« Health Savings Account Consumers Could Be Saving on Health Costs | Main | Easy Steps to get you Started on Health Savings Accounts at HSA for America »
November 02, 2007
Socialized Medicine vs. Health Savings Accounts
Despite the growing evidence that socialist medicine is a disaster, its supporters blindly continue to push for a government system in the U.S. They need some down time in a hospital bed in England.
The British system, which, along with Canada's, supposedly is the model we should follow, is no panacea. In fact, it is a mess.
A Los Angeles Times story describes a system so rotten that in some hospitals "patients allegedly were forced to defecate in their beds and wait for hours for clean sheets."
The story focuses on the struggle in British hospitals to contain the growth of deadly hospital infections that are in large part bred by unsanitary conditions.
"Britain has been reeling over the last year with reports of more than 6,300 hospital-based 'superbug' infections at its government-run National Health Service facilities," the Times' Kim Murphy reported from London.
The nasty bacterium British hospitals are most concerned with is Clostridium difficile. It can bring on fatal diarrhea — a health hazard to others if it's not quickly and properly cleaned. Clostridium difficile resists many disinfectants, and drugs other than appropriate antibiotics have little effect on it.
The face of the system's struggles could be the 87-year-old war veteran who died suffering the indignity of soiled sheets and bedsores. His daughter told the Times that her father asked, "What have I done to deserve a place like this?"
Did we mention that "a place like this" is part of Britain's National Health Service, a state-run $183 billion-a-year medical monster whose "hungry maw," Camilla Cavendish wrote in the London Times, "is swallowing more and more resources at the expense of virtually everything else."
"The health service marches relentlessly on, having hoovered up two-thirds of the increase in public spending in the past five years."
That spending doesn't include $280 million the government promised last week to spend to thwart C. difficile. Nor does in take into account an additional $260 million that will be used to check incoming hospital patients for MRSA, a drug-resistant Staphylococcus bug.
So what are the Brits getting for their money besides second-rate care, soiled beds, superbug outbreaks, medical professional shortages, state-imposed rationing, central planning and long waits for surgery and doctor visits?
Maybe unrepentant anti-choice cranks pushing government health care on an ostensibly free people can tell us. If only they'd stop using nonsense and misleading rhetoric to prop up their lame arguments, as left-wing propagandist Joe Conason did in a recent column titled "Why 'Socialism' Evokes No Fear."
"Doctors who used to wail about the dangers of Medicare have learned how unpleasant it is to deal with dozens of insurance companies, each creating different rules to cut costs and deny care. So have their patients," Conason wrote. "The corporate model is more expensive and less efficient than the government plans that provide care in every other industrialized nation."
Notice the terminology — he spits out "corporate model" as if it were something toxic — and false choice that Conason offers. It's either the corporate model or government plans. He talks as if other options don't exist. They do.
The corporate model that Conason scorns actually is a creation of the very government that he wants to take over medical care. Federal policy since World War II has encouraged employers to set up insurance coverage for their workers. Would Conason and the Democrats who are so eager to take over our medical care rather that we all pay out of our pockets, just as we buy groceries?
The most reasonable course is let the market handle health care the same way it efficiently and justly handles the distribution of other goods and services. Let Americans buy their own insurance, using the savings from tax credits to pay for the premiums. Stop discouraging Health Savings Accounts. Give us more choice. America was not meant to be an intrusive tribal state.
In Conason's meanderings, he tries to make the case that America is ready for a universal health care system with a single payer — the government. But a IBD/TIPP poll poses a question that accurately depicts the situation rather than imply universal care will be free, tells a different story.
The truth is that with little exception, the only Americans who want a socialist health care system are those who want to control American life. Our choices and health are worth the inevitable battles that lie ahead.
Posted by Wiley Long at November 2, 2007 07:21 AM
Comments
I don't think your comparison is fair. It should say "Socialized" vs "Free Market" medicine.
The socialized medicine in Canada and other countries may have the superbug problem and delays in treatment, but all you have to do is turn on the news here in this country to find the same story. We have the same superbugs floating around our hospitals.
I recently had the joy of having pain in my lower back. I went to the doctor right away. The doctor scheduled me for an MRI....five weeks out. Don't tell me that we're that much better than other countries because in many ways, we're way worse. If I'm going to have the same superbug and long waits for care, then I'd rather not be paying my insurance company $1200 a month at the same time.
Having an HSA is better in the respect that you save your own money but it's inevitable that someone will need more coverage than there HSA has in it. So what do we do with these people...and remember it could be you. What would you want us to do with you when you run out of money in your HSA.
Either way....all of the health insurance companies have to go. There should be no profit in taking care of the sick and the dying. All health insurance companies should be non-profit.
Posted by: Mike, Jericho, VT at November 2, 2007 02:55 PM
You are absolutely right.US should not follow these examples, I know some cases of health care disasters in UK.
Posted by: Vedo at November 4, 2007 07:02 PM
Hi Mike,
You are right, it probably should have said "socialized" instead of "socialist".
Unfortunately, the current state of healthcare in America is hardly what one could call "free market". Very few healthcare providers post their prices, or compete for service. So prices stay high.
The fact that you had to wait 5 weeks to see a doctor for your back is an excellent example. If more people were spending their own money from their HSA for many of their medical services, you can bet there would be an entrepreneur stepping in to meet the need.
At least you weren't in Canada or Britain. It is not at all uncommon for people to wait months, and sometimes even years to get needed medical care. That is why so many Canadians are coming to the U.S. for service.
The only way you can qualify for an HSA is if you have a high deductible health plan. Your HSA funds pay the front end, but if your medical expenses go over a few thousand dollars, most HSA plans then pay 100%.
The ideal of no one making a profit in healthcare is nice, but of course it is not realistic. Instead, we should have more providers competing for that profit. Competition always drives prices down and service levels up. Monopolies (government or otherwise) result in the opposite. And government rationing results in long waits, as evidenced so clearly in Canada and England.
Posted by: Wiley Long at November 8, 2007 06:40 PM
Hello Mike,
I agree with you partly.
I too, am tired of insurance company's that charge $1,000 per month and then don't pay enough money. Case in point, I paid for insurance for three years (at a cost of about 36K) and my daughter had to go a local hospital for one night to be observed. I had to pay out of pocket, around $900!
That was the point that I decided that I had to change something. The HSA account is exactly what I needed. I would have had around 17K in my HAS if I had maxed it out during the same time. The deductible would have been higher, but I would still have ended up with 14K left!
I have to disagree with you regarding the time it takes to get an MRI. In your case I believe that you did have to wait for 5 weeks. However, I’m sure if you had a more critical illness, you would have been seen faster. I’m also sure that you could have found someone whom would have seen you should you have had the money available.
I have a personal friend of mine who lived in Canada from birth. He developed a major brain problem and had to visit his Canadian doctors. The doctors agreed with him that it was critical that he get a brain MRI. The waiting time was NINE months! This was not a back ache but a brain tumor issue.
He searched for employment in the Seattle area, got employed, moved and got onto American employer provided medical insurance. He went to an American doctor on a Friday afternoon; he agreed that he had to have a MRI. It was scheduled for the next Tuesday – four days after his first doctor’s visit!
Are there problems with the American medical system? Absolutely there are. The cost has to be worked on. But, if you take all the money out of the system, you take all the good people out of the system. (Doctors and nurses need to eat too you know.)
Taking the extra fat out of the insurance companies could be a good thing. Shift the responsibility to the medical consumer and hospitals and doctor offices will have to start competing for you business. (True emergency care would have to be exempt however, but that is what the major medical insurance is for.)
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff at November 17, 2007 08:16 PM