Death rates, gay marriage and health care

Infant Death Rates Continue to Decline

The death rates for children under 5 continues to decline around the world. Apparently the figures previously released by the UN's Children's Fund overestimated said death by 800,000. I note that the UN's figures on many of these issues seems always biased toward the bad news are and regularly revised downward some years later. I suggest this is the result of the political biasing that takes place when figures are accumulated to satisfy politicians.

It need not be said that the current estimate of 7.7 million such deaths for 2010 is far too high, but in 1990 that figure was 11.9 million. Half these deaths take place in Africa, plagued by corrupt, authoritarian governments. The role of the African state in this disaster can not be underestimated. And it should be noted more aid is not the solution as that aid is used by the vampire elite, who are causing the problems, to help cement their hold on the country.

Since 1970 child mortality rates have dropped 60 percent.

Long Term Polling Trends Indicate Gay Marriage is Coming.

The Gallup people have released their most recent figures regarding support for gay marriage. The trend lines indicate small, but relatively stead gains for marriage equality. When Gallup first asked about this issue, in 1996, 68% of Americans wanted to keep legal restrictions on same-sex marriage, and 27% favor deregulation and legal equality. Since then the opposition has declined by 15 points to 53% and support has grown by 17 points to 44%.
During that time support for marriage equality rose from 33% to 56% among Democrats (+23); from 32% to 49% among independent voters (+17) and from 16% to 28% among Republicans (+12). Even among individuals who say they are conservatives support has grown from 14% to 25%, +11 points.

Opponents to deregulation and legal equality remains most solid among people who consider themselves religious. Individuals who think religion is very important oppose equality 70% to 27%. If someone says religion is fairly important the opposition shifts slightly t0 60% against to 37% in favor. Individuals who are not into the mystical or theological tend to be rational about marriage as well, with 71% favoring equality and 27% opposing it.

As to be expected the American South, followed by the Midwest, tends to be most firm in opposition to equality of rights—but that's a tradition with those folks. In the South 62% oppose equality and 35% support it. In the Midwest it is 57% opposed to 40% in favor. The East supports equality of rights by 53% to 43%, as does the West, 53% to 46%.

Obamacare: As the truth seeps out the costs rise, support falls.

It was obvious to everyone, but the true believers, that the Obama White House was lying about the costs of Obamacare. Obama rammed his measure through by deceiving the public and bullying politicians, when not bribing them with taxpayer funds. The most recent figures and polls are not good news politically for the president and the Democrats who tied themselves to his coat-tails.

The most recent Congressional Budget Office estimates show that the legislation will cost at least $115 billion more than the cost that was given when the bill was passed. This means Obamacare will cost at least $1 trillion. Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institutes, says these figures are "a conservative estimate that is based upon unrealistically high assumptions about cuts in Medicare spending and unrealistically low assumptions about the cost of the new law." Actually that is par for the course in Washington. Most bills are passed by politicians who intentionally, and dishonestly, underestimate costs and overestimate benefits. Turner notes:

One reason is the billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes the law imposes that Foster says will "generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums."

These include:

• more than $20 billion in taxes on medical devices

• $60 billion in taxes on health plans

• and $27 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies.

Foster's report also highlights the shaky financial footing of the new long-term care insurance program -- the CLASS Act, which Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has described as "a Ponzi scheme of the first order."

Foster says the program faces "a significant risk of failure" and finds the program will result "in a net federal cost in the long term."

The CBO estimates that individuals and businesses also will face at least $120 billion in fines and penalties for failing to comply with the law's new health insurance mandates. And it says families purchasing health insurance in the individual market will pay $2,100 a year more for coverage by 2016 than they would had the measure not passed.

On the political front a substantial majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed. The latest Rasmussen poll on the issue finds repeal supported by 63% of the population while opposition to repeal sits at 32%. Support for repealing the measure has gained 8 points since March while support has declined by 10 points.

Even supporters of the measure don't believe the B.S. that Obama and Democrats were spreading about the measure. The public was told that the measure would actually bring down health care costs. But only 18% of the public believes that, well below the support level for the bill, indicating that a substantial number of supporters disbelieve the president—and with good reason as the CBO estimates show. Those believing the measure will raise costs include 55% of the public. Only 20% of the public think the plan will improve health care, a decline of 7 points. And only 12% believe the hype that the measure will reduce the federal deficit, a decline of 7 points.

Dying man pleads to police for help.

