2008 Woodie Awards
Nationalized healthcare proposals seem overly idealistic
Tom Speaker
Issue date: 8/24/07 Section: OpEd Page
The debate over socialized medicine has become exponentially more heated since the release of Michael Moore's Sicko. Supporters of universal health coverage generally cite the high expense of America's system ($6,102 per person annually) as the cause for change. Canada and Britain, both of which have universal coverage, are often painted as utopias of cordiality and prosperity. The United States' system is certainly far from perfect, but saying that Canada, Britain, Australia or France's are angelic is blind and maybe even dishonest.
Perhaps the most questionable "fact" is the claim that universal coverage is free. That's true, if "free" means "prepaid"-everything is covered through taxation. France's system, ranked No. 1 in the world by the World Health Organization (WHO), spends $3,500 per capita on healthcare. According the government's statistics, the average French citizen earns about $29,000 per year, so that amounts to be about 12 percent of income. This is rather slight compared to the United States, but "free" would be a poor choice of word.
Unfortunately, there is a downside to services so cheap. One of the most overlooked faults of countries with universal coverage is how long it takes patients to receive service-the United States' healthcare may be costly, but the WHO still ranked its system first in responsiveness. A 2006 Telegraph article reports that "hospitals across the country are imposing minimum waiting times" in the United Kingdom, "delaying the treatment of thousands of patients" (July 8). The situation in Canada isn't much better, and according to the New York Times, "average wait times between referral ... and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery." The issue, in most cases, is that the socialized system isn't receiving enough funding. The UK's Secretary of State of Health stated that national hospitals are accomplishing more tasks than the government could afford.
The problems don't end with reaction time; believe it or not, some of the United States' services are superior. A 2004 study by Dr. Padma Kaul found that U.S. patients had a death rate of 19.6 percent after a completely blocked coronary artery heart attack compared to Canada's 21.4. Kaul noted that the two percent may seem tiny, but it can represent thousands of lives.
Perhaps the most questionable "fact" is the claim that universal coverage is free. That's true, if "free" means "prepaid"-everything is covered through taxation. France's system, ranked No. 1 in the world by the World Health Organization (WHO), spends $3,500 per capita on healthcare. According the government's statistics, the average French citizen earns about $29,000 per year, so that amounts to be about 12 percent of income. This is rather slight compared to the United States, but "free" would be a poor choice of word.
Unfortunately, there is a downside to services so cheap. One of the most overlooked faults of countries with universal coverage is how long it takes patients to receive service-the United States' healthcare may be costly, but the WHO still ranked its system first in responsiveness. A 2006 Telegraph article reports that "hospitals across the country are imposing minimum waiting times" in the United Kingdom, "delaying the treatment of thousands of patients" (July 8). The situation in Canada isn't much better, and according to the New York Times, "average wait times between referral ... and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery." The issue, in most cases, is that the socialized system isn't receiving enough funding. The UK's Secretary of State of Health stated that national hospitals are accomplishing more tasks than the government could afford.
The problems don't end with reaction time; believe it or not, some of the United States' services are superior. A 2004 study by Dr. Padma Kaul found that U.S. patients had a death rate of 19.6 percent after a completely blocked coronary artery heart attack compared to Canada's 21.4. Kaul noted that the two percent may seem tiny, but it can represent thousands of lives.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
C. K. Roberts
posted 2/18/08 @ 4:43 PM EST
The argument that universal coverage outside the U.S. is a problem because of waiting lists doesn't count the 47 million U.S. uninsured who can't even get on the list so that they can be counted. (Continued…)
Nick
posted 2/18/08 @ 11:49 PM EST
Thank you so much for writing an article with some sense in it...
respect individual rights: say NO to Socialist Medicine
Post a Comment