Ugly Consequences of Nationalized Medicine Update
In the UK, cutbacks and closures at Accident and Emergency units (also referred to as “casualty departments”) have ensued.
A previous post indicated that reduction in emergency room utilization were taking effect in the UK by redefining “emergencies” down, and forcing patients to wait and see their general practitioner or other doctor.
Perhaps the “redefinition” is still taking place, but if so, even that isn’t enough to prevent drastic cutbacks at and even closures of emergency rooms:
NHS cash crisis hitting A&E units
Accident and emergency units are being scaled back to bail the NHS out of its cash problems, doctors say.
The British Association for Emergency Medicine said the spate of cuts was putting patients at risk by stranding them miles from casualty departments.In many cases - some of which are still under consideration - the units have been made into minor injury departments which tend to be nurse-led.
NHS bosses said they have been forced into the drastic changes to break even.
It is not clear how many of England’s 200 casualty departments have been affected, but the BAEM said the rate of closures was increasing.
….. And plans are being considered by health bosses in Lancashire to scale down services at Burnley Hospital.
Local MP Kitty Ussher has written to the local trust to complain about the plans.
She said: “It is undisputed that the additional journey time will place my constituents in unnecessary risk, and it is undisputed that some people may die as a result.”
….. NHS managers the BBC spoke to said they were under pressure from the government to make “drastic cuts” as ministers had promised the NHS would break even by the end of this financial year. It is currently £512m in deficit.
One said: “There is a slash and burn policy going on just so the government can keep to its promise. It is not in the best interest of patients or the health service.”
Imagine the outrage if something similar were mandated by the US government or individual states.
Nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing of care. It may take several decades, as has been the case in the UK, but that rationing eventually leads to lost lives. Where’s the outrage?
Nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing of care.
*All* health care is rationed. Without a nationalized health care system, the rationing occurs by either the user’s individual resources or what the insurance will allow. That is why America’s health care spending is so high. America also gets the *best* health care for the money it spends (okay, some people get the best health care…) However, since most countries can’t afford America’s level of spending, a nationalized health care system allows a nation to spend a fraction of the amount and achieve results that are comparable (but less).
For (say) 50% the money, they get (say) 80% of the health care benefits. So, one’s opinion of national health care really depends upon what one considers more important: That extra 20% health care or the 50% cost savings.
Comment by Tom West — July 13, 2006 @ 1:36 am
Nationalized Healthcare - what a joke - Looks great in the abstract but in the real world it is a disaster. What the lefties have never realized: When you put the government in charge of something it becomes the ultimate corporation, beholden only to its own interests answerable to noone.
Comment by Seismic — July 13, 2006 @ 9:36 am
#1, I guess the English situation above is acceptable to you. It’s not to me. And you’re acting as if Medicaid and Medicare don’t exist.
Comment by TBlumer — July 13, 2006 @ 9:50 am