People in the government opposing change that would force them to compete with private industry? Say it’s not so!

In VA hospitals and other truly socialized systems, life-threatening injuries and illnesses tend to receive excellent treatment, but minor or moderate problems get years-long waits to see medical professionals who are overworked and underpaid. Remember Walter Reed? “Frills” like pain medicine for women in labor are jettisoned in Britain’s socialized medical care system.

Accordingly, veterans with private health care often use that instead, just as Brits try to avoid socialized health care at NHS. Let’s be careful not to only learn the government’s side of the socialized medicine story.

http://www.grafshepherd.com

graf,

Are you referring to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center? It’s not a part of the Veterans Affairs hospital system. But thanks for sharing.

So, Mr. Carlton, should we take it you would prefer to get your health care directly from the same government that can’t effectively manage food service in the U.S. Senate? That would be the same government that admits that without drastic changes unfunded liabilities will soon destroy the Medicare and Social Security programs. Also the same government that has spent trillions of the taxpayers’ earnings on failed military wars, poverty wars, drug wars, and dozens of mismanaged housing, nutrition, education, energy, and crime programs. Government health care isn’t change. It’s more of the same.

A#,

My father was in the United States Air Force. I grew up receiving health care on base, which by definition was socialized health care (like what President George W. Bush and members of Congress get). I didn’t have any complaints, but what did I know? I was a kid.

The point I’m trying to make with this is that health care is a lot more complicated that the cartoon version that too often passes for debate in this country. Also that many of the people who scream loudest in this debate don’t really know what they’re talking about.

If the government does such a terrible job of providing health care, why not replace government health care for the military and veterans? Judy Baker is suggesting that on a very small scale, just to take the strain off VA hospitals. But the people who get care at those hospitals want none of it.

When was the last time you heard President Bush — a man who openly disdains “socialized health care” for others — complain about the socialized health care he receives? Ever heard of members of Congress turning down the health benefits?

Me neither.

A# - don’t forget Katrina and the IRS!

John, you miss the big points about socialized medicine. It is just another way for the government to take money and gain more power causing more government corruption. Remember where you heard this first?

Iraq and Afghanistan vets are committing suicide at twice the rate of the normal population. We need to give them more mental health choices, even if it’s not at a VA hospital.

Doc, if you think John Q. Public will get the same level of health care as the politicians and bureaucrats you have yet to learn the lesson Marxism gave the USSR and others. Since you are only one of many who ignore those lessons, our children will learn it firsthand. Math and human nature, Doc. Math and human nature. Governmental health care for military families, veterans, and politicians doesn’t compare to health care for a third of a billion people. Splitting hairs about the term socialized medicine won’t change the inevitable result of expanded federal control of health care.

Mr Carlton,

Socialized — under group or government control as from socialism referring to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
Medicine — something that treats or prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease.

Any problems with the definitions? OK then, let the debate begin.

Mr. Carlton,

You argue health care or medicine delivered to veterans and active duty individuals is socialized medicine. This is simply untrue. Medicine (in the general sense and not just describing drugs) is delivered to persons having participated in our nations military as part of compensation for services provided. Thus, when my father was active duty, just as when yours was, I received medicine from a government owned entity as part of the compensation my father received for joining the military.

To say that practice has anything to do with socialism is a bald-faced lie. It has nothing to do with community control of property and everything to do with just compensation for work performed by members of the military. Compensation of a police force is a justifiable action of government.

Another error you seem to enjoy making is that socialism entails public ownership of all capital involved in the system. This is not necessarily true. Public control of capital without nominal “ownership” is just as much socialism if the government owned all the buildings. The obvious extension of your argument is this: well clearly it isn’t socialized medicine, we don’t chain up the nurses and doctors when they are done working, so we don’t own all the capital involved in the system so it doesn’t fit the definition of socialized medicine. Clearly ludicrous.

Your response?

Americans seem to believe that health spending equals health quality — that covering more people and providing better quality care is more expensive than covering fewer. All the evidence I’m aware of suggests that’s wrong.

Specifically, the United States spends dramatically more (on average, about twice as much per person) than other developed countries. A new study from the Commonwealth Fund reveals how we do against international and national benchmarks. The answer isn’t encouraging. We scored lower on quality measures in 2008 than we did in 2006.

You can find the study here: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Why_Not_the_Best_national_scorecard_2008.pdf?section=4039

In a 2001 report entitled Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine said that quality of U.S. health care is inconsistent and in many cases, not as good as it should be. You can find information here: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/8089.aspx

The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has published numerous studies showing that Medicare patients who live in areas where health spending per person is highest actually have a lower life expectancy than those living in places with lower spending. You can find it here: http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/

There’s a great deal of food for thought in there, folks. Please take the time to read through it.

Again, my purpose with this post is to point out that health care is more complex than the cartoon version that passes for debate on talk radio and in most of the blogosphere. And to say that many who speak loudest know the least about it.