There is so much political spin, and so many numbers games being played, when it comes to medical care, that we have to go back to square one and the simplest common sense, in order to get some rational idea of what government-run medical care means. In particular, we need to examine the claim that the government can "bring down the cost of medical care."
The most basic fact is that it is cheaper to remain sick than to get medical treatment. What is cheapest of all is to die instead of getting life-saving medications and treatment, which can be very expensive.
Despite these facts, most of us tend to take a somewhat more parochial view of the situation when it is we ourselves who are sick or who face a potentially fatal illness. But what if that decision is taken out of your hands under ObamaCare and is being made for you by a bureaucrat in Washington?
We won't know what that leads to until the time comes. As Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out what is in the bill after it has passed. But even now, after ObamaCare has been passed, not many people want to read its 2,400 pages. Even if you did, you would still not know what it would be like in practice, after more than 150 boards and commissions issue their specific regulations.
Fortunately— in fact, very fortunately— you don't have to slog through 2,400 pages of legalistic jargon or turn to a fortune teller to divine the future. A new book, "The Truth About ObamaCare" by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute lays out the facts in the plainest English.
While she can't tell you the future, she can tell you enough about government-run medical systems in other countries that it will not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is in store for us if ObamaCare doesn't get repealed before it takes full effect in 2014. It is not a pretty picture.
We hear a lot about how wonderful it is that the Canadians or the British or the Swedes get free medical treatment because the government runs the system. But we don't hear much about the quality of that medical care.
We don't hear about more than 4,000 expectant mothers who gave birth inside a hospital, but not in the maternity ward, in Britain in just one year.
They had their babies in hallways, bathrooms and even elevators.
British newspapers have for years carried stories about the neglect of patients under the National Health Service, of which this is just one. When nurses don't get around to taking a pregnant woman to the maternity ward in time, the baby doesn't wait.
But the American media don't tell you about such things when they are gushing over the wonders of "universal health care" that will "bring down the cost of medical care."
Instead, the media spin is that various countries with government-run medical systems have life expectancies that are as long as ours, or longer. That is very clever as media spin, if you don't bother to stop and think about it.
Author Sally Pipes did bother to stop and think about it in her book, "The Truth About ObamaCare." She points out that medical care is just one of the factors in life expectancy.
She cites a study by Professors Ohsfeldt and Schneider at the University of Iowa, which shows that, if you leave out people who are victims of homicide or who die in automobile accidents, Americans live longer than people in any other Western country.
Doctors do not prevent homicides or car crashes. In the things that doctors can affect, such as the survival rates of cancer patients, the United States leads the world.
Americans get the latest pharmaceutical drugs, sometimes years before those drugs are available to people in Britain or in other countries where the government runs the medical system. Why? Because the latest drugs cost more and it is cheaper to let people die.
The media have often said that we have higher infant mortality rates than other countries with government medical care systems. But we count every baby that dies and other countries do not. If the media don't tell you that, so much the better for ObamaCare.
But is life and death something to play spin games about?
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
10 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Agreed. Cancel Medicare immediately. It's been a complete failure.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Geoffrey James
Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:38 AM
|
|
|
|
What a load of garbage. US Medical outcomes are not as good as other countries. The US healthcare system is twice as expensive as any other and its become a drag on the economy. US infant mortality is higher than Britains (per capita). In fact, the US ranks 20th in infant mortality. The US has thousands of babies delivered in odd places every year, too including hallways and elevators. Deriving profit from the sickness and misery of other is just immoral whether you're Chistian, Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, Humanist or Atheist or anything else that you believe. If your are a Christian, as I suspect you are, you should be fighting for universal healthcare. "What you do to the least of these, you do to me also." Jesus Christ. How is charging thousands of dollare per month loving your neighbor as yourself. The US rations healthcare by denying to those without insurance. Its a different way of rationing, but it works out the same way. People without health insurance die sooner than those that have it. Health insurance and profit in the system are the problem, not the solution.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Curtis
Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:36 AM
|
|
|
|
@ Curtis:
"Deriving profit from the sickness and misery of other is just immoral whether you're Chistian, Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, Humanist or Atheist or anything else that you believe. If your are a Christian, as I suspect you are, you should be fighting for universal healthcare. "What you do to the least of these, you do to me also." Jesus Christ. How is charging thousands of dollare per month loving your neighbor as yourself."
There have been plenty of Christian thinkers who have explained that practical realities of commercial life demand these costs that have nothing to do with greed or altruism.
Not the least of such Christian thinkers was John Calvin. Calvin was the son of an important town official and understood most of all that on this earthly world, there are ways of doing things that are the only way they get done. While moneylending was considered immoral in other European nations, Calvin explained to the Dutch that "usury" was no wrong. Capital is scarce, and a moneylender who saves money through his years has to make sure that only the responsible employ his cash and put it to beneficial use. That's why one charges interest on loans.
All human resources are scarce - especially good doctors, good medical equipment, good clean halls for treatment. That resources are strained to obtain these things to cure the sick is only a reflection of reality, and if hospitals didn't recover those costs, hospitals would not run. Period.
