Reader comments
Socialized medicine answer to U.S.'s problems

We live in times when ideologies become more important than common sense and doing the right thing. When the wealthiest country in the world turns it back on those who need it most (the countless millions who cannot afford healthcare) that country is doomed to economic failure.

Mr. Williams,
I'd prefer to wait (by the way, most of the waiting is done for non-essential surgeries) than not be able to afford care at all.
Right now, people who have a history of stroke, heart disease, etc. can not buy insurance, regardless of their current health. Unless their employee offers health insurance, they are out of luck.
Ouch.
I'm sure the super-rich prefer the system in the US. Those of us who aren't super-rich, and have seen how the European systems work, prefer "socialized" medicine.

Sooner or later the ultra-right will see that providing affordable healthcare for everyone is the desire for the majority of Americans (especially those who need it most) and add it to its arsenal of political tools. Then we will hear: "Republicans wanted healthcare for everyone and Democrats never DID want it!"

LOL!

I travel regularly to the united states and it's interesting in that, as is the case with most middle class Canadians who do, we buy extra health insurance to do so. It isn't so much insurance to cover health care, should it be necessary, but evacuation. Sure, we have 'wait times'. A lot of them are for non essential services. The fraser institute is hardly unbiased. Besides, more Americans have no health insurance than there are Canadians. I guess they don't have any wait times because they're not going to get any treatment?

The majority of people aren't always right. Were they right when they wanted Jesus crucified and Barnabus set free? Someone has to pay for your health care and are the ninth and tenth commandments out the door on that matter.

Health care in the US is this kind of economics:

The first party, the industry, produces a product that is in great demand by the second party, the market. The industry sets the price for it's services. The market hands it's payment to a 3rd party, the insurers.
The insurers demand lower costs (reduced quality) from the industry and increased costs (reduced service) from the market.

This is not capitalism. It is feudalism on the lines of Royalty franchising tax collection.

Mr. Williams is right on. My wife and l lived in England for 6 years. We came to know the British health system well. While it provides very basic health care to the entire population, it simply cannot compare to our free market system. Hospitals are dirty and overcrowded. Doctors, who are paid by the number of patients on their "lists", spend little time with patients, preferring instead to see patients quickly and supply them with prescriptions for antibiotics. The doctors are not paid well, and consequently they are not the best and brightest; their offices are commonly cramped, dirty, and crowded with waiting patients, the best doctors preferring to treat patients who are willing to pay for their services. Long waiting lists for surgeries are common, as Mr. Williams writes, with some patients waiting months or even years for treatment that no American must wait for. Many British people do not complain about their system because they know nothing better, but those who are acquainted with our system, are envious. No health system is perfect, but our system has fewer problems than others. If we make major changes to our system, we will find out the hard way.

So, wait times in Canada are 5 or more weeks - what are the wait times for Americans? Especially Americans with no insurance?

If American health care is so good, why are there American health tourists (Including many who are fairly well off financially)?

Are you aware of the fact that many American health tourists are sent on these trips by the insurance companies who want lower cost care for those they insure so they can make larger profits?

Do you know that when it comes to infant mortality and life span America ranks BELOW China, Canada, England, Denmark, France, Sweden, and several other nations?

Do you know that when you factor in out-of-pocket and employer paid expenses Americans are paying pretty close to (if not more than) what all those other countries are paying for taxes and health care?

Do you know that senior citizens in Canada and England don't have to choose between buying the medications they need and buying food?

A five week wait - I wish that was my biggest health care concern...

Robert states, "... with some patients waiting months or even years for treatment that no American must wait for."

I used to know someone who worked in the ER of one of the major hospitals in SLC (as a clue, it wasn't the U). An individual needing dire medical assistance came in. This person had no insurance. The hospital provided basic care but the procedure that was needed to save this individuals life was very intensive and very expensive. Rather than provide it and eat the cost, those concerned with the bottom line chose to let this individual die.

You are right - this person did not have to wait for treatment - it was totally unavailable to them.

So Mr Williams is saying that by having the government provide healthcare for the population, you get a shortage of coverage. Then he says that we should get on that band wagon?

Why should we adopt a system that doesn't work in other countries? We should be able to come up with a better solution than emulating what doesn't work in other countries.

