The Reality of Socialized Medicine

[DawnODay]

That has worked so well in the US, hasn't it?

Thank you, oggbashan. By bringing up the experience of the USA, you have proven my point.

The USA had very affordable health care during the early decades of the 20th Century. After the 1950s, however, the federal government became increasingly involved in the healthcare market, particularly with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid. These skew the market in a variety of ways, such as by affecting demand and by setting artificially low prices for services, for which healthcare providers must compensate elsewhere by charging higher prices to private individuals and insurers. This government interference in the market drove up the cost of private healthcare and insurance.

As it usually does, the federal government tried to solve problems its regulation of the market caused by more regulation, culminating in Obamacare. Rather than decreasing people's healthcare costs "by $2,500" annually as President Obama promised, it dramatically increased the cost of insurance by mandating various previously optional coverages, then requiring everyone to buy this overpriced insurance. This was a double-whammy that anyone who understood fundamental economics (such as the Law of Supply and Demand) knew would drive up prices, which it did.

 

[phrodeau]

Health care from a hundred years ago. Odd thing to wish for.

 

[DawnODay]

Health care from a hundred years ago. Odd thing to wish for.

Nice try, but you know that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about its market, not its nature.

Besides, the free market is best at promoting innovation and development.

 

[jaF0]

What drove up medical costs was greed. Doctors and 'specialists' wanting bigger yachts and more elaborate country club memberships, even their own planes. They jacked up their rates accordingly and screwed the pooch (us) with no regulation or challenge. Then BigMedCo and BigPharma got into the act and decided it was OK to bill $6 for 'gelatinous dietary meal supplements' (jello) and $5 for a single aspirin tablet during hospital stays. And when the doctor stops by your hospital room and waves at you from the doorway (How ya' doin' this mornin' Bertha?) without even entering the room? $50 assessed for a 'consultation'.


Oh, and shuttup BB.

 

[dan_c00000]

What drove up medical costs was greed.

Yes, by the insurance companies. The U.S. spends more than other countries and gets worse results.

Don't forget that racist dawn's precious businesses spend far more money on advertising their products than they do researching them.

 

[DawnODay]

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.

Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS....

Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009.

And keep in mind that "on time" for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America....

The NHS also routinely denies patients access to treatment. More than half of NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, which plan and commission health services within their local regions, are rationing cataract surgery. They call it a procedure of "limited clinical value."

It's hard to see how a surgery that can prevent blindness is of limited clinical value. Delaying surgery can cause patients' vision to worsen -- and thus put them at risk of falls or being unable to conduct basic daily activities.

"It's shocking that access to this life-changing surgery is being unnecessarily restricted," said Helen Lee, a health policy manager at the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Many Clinical Commissioning Groups are also rationing hip and knee replacements, glucose monitors for diabetes patients, and hernia surgery by placing the same "limited clinical value" label on them....

Great Britain's health crisis is the inevitable outcome of a system where government edicts, not supply and demand, determine where scarce resources are allocated....​

S. Pipes, Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care, Forbes (Apr. 1, 2019) (emphasis added).

 

[icanhelp1]

You're like a salesman at the turn of the 20th century telling us your horse-and-buggy is superior to a combustion engine.

Do you know the US is the only country left in the modern world to not have a socialized system? Maybe ponder that for a bit.

Maybe that's because we lead and not follow!

 

[gunthernehmen]

It wasn't the GOVERNMENT. It was the court's decision taken reluctantly and after lengthy consideration.

I could've sworn the courts were an arm of the government. In the US they're in the Judiciary arm (imagine that).

I guess elsewhere the courts are privatized?

Who knew?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Some of the more civilised countries have the Trias Politica, or Separation of Powers . I believe the uSA as well.

Probably doesn't say anything to you.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

The courts are not a private industry in the US. They are a branch of government. Independent, yes, but still of the government.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't think that means what you think it means.

The courts are not a private industry in the US. They are a branch of government. Independent, yes, but still of the government.

The whole point of a judiciary system is that it is independent of the government. The government can make the laws but the judiciary interpret them.

In the US the Supreme Court can change what the government thinks it has said is legal, and no one can challenge that decision.

 

[gunthernehmen]

So unless all three branches act in concert and issue a collective statement then it can never be said that "the government did this thing".

How terribly convenient.

The courts (other than immigration courts) are without question a "part" of the government.

Not the entire government of course but yes, "the government".

Whether that's how it is where Alfie lived, I couldn't say.

 

[oggbashan]

So unless all three branches act in concert and issue a collective statement then it can never be said that "the government did this thing".

How terribly convenient.

The courts (other than immigration courts) are without question a "part" of the government.

Not the entire government of course but yes, "the government".

Whether that's how it is where Alfie lived, I couldn't say.

The courts are part of 'the establishment' in the UK but 'the government' is the political party that has a working majority in the House of Commons.

The courts and judiciary act independently irrespective of the state of 'the government' and have done since Magna Carta. The 'King's Justice' does not end with the death of a monarch, nor with a General Election. The laws created by 'the government' and past governments are enforced by the courts according to the wording of Acts of Parliament, precedent, and the principles of Common Law.

