Originally posted by bill718
And now Conservatives are convinced that these Same Drug Companies, HMO's and Insurance Companies alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation. If you believe this is true, I have a bridge I'll sell you...cheap!![/b]
We can simply re-word your last sentence by saying, "
And now liberals are convinced that the government alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation."
Here is a good article regarding the issues with nationalized systems around the world.
In the article the following concerns are raised.
1. Critics fear Obama's reforms will lead to more government control over health care and cite problems faced by European health systems of what not to do. For example, in the UK it is estimated that as many as 15,000 people over the age of 75 were dying prematuraly from cancer every year. Experts say that these fatalities could have been avoided if these patients had been diagnosed and treated earlier. The US had much better outcomes than this.
2. Cost. Experts say that before the US committs itself to footing the bill for universal health care they should consider the cost of it in Europe.
A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world's best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988. In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decade later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 bilion) "I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose inot health care, its hard to stop the dangerous effects later" said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institute Economique Molinari in France. He sad many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.
3. Overuse. People begin to seek medical care for any and all ailments putting a greater strain on the overall system.
4. Cost cutting has caused hospitals to merge and, as a result, specialists harder to find.
5. Increased medical errors. A 2007 survey found that in some hospitals in Geneva and Lausanne, the rates of medical errors had jumped by up to 40%. Long ranked the world's top four health systems, they dropped to 8th.
6. Stifle innovation. Experts warn that bureaucracies are slow to adopt new medical technologies. In Britan and Germany, even after new drugs are approved, access to them is complicated because independent agencies must decide if they are worth buying. For example, once the drug Herceptin was proven to be effective in 1988, it was available almost immediately in the US as where it took 4 years to become available in the UK.
The hell of it, of course, is that US government has already socialized medicine via medicare/medicade. Of course, these are poor peices of legislation and the estimates are that they will go belly up by around 2017. No doubt, they could improve the current system, however, if they do I have a few predictions.
1. The cost will balloon and surpass the original targets just like in France. This will cause even more rationing and further decrease the quality and availability of health care.
2. Like social security, the legislation will become a "sacred cow". For example, social security is scheduled to go bust by the year 2030 but no one has been able to reform it despite a few attempts. Likewiise, any legislation that is put forth to give us universal care will be set in stone and reform efforts will be futile.
3. You will pay for your medical care either way. There is no free lunch even though it will be advertised as "free". For the money you save in cutting out medicine for profit will more than likely go toward those who don't work and are illegals. In fact, it may even surpass the added extra expenses of for profit medicine.