Is waiting in line for months and sometimes years the biggest problem with socialized medicine?
Topic: Is waiting in line for months and sometimes years the biggest problem with socialized medicine?
June 20, 2019 / By Deanne Question:
If you have a spraigned ankle, you will have to wait. I'm more concerned with situations more severe. My 29 year-old daughter was diagnosed with cervical cancer when she was 22 after a routine pap smear. In England, a young woman can't get a routine pap smear until they are 25.
My daughter is has been cancer free for seven years even though cervical cancer is one of the more dangerous forms. Had she been forced to wait another three years for her first pap smear she'd probably be dead today.
I would be the first to agree that we need some health care reform. At the same time I think we should proceed very cautiously and be absolutely sure that our reforms aren't a step backwards.
Best Answers: Is waiting in line for months and sometimes years the biggest problem with socialized medicine?
Brielle | 6 days ago
The British Medical Journal recently published research that looked at the effectiveness of smear tests across different age groups of women. This large and well-designed case-control study analysed the impact of cervical screening on the risk of cancer in more than 4,000 diagnosed cases and nearly 8,000 age-matched controls without cancer.
It found that screening reduced the risk of developing cervical cancer in all age groups except the youngest. As women got older, the more their risk was reduced in the five years after screening. Screening women between the ages of 20 and 24 had no detectable impact on cervical cancer rates at ages 25 to 29. These are important findings, which support the NHS approach of only inviting women for cervical screening once they reach the age of 25.
The NHS generally offers very good screening services, however in terms of under-25's and cervical screening there is some controversy, see links and studies below.
There is also a private system in the UK, and there is nothing stopping young women from paying for a private smear test if they are under 25 (cost around £60 or $100), furthermore if you have any abnormal symptoms such as bleeding you will be tested regardless of age.
In terms of waiting for years, that's absoloute nonsense, you now see a cancer specialist in less than two weeks from GP referral or the NHS pay for you to go private.
There are also waiting time limits on which NHS Trusts are evaluated, the maximum waiting time being 18 weeks.
The NHS now works closely and in partnership with the private sector and you can choose which hospital or doctor you wish to treat you under the NHS Choices Scheme, and this includes participating private hospitals.
The NHS also contracts out services to the private sector such as routine operations which are increasingly carried out by Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTC's).
The NHS has also formed partnerships with the private sector such as Cancer Partners UK.
👍 220 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Is waiting in line for months and sometimes years the biggest problem with socialized medicine?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: I have a SOLUTION to socialized medicine.?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCris... "Obama has proposed a national insurance program to allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health care similar to that available to federal employees, funded by a tax on employers who don't provide coverage. Individuals would not lose coverage when they switch jobs.
He would lower premiums through a program that would reduce the exposure of employer health plans to costs of a catastrophic illness. Drug costs would be lowered by allowing patients to buy drugs from abroad and letting the government negotiate for lower prices."
Please, click the link, look at what Obama is actually proposing. (My personal view on it is that it does not go far enough, but anything is better than the current system that fails Americans at present.)
that's because the us has too many patients and not enough doctors, import enough doctors from other countries and there'll be more people to attend to people's problems.
👍 90 | 👎 -1
It makes absolutely no sense that the wait time would go up. The only thing that would change in hospitals in the billing department.
And yeah, if you have a sprained ankle you might have to wait - because some guy came in with a heart attack or from a car accident. You should wait. It's wrong to demand to be seen before people with serious ailments because your insurance plan provides faster care or the Hospital can make a little extra cash off of you.
Our health care system is morally wrong and elitist. What I find funny (and by funny I mean extremely sad and disheartening) is that the people who are most against Health Care Reform are people who claim to be Christian. If they were real Christians they'd care about those less fortunate.
👍 85 | 👎 -8
no the biggest problem is when they decide treating your particular ailment is not cost effective and they tell you that you will not be treated at all. In England, a number of breast cancer drugs have been taken out of the system as they are considered too expensive. After all, its only a womens problem!
