Deseret News | Socialized medicine answer to U.S.'s problems

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

Anonymous | 12:31 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Timj | 4:29 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 6:29 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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!

Comments continue below

Johnny Canuck | 6:57 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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?

Anonymous | 7:25 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Himself | 7:37 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Robert | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Waiting... | 7:52 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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...

What happens in ERs... | 7:59 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

RedShirt | 8:07 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

The Profit | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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

Anonymous | 8:39 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Infant mortality | 8:50 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

beginning of the end? | 8:54 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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).

@ infant mortality | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Toby | 9:50 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Peace | 10:14 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

S&W.40 | 10:31 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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!

Oh Please | 10:37 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

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.

Todd S. | 10:39 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Robert is, as he says, "right on". I have witnessed socialized medicine in England, too. While visiting a patient there once, the lady came around to serve dinner. Rather than place a clean, covered dish of warm and nutritious food on the patent's tray, she came around with three pots and spooned up the food from the three pots onto a plate, then put the plate on the patient's nightstand. It was a warm stew-like dish, with luke warm green beans and carrots. That was it. The pots of food were not covered, and they had been in several other patient areas before the lady came to the area where I was. And this was one of London's best hospitals!

And, yes, I did say patient "area". Most patients don't have their own rooms, or even semi-private rooms shared with one other patient. Instead, patients were spread out in areas, sometimes just hallways, in rows of beds. Even maternity areas are full of women and screaming babies, with visitors (many smoking cigarets) sitting in chairs just feet away from the beds.

These are just the hospital conditions. I'd love to tell you about the quality of the doctors.

Look closely | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

I am a surgeon, a specialist. For a number of years I worked for the VA system. (The vets were a wonderful collection of patients!) The VA system is socialized medicine. Because of many reasons related to bureaucracy, and in spite of my colleagues and I seeing more than 50% more patients per day than the VA standard, the waiting time, for non-emergent conditions, for an appointment in this clinic was 9 months. That was unacceptable for accountability of the higher-ups. So, acting againts better judgement, the bureaucrats reduced our wait time by just dismissing patients. Yes, many patients did not and will not get appointments for their needed surgery. THAT, my friends, is how socialized medicine controls costs. You, we, don't get care. I resigned from the VA in protest. Socialized medicine is not the answer. Look closely before you buy! You won't like socialized medicine.

Anonymous | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Socialism works.
In fact it works quite well.
I am proud of:
Our U.S. Postal System
Our Public School System
Our Fire Departments
Our Police Departments.

I am not proud however how easy it is for the government to bail out their richie-rich pals at taxpayer's expense. Not proud of that form of socialism at all.

HR676 | 11:58 a.m. Oct. 22, 2008

So it's okay to socialize our financial system but not our health care system? Like it or not, we've just become a socialist country. With our recent $750 billion dollar bailout plan. There's money for that, there's always money for war. But everyone screams when it comes to universal health care.

All of this deficit is falling on the shoulders of taxpayers. Yet, those taxpayers are losing their homes because of medical bills. Or becoming disabled because they cannot afford preventative care. HRH676 has been stuck in committee for 2 years. It would provide universal health care for all. It is a sound fiscal plan, yet neither candidate has even mentioned it. They are so worried about it seeming like socialized medicine. It's time to face facts people. In the last month we have become a Socialist county!! We have the fiscal burden, we just don't have any of the benefits.

DSchmidt | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

I have lived in Sweden for a time. I observed that hypochondria is much greater than in non-socialized systems. You give people "free" health care and they will use it as much as necessary and even when not necessary. Could this be the reason for all the waiting in socialized systems?

good Christians? | 12:32 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Turning your back on those who need affordable and adequate healthcare especially in today's sinking economic climate, is not exactly in my book of what makes a good Christian.

Himself-Reply | 12:38 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

I think you got to the heart of the problem. The health care system is not a true free market system because of the third party insurance companies. For example, if I want to get a prescription filled at Walmart I can buy the discounted drug for 4 dollars, but the same drug would cost 20 dollars if I used my insurance card. Why? Because the pharmacutical companies set the prices with the insurance companies.

Another example: I went to the dentist but chose the dentist on a referral basis. I didn't even check his prices because my insurance pays for a checkup, regardless of the dentist. It is so opposite of other things or services you buy in which you look for the best deal. That is why I like my high deductible health insurance plan because it costs less than a traditional plan, and requires me to price shop because I have to meet my deductible before any services are covered.

