Comparing what we have here versus a NHS-style system:
Is a socialist system that fails 100% of its members when it comes to the supply of advanced medical technology not worse than or better than a system that fails to fund the needs of 15% of the population? Is providing universal health care much more important than providing efficient and quality health care to the vast majority of the population?
Related posts:
- "In truth, the aging of the population is not a big problem"
- Health care costs 101
- Internal medicine versus the ER
- Is it possible to use liposuction to fuel cars?
- Tufts Medical Center versus Blue Cross Blue Shield, who blinked?
- Universal health care: Slim chance?
- Introductions are In Order . . .
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 4 comments }
The opinion piece doesn’t make a a case against socialized medicine as much as it implicitly suggests that socialized medicine can be improved.
The “Failing 100% of the population versus 15%” is, of course, a red herring. Medical atheists have always had to deal with the issue of how to allocate limited funds. Should they be used for extreme measures like heart/lung transplants or for more mundane treatments and programs. Even in in a private healthcare system treatment is rationed. Resources and funds are limited, we just tend to skew towards the flashy treatment for a few rather than coverage for everyone–you shure can save up money for advance treatment when you keep millions of people out of your system.
As a medical atheist, I think you meant to say “medical ethicist.” Other than that, I agree.
We ration care for everyone already in the US. Those without insurance get rationing by ability to pay and accessibility.
Those with insurance get rationing by hassle, accessibility and prior authorization. In exactly the case Dr. Rangel describes, some of my patients with certain insurance setups would be required to pay up to 500 dollars for such a scan, and many could not afford it and would not get it until clinical worsening (exactly what would happen under the NHS).
Those with lots of money only get rationed by accessibility.
Is there a way to dispense with all rationing? No.
There is no perfect medical system. The only question currently active is “Is ours the best?” I think the answer is no, and that should mean we should change it.
“As a medical atheist, I think you meant to say “medical ethicist.” Other than that, I agree”
Oops.
“There is no perfect medical system. The only question currently active is “Is ours the best?” I think the answer is no, and that should mean we should change it.”
One of the themes in this blog is that socialized medicine is the coming of the Apocalypse. Dr. Pho argues against it with an uncritical and obsessive zeal .
In the article, Rangel suggests that the lack of advanced scanning means that socialized medicine is untenable, when, in fact, it only means socialized medicine has issues–issues that are inherent in all healthcare schemes.
He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves and ultimately gets neither.
Either way you die, the question is do you live as an autonomous free man, or a cog in a socialist machine.
Comments on this entry are closed.