As with the US Supreme Court, the UK judges once appointed cannot be removed by 'the government' (except in specified limited conditions). Unlike the US Supreme Court, UK judges are not expected to have political opinions, nor is their appointment likely to be controversial.

In Alfie's case, the UK court was interpreting an Act of Parliament and precedent.

 

[icanhelp1]

The whole point of a judiciary system is that it is independent of the government. The government can make the laws but the judiciary interpret them.

In the US the Supreme Court can change what the government thinks it has said is legal, and no one can challenge that decision.

There are 3 branches of government:

1. Executive, conducts the peoples business in accordance with the law, also enforces the laws through the justice department.
2. legislative, Makes the laws. Provide oversight to the executive.
3. Judicial, Determines whether laws are constitutional. enforces the law through the court system and administers punishment.

All are independent of each other, hence, checks and balances.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Unlike the US Supreme Court, UK judges are not expected to have political opinions, nor is their appointment likely to be controversial.

In Alfie's case, the UK court was interpreting an Act of Parliament and precedent.

I can't speak to the UK system but here, the courts are simply another branch of the government.

The Supreme Court is expressly NOT political. They exist to evaluate whether lower courts are following the dictate (dictate, not guidance) of the Constitution. The controversy arises from self anointed nitwits that want to politicize a non political branch of government.

There are 3 branches of government

He's from England. Doesn't know any better.

Although in fairness the case mentioned in the first post happened in England.

 

[oggbashan]

...

He's from England. Doesn't know any better.

Although in fairness the case mentioned in the first post happened in England.

That's the whole point. People don't always understand the divisions in England between the lawmaking government, the courts, and the much reduced (by comparison with the US) powers of the executive under an unwritten constitution based on hundreds of years of precedent.

The drafters of the US constitution wanted to make clear and precise what had taken England hundreds of years to develop, while removing the constitutional monarchy.

Scots Law is different and has been since before the Union between England and Scotland took place under what had been a Scottish King. With devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales (and non-operational in Northern Ireland) laws can vary between the component parts of the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands make for even more complexity.

 

[DawnODay]

You're correct in saying they are one branch of the government, but saying 'The Court' is 'The Government' is incorrect, and I think Ogg is right in pointing out that it wasn't "The Government'....

There's a problem of semantics here. In the USA, when we say "the government," we mean all three branches. In the UK, as I understand it, "The Government" means the party (or coalition) with the majority in Parliament, along with its chosen Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet (i.e., the legislative and executive branches). As oggbashan writes, this does not include the British judiciary.

Unlike the UK, where the legislature picks the chief executive (Prime Minister), the legislative and executive branches in the USA are elected separately and have checks and balances between one another, with the judiciary acting as a separate third and coequal branch. The Founders did this on purpose for at least two reasons. First, to make sure no branch or person could gain too much power. Second, to make the government less efficient, in a nod to the Anti-Federalists, in order to put a further check on its power.

It's quite relevant to make that distinction here, given the way Dawn abused it to politicize things.

Not intentionally, it was a mistake of details on my part, which oggbashan pointed out and I acknowledged. At that point, this thread no longer focused on just the Alfie Evans case, or even the NHS, but on socialized medicine (of which the Children Act of 1989 may not be technically a part, but to which it is at least tangential) and the power of government over our health and life decisions generally (to which the Alfie Evans case remains spot-on relevant). You pointing out a technical mistake from ten months ago is a transparent attempt to try to argue against a strawman and avoid facing the actual issues.

 

[DawnODay]

Maybe that's because we lead and not follow!

Hear! Hear!

...

In the US the Supreme Court can change what the government thinks it has said is legal, and no one can challenge that decision.

That's not quite right.

As this usually comes up in the context of the enforcement of some legislation, the Supreme Court's ruling can often be nullified by correcting the deficiencies in the subject legislation.

On larger issues, if the Supreme Court ruling is based on some sweeping principle of the Constitution, then the sovereign People, through their representatives, can change the Constitution itself. For example, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), the federal Supreme Court correctly determined income tax unconstitutional under a provision in the Constitution that direct taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In response, the USA passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1909) authorizing Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it.

The whole idea behind our written Constitution is to keep any branch of government from becoming too powerful.

 

[oggbashan]

The Children's Act of 1969 is rarely used for health matters but it can influence parental decisions for example whether to deny blood transfusion because of religious principles. If the parental decision is seen to be against the child's interest, the Children's Act could be used for the benefit of the child's health.

The Alfie case was an extreme example and rightly a matter of considerable debate but the courts' decisions were that the parents were not acting in the child's best interests in that extreme medical intervention would not improve Alfie's life chances but only extend his distress.

But the public attitude about parental rights is very different in the UK compared with the US. Any parent acting against the best interests of a child, whether by malice or because of the adult's religious or moral principles is seen as a bad parent socially, and the Children's Act is the legal expression of that attitude in the UK. The child's rights as an individual have greater weight than parental wishes. That would not work in the US where parents rights are seen as more relevant.

