Economist Thomas Sowell explains what socialized medicine means for all parties – and what evidence is ignored.
Excerpt:
The same preference for talking points, and the same lack of interest in digging into the facts about realities, prevails today in discussions of whether to have a government-controlled medical system.
Since there are various countries, such as Canada and Britain, that have the kind of government-controlled medical systems that some Americans advocate, you might think that there would be great interest in the quality of medical care in these countries.
The data are readily available as to how many weeks or months people have to wait to see a primary-care physician in such countries, and how many additional weeks or months they have to wait after they are referred to a surgeon or other specialist. There are data on how often their governments allow patients to receive the latest pharmaceutical drugs, as compared with how often Americans use such advanced medications.
But supporters of government medical care show virtually no interest in such realities. Their big talking point is that the life expectancy in the United States is not as long as in those other countries. End of discussion, as far as they are concerned.
They have no interest in the reality that medical care has much less effect on death rates from homicide, obesity, and narcotics addiction than it has on death rates from cancer or other conditions that doctors can do something about. Americans survive various cancers better than people anywhere else. Americans also get to see doctors much sooner for medical treatment in general.
Conservatives are the reality-based community.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Very weak argument WK. So you’re argument is we don’t want a health care system that allows people to live longer and healthier because sometimes you have to wait…wow, I’m sold!! You haven’t stated your end goal – the people advocating for the systems in Canada/Britain have – they believe switching to such a system is better for society overall and have provided evidence. What is your goal/reason for staying with our current system when the only apparent benefit is I can see doctor sooner if I want to? You always advocate for debates and if this were one you and Sowell would lose dearly – fail…
LikeLike
If you would like to see actual USA funded healthcare I would suggest taking a REALLY hard look at the VA and how they treat our veterans. In addition, do you have any idea what would happen to the quality of care (ie level of expertise of md’s or do you actually think they are all exactly the same ? )
Here are a “few questions” :
– Any idea how Canadian and other foreign md’s received federal funding for their education only to forsake their own country and stay to stay and work in the US?
– How many good md’s would actually become federal employees / pay?
– How many md’s would go into stay private or accept hybrid secondary insurance / cash method of payment and refuse federal patients ( ie medicare/medical) FYI like the Mayo system ?
– Do you think the US government would actually pay for top notch treatment, doctors, and medications from bio/pharma companies let alone research ? There is a reason why Canada has had no discoveries in treatment or research.
– What incentive is there for the brightest / best / most intelligent of society to attend medical school / residency ?
Sure, going to a socialized medicine provides care to the masses but at the expense of quality and increased taxes. The obvious result is dramatically increased morbidity and mortality (much like public education).
LikeLike
These are the questions that wintery should have been posing instead of going with the subpar Sowell article since Sowell’s argument will hold little sway with anyone that just looks at that argument.
But I can answer a couple of those questions based on my personal experience in the interviewing of prospective med-students and interns at a mid-west Medical school. We don’t get the best and the brightest overall going in to medicine – there has been an overall policy shift in interviewing committees with a strong bias towards personal accomplishments (extra-cirricular activities) and personalities vs people that can demonstrate extreme mental ability but may lack in personality (since there is a fear of litigation and studies have shown that nice, personable doctors are less likely to get sued). Add the overall dumbing down of many pre-med college cirriculum (or an allowance of many students that took courses designed to ensure A’s since if you’re white or an over-represented minority (read oriental ( not asian since Asia does cover groups that aren’t overrepresented within academia) anything less than 3.8 gaurantees you will not get accepted in to med-school regardless of your MCAT score. Now if you’re black or hispanic, anything greater than 3.2 is acceptable (most med-schools reserve 10% of the avialable slots for under-represented minorities).
Now lets move on to the actual resident that is learning the trade after med-school. They quickly learn that if you don’t meet your RVU expectations, your starting salary that may seem high is immediately reduced. To give some examples, I personally know 4 pediatricians that earned 82K – 88K working in California, Ohio, and NY because they wouldn’t ordre tests they deemed unneccessary. It’s another factor that is driving the best talent away – if you can’t make the best medical decisions because it will reduce your salary to the point that you can’t afford to pay back your $200K+ in loans (private, I believe public medical schools are about 1/3 while DO is on par with private MD)
As far as Canada not having major research, I’m not sure, but one of the greatest areas of medical/pharmacological research is Sweden so you’re logic doesn’t follow there. Not to mention pointing out one example doesn’t make a pattern. Maybe Canada isn’t interested in cultivating major medical research centers…
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply. I will address your points as you have stated:
– “We don’t get the best and the brightest overall going in to medicine”.
It used to attract the brightest. It doesn’t pay “anymore”. Pretty much every specialist and surgeon I know (over 200) tells me that and if they had to do it over again – they would pick a different field. The self sacrifice, investment, insurance, and prestige is much less than what it used to be ( as is the “dedication” that you mentioned).
-Salary (peds are a bit different depending on specialty and location). Quite often location / demand drives the salary marker ( ie shortage of hepatologist = high demand = high pay).
-Research in Canada = none
-Research in Sweden = very little
-USA ( any idea how many drugs/treatments are developed for the USA compared to the rest of the world ? )
Using Sweden as example of socialized medicine is very, very, very thin ice for the following reasons:
– tax rate of 50% or higher !!!!!
– employer picks 2 weeks of employees pay then Federal does
– Swedens healthcare is limited to citizens only ( this is a HUGE drain on the US economy as foreigners cross our borders to receive free healthcare ( this has crippled / bankrupted California for example).
-Overall health of America vs. Sweden ( I would “guess” for Sweden to have a healthier population).
Coup de grâce points:
– DO you ACTUALLY TRUST OUR government to do what it says it will do ?
– As mentioned before – take a VERY HARD look at the current VA and Medicare ( how we medically treat our armed forces is atrocious).
– How would one address actual malpractice / neglect ? Good luck on this one.
Government provided medical treatment is a PRIVILEGE and not a EXPECTATION. You get what you pay for. Expecting passable medical attention for the masses is a all encompassing panacea – someone has to foot the bill.
What I suspect what will happen is a hybrid program like the Arizona AHCCCS program ( only one in the USA to date). The government pays HMO’s (everyone picks a plan). Then from there, the HMO will do the cutting of services and not the government.
LikeLike