I have heard that lasik surgery operates under a free market system because it isn't covered by vision insurance. Therefore, the price has become affordable as lasik doctors compete.

Anonymous | 12:48 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

At VA my wait time for an appointment is ten days. The one time I went to ER I waited 30 mins. Waits at VA are 10 mins. In reality, this is much better than the service I got at Kaiser.

We need to try, we have the mone | 12:58 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

So long as this country is willing to pay CEO's hundreds of millions to run companies into the ground, I am willing to have our country see if we can get medical care for all, even if other countries haven't done this in less than stellar ways, I continue to think we can do it better.

I am willing to try, we can throw money away, so why not experiment and see if we can make good use of it?

Thinkin' Man | 1:31 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

I think nearly everyone is missing the real point.

The problem is not health insurance, it's the rising cost of health care. If health care itself--visiting a doctor, having a procedure done--were affordable, there would be no need for health insurance beyond catastrophic insurance. Then everyone could afford the health care they need.

We need to do everything we can to reduce the cost of health care--eliminate middlemen (like pharmaceutical reps), reduce hospital administrations, reduce paperwork, cut costs, cut pork. Then the whole issue of affordable insurance and socialized medicine goes away.

I oughtta run for office.

Anonymous | 1:33 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Right on HR676!
Right on!

Toby: | 1:57 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

RE: Anonymous @11:10

The Postal System has competition and must offer service to compete.

Our public schools are among the poorest in the industrialized world.

We have a right as individuals to protect our property. Therefore we have a right to do it collectively - police and fire. The only legitimate government functions you mentioned.

Julie | 3:04 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

I lived in a country with socialized medicine. I waited in a line for 3 hours to treat a minor problem. This was not a third world country but a nice clean European country. The fact of the matter is, do you want to sell part of your freedoms to the government because you think it is responsible for our health care? Once the government controls medicine, it will assume the right to control other aspects of our lives that it claims have connections with our medical treatment--- like what we eat, is it healthy or not? Furthermore, socialized medicine is a complete disincentive for prospective doctors. Who wants to do research and treat people with illnesses on a meager salary? Yes, the fact that doctors can make a good living is sometimes a good motivator for them to excel in medicine-- for those of you upset that doctors "make so much". (And no, I am not married to one...)

Country pays CEO's? | 3:16 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Hey, "We need to try, we have the mone", the country doesn't pay CEO's - they're paid by the directors of their private corporations, which directors are elected by shareholders. If shareholders are ok paying a guy several million dollars a year because they believe he might earn them billions, they certainly have the right. If you don't own shares in that company, it doesn't affect you at all. What does this have to do with health care? Well, just as private shareholders have a right to bring in the people they want to lead their companies, we as health consumers ought to have the right to choose the plan we prefer and decide for ourselves what we can afford, and which doctor we would like to see, and so forth. Mark my words, the more you turn this over to the government, the more you will live to regret it, unless you're one of those who likes some elitist in Washington making decisions for you.

re: Toby 1:57 | 3:25 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Toby wants us to do away with or privatize the Post Office and our Public Schools, but does admit that we already have socialism in place in our police and fire departments, but I have a feeling this guy is a neocon and doesn't like them either (they LOVE to use the S word even more than the L word). Toby forgot about the socialized bailout of the banks, insurance companies and Wall Street.

LOL!

S&W.40 | 4:19 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

We do not need more!

WE NEED LESS!

We need less to come between doctors and patients!

I want my doctor and me deciding what treatments I should recieve!
Not a corporation!
And especially not politicians!

RE: anonymous 11:10 | 4:51 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

The US postal Service has beeen privatizewd since the 1970's with government oversight.

Education is supported and piad for by local taxes not the federal governemtnt.

Same for Fire and police, in fact in many firemen are volunteers.

So mone are actually socialist.

Teeh not paid for by the and controilled by the federal government.

However liberls have for years been trying tget o more federal control iin everything by handing out federal money.

Calvin | 4:54 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

to "good Christians?":

You wrote, "Turning your back on those who need affordable and adequate healthcare especially in today's sinking economic climate, is not exactly in my book of what makes a good Christian."

But paying higher taxes for a poorer system of health care does not make one a good Christian. Just read the comments (above) from those who have some experience with foreign health care.

For example, the Good Samaritan wasn't a good good man because he got government to help the injured traveler. And the story doesn't tell us that he went back to Jerusalem and campaigned for the government to start helping wounded travelers. Further, he did he criticize others for not caring.

