Obamacare will Lead to Rationing and Longer Wait Times just like in the NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Britain has a problem with their national health care.  They have an aging population where people are living longer.  And because they are people are having more hospital stays than people were a generation earlier.  As that last decade or so of life requires a lot of medical care.  And this increase in demand for health care is happening at the same time fewer people are entering the workforce to replace the people leaving it.

So you have falling tax revenue at a time of soaring health care expenditures.  So what do you do when you have a demand that is greater than the available resources?  You ration those precious resources.  And cut costs.  By having fewer people handling a greater workload.  Which, of course, increases the waiting times to see a doctor (see GPs predict longer waiting times – survey by Nick Triggle posted 8/16/2013 on BBC News Health).

A Royal College of General Practitioners poll of 206 UK GPs found that more than 70% were forecasting longer waiting times within two years.

Eight in 10 also said they did not have enough resources to provide high-quality care, the survey showed.

A Patients Association report this year suggested that people were already having to wait longer.

Six in 10 of those polled by the royal college said patients in England were waiting longer than the recommended 48 hours…

Chairman Dr Clare Gerada said: “GPs are grappling with a double whammy of spiralling workloads and dwindling resources, and big cracks are starting to appear in the care and services that we can deliver for our patients.

In the NHS 60% of the people have to wait longer than 48 hours to see a doctor.  Unless they go to an accident and emergency department (A/E).  Where they may only have to wait 4 hours or so.  This is national health care.  And this is where Obamacare is trying to take us.  Even Harry Raid admitted this on the PBS program “Nevada Week in Review.”

So this is the future of Obamacare.  As the US has the same problems the UK has.  An aging population with people living longer into retirement.  With fewer people entering the workforce to pay for them.  So the inevitable future of Obamacare is rationing.  And longer waiting times.  Just as it is the reality in the NHS.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

NHS Wait Times grow so long that the NHS farms out Health Care to Private Providers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 8th, 2013

Week in Review

Nationalizing health care will lead to longer wait times and a rationing of services due to a shortage of doctors, nurses and support staff that will be needed to treat more people.  This is what the opponents of Obamacare said.  While the proponents told the opponents that they were full of [deleted expletive].  Figuratively, of course.

But national health care does increase wait times and rations services.  And to see this all you have to do is look to Britain’s National Health Service (see NHS waiting scandal leads to private healthcare spend by Eleanor Bradford posted 6/4/2013 on BBC News Scotland).

NHS spending on private healthcare has risen dramatically since waiting time scandals came to light, BBC Scotland can reveal.

Spending across Scotland rose by nearly 60% last year to more than £40m, compared with £25m per year in the two previous years…

NHS Lothian admitted it would have to spend £10m clearing a backlog of patients after it emerged it had been manipulating its waiting time figures in order to meet Scottish government targets.

NHS Grampian consistently denied any wrongdoing but its spending on private healthcare increased as closer scrutiny was given to the way health boards were meeting government targets.

Last year its spending nearly tripled to £6.3m. NHS Grampian has the highest number of patients marked down as “unavailable” for treatment out of all 14 Scottish health boards.

Health boards are allowed to stop the waiting time “clock” if patients say they are unavailable, but the number of unavailable patients in Grampian is seven times higher than the average for mainland health boards…

“We understand that waiting times are important to patients and that most patients prefer to be treated as close to home as possible.

“The NHS Grampian Board recently agreed a £16m investment programme that will increase capacity by building new theatres and employing more doctors, nurses and support staff. The additional local capacity will be available in 2014.”

The NHS pays private sector health care providers outside of the NHS to provide the care they cannot.  A shortage of “theatres…doctors, nurses and support staff” has made it impossible for some health boards to meet the mandated NHS wait times.  Their wait times have grown so long that they fudge their reports to hide how poorly they’re doing.  One group of bureaucrats lying to another group of bureaucrats.  As one sets unrealistic goals the other cannot meet.  But the private sector can.  Because when people pay for their health care health care providers have the money to build theatres and hire doctors, nurses and support staff.

So what are the official wait time targets?  The above article links to another describing them.  Here are some excerpts (see Waiting time targets: What they mean for you by Eleanor Bradford posted 1/21/2013 on BBC News Scotland).

Legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament last year means that, from the start of this year, you have a legal right to be treated within 12 weeks, unless you’re waiting for diagnostic scans or waiting for one of the excluded treatments outlined below…

Since December 2011, no-one should have waited longer than 18 weeks from the point they were referred for treatment until that treatment occurs. This includes all scans and diagnostic tests…

You should wait no longer than six weeks for eight types of scans and tests.

These are: upper endoscopy, lower endoscopy, colonoscopy, cytoscopy, CT scans, MRI scans, barium studies and ultrasound scans (unrelated to obstetrics)…

You should wait no longer than 62 days for treatment if your referral is “urgent”.

Once a definite diagnosis of cancer is made (eg following a scan) you should wait no longer than 31 days for treatment. However, this is only the first treatment…

The waiting time “clock” stops if you are unavailable for any reason, but you should specifically agree to a period of “unavailability” being applied to your case and a letter should be sent to you confirming this to be the case.

If you can’t make the first appointment offered, you should be offered a second one.

Both should be “reasonable” – in a location you can get to and in a timescale that is possible, but it is considered reasonable to offer you an appointment in another health board area…

If you miss your appointment and don’t ring in advance then you will be referred back to your GP.

If you still need treatment your GP will need to make a new referral and the whole process starts again.

So, to summarize, you go to see a general practitioner (GP).  That’s like the doctor you make an appointment to see when you think you have the flu so you can get some antibiotics.  The GP refers you to a specialist if you have something serious.  The specialists then refer you someplace for treatment.  And when he or she does the clock starts running.  And some time in the next 18 weeks you should start your treatment.  Unless they note you as ‘urgent’.  Then your treatment is in the next 62 days.  Which is 2 months.  But if they find that you have cancer they cut that in half.

This is why their emergency rooms are overflowing in Britain.  People don’t want to wait these long wait times.  So they go to the emergency room (A/E in Britain).  Funny, really.  For this is the very thing Obamacare was going to stop in the United States.  Uninsured people going to the emergency room.  And here they are in Britain with all the free health care they could want.  Still going to the emergency room to escape those horrendous long wait times.

Perhaps the opponents of Obamacare were not full of [deleted expletive] after all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS rations In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) with Long Waiting Times while Abortions are Readily Available

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

There may be no waiting list for abortions.  But there is a waiting list for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).  Even though both come with obvious time limits on these treatments.  Wait too long and you’ll either have a baby.  Or it may be too late for you to have a baby (see Third of women with right to IVF rejected by GPs who don’t know enough about fertility treatment by Sophie Borland posted 8/27/2012 on the Daily Mail).

One in three women are being refused IVF on the NHS even though they have the right to treatment, a report has found.

Health trusts are routinely denying treatment for women despite the fact they are eligible under official guidelines from health watchdog NICE.

Even if women are referred for IVF, many are forced to wait more than two years for it to start during which time the chance of success dwindles as their bodies age…

Recently a major study ranked Britain near the bottom of a European league table on spending for fertility treatment with even Serbia, Montenegro and Slovakia paying more to help childless couples…

The NHS also pays for abortions.  If the NHS wanted to improve their long-term financial outlook they’d transfer more of their current abortion funding to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) funding.  Because there is only one thing that will solve budget woes in countries with aging populations.  More babies.  Because babies are future taxpayers.

On a side note it is interesting how the NHS works on both sides of the birth/abortion issue.  They administer medical treatment to restore a normal biological function.  And they administer medical treatment to terminate a normal biological function.  (Though there appears to be less waiting times for an abortion.)  Making the birth/abortion issues a complex issue indeed.  And one we’ll probably never see resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.  Apart from the moral issues the economics of the issue are interesting.  Those who favor abortion also favor large government spending.  And it is their most sacred cause, abortion, which is preventing the continued growth in that government spending.  Because it eliminates future taxpayers.

All right, back to topic.  So why are they making it so difficult to get IVF in the NHS?  Well, you probably figured that out based on the previous two paragraphs.  Money.

Susan Seenan, of the charity Infertility Network UK, said: ‘It’s shocking and blatantly wrong. Primary care trusts are just trying to ration treatment…

‘We know the NHS has limited resources but all couples want is to be treated fairly…’

In fact, 45 per cent of couples who responded ended up paying for the treatment privately as the waiting lists were too long.

IVF normally costs between £3,000 and £4,000 but nearly a quarter of those who went private paid more than £10,000 for the treatment, according to the survey.

It’s that aging population and a generous welfare state set up during a time before widespread use of birth control and abortion.  They built a pyramid scheme.  Where the people at the top, those drawing the majority of benefits, grew at a lesser rate than those at the bottom.  The young and healthy workers entering the workforce.  Based on these assumptions there would always have been an increasing amount of money coming into the government (even without raising tax rates) to pay for the few drawing generous state benefits (in particular pensions and health care for the retirees).  But that all changed when women stopped having the babies the state planners assumed they would have.  So with a baby-bust generation following the baby-boom generation you get an aging population.  And large budget deficits.

Whose fault is it?  It certainly isn’t the seniors.  Or the women who stopped having babies.  It’s the state planners who created an unsustainable welfare state.  Because they are the ones who created the great Ponzi scheme to pass the costs for one generation to another generation.  This is wrong.  Even if it worked when there was a growing population growth rate.  Because the future is uncertain.  Things change.  Like family sizes.  And life-spans.  Another thing the state planners never saw coming.  None of this would have been a problem if government allowed each generation to take care of themselves.  Because a family bases their decisions on their economic circumstances.  So they live within their means.  They save their money and exercise frugality in their spending.  But when you pass your costs on to a later generation you don’t save as much or exercise as much frugality.  Because you don’t have to.

As time passes and the number of new taxpayers gets smaller the government raises tax rates.  Leaving taxpayers with less.  Making it harder to support themselves.  Which leaves them little choice but to demand more from government.  Which only makes the problem worse.  Making some couples wait years for IVF.  Because with their tax rates they can’t afford to go outside of the welfare state for treatment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Woman waits over 12 Months for Colonoscopy in Australia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

Health care in Australia is a hybrid of public and private service providers.  It is mostly a public universal health care system with a private system layered on top for those who wish to pay for it.  The federal government subsidizes private insurance to encourage some to use it and leave the federal system.  For Australia, like most developed nations, has an aging population.  Thus a growing rate of people leaving the workforce and becoming high consumers of health care services while there are fewer people entering the workforce to pay for this large rise in health care consumption results in a doctor and nurse shortage.  Which leads to, of course, longer waiting times (see Still on hospital waiting list by Richard Bruinsma posted 9/3/2012 on the Sunshine Coast Daily).

A MAROOCHYDORE woman who requires a simple exploratory colonoscopy every five years has “celebrated” 12 months on the Nambour General Hospital waiting list.

The woman, who did not want to be named, has a family history of bowel cancer and requires the regular check-ups as a precaution…

“Five years ago, I got in within three months, so I couldn’t believe a whole year has passed since I’ve been referred by my doctor…”

“If I’m waiting for 12 months for a simple colonoscopy, then what’s the rest of the health system like?”

A Nambour hospital spokesman was restricted from speaking specifically about the woman’s case but said the opening of new procedural suites at the hospital in April meant patient through-put had increased…

“All referrals to the service are reviewed and categorised according to clinical urgency and need by a medical officer. Those deemed more urgent are given priority.

“The Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service is working hard to assess and treat all patients on the waiting list.”

Most Australians are satisfied with their health care.  It’s one of the better universal health care systems.  Thanks to the hybrid structure of it.  And a relatively small population.  Though as baby boomers are retiring and leaving the workforce it is making an impact on their health care services.  As time goes on the Australians may love their health care system.  But they may complain about it more.  Such as in the UK.  And Canada.  Even in the United States.  Which before Obamacare they didn’t complain about the same kind of things.  The rationing of services.  And longer waiting times.  But that will come.  Because it’s happened in the UK, Canada and Australia.  And they’ve been practicing universal care for a long time.

Australia’s population is less than 10% of the United States’ population.  And it’s about a third of the UK’s.  So they don’t need a very large health care system by comparison.  But as Obamacare takes off the bureaucracy running it will be enormous.  As will the costs.  The bill itself had over 2,000 pages of new rules, regulations, fees and fines.  A lot of which were fill-in-the-blanks.  Things left noted ‘as to be determined’ by some government bureaucrat.  Meaning they will be making a lot of it up as they go.

So while the UK, Canada and Australia have universal systems with some problems with rationing and waiting times the Americans will see under Obamacare an explosion in rationing and waiting times simply because they will have so many more patients in their system than the British, the Canadians or the Australians.  Resulting in their own doctor and nurse shortage.  And if they are having problems after doing universal health care for such a long time you know some newcomer to the game will have even more problems.  Especially considering the US will have about five times the number of patients the British have.  And about thirteen and a half times the number of patients the Australians have.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Waiting Times may be on the Rise in Britain as the NHS Struggles to Cut Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 26th, 2012

Week in Review

It would be nice if we could step into a time machine to see how a government policy would turn out in the future.  To see if it did everything they said it would do.  If it made things better.  Or if that policy would be a complete and utter failure.  Well, time machines don’t exist.  But we can do the next best thing to time travel.  We can look at another nation that long ago enacted similar legislation.  And see what it did for them.  Such as looking at Britain.  And their National Health Service (NHS) (see Join the back of the queue: Waiting times set to soar as NHS trusts suffer from tough cuts by Anna Edwards posted 8/23/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Patient waiting times may increase as a growing number of hospitals face financial difficulties, a report warned today.

NHS foundation trusts, a marker of excellence in the NHS, are facing the challenge of improving quality of care while being forced to make cuts.

Trusts have told the regulator Monitor they are coming under ‘increasing pressure’ to meet accident and emergency waiting times and referral to treatment targets.

Under Labour, hospitals were told patients should be have to wait no longer than four hours to be treated in A&E, and should be given hospital treatment within 18 weeks if they are referred there by a doctor.

But struggling hospitals warn these targets may not be met as they face tough financial difficulties…

‘Particular challenges come from the need to improve the quality of care while delivering considerable savings each year.

‘Foundation trusts are planning to do this without planning to treat fewer patients or reduce the level and quality of care they provide…

‘NHS leaders know the real challenge is to tackle a flat budget while managing the increased costs of treating an ageing population, advanced technology and the growing rates of lifestyle diseases such as obesity.

An aging population and a flat budget?  There’s a little more to that than just a flat budget.  And it has to do with that aging population.  The growth rate of retirees (large consumers of health care) is greater than the growth rate of new taxpayers (people entering the workforce to pay taxes that pay for the retirees).  So available funding of the NHS is falling.  It’s not flat.  Funding is falling while demand for health care services is rising.  And it will continue to rise until the baby boomers die out.  And the pyramid re-inverts itself to where there are more people entering the workforce than are leaving the workforce.

This is why waiting times are growing.  More patients with less funding mean fewer doctors and nurses.  And fewer medicines, medical devices, surgeries and treatments.  Which means people wait longer.  Or are simply denied treatment.  Thanks to a system of rationing.

If everyone provided for themselves through a policy of being responsible this would not happen.  If they didn’t tax the people so excessively to support a welfare state they would have more money to spend on themselves.  To pay for routine doctor’s bills.  And to buy an insurance policy for the unexpected and catastrophic medical expense.  It would work.  Everyone paying a little bit on insurance to pay for the few with unexpected and catastrophic medical expenses.  Because that’s exactly how taxpayer funded health care is supposed to work.  The only problem is that the taxpayer funded variety includes everything.  Even those routine doctor bills.  Requiring excessive taxation.  And when the economy slows down, or a population ages, you simply can’t pay for everything any longer.

