"Free" Health Care

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
"Free" Health Care
186
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 8:58am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040721.shtml

Free health care

Walter E. Williams

July 21, 2004


Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim that health-care service is a human right that people should have regardless of whether they can pay for it or not and that it should be free. Before we buy into this socialist agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free." Let's look at our neighbor to the north -- Canada.

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman's work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News (www.canoe.ca), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Houston, Ontario has chosen to turn to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage.

Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so. The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers.

I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 2:50pm


Why just doctors? Aren't most people's educations subsidized in some part by the government? So your solution is to make doctors pay more, driving more of them out of medicine and into other professions, decreasing the quality of healthcare and most likely increasing malpractice claims. Hmm, good idea. How about this-why not make the trial lawyers repay their education subsidies out of the multimillion dollar settlements they win? Maybe they could take, say 38% of the settlement instead of 40% as their fee, and pay that subsidy into a fund that helps good doctors pay for the malpractice premiums those settlements are driving up every day?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 5:17pm
Where'd you get that idea? He's a pretty standard conservative and head of the economics dept at George Mason U.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 7:43pm
Having a license to practice medicine in America is like having a license to print money. I'm sorry, but it just isn't in me to be sympathetic to someone who grosses what doctors gross.

And, if, when a doctor applies to medical school, he or she is told that in order to have access to the education, he or she must do X amount of hours of free work, that is not involuntary servitude. That is call freedom of contract, something near and dear all Republicans dear little hearts.

And drive more of them out of practice? Exactly what can a doctor do that pays anywhere near what they make as doctors? They ain't gonna quit and flip burgers.

And as for other professionals also paying for their government subsidized education, I have no problem with them paying something back as well.

I thought you Republicans hated subsidies. What's up with this? Only hate subsidies to certain classes or what?

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 9:43pm
He has been known to very kiddingly make comments about his wife knowing her place. He is not in the least bit serious about women being subserviant to men. Here is "The Good Wife's Guide" from 1955 on his web page:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/misc/days.pdf
Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 2:00am
Hear! Hear! Our medical system is far from perfect but anyone who wants to scrap the system is a fool.
Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 2:28am
The Fraser Institute of Vancouver BC likes to call itself a "think tank" but they need to come up for air. They are well known to formulate their opinions before they do their research and then look for the numbers that back up those opinions. Anyone who makes up his/her mind before he/she has heard the question, is a fool.

Yes, there are fines for opting out of the medical system in Canada. We refuse to have a system that caters to the rich and discriminates against the poor.The fines are the systems way of chastising those who wish to weaken the system for others.

I have a child whose medical, equipment and service needs exceed $100,000 US a year. 14 years of diapers, special food, wheelchairs, lifts, special vehicles, respite care, etc., etc. You do the math. I honestly don't know how parents in similar situations in the States survive. I don't pay a penny of it. Walter Williams can come to my house with his calculator in hand and explain to me why the American system would be better for my child. Or maybe in his world, such children are expendable.

My child has had more surgeries than you have fingers or toes to count them on. But there are many more children in my country in similar situations. I would never think of buying myself the privilege to butt in ahead of the line. My child is precious but no more precious to me than any other child is precious to its parents. By butting ahead of the line I would be bumping someone else out of their chance. Does a medical system of privilege based on money make sense to you? Then I pity you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 2:29am

I was listening to Rush one day, but it was while Rush was away dealing with his divorce, I believe, and Walt Williams was substituting for him.

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 2:34am

<>


HA!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 3:18am
W. Williams plays off a very dry humor and sticks to his story. A few weeks ago he opened the door to his private life and explained to everyone that for Valentine's Day he got his wife not 1, not 2, but Yes! 3 brand new vaccume cleaner bags. He does all this while playing the straight man...

I remember that story you were telling. He also said it was raining and his wife protested. He said he told his wife (paraphrasing): "Men in the Navy swab the deck in the rain. Are you better than our troops in uniform?"

He's being tottaly absurd. I can't see any woman in today's age putting up with that type of treatment. She could leave him and be set for the rest of her life if he were really that overbearing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 12:15pm

I agree with

Renee ~~~

Pages