Sally Pipes is, of course, well-known in her role as President of the Pacific Research Institute. Her main focus is health care studies, and she brings that expertise to bear on the canard that socialized health care is "a good thing."
In her recent article at Forbes, she points out that socializing medicine hasn't exactly helped the Brits: "The National Health Service (NHS) ... is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015."
So much for efficiencies of scale and the purchasing power of government. As we've pointed out many times, none of the government-run systems have had any more long-term success in cutting costs than our own (soon to be gone) public/private hybrid. And they deal with those losses by reducing actual health care.
For example, "the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” There's a term for this kind of system, what could it be?
But of course, the MVNHS©-provided health care is "free" [ed: as in "worth what you pay for it?"]. Or is it? Ms Pipes has a thoughtful question: Brits' may be “guaranteed” access to care, but does it follow that they actually receive it?
Maybe, maybe not. But as we've documented - and Ms Pipes offers her own examples - an awful lot of sick folks don't receive either adequate or timely care. The problem is that the Brits make the same mistake as proponents of ObamneyCare© make here, conflating health insurance with health care, and assuming that the former will lead to the latter.
And yet, as Ms Pipes mentions, "[a] report released in October by Britain’s health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients."
Ooops.
She's not just gunning for the MVNHS©, either:
"Canada’s single-payer, government-run system — where any private health care is outlawed under the Canada Health Act — is similarly failing its patients."
In a recent survey of Canucks with chronic conditions, many expressed dissatisfaction with their level of care. But hey, it's free: beggars can't be choosers.
But of course it's not "free:" in addition to the major taxes that pay for the system, patients still have out-of-pocket expenses, sometimes major ones. And if you're in need of more immediate or extensive care well, there's no wall on our Northern Border, is there?
But if we're ditching our own much better system, the question must be asked: Why does ObmaneyCare© hate Canadians?
[Hat Tip: Stephen Northington]
In her recent article at Forbes, she points out that socializing medicine hasn't exactly helped the Brits: "The National Health Service (NHS) ... is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015."
So much for efficiencies of scale and the purchasing power of government. As we've pointed out many times, none of the government-run systems have had any more long-term success in cutting costs than our own (soon to be gone) public/private hybrid. And they deal with those losses by reducing actual health care.
For example, "the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” There's a term for this kind of system, what could it be?
But of course, the MVNHS©-provided health care is "free" [ed: as in "worth what you pay for it?"]. Or is it? Ms Pipes has a thoughtful question: Brits' may be “guaranteed” access to care, but does it follow that they actually receive it?
Maybe, maybe not. But as we've documented - and Ms Pipes offers her own examples - an awful lot of sick folks don't receive either adequate or timely care. The problem is that the Brits make the same mistake as proponents of ObamneyCare© make here, conflating health insurance with health care, and assuming that the former will lead to the latter.
And yet, as Ms Pipes mentions, "[a] report released in October by Britain’s health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients."
Ooops.
She's not just gunning for the MVNHS©, either:
"Canada’s single-payer, government-run system — where any private health care is outlawed under the Canada Health Act — is similarly failing its patients."
In a recent survey of Canucks with chronic conditions, many expressed dissatisfaction with their level of care. But hey, it's free: beggars can't be choosers.
But of course it's not "free:" in addition to the major taxes that pay for the system, patients still have out-of-pocket expenses, sometimes major ones. And if you're in need of more immediate or extensive care well, there's no wall on our Northern Border, is there?
But if we're ditching our own much better system, the question must be asked: Why does ObmaneyCare© hate Canadians?
[Hat Tip: Stephen Northington]
Posts
