no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

“No One Should Die Because They Can’t Afford Health Care”

September 4th, 2009

For many people (and yes I’m jumping to conclusions and making sweeping generalizations here) “No one should die because they can’t afford health care” is the weasel way of saying “I want someone else to pay for it” without sounding like a panhandler. So, take what follows with a grain of salt, OK?

On that note, someone’s Facebook status said:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

No one should die just because they were born in sub-Saharan Africa, either. But they do. Doesn’t make it fair, but it happens. For every “poor” or underprivileged Westerner complaining about their lack of “health care” (NB: even the poorest Americans have access to better health care than, I would venture to guess, 85% of the earth’s population has ever had), there are a million people living on $1 and a cup of rice each day — so cry me a fucking river.

Every one of us will die at the crossroads of some particular circumstances, time, and place.

Some of us die in our sleep.  Some of us are merely in “the wrong place at the wrong time.” Some of us will die because the technology to cure what ails us has not yet been invented. Some of us will die because we made poor choices that presently impact our ability to care for ourselves. And some of us will die unfortunately through no direct fault of our own, because we can’t afford to pay for the technology that does exist.

To lament the fact that some people die under seemingly inopportune circumstances is folly; it ignores the lion’s share of the equation. Financial circumstances are a scapegoat, because at nearly any time and place where the individual isn’t DOA, a change in financial circumstances might forestall death for a few hours, days, weeks, or months.

You’ll get no arguments from me, if you say that “health care is too expensive”: blame the AMA cartel, the FDA, blame “Big Insurance”, etc. But National Healthcare is healthcare fascism, the insurers want guaranteed profits, guaranteed customers for life, and Uncle Sam to pay the bills. They want to sell you your own welfare.

You’ll get no arguments from me, if you say that “the system” needs to be reformed: specifically it needs to not be a system at all. People aren’t permitted under the law to care for themselves or to arrange for the care of others. Or because the consumer is not the customer, and the customer enjoys certain tax privileges that the consumer does not, etc. Or because people have been conditioned to believe that “insurance” should pay for an annual check-up and dental exams and all sorts of other routine maintenance instead of just providing for accidents and serious illnesses.

The problem is that health care, medicine, long term care, etc., is damned expensive. Government is the problem in health care, which keeps it unaffordable.

Asking or forcing others to pay the costs which you can’t afford will do nothing to actually solve that problem, it just shifts the burden, fucking up someone else’s life circumstances, exacerbating the problem for the future.

What Socialized Medicine is All About

August 13th, 2009

Straight from the “I couldn’t say it better myself” files, quite possibly the best paragraph I’ve read about health care all week long (my own posts notwithstanding!).

That is what socialised fucking medicine is all about. When the chips are down, if you can’t fend for yourself, you’re dead. If you think the free market is the same thing, you’re wrong. You’re worse off with socialized medicine because it fails you after you’ve spent your entire healthy life “donating” to it. Socialism continuously drains the very resources individuals could use to provide for themselves. Education, health care, it’s the same. If you want to give your kids a decent education, you have to pay the fucking taxes to support the public schools, and then you still have to pay for that private education. Those well off in the U.K. have to pay the horrendous taxes for the “free” health care, and then they have to go and pay for private care, too. The poor slobs who can’t afford to pay twice wind up crushed in the maw.

— The Inept Bully (Ezra Klein), Kayak2U Blog

Socialism “drains the very resources individuals could use to provide for themselves.” That’s the clincher. Socialism — always and everywhere — denies people the choice of taking care of themselves, the absence of which is then touted as evidence that socialism is needed because people won’t take care of themselves.

Do you hear me? I want no part in this abomination.

Does the NHS Provide Better Health Care?

August 13th, 2009

For the last two days, the hashtag #welovetheNHS has been trending in the top 10, often No. 1, on Twitter. Yesterday this piqued my “argue with people on the internet” instinct, so I commented openly:

  • 10:45 AM: For every #welovetheNHS story, there are people suffering because of the NHS.
  • 10:50 AM: memo to everyone who says #welovetheNHS – UK cancer survival rates way lower than U.S. (BBC) http://sn.im/pqfr4

Some people straw-manned my position, citing the fact that “That cancer data is like 10 years old…” No. Shit. Sherlock. A study of five-year cancer survival rates necessarily takes time (at least 5 years) to complete, and then takes time to analyze and interpret. That said, data from 2000 is hardly ancient history. But there are plenty of sources on the interwebs which corroborate the claims that despite massive funding to combat cancer and diagnose it sooner, the NHS is failing at that task. They still spend three times as much on cancer treatment as do the Poles, and have approximately the same longevity results.

Some said I didn’t care about the poor or infirm. Cliché, right? In the U.S., the poor and infirm are covered by an amalgamation of “safety net” programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and laws which require hospitals to admit and treat anyone regardless of financial wherewithal, for emergencies. That many of these people elect not to use the programs at their disposal, can hardly be considered a market-failure. The fact of the matter is that only about 5% of Americans are involuntarily without health care — hardly an epidemic or national emergency.

Others said, “Look, health care in America is too expensive. Ours is free provided by the NHS”. Bollocks! Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics understands the TANSTAAFL principle: There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. In a world of scarcity (i.e., the real world) this is basic metaphysics. Nothing is “free”. Ever.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “The NHS sees one million people every 36 hours and 93 per cent of patients rate their care as good or excellent. “

There is another way to state this: There are only 50M people in England, so doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, once every 75 days, or five times annually, the average Briton receives some form of care provided by the NHS, which roughly squares with other available data on doctor’s visits. By this metric, however, the U.S. consumes twice as much care (measured as “visits” to a care-provider for lack of better comparison).

But criticism of the NHS isn’t coming just from libertarian whack-jobs who don’t care about the poor or infirm (like me) on the other side of the pond.

Karol Sikora, Dean at the U. of Buckingham Medical School claims that NHS patients are missing out. Specifically, he notes that the waiting lists for many routine procedures “can emulate Heathrow [London’s notoriously overcrowded airport] on a bank holiday weekend,” and that “Only seven per cent of eligible patients get precision guided radiotherapy even though we’ve got the equipment (just) not the time to use it.”

Discussing his experience practicing medicine in the States, he was astonished. In America, he says, “Things are done instantly.” And since time is fleetingly scarce, “instantly” has a price tag, which might be measured in dollars (as it is in the U.S.) or might be measured in waiting lists and denials of service (as it is in the U.K.). Pretending that this price does not exist, however, is simply not an option.

Perhaps in America health care costs “more” (largely due to Government interference). But we get twice as much, we don’t have to wait for it, and we are still (at least partially) free to make our own decisions, including the decision to not insure.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics