MYTH: Single-payer health care is fair and equal.
Brian Turner, a 74-year old man from Oak Green Mount, Rastrick, UK certainly disagrees. Suffering from wet age-related macular degeneration in his left eye, Brian was DENIED medical treatment by the United Kingdom's NHS. If he was wealthy though, it'd be a whole different story ...
Shona Holmes, a brain tumor survivor, was told by her Canadian doctor that it would take months before she could see a neurologist or endocrinologist. She decided to cross the border and go to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, where she received the treatment she needed to save her vision and life.
Despite the promises made by her government, Canada refuses to help Shona pay her medical bills.
Having government "manage" health care is a very risky endeavor. Health costs in nationalized systems are kept low by price controls. Rationing is a form of price control. Long lines and denied procedures are legendary in these "single-payer" systems.
The reality is that these socialized systems have been surviving off the innovations developed in "the only country without universal health care." Who knows where they'd be without the United States. How many decades behind?
If you are wealthy, you can buy better care in a "universal" system, but Joe and Jane Sixpack just get thrown on long waiting lists, and/or all too often, denied life-saving treatments outright.
In other words, Joe and Jane Sixpack get treated like cattle in a government system.
Socialism has a history of complete failure. No matter how they label it - universal, single-payer, mandated, etc. - Big Government Health Care is a bad idea.
When you make a wild statement without looking at the background you do your readers a disservice. I don't particularly want to weigh-in on how Americans handle their medical services, but the story about the man being refused treatment in his eye misses important background information that anybody would need to draw a proper conclusion. The man was absolutely NOT refused treatment. In the UK, if we are ill, we get treatment, I promise you. He was a refused a particular drug that the health authority in his area had not yet cleared for full use for various reasons. Now you may disagree with their decision (many do) or you may not, but saying he was not *treated* is unfair and incorrect.
Furthermore, back when medicine was totally socialised in the UK that would not have happened. The denial of the drug is a consequence of an attempt to reintroduce markets in medicine in the UK. Now, each area authority handles its own finances and policies. This has led to a "post code lottery" where you might get lucky and find a drug is approved that you'd like to get a hold of, or you might not, depending on which authority controls your medical care. Its not ideal, but thats because its in a transitional stage. But if we are ill, we get care. And there's no bill to pay afterwards, ever. Plus, if we do get prescribed a drug, or a series of drugs, we pay only one single small payment for our prescription, regardless of what the drug is or how many of them there are. I don't like socialists or socialism. Im involved in politics here and Im on the centre-right. But discarding *all* ideas simply because you think they may have socialist connotations is, frankly, dumb.
I appreciate your input Steve!
I'd just like to point out, that to incorporate actual "markets," you would have to eliminate the "area authorit[ies]" that make these decisions for others, so the problem remains as one of socialism. And while there may be no "bill to pay" in the UK, the health care is far from free.
In the U.S., we have quasi-government run health care. Other than our failing schools, nothing in the U.S. gets more government (taxpayer) dollars, or has more Rube Goldberg regulations than health care. Again, a failure of socialism.