June 09, 2005
Comparison...
I was fascinated by this article in by David Asman in OpinionJournal, on the differences between British and American medical care.
...We spent almost a full month in a British public hospital. We also arranged for a complex medical procedure to be done in one of the few remaining private hospitals in Britain. My wife then spent about three weeks recuperating in a New York City hospital as an inpatient and has since used another city hospital for physical therapy as an outpatient. We thus have had a chance to sample the health diet available under two very different systems of health care. Neither system is without its faults and advantages. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, there are no solutions to modern health care problems, only trade-offs. What follows is a sampling of those tradeoffs as we viewed them firsthand....
The author finds some good things about British medicine, especially the quality of the personnel, and the good decisions that can be made when you are not worrying about lawsuits. But the overwhelming impression I got, was, socialism kills! The surprise of the author at how the American hospitals had clean and shining floors tells you most of what you need to know.
It's worth reading the whole thing...
Posted by John Weidner at June 9, 2005 11:46 AM | TrackBackYeah, the British healthcare system is notoriously bad. The French, however, seem to have their acts together...
The thing about healthcare is that there are lots of different systems for doing it. Simply calling all government sponsored healthcare “socialism” and saying that the British have the platonic model for it doesn’t work. That’s a bit like praising Blue Shield because Keiser works so well...
Indeed, statistically, the best healthcare system in America is the VA hospital system. It’s nearly impossible to become a patient, but once your there, you get really good care...
Sure it's socialism. It's not 'government sponsored," it's government owned.
The VA system is not comparable. It's some federal government-owned hospitals embedded in a system with a preponderance of private and university and local government hospitals. The non-federal sector sets the standards and educates most of the personnel. (And I bet if the real economics were known, the VA system "works" by spending more money per patient...and of course, keeping a lot of people out.) The VA system is actually in competition with the private world, not directly, but if they fall behind too far there will be changes made.
The British system seemed to work great, at first. But only because they had nationalized a private system, and inherited the standards and momentum of that system. Alas, that was the end of growth and change and adaptation. And most important, competition.
I don't know anything about the French system, but I bet there are hidden problems. It was not too long ago that 15,000 old people died in a heat wave in France...
Posted by: John Weidner at June 10, 2005 07:47 AMI am not saying it’s not “socialism”, I am saying that not all socialized health care models are the same. The British system sucks. Our system also sucks...
There are "hidden" problems with our healthcare system as well. And take a look here for how the modern VA system works...
As for the Parisian heat wave, complete non sequitur -- those people died in their homes. No amount of medical attention is going to help you if you don’t know enough to go to the doctor...
Andrew writes:
"The British system sucks. Our system also sucks..."
..... but in different ways, Andrew.
The British system sucks because it's socialized-- one-size-fits-all solutions, slovenly service, and high prices. Yes, Andrew, the prices are high. Look at British tax rates and tell me that socialism ISN'T expensive.
The American system sucks, too, but only in the sense that it "sucks" that most of us want "Cadillac" care when we have only "Chevrolet" budgets. If you're willing to accept "Chevrolet" care-- that is, what you can actually afford-- you can get good service. And if you don't like what you get, you can always go to someone else. How do you do that in the British system?
And if one is still dissatisfied that one is only getting a Chevrolet (so to speak), why should the Cadillac dealer (again, so to speak) be under ANY obligation whatsoever to sell one a Cadillac at Chevrolet prices?
"As for the Parisian heat wave, complete non sequitur..."
No no no. It sequiturs perfectly. That calamity was the essence of socialism (and the French mania for centralization). Nothing is done except by the assigned government agency. Since the situation was unanticipated, no agency was ready to act, and nothing was done.
Here in America we have all sorts of volunteer and church and community groups that can act promptly in a crisis, and innovate and improvise. And our medical system has many different components, public and private. So if hundreds of people start dying, and one component of the system stumbles, the others will still raise an alarm.
The lack of vigorous private groups in places like France is no accident. Socialist systems of all flavors want citizens to be directly dependent on government, and they always work to undermine all independent organizations.
I remember a blatant example from a few years ago, when the King of Sweden announced that he would donate a large sum to charity. He was forced to stop by furious opposition by leftist groups, who felt that private charities infringed on the prerogatives of government!
Posted by: John Weidner at June 10, 2005 06:02 PMFirst: the figure you give is for all of France, not merely Paris. Second: something to understand is that Paris is actually further north than Seattle, and doesn’t have a huge ocean nearby to alleviate the weather patterns. The Parisians simply have no clue how to deal with hot weather...
Chicago, a city which often experiences heat waves, and thus ought to know how to deal with heat, had about 700 people die from a heat wave about 10 years ago. Should we then blame the American medical establishment for that?
