the UK?

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

1) Knowing what we know about the failures of the Canadian health system and other government-run health systems,

No failure here. Quit making bald-face lies. It's almost time to put you on Ignore if you continue pushing your propaganda of disinformation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No failure here. Quit making bald-face lies. It's almost time to put you on Ignore if you continue pushing your propaganda of disinformation.

Have you read any of the articles that I linked to?

I think you are the bald faced liar, NK. There are 72 articles from Canadian sources pointing out the failures of which I speak, and you are denying it. That makes YOU a liar, not me.

Read before you speak, NK. You MIGHT just learn something about your own system.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Read before you speak, NK. You MIGHT just learn something about your own system.

I live it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Have you read any of the articles that I linked to?

I think you are the bald faced liar, NK. There are 72 articles from Canadian sources pointing out the failures of which I speak, and you are denying it.

Hello El:

I didn't read them. I don't doubt, however, that there's at least 72 right wing writers in Canada willing to spin stuff, just like Mark Levin does. Do I need to read their swill? No, of course not! For sure, you're not going to read any liberal crap I recommend, so don't come down on me/us for doing exactly what you yourself do. Yes, I know, that's how Republicans act, but try to stifle yourself.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I live it!

So do the people who wrote those articles, and the people about whom those articles are written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

I didn't read them. I don't doubt, however, that there's at least 72 right wing writers in Canada willing to spin stuff, just like Mark Levin does. Do I need to read their swill? No, of course not! For sure, you're not gonna read any liberal crap I recommend, so don't come down on me/us for doing exactly what you yourself do. Yes, I know, that's how Republicans act, but try to stifle yourself.

excon

Typical leftist. Ignore science if it doesn't support your claim, but embrace it if it does. Ignore statistics if they don't support your position, but embrace them if they do.

BTW, most of the statistical information in those articles come from CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SOURCES, not right-wingers. You know... the guys who actually run the system...

You have indeed drunk the lib koolaid, excon. You're not even willing to take the time to read the information in question because you are convinced it's right-wing spin. THAT IS THE ACTIONS OF A KOOLAID DRINKER.

I think you need to change your signature.

Elliot

I notice with the Australian section he could only find 6 articles. He needs to Google a little better. We've had more negative articles than that. And this guy calls himself a journalist? Links to a few newspaper articles about some problems in hospitals doesn't mean squat.

Anyone can Google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-fai...us-healthcare/

It really amazes me how people will defend the failed health care system to our north. Tonight on the news it was mentioned that in CanadA there is a 16% higher death rate from cancer than in the US. HUMMMMM Is that because of the 8 week delay before a Canadian can get chemo or radiation treatment when they are diagnosed with cancer? Sure glad I don't live in CanadA, I would be a widower based on those numbers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

Anyone can google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-fai...us-healthcare/

Well there you go, that proves it, the US healthcare system is a failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

Sure glad I don't live in CanadA

Thank you for that. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

I notice with the Australian section he could only find 6 articles. He needs to google a little better. We've had more negative articles than that. And this guy calls himself a journalist?? Links to a few newspaper articles about some problems in hospitals doesnt mean squat.

Anyone can google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-fai...us-healthcare/

Skell,

First of all, Levin doesn't call himself a journalist. He's a radio talkshow host and a former member of the Reagan Administration. He was, in fact, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Ed Meese. He is also a noted Constitutional Lawyer and author of three best-selling books. The first, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court id Destroying American" is a critique of the Supreme Court's drift away from originalism. His second best seller, "Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish" is the story of his and his family's relationship with his beloved pet who he rescued from a shelter in 2004 and had to put down in 2006 due to health issues. His third book, "Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto" has spent 12 (maybe more, I'm not sure) of the past 15 weeks as number 1 on the NY Times best seller list, and explains the differences between Conservatism and Statism (his word for all forms of liberalism) and why Conservatism is superior in all aspects. It also serves as a call to action for conservatism in the USA.

But at no point has he ever called himself a journalist.

Second, I have no doubt that there are many articles about the problems with the US health care system out there. After all, the leftist media is on board with Obama's plans to socialize the medical system, so any articles on the subject would be skewed in that direction. And there are indeed problems with the US medical system. As has been pointed out, anywhere from 3% to 15% of the US population is not covered by insurance, despite the fact that Medicare and Medicaid exist to cover those gaps. The government system designed to close the gaps has failed to do so, and creating a BIGGER government system is not going to fix the problem. And I agree that there is wasteful spending within the health care industry, primarily due to CYA Medicine or Defensive Medicine (performing extra, unneeded tests in order to cover your butt). I agree that we have problems with our health care system that need to be addressed. But that is NOT my point here.

My point in showing those articles about the Canadian system is to refute the claims of the Canadians among us who claim that their system is hunky-dory and has no systemic problems. People on this board like NK have claimed that there are no significant wait periods, no significant gaps in coverage, and no failures of the Canadian health system because they haven't experienced them. These articles are there to point to statistical data that points out where the failures are in the Canadian system AND that those failures result in worse outcomes for patients than the US healthcare system has. I also point to the articles about other countries to show that this is not simply a failure of Canada and Canada alone, but rather a failure of government-run healthcare in general. All government-run systems have the same types of failures and faults, regardless of which country we are talking about. INCLUDING THE US SYSTEMS OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, WHICH HAVE FAILED TO CLOSE THE GAPS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CLOSE. US-run government health care is no less prone to failure than government-run health care of other countries. It is also no less prone to wasting money... in fact, the US government spends $500 to buy a hammer. I have no doubt about wasteful spending within Medicare and Medicaid.