And so it will be with Obamacare.  Where policies have to cover everything.  And everyone will have to pay a little bit to cover everything.  Even birth control.  Only that little bit will become a lot.  Because it IS paying for everything.  And all of this with an aging population.  And a much larger population than Britain.  About five times the population.  And about five times the patients there will be in Obamacare.  Making the waiting times and rationing look mild in the NHS by comparison.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Waiting Times in the UK’s National Health Service Grow Longer, some even Waiting a Year or More for Treatment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

The advocates of national health care said that it will give all people quality health care.  While cutting costs, too.  Which was the claims made during the Obamacare debates.  Opponents said it was impossible to increase the number of people getting quality health while cutting costs at the same time.  For any national health care system would require massive new taxes and the rationing of services.  To make those limited resources spread over the greater number of people in the system.  Increasing wait times for medical treatment to unacceptable levels.  Like they are struggling with now in the UK.  As wait times have increased for the second year in a row in the National Health Service (NHS) (see David Cameron faces pressure as NHS waiting times grow by Denis Campbell posted 4/18/2012 on The Guardian).

Patients are enduring increasingly long delays before having some of the most common forms of surgery, according to official data that casts serious doubt on David Cameron’s pledge to keep NHS waiting times low.

New research by the Patients Association also shows that fewer patients are undergoing planned operations such as joint replacements, cataract removal and hernia repairs, as the NHS tries to make £20bn of efficiency savings at a time when demand for healthcare is growing.

A report from the association, based on information supplied by 93 of England’s 170 acute hospital trusts, found that waiting times for a range of elective operations rose between 2010 and 2011

The average wait before having a new knee fitted rose from 88.9 days to 99.2 days, while patients needing hernia surgery typically waited 78.3 days in 2011 compared with 70.4 the year before. The delay before the removal of gallstones increased over the same period, by 7.4 days, as did the delay before having a new hip (6.3 days longer), hysterectomy (three days) and cataract removed (2.2 days).

Smaller numbers of patients also had surgery for all these procedures over the same period, according to responses from hospitals to freedom of information requests submitted by the association. Trusts that supplied figures jointly performed a total of 18,268 fewer operations for these conditions in 2011 than in 2010, with those blighted by worsening vision, especially older people, most affected.

There is only one reason for these increases.  Their limited resources can’t treat the same amount of people as last year so they increased waiting times.  That is, they rationed these services more.  Now funding could have remained the same and the number of patients rose.  Or they cut funding while the number of patients remained the same.  Or more likely it was both.  More patients and less funding.  Because of an aging population.  And rising budget deficits (the NHS accounts for a very large part of Britain’s budget deficit).  Which is exactly what will happen under Obamacare.  Only on a greater scale.

But the health department said data from every hospital trust showed waiting times were low and stable and more patients were being treated, including for conditions in the report. The document was based on “partial” data and did not reflect the situation across England, it added.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said: “There are fewer patients than ever waiting a long time for treatment in the NHS. The number of people waiting over a year for treatment has reduced by two-thirds since we came into office and the average time patients have to wait for treatment is at the same level as two years ago.”

Okay, so the data may be a bit skewed.  For the people waiting longer than a year for treatment has fallen by two-thirds.  Which means that one third of that group is still waiting over a year for treatment.  So that’s something to look forward to with Obamacare.  A new metric to enter our lives to remind us how good Obamacare is.  People waiting a year or more for treatment is down.  Yeah.  But the US is far more populated than the UK.  So Obamacare will treat far more patients than the NHS.  So it’s not likely that we’ll be hearing that metric reported as going down.  So we’ll probably hear something more along the lines like “though the number of people waiting over a year for treatment has increased the rate of that increase is smaller than the previous year.  Just another fact to tell you that Obamacare is taking care of you.”