 

[oggbashan]

Hear! Hear!



That's not quite right.

As this usually comes up in the context of the enforcement of some legislation, the Supreme Court's ruling can often be nullified by correcting the deficiencies in the subject legislation.

On larger issues, if the Supreme Court ruling is based on some sweeping principle of the Constitution, then the sovereign People, through their representatives, can change the Constitution itself. For example, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), the federal Supreme Court correctly determined income tax unconstitutional under a provision in the Constitution that direct taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In response, the USA passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1909) authorizing Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it.

The whole idea behind our written Constitution is to keep any branch of government from becoming too powerful.

It is right as I said it. The Supreme Court interprets the law as it is now. That law can be repealed, corrected or replaced, but the Court's decision on what the law IS NOW cannot be contradicted.

 

[icanhelp1]

No I didn't say that.

I don't want to pay taxes on shit that's not necessary to secure the state, ensure the peace n' tranquility and the rights and liberties of the citizenry. We need civil services...we need laws to keep order and cops/agencies to enforce them in order to do those things.

I want MINIMAL government oppression both socially and economically needed to achieve that stability while preserving a maximum amount of individual liberty.

Because I'm a liberal, not an anarchist.

Though it's probably hard to differentiate the two for anyone sitting left of center.

I agree! There are millions and millions off americans who treasure their health care coverage. Everytime the government touches something they start with cost will go down and we will be better off, that is pure pie in the sky BULLSHIT. Our government never does anything efficient!!! To tear down our whole health care system for a single payer system is a gamble I don't care to take. I think it would be more prudent and efficient to develop a safety net type of health care for the less fortunate maybe improve ACA and government funded HC for previous existing conditions. I just look at the how government runs the VA, and their fix is to allow patients to use private medical facilities for care or waiting for care takes too long. I see the VA as a microcosm of the single payer system.

 

[DawnODay]

It is right as I said it. The Supreme Court interprets the law as it is now. That law can be repealed, corrected or replaced, but the Court's decision on what the law IS NOW cannot be contradicted.

Again, just semantics.

 

[icanhelp1]

There's a problem of semantics here. In the USA, when we say "the government," we mean all three branches. In the UK, as I understand it, "The Government" means the party (or coalition) with the majority in Parliament, along with its chosen Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet (i.e., the legislative and executive branches). As oggbashan writes, this does not include the British judiciary.

Spot on!! It's amazing how so many people don't understand the tenants of our government and how it works. How each branch is independent of each other and built in it checks and balances for each. Now, if we could just establish term limits on the legislative branch we could probably move forward with progress. To trust our government to legislate something as complex as a single payer system give me the willies.

Unlike the UK, where the legislature picks the chief executive (Prime Minister), the legislative and executive branches in the USA are elected separately and have checks and balances between one another, with the judiciary acting as a separate third and coequal branch. The Founders did this on purpose for at least two reasons. First, to make sure no branch or person could gain too much power. Second, to make the government less efficient, in a nod to the Anti-Federalists, in order to put a further check on its power.



Not intentionally, it was a mistake of details on my part, which oggbashan pointed out and I acknowledged. At that point, this thread no longer focused on just the Alfie Evans case, or even the NHS, but on socialized medicine (of which the Children Act of 1989 may not be technically a part, but to which it is at least tangential) and the power of government over our health and life decisions generally (to which the Alfie Evans case remains spot-on relevant). You pointing out a technical mistake from ten months ago is a transparent attempt to try to argue against a strawman and avoid facing the actual issues.

Spot on!! It's amazing how so many people don't understand the tenants of our government and how it works. How each branch is independent of each other and built in it checks and balances for each. Now, if we could just establish term limits on the legislative branch we could probably move forward with progress. To trust our government to legislate something as complex as a single payer system give me the willies.

 

[oggbashan]

Again, just semantics.

Nope. A question of US law, which is all about interpreting words...

 

[icanhelp1]

Nice try, but you know that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about its market, not its nature.

Besides, the free market is best at promoting innovation and development.

Spot on again. To take away the entrepreneurship of people in the medical field would sooner or later cast a malaise on that career field. After doing a cost to benefit analysis they would migrate to another career field which would eventually lead to substandard care and an overburdened system, hence long waiting times and a demishing pool of medical care professionals. Of course our government could go down stairs in the secret room and print more money and pay for all cost for training them, maybe another tax on our people. Your narratives are a breath of fresh air.

 

[icanhelp1]

So you don't pay ANY taxes on anything - income, sales, etc because taxes are communist?

That makes you an anarchist.

I find that reasonable people don't mind paying their fair share of taxes. Our government in their infinite wisdom has sold our future to the tune of 22 trillion dollars of debt and a 400 billion dollars interest payment annually and climbing. The left has gone of the rails with promoting single payer system, the green new deal, reparations for past sins, child care for everyone and billions more for education, just to name a few, all nice things to have but how do we pay for it? And please don't tell me cut the military.