Instead, he took it upon himself to help the man in need, spending his own money and taking from his own time to do it. In my view, Christianity teaches that it is one thing to take personal responsibility to help others, and something else to shrug one's personal responsibility and place it on the shoulders of government. And that's one of the reasons why socialist plans, including health care plans, are not good.

Anonymous | 5:05 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

The social welfare programs of our government have been for the most part positive, if partial, responses to the genuine social needs of the great majority of Americans. The dismantling of such programs by conservative and corporate elites in the absence of any alternatives will be disastrous. Abandoning schools, health care, and housing, for example, to the control of an unregulated free market magnifies the existing harsh realities of inequality and injustice especially in these terrible economic times when jobs are disappearing.

re: Calvin 4:54 | 5:31 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

I guess we are now supposed to decide what is more important - taking care of the less-fortunate (the way Christ taught) and providing every American affordable and adequate healthcare (like the rest of the poorer industrialized nations do) during the worst economic climate in our lifetime - or fall victim to the politicians who have crafted another demonized word SOCIALISM for obvious political gain.

Toby | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

re: Toby 1:57 @ 3:25

Did I really say all of that? Wow, maybe liberals should run the country - they can read our minds.

I don't consider police and fire socialism. You must of missed the point that we have individual rights to protect our lives and property. Therefore we have the right to delegate it to government. Not exactly a socialist outlook where rights begin and end in the government. I don't mind the postal service - as long as they pay their way and don't use government to limit competition (they did try it with FedEx when it started and there was talk about USPS charging for e-mail). You never addressed my concern that our socialized public schools don't work very well. But since you missed that point I might assume you are a product of public schools and don't do reading comprehension very well.

I didn't know I approved of the socialized bailouts you mentioned. Wow, will you tell me what other things I approve of, or don't approve of? I can just rely on you and will quit thinking for myself. But then isn't that what the "elites" want us to do?

cut the crap | 6:29 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Cut the crap Toby. This isn't the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Only the most stupid of Americans cannot see what the modern American conservative movement has done using the word SOCIALIST so liberally.
Palin uses it everywhere she goes. McCain uses it sporadically but more and more after each poll that indicates they are losing.

KM | 6:35 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

To those according to their need, from those according to their ability.

Anonymous | 7:21 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

With the massive layoffs reported this week more republicans well get to experience life without health care.

A real free market | 8:43 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

If I lose or change jobs I don't lose my car insurance or my home owners policy. Why am I forced to change health care coverage? If the government removed its assinine tax subsidy for 3rd party health care coverage we'd see an immediate drop in health care costs and 'pre-existing condition' issues (if you never let your policy lapse you're covered).

There are responsible ways to address social issuese without nationalizing an enormous share of the economy. And just because someone guessed that the recent bailout pkg will ultimately cost $750B does not make it so. It also doesn't justify stupid fiscal policy going forward. When all is said & done the 'bailouts' will cost the taxpayer a fraction of what Obama's health care policies will cost over just a few years.

Mac | 12:19 a.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Yes, let's have socialitic heatlth care.
I remember the one in Mexico, very long lines, not good docs, not good nurses. Sounds very appealing to adopt our neighbors' example.
Barack Obama: you are a true genious. Just like what you and fellow Democrats did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why let the dirty doctors make more money, when you can keep it to yourself? Just like you and Raines (fmr Fannie CEO) did with the special interest loans you got from Countrywide.
Brilliant, brilliant!

Sally in England | 8:25 a.m. Oct. 24, 2008

I am British and live in England and I am proud to live in a country that cares for all of our citizens equally. I have lived in America and I can honestly say I much prefer our system. Our hospitals are not dirty and we do have the brightest and best doctors, I hope that when Robert and his wife lived here they were more gracious to their host country than their disparaging remarks suggest. I visit Utah a lot and have seen the despair that some people have because they can't afford medicine. I love America and Americans but your health system is not so good if you are poor. Roger, I bet you are rich!!!!

The Realist | 9:28 p.m. Oct. 26, 2008

A friend of mine, formerly from Canada, got into a heated debate defending its socialized health care system. I found this ironic after she told me her grandmother had repeatedly gone to see doctors there for this pain she was feeling and they told her she simply had bronchitis, but after coming to America finding she had cancer. So the problem I see is this: 1.Everyone gets a very low grade of health care or 2. those who afford it get the best health care. Yes, the American health care system is not perfect but by socializing it, it eliminates the drive for excellence in the field of medicine.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.