"SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?"

In that the following excerpt is from Breitbart.com, many of you will not read the entire article, however it is a most interesting perspective from the right side of the ledger. In the excerpt he=Boris Johnson.

"For instance, when he talks about more spending for healthcare, he means the National Health Service (NHS), the cradle-to-grave health system that was first put in place by the Labour Party back in 1948.

In all the decades since, under Conservatives as well as Labour, the NHS has thrived. A 2018 poll found it holding 87 percent approval, just behind firefighters—and well ahead of the royal family. Indeed, British affection for the NHS was on lavish display in London in 2012, when it served as a centerpiece for the live show at the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics.

Seen through British eyes, the NHS is actually a conservative pillar; it’s one of those institutions—like firefighters, the police, the military, and the schools—that makes Britons feel that the system cares about them and that they in turn have a stake in the system.
To be sure, Americans haven’t quite cottoned to national health insurance, although it is true that the Affordable Care Act now enjoys a healthy margin of public support. Moreover, just in the past three years, the ruby-red states of Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah have voted to expand Medicaid, bringing many working-class families (the poor have always been covered under Medicaid) into the protective embrace of health insurance.

Indeed, we might further recall the frustrations–more like defeats–that Congressional Republicans suffered in 2017, as they tried to repeal Obamacare. And those defeats were capped by an even greater defeat: the loss of the GOP majority in the House in 2018. Since then, Republicans have mostly stopped talking about trying to repeal Obamacare, and elections have generally gone better for them.
Moreover, all Americans might consider the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. We might ask: Over the past year, did it ever seem like a good idea to turn anyone away from an emergency room or hospital because he or she didn’t have health insurance? And should the vaccine have gone only to those who could afford it?

Covid-19 reminded Americans: We’re all in this together. And so it’s in the interest of each of us for all of us to be healthy, and maybe a better and more comprehensive health system can help with that. "

www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/08/pi...-conservative-party/

As always the devil is in the details.

Britain loves the NHS so much that they buy private health insurance if they can afford it. Canadians I talk to say the same thing. They love it, but they don't use it. Sort of like our VA system. The vets I know will pay for private insurance rather than deal with the slow and incompetent care of the VA.

Fred,
You are on point.
"Britain loves the NHS so much that they buy private health insurance if they can afford it. Canadians I talk to say the same thing. They love it, but they don't use it."
However the great majority of Brits cannot afford private insurance, therein is the rub.
Right now in the USA, employers provide medical insurance to much of the working population that makes less than $50K per year. If the government decides to not allow a deduction for medical insurance to companies, the situation will be favorable for a government paid insurance.
What is not appreciated is that medical insurance does not equate with medical care. I envision large amounts of physician-extenders in the primary care areas, fewer MD's in the surgical specialties, and ultimately the rationing of care., i.e. 80 years old, too old for a hip replacement. Obama said when asked whether an otherwise healthy centenarian could get a pacemaker, he replied, perhaps she should take a pain pill.
I do not think that I will be alive to see it but never did I think that I would see the "mask madness" that is prevalent today.

And you also see "triage style" medicine in other nations. It doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of thousands on a senior when dozens of younger patients could be healed for the same amount. In America, over 50% of medical spending is on someone's last year of life. When socialized medicine started in Europe in the 30's and 1940's, it was much cheaper. There weren't so many expensive procedures available in the 1950's. And there weren't so many senior citizens as a percentage of the population. So you had nine healthy taxpayers caring for one patient. What is going to happen when you only have two?

FredHayek wrote: And you also see "triage style" medicine in other nations. It doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of thousands on a senior when dozens of younger patients could be healed for the same amount.

So you advocate just let granny die?

I see a line of demarcation .....concierge medicine for those with $$$ and E.R. use increasing for those that
don't( substandard care because of personnel shortages.)Unless it is profusely bleeding,an open fracture
or critical organ failure,super hi temps, there will be those that just fore go med.treatment. As my Canadian
in laws joke..."If she dies,she dies"


AGAIN, in previewing the post it looks formatted correctly,then I submit and it breaks apart...got no idea WHY)

Wayne Harrison wrote:

FredHayek wrote: And you also see "triage style" medicine in other nations. It doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of thousands on a senior when dozens of younger patients could be healed for the same amount.

So you advocate just let granny die?

No, I don't and I am glad I don't have to make those calls. But we only have a limited budget for healthcare. In the Brit model, they give hospitals a budget at the start of the year, so they have to decide on how they are going to allocate it. Geriatrics? Pediatrics? Oncology?

Fred,
The U.S. does not as yet have socialized medicine. There is no budget given by the government to hospitals. Thankfully.
You raise other points that need to be expanded upon. Your statement that 50% of medical spending is in the last year of the patient's life. If you wish to peruse the medical literature you will find that there are no studies that can predict when someone will die. The studies that have generated your number are retrospective. There are no prospective studies that indicate when a patient will die and how many dollars have been expended on the care.
For example, a 32 y.o.male is involved in a horrendous vehicular accident that requires multiple surgeries and intensive care stays. He dies on day 122 of his hospitalization, medical charges are in excess of $5 million. He is included in that category of medical spending in the last year of life. (Sounds like Covid deaths, motorcyclist dies in an accident but on autopsy test positive for Covid).
With regard to "expensive" procedures not being available in the 1950's, neither were computers.
Technology has advanced in all fields. In the medical field, the question should be why the charge (note I did not say cost) of some procedures, should be so high, e.g. MRI, CAT scan, Lab tests.
Finally the percentage of the population that are senior citizens has increased because of the improvements in medical care despite lack of cooperation from the patients, as shown by the rate of obesity, smoking, drug abuse, etc.

The VA is a good example of socialized medicine in America. They have their own facilities and doctors. But there are a lot of variants of socialized medicine. Aren't Medicare and Medicare a form of it? Seniors and people who can't afford it can qualify for medical help. They still go through private hospitals and doctor groups, but the bills are being paid by taxpayers.
And emergency rooms that are required to treat people are another form of it. Especially places like Denver General.

Fred,
To your point, the VA health system is a good example of government run medical care. The scandals regarding health care in the system are replete throughout the internet. One such article:
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/201...thursday/1345046001/
To the extent that Medicare and Medicaid are forms of socialized medicine, the term must first be defined.

My definition of "socialized medicine": a health care system that dictates the physicians you can see and the facilities that you can go to if ill. Also that the health care providers are direct employees of the system.
M&M allow for one's individual choice of physician, but limits the amount of reimbursement that the physician can seek. Because the fee schedule of M&M is significantly below the actual charge, many physicians do not participate in M&M.
With regard to emergency room visits, all hospitals in the US are required by law to treat all comers without regard to payment.
As an aside, I, too , often refer to Denver Health Hospitals and Clinics (Denver Health) as Denver General, the name was changed in 1997, it indicates to me that we are long in the tooth.