Which leads to the final group of questions that I posted.

If the system we have produces better results than the Canadian system and other similar systems, despite the US system's failures, why would we want to switch to the Canadian or other similar systems?

By the way, I noticed two things about the article you linked to. The "recent study" by Barbra Starfield that was published in JAMA cited in this article was from 2000... which isn't all that "recent". I don't question the accuracy of the data, just its timliness. Also, for all it's criticism of waste within the US system, there is no discussion whatsoever in the article about case outcomes and effect on patients. I suspect that is because if we were to look at patient outcomes, we would find much better results than can be found in the cases of our counterparts in government-run healthcare systems. So better to concentrate on the idea of "wasteful spending" without looking at the payoff than to have those statistics rubbed in the face of the author of the article.

The final question regarding that article is, if the biggest issue in the US medical system is wasteful spending, which this article's author seems to indicate, does anyone really think that getting the government involved is going to create more efficiencies in spending?

Remember, as I pointed out above, the government is the same body that buys a hammer for $500. The same government that wanted to spend $390 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. The same government that, according to watchdog groups, made $20 billion in overpayments to its vendors in 2001 alone. The same government that, through the Advanced Technology Program, an agency which is supposed to subsidize small businesses, gave 40% of its $150 million budget ($60 million) to Fortune 500 companies that don't qualify for such funding. The same government that pay farmers $2 billion per year NOT to farm their land. And here's the one that applies most to our issue... This is the same government whose Medicare program pays 8 times as much for medicines as other federal agency programs do.

By what stretch of the imagination can one possibly think that getting the government involved in health care is going to make the system more efficient in its spending practices?

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Second, I have no doubt that there are many articles about the problems with the US health care system out there. After all, the leftist media is on board with Obama's plans to socialize the medical system, so any articles on the subject would be skewed in that direction.

If you think that the internet is a leftist media then you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. Is the whole world a "leftist" plot against you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If you think that the internet is a leftist media then you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. Is the whole world a "leftist" plot against you?

No, I don't think that the internet is leftist. I believe that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and most of the rest of the media are leftist. And they post much of what has been written on the subject of healthcare in the USA on the internet. My point is that with the MSM being so leftist, I am sure that there are quite a few more articles about the failures of the US health care system out there. They can be found quite easily.

And no, the whole world is not a leftist plot. Just the Obama Administration and the MSM. In fact, they are so skewed to the left that countries like Germany, France, the UK and Russia are telling Obama that he's going too far socialist in his financial policy.

Imagine that... the European socialist countries telling the USA that they are moving too far to the left.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Thank you for that. :D

I'll bet you would not be so glib if it was you or your mother dying from an under treated cancer!

Ah yes, Obama's socialism again, like the talking points we see all the time from the rightists. (LOL!)

Here's what it looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...37;20chart.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

I'll bet you would not be so glib if it was you or your mother dying from an under treated cancer!

Wow, we went from you not being in Canada to my mother's untreated cancer. Nice segue. My mother is recovering nicely from hip replacement surgery. All went well, staff at hospital and rehab are excellent and we will never see a medical bill, nor deal with an insurance company nor need the services of a lawyer.

SO! My MIL also had a hip replacement about 12 weeks ago. It cost her a grand total of $800 plus a few prescriptions at $4.00 each. That includes about a month in a rehab facility. Health insurance is available and affordable to all who want to buy it. Many people feel no need for health coverage. With the government's history of management, what makes any thinking individual believe that the Government can do a better job than private sector?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

With the government's history of management, what makes any thinking individual believe that the Government can do a better job than private sector??

I agree, your government is too corrupted to run it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah yes, Obama's socialism again, like the talking points we see all the time from the rightists. (LOL!)

Here's what it looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...sm%20chart.png

First of all, the graph is bogus. It just so happens that the government is the single largest real estate holder in the USA owning something like 80% of all undeveloped land in the USA and something like 20% of the buildings in the USA. The fact that they don't call them "business assets" doesn't mean that they don't count. This graph ignores government ownership of real estate completely.

Then there's the amount of assets owned by the Department of Defense... all those tanks, planes, ships, army bases, ammunition, etc. and all the assets necessary to support them. Again, they are not considered "business assets" so they are not taken into consideration in this graph.

Third, Medicare and Medicaid are roughly 20% of the national budget of each state (some a little more, some a little less). The government doesn't consider Medicare and Medicaid "business assets" and so doesn't count them in this graph.

If you take a look at total assets owned by the government, you will find that there is very little blue in that graph and a whole lot of red. And if you look at it from a GDP perspective instead of an asset perspective, the government is currently in control of 12% of the sources of GDP in the USA. If we add nationalized health care, that number jumps to control of over 20% of GDP sources. That is a large number for a country that still calls itself a capitalist nation. But Obama's just getting started.

Obama IS a socialist. He is taking control of everything in sight. The auto industry, the energy industry, banks, insurance companies, lightbulb companies, and he's working on controlling medical insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and doctors' offices. The fact that you happen to LIKE the fact that he is taking control of these industries doesn't mean that it isn't socialism. It just means that you are a socialist too.

Don't like being called a socialist? Perhaps "statist" is a term you would prefer. You, like Obama, believe that the answer to all your problems is more government control... more state power. That is the definition of statism. That is also the definition of socialism.

Elliot