Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

Last week, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun-Times disagreeing with one Cindy Richards on her socialist view of health care.

My friend and regular reader "The Freak" also wrote a letter to Ms. Richards. It's worth reading.

Is it my imagination or is it ironic that the socialized medicine's web site is "doh"?

Dear Ms. Richards,

I am a resident of the United Kingdom and have lived in other countries with universal health (Italy, Greece) as well as the United States. Before advocating any universal system, I recommend you try it for a while. In the meantime, avoid Michael Moore's poisoned drink; your health care might not be sufficient to give you an antidote.

Universal health coverage is certainly appealing and most people in countries that provide it are thrilled with it. Sadly, most people in countries that provide it are healthy (and thus not in a position to compare real quality). Additionally, the real costs of universal health are hidden. Costs are more than the direct costs of procedures or equipment and must be taken to include delays and employment loss. Finally, comparisons of outcomes famously miss intangibles that impact quality of life.

Here in the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) does a decent job of dealing with daily routine care. They fail in anything beyond that. I won't bore you with a stream of statistics or anecdotes, but point out that the NHS are honest enough to publicize their delays: check out:
http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/index.htm
and http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/rtt/

I suggest that if hospitals in the United States were to provide this type of care, they would be vigorously sued (with good reason). Delays imply high cost (lost productivity) as well as adverse outcomes (check out the BBC's own report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1678779.stm).

Remember, too, that outcome statistics mask real consequences. When I was in Greece, one of my employees suffered a horrific car accident that crushed his leg. Standard treatment in the public hospital he was admitted to was amputation. It was only when the company we worked for offered to pay for private treatment that we discovered advanced vascular surgery could be employed to save his limb. Both treatments would have led to the same outcome (he would have lived) but I suggest keeping his leg was much preferable.

You see, in the end, resources are limited and any system will have to make trade-offs. The NHS has made the trade-off in favor of delays (and other unsavory consequences). The Greek system determined (for instance) that amputations are cheaper than sophisticated vascular operations and equally effective in preserving people's lives. In the United States, patients have the liberty to make the trade-off whether to invest in coverage, whether to spend their own money on treatment, or whether to live with risk. Truly poor people are covered by Medicaid (which coverage, I assure you, provides better care than they would receive here).

I, for one, appreciate the private health policy I carry (even in this universal health paradise run by the NHS) that will fly me to the United States should I need serious care in a hurry.

Freedom has value.

Cheers.