Let’s face it, based on the sheer size of the US and the amount of time the British have been practicing national health care Obamacare will never be as good as the NHS.  For the size of Obamacare will make the NHS look like a walk-in clinic.  Because all the numbers are working against it.  An aging population that is living longer.  And declining birth rate that creates fewer people entering the workforce than leaving it.  You put these together and it can only mean one thing.  Massive new taxes and the rationing of services.  And all on a far greater scale than in the NHS. 

The only thing Obamacare will do is make the NHS look better.  Even with wait times of over a year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why does Obama move toward National Health Care when Europe moves away from It?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 27th, 2011

Rationing is the Hallmark of National Health Care

Supporters of Obamacare say everyone will get quality health care services.  Opponents say it will result in lower quality and rationing.  The UK has national health care.  The National Health Service (NHS).  So how are things in the NHS?  Are they overflowing with quality health care services?  Or are they rationing.  Well, let’s take a look at one example in the vast NHS system (see Dementia checks at 75 urged by Alzheimer’s Society by Adam Brimelow, Health Correspondent, BBC News).

The NHS should offer checks for dementia when people reach 75, a leading health charity says…

Dr Laurence Buckman, from the British Medical Association, says there is value in the idea of screening for dementia, and that many GPs would be happy to carry it out. But he says many would struggle to find the time.

“It takes an hour to do an assessment, during which time five other patients could have been seen. In the current economic climate, when the NHS is being asked to make huge efficiency savings and there are many equally valid competing demands, patients and the public need to have a debate over which services should be prioritised.”

The NHS should check for dementia.  But doesn’t.  They could.  But they would have to make cuts elsewhere.  Because they have limited resources.  And more people that that they can handle on their current budget.  So they don’t check for dementia.  To save money for other patients.  That sounds like rationing.  And it is no doubt the future of Obamacare.

Europeans have Learned that Less Government is Best in their Health Care

The NHS is a behemoth.  With lots of bureaucrats and bureaucracy between doctors and patients.  And one thing about bureaucracies is that they don’t change much.  If at all.  They’re like a big ship with a tiny rudder.  Change is slow.  And hard.  It pushes bureaucrats out of their comfort zones.  So they resist change.  So while technology marches on in the private sector, the old way of doing things remain in these bloated bureaucracies. 

In the public sector bureaucracy there is a saying.  If it’s broke, don’t fix it.  Because fixing it may involve change.  And they don’t like change.  This is why people tend to get exasperated dealing with government bureaucracies.  At any level.  Standing in line to renew your driver’s license can be insufferable.  You’ll see state workers standing around doing nothing.  While you stand in line.  Why?  Because they can.  Where else are you going to go?  And so it is in the NHS.  You’ll have to deal with rationing.  Long wait times.  Impersonal bureaucrats.  Why?  You have no choice.  Where else are you going to go? 

Yes, there are problems in the NHS.  But they are not unique.  All of Europe’s health care systems are having problems (see Europe’s Failing Health by Javier Espinoza posted 3/28/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Reformers want to reduce the state’s role in health-care delivery and introduce a competitive element…many feel that without innovation, crumbling state-backed systems will collapse as they struggle to cope with aging populations, soaring overheads and, more recently, mounting budget deficits.

The statistics paint a bleak picture. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Union will see an increase in health expenditure of 350% by 2050, whereas at the same time the economy is only set to expand by 180%.

Some work has already been done to estimate the real impact on future expenditures. Friedrich Breyer, a professor of economics at the University of Konstanz in Germany, calculates that in Germany alone between 2020 and 2030 there will be a huge spike in the number of elderly people alongside an enormous drop in young and working-age people. “This will mean a dramatic increase in individuals’ payroll tax contribution rates to health care to 20.7% in 2030 and over 23% in 2040,” he says. This compares to just 11.4% in 1980.

Like that old saying says, competition makes everything better.  Without it there’s no incentive to improve.  Or a reason to worry about costs.  You just go to the government for more money.  Unfortunately, doing that for all these years just made these costs grow out of control.  And an aging population just compounds that problem.  You can thank birth control and abortion for that.  The baby boom was the population growth rate’s last hurrah.  And now we’re stuck with declining birth rate.  Fewer young who pay taxes.  And more old who consume benefits.  In an archaic system.  That’s cost inefficient.  In other words, health care systems around the world are broken.  And someone needs to fix them.