Walter Williams is being disingenuous here. The United States spends a much larger percentage of its GDP on health care than do either Canada or Great Britain. If they spent what we do, there would be no wait times.

But Canada and Great Britain are not the best models, and I'm sure Williams knows it. France and Taiwan are much better examples.

When I think of the word unbiased, the Frasier Institute and the Cato Institute are the first things that come to my mind <<--sarcasm

What is the 'average wait time' for someone without insurance? Just til they die.
Whenever I read something like this I cant help but hope that the defenders of our horrible system get the chance to see it in action. Fighting insurance companies, doctors who are under pressure from insurance companies to get out cheep, and mounting bills that can take everything you worked your entire life get.
Ill bet mr williams has good insurance. Until they decide he had a pre-existing condition.

You can't compare infant mortality rates with other countries because you are looking at apples and oranges. Premature babies and babies born with serious birth defects are often left to die in other countries and not included in their statistics, while we treat many of those same babies aggressively, and all of them are included in our statistics.

Yes we have a lot of problems with our healthcare system - that doesn't mean turning to socialized medicine will fix them. We'll just wind up with a host of different problems - and it will be far harder to change the system once it's a government system.

It is obscene that the richest industrialized nation in the world refuses to care for those who need affordable and available healthcare the most.

This might mark the beginning of the end of the America we once knew. You remember THAT America - a chicken in every pot, The Marshall Plan ...

I think my late father was right. Republicans favor the rich (doctors, dentists, pharmaceutical companies) while Democrats are on the side of the little guy (this number appears to be growing daily).

I love the statement, "You can't compare infant mortality rates with other countries because you are looking at apples and oranges. Premature babies and babies born with serious birth defects are often left to die in other countries and not included in their statistics, while we treat many of those same babies aggressively, and all of them are included in our statistics."

Guess what? When you are comparing with countries such as Canada, England, Denmark, France, Sweden, etc. - yes, you are comparing apples to apples. Believe it or not, the United States is not the only country with modern medical procedures and we are not the only country that cares for babies with birth defects.

And, in the United States, if you have no insurance, you are more likely to be unable to care for that baby and less likely to receive assistance in doing so.

Why is it that the health care problem can only be solved by the people who brought us Fannie and Freddie, a social security system that will soon be bankrupt, hurricane katrina relief ...? Why is it that government failures don't mean anything and private failures do? The solutions to our health care problems will not be solved by replacing health insurance rationing with government rationing. The best solution is beyond the understanding of those who prefer to place their faith in government to meet all needs. Oh that someone were able to teach the principles that would solve this problem.

Last socialist country I visited, France, seemed to be fairing quite well. Sweden and Norway also thrive. What is so inherently evil with these countries?

As the uninsured or insured are denied reasonable early detection and preventive medical care when illness arise they seek care in the ER necessary or not, by law the ER can't turn them away. This does not mean that they will have access to the physicians they need to effectively treat their condition after leaving the ER.

Physicians are not necessarily able to afford treating these patients. Some physicians are struggling to pay their staff for hours worth of time to chase down a $30 payment from medicaid in addition to malpractice premiums. Some have closed their practices to earn more working Locum Tenems. Hospitals pass on their incurred losses. The insurance companies never take a loss and CEO's may make millions a year by passing those costs on to employers and policy holders. No matter how much you don't want to pay for someone else to be well, you will. The free market can't flourish, a small company may want to grow, but can't due to it's inability to provide insurance.

The constitution of this great nation was written to secure our freedoms by limiting and distributing governmental power, Period end of discussion!
We are guaranteed freedom, that is it.
There is no guarantee of wealth.
There is no guarantee of health.
Health care is provided by your neighbors and friends, not by some nameless entity.
And as such, placing more beurocratic hoops between you the customer and your neighbor the doctor is not only rediculous, but not the job of the US government.
The US government does not deny, or refuse medical service to anyone. It has no place in such transactions. It places our government far afield of its responsibility, distracts it from its focus, and disabels it from ability.
If you really need medical attention, talk to a doctor not a politician. We don't ask our banking officer to fix our cars!

This argument is pointless, as neither presidential candidate is promoting "socialized medicine." Those who say Obama IS promoting it haven't looked at his plan at all.