As it is, I am astonished that progressive thinkers have spun a novel understanding of The Virginia Declaration Of The Rights of Man, because nowhere in there does it mention that medical treatment to every possible person is some fundamental right. And nowhere does it mention in the scripture of any major religion that "Thou Shall Attempt To Provide A Poor Inefficient Medical Service - No Matter What - Through No Other Strained Resources Than General Taxation."
Comment: #3
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Curtis;
Everything you say is well intended but you haven't figured in human nature into your arguement.
If something has no cost, it has no value. In other words, cost is just a measure, like a teaspoon. If medical care has no cost, then it gets used irresponsibily. I no longer "burn rubber" on my tires because I am mindfull of the cost of replacement, for instance. That is, I respect their value.
In the same way, if there is no margin to be made as a provider, then I am not going to try very hard (or at all) to provde care, am I? This is the reality of human nature and can be seen in operation in Canada and Britan.
Friends of mine who live in Canada say it best: Great place to get a cold, but if you are REALLY sick, get to the US!
In a "perfect" world, our medical needs should be available to us free of charge and everyone would act responsibily. In the world we live in...
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mason
Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:33 PM
|
|
|
|
In cancer survival rates, the U.S. is number 1 in the world. In terms of life expectancy, if you remove non-natural causes of death (which have nothing to do with health care), such as those resulting from fatal injuries, which include motor vehicle accidents, falls, accidental poisonings, homicides, etc. from the calculations, our life expectancy also shoots straight to the top. See:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html
Comment: #5
Posted by: George
Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:05 PM
|
|
|
|
I notice that Mr. Sowell fails to mention that in no other first world country do citizens go bankrupt from the inability to pay their medical bills. "But I've got great insurance, so that won't be my problem". What happens to that great insurance if you get a major illness that keeps you from working? Suddenly you are faced with paying for the entire cost of the insurance through COBRA as your income plummets. Many in that situation are unable to afford the COBRA payments.
Another issue is that many people work at jobs where they are not fully productive because that is the only way to get affordable health insurance. If we removed the link between health insurance and employers it is likely that one result would be an increase in national economic output from workers having the freedom to move to jobs and careers that better match their skills.
If Mr. Sowell does not like the British model, there are several others to choose from. (I agree that the British system is quite flawed. The German or French systems are much better models to look to.) Germany, for example has private insurance. The government strictly limits the profit for the basic health insurance plans, but the companies are free to charge what the market will bear for the deluxe plans. But everyone is covered and the bills are paid promptly. Universal coverage is the bottom line in every other first world country. Each nation has made a commitment to making sure that EVERYONE IS COVERED.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Mark
Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:41 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree that this article is total garbage. Mr. Sowell starts out decrying all the spin and numbers games and then immediately starts to spin the discussion. He asks, "But what if that decision is taken out of your hands under ObamaCare and is being made for you by a bureaucrat in Washington?" As if the bill does that. There is nothing in the bill that does that. Whose hands do you think your medical care is in now? It certainly isn't in yours unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to pay full cost for medical care and not purchase private medical care. The people who decide your medical care are private companies that exist for one reason and one reason only, to make the CEO as rich as he (she) can get. You as the insured are an after thought to the insurance company's bottom line.
The health bill in fact keeps the entire private insurance system in tact as it is. It doesn't nationalize the private insurance industry as Mr. Sowell wants his readers to believe. He is just spinning more of the usual conservative spin as would any other follower of Rush would be expected to do.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Luis
Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Thomas Sowell does not write garbage. He is extremely intelligent, wise, thoughtful, and thoroughly researches issues before speaking. What he said about our life expectancy is true. When you are comparing countries you cannot do so properly when using different standards for measuringeach country. And that is exactly the problem with those studies. The U.S. does have a much better system and it is not true that you can't get good care without insurance or money. I can cite several examples (including two of my own) where uninsured people got excellent care we couldn't afford. My experiences are fairly recent--I had my gall bladder removed by an excellent surgeon about 5 years ago; and 2 years ago, I was hospitalized for 5 weeks (you know that cost a lot--over 90K) for MRSA. I wanted to leave earlier but they didn't want to take the chance I get sick again. I don't want to here the lies that the U.S. lets people die in the street. It is NOT true. We have problems but we're still the best around.
Comment: #8
Posted by: JanineC
Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that is "hear", not "here"
Comment: #9
Posted by: JanineC
Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:12 PM
|
|
|
|
JanineC,
Implied in your response is that you were uninsured and received expensive care at little or no cost. Who paid the $90 K bill? Hospitals will handle cases like yours starting at the ER. What happens if you develop a chronic problem requiring regular doses of an expensive medicine or expensive treatments that are beyond your means? My best friend is a family practice doctor who's poor elderly patients ofter say that they can afford one of the five medicines that are required for their problems. "Doctor, should I take the heart pill, the diabetes medicines, or the blood pressure medicine"? Or is this part of the evil "moral hazard" that Sowell discusses in his next column?
Mr. Sowell is bright and insightful in his books. Sowell the columnist, however, often panders to the right with simplistic straw man arguments. The funny thing is that he points out the intellectual dishonesty of using such arguments in his books.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Mark
Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