Unlike the U.K. health-care system, where the state manages and delivers the services, systems in the rest of Europe, particularly Switzerland, the Netherlands and to some extent Germany, rely more on a system of private insurance. Switzerland has been hailed as the least over-protective system. In that country health insurers are the ones who determine their fees and the services they provide—as long as they adhere to the basic services agreed in the country’s Health Insurance Law…

As a result of less government control, the Swiss health-care system has been able to reduce waiting time for treatment and pioneers new technology and pharmaceuticals, according to the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, a London think tank known as Civitas.

While President Obama is moving the U.S. towards a more centralized, state-controlled behemoth, Europe is moving the other way.  It looks like the social democracies of Europe have learned that less government is best in health care.  Privatization lowers cost through competition.  And it’s reduced waiting times and increased quality.  And yet Obama wants to take the U.S. in the other way.  The wrong way.  Why?

…it is in the U.K. that arguably the biggest changes need to be made. The government of Prime Minister David Cameron is determined to reform the 63-year-old National Health System. It is undergoing a massive overhaul in an effort to save £1.7 billion ($2.7 billion) a year. Under the proposed plans, general practitioners are set to take control of commissioning services for patients. The government is proposing to scrap strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, which currently commission services. The government argues it does not have a choice. The country’s budget deficit is soaring and the NHS is one of the biggest drains on its resources…

Not everyone, however, is an advocate of health-care reform. In the U.K., trade unions have been vociferous in their discontent over the proposed overhaul of the NHS…

The big fear is that these reforms promote a system where you can top up. And this diminishes the quality of health and creates a two-tier system.”

The U.K. already has a two-tier system.  The rank and file British goes to the NHS.  The affluent travel to where they can buy the best health care that money can buy.

Once upon the time unions wanted to control their health care plans.  And they offered some nice plans.  Because that’s why people joined unions.  For the benefits.  Union benefits were always better than non-union benefits.  But unions everywhere want to shed their health care costs.  Because they’re just too damn expensive.  And they can’t pass these costs onto their employers anymore.  Trade union members in the U.S. have long been contributing to their health care costs.  And the size of that contribution just seems to keep on growing.  The unions want out.  They want national health care.  But not the people who currently have private health insurance.  Because they know things will get worse.  There’ll be longer waits.  And lower quality.  How do they know that?  By simply looking at what’s going on in Europe.

Obamacare:  Transferring Money from the Private to the Public Sector

There is empirical evidence everywhere that shows Obamacare is wrong.  The U.K.  Europe.  Canada.  Cuba.  It tries to replicate here what’s already been proven wrong.  Everywhere people have tried it.  So why the persistence here in the USA to nationalize our health care?

Well, first of all, you have to look at who supports national health care.  They’re all Big Government people.  Unions.  Liberals.  Government statists.  And how do these people get power?  By pandering.  And you need money to pander.  Taxes were always a good for that until they became so high people resisted further increases.  Unions were also a good source of money (union dues supported liberal/statist candidates) but market pressures squeezed their pay (and, subsequently, what they could pay in dues).  Public sector unions were their best vehicle to transfer money from the private sector to their pockets.  Because there are no market forces involved.  Salary and wage packages are set by unions and government.  The taxpayers, who pay for these packages, have no say.  But their greed has bankrupted states and cities and angry taxpayers have voted statists out of office.  And that leaves nationalized health care as their last best hope.

You see, it’s not about providing quality health care to all Americans.  It’s about transferring money from the private sector to the public sector.  That’s why they ignore the empirical evidence.  Because they don’t care.  They just want to control that money.  And at about 17% of GDP, that’s a lot of money to pass through their greedy little fingers.  So while Europe tries to improve their health care systems, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, are trying to enrich their political class at the expense of our health care system.  Further impoverishing working Americans.  And giving them a poorer health care system in the process.

Boy.  With friends like this in government, I guess we don’t need any enemies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,