👍 80 | 👎 -15
No yet, 3 hours is very nearly average waiting time in an emergency room circulate to. Bedside way is waning as a results of docs being overworked so badly. the super invoice is all yours to pay however.
👍 75 | 👎 -22
Originally Answered: Why do people want socialized medicine.?
They usually want it because they either disagree with the drawbacks that you list or that they believe there will be other benefits that will outweight any drawbacks. I think also that the thought of guaranteeing health care to every person seems just to socialized medicine advocates.
I am not an advocate for socialized medecine, but I think that it's important to realize that the motives are genuine for the vast majority of people who do want it. Rather than impugne their motives, I view it (usually) as a matter of honest debate.
I generally oppose the government provision of anything at all (including especially important things such as health care). When goods or services are provided through voluntary arrangements, the profit mechanism is at play to help allocate scarce resources to their best use. Firms able to earn profits in a free market (careful to differentiate it from much of what passes for business in our society) are those that are able to best satisfy the needs of their customers.
When tasks are relegated to government, the profit mechanism ceases to function. Rather, activities are guided by bureaucracy. While most bureaucrats are well-intentioned, there is no way to determine who are the best providers. More often than not, failure is rewarded by increased funding. And we haven't even touched upon the moral hazard that directs so much wealth to corrupt purposes.
Most people who want socialized medicine believe that it will make society better. I disagree. It can not work.
ADDITION: Reading other responses, it's worth agreeing that our current medical system is deeply flawed. I do want change. However, when considering what form to adopt, we should take an honest look at the current level of government intervention (from regulation to tax policies that promote third party payer systems). We should consider whether the current interventions are the real culprits for the problems. If so, will allowing further government interventions really solve anything?
ADDITION 2: I had another thought. I honestly believe that systems in other countries are aimed at maximizing the availability of health care to their citizens. For every report of how "brilliant" (to borrow a term from our U.K. friend above) their systems are, there is at least one horror story. I only have personal experience with the U.S. system and must be careful to account for my biases when considering what I hear about other systems. An interesting question to consider is whether their systems are superior to our's. In answering this question, it should be remembered that our corporate/government run system is aimed largely at enriching special interests. However you answer the question, you must look carefully in society to find instances of free market health care solution. Most comparisons sadly are debating fascism (the U.S. system) with socialism (European and Canadian systems).
EDIT IN RESPONSE TO lavidasigue40:
You touch on the moral aspect of this question whereas I have only dealth with the economic aspect up until now. Wanting to provide for your child's care does not automatically equate to asking government to force society to pay for it. A person who stands behind what Christianity preaches will not require theft (what you call forcefully taking wealth which is what taxation amounts to for a great many people) to meet their needs. The Christian response would seem to warrant seeking voluntary solutions to getting your child the care he needs and deserves.
I can sympathize with the desperate parent who steals to provide for his child. I can even understand the sentiment that goes toward condoning taxation to relieve you from the risk of personal crime or the shame of pleading for charity (leaving out for the moment the prospect of personal industry - yes I know sometimes the chance of immediate success seems remote). But can you not see the moral hazard that you introduce when you establish an institution of theft?
Paying for health care (no, health care is not free no matter how you fund it) by taxation is theft. When you identify the threats of violence behind taxation and recognize that as theft, can you wonder why corruption seems so rampant among politicians? What kind of people do you think will tend to seek to seize the power of massive institutions of legal threat? Can you not see that such an institution is a primary cause of the inequality that you see?
Yes, you are right to protest the material inequality of the world. Voluntary human association does not lead to such massive inequality. When wealth must be earned by honest contract, a person may only become wealthy by trading great amounts of value. Many fortunes are seized (not earned) in cooperation with the institution of theft that you wish to establish to care for your child. Do you picture the horrors these institutions have visited upon humanity? Why do you want to prop up these institutions? We can do better through voluntary institutions!
My objections to socialized medicine lie both within economic and moral realms. While I recognize the honest motivations of most people who desire it, I strongly believe that they are misguided.