Kane Gorny was just 22-years-old, he was a patient at one of the main "teaching hospitals" run by England's National Health Service. His problems started when he was diagnosed with brain cancer but the therapy weakened his bones leading to the need for a hip replacement. With that operation he was unable to get out of bed.

He also required medication three times per day, without which, he was warned, he could die. The NHS staff apparently ignored Kane. They didn't give him his medication and they refused to give him water, even though he repeatedly asked for it. When he became insistent staff had security guards restrain him.

Unable to get water himself the desperate man called the local police begging them to intervene. He told them: "Please help me. All I want is a drink and no one is helping me."

Without his medication Gorny became incoherent. His mother gave him something to drink but didn't know how severely dehydrated he had become. She called in nurses who told her that her son was fine. A doctor told her not to worry. She sat there crying until another physician came by, looked at her son, and called for emergency care. She was sent out of the room and one hour later her son died from severe dehydration, all while under the care of the NHS. But it was free!

The NHS rushed to offer counseling—to the nurses who had neglected the boy, not to the family of the victim. They also said they apologized and wrote up new policies saying this won't happen again. Somehow I would have thought that the NHS would already have policies about starving patients to death, or allowing them to dehydrate to death. The BBC says the police are investigating the case at the request of the coroner.

Apparently the new policies are none too soon. Actually they are too late for many. The Express reports that a government commission found that:

HUNDREDS of patients are starving to death in hospital every year, a report revealed yesterday.
The highly critical study also revealed that up to 50,000 patients who died from illness or old age were suffering from malnutrition.

The Labour government sat on the report for almost a year, before releasing it. The government quickly announced that they were taking action—they are abolishing the commission that wrote the report. Other studies of the NHS are equally as bad. The Telegraph reports that a study found that government solutions to the long waiting time for NHS care worsened problems. The government, stung by the inability of the NHS to offer timely care to patients, as a result of the rationing which helps make British health care "so cheap", put into effect rules that hospitals had to admit patients within a certain number of hours. The rules did nothing to provide more beds so the hospitals "ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets." This lead to increased deaths due to poor hygiene.

The Telegraph reports: "Filthy wards and nurse shortages led to up to 1,200 deaths at Stafford hospital. They report that the Institute for Healthcare improvements was hired to study British care. IHI reported:

“The patient doesn’t seem to be in the picture.” It adds: “We were struck by the virtual absence of mention of patients and families ... whether we were discussing aims and ambition for improvement, measurement of progress or any other topic relevant to quality.

“Most targets and standards appear to be defined in professional, organisational and political terms, not in terms of patients’ experience of care.”

Imagine that! But, considering that the funds for the NHS are not provided directly by patients, but are are decided politically, is it any surprise that NHS care focuses now what the bureaucrats and politicians want, to the detriment of patients. The patient doesn't pay for his health care, at least not directly. Prof . Briama Jarman, an expert on hopsitals standards, said: "These reports have never seen they light of day. We desperately need a better monitoring system for the NHS which actually works." But a spokesman for the Department of Health said they never wanted these reports to have "wider circulation." No, I suspect they wouldn't.

Yet, in recent years, the NHS was showered with new funds by the Labour governments. Lord Warner, who was a Labour minister of health says that the tw0-thirds of the new funding was used to increase salaries. He says that Gordon Brown, now prime minister "reverted to the traditional line in health, which was to support the unions who are the paymaster of the Labour party in the runup to the election." In other words, the extra funds weren't used for more health care but to make the trade unions happy so that the unions would be there when Laabour needs the in an election campaign. This shouldn't surprise Americans as this is precisely how the Democrats treat the education system here. American education exists to make the teacher's unions happy so that the unions, in turn, support the Democratic Party. In politically provided services, employees and teachers, come before patients and students.


Warner says that between 1997 and 2007, under Labour rule, "inputs—by that I mean cash—went up by 60%. But NHS outputs went down by 4%."

A cautionary tale

One point I've made is that nationalized health systems can be cheaper because they deny access to their system of "universal" care. Here is one such tale.

I do find it absurd that the advocates of state-run care argue that it will provide "universal" care when it does no such thing. As far as I know every single nationalized health system rations care. What they mean by "universal" care is that everyone gets some care just not all the care they need. But that is also the case in the United States under the current, screwed-up, mixed system of care.

Honor killing in Arizona & Let the baby die.

There are two stories that caught my attention and both are worthy of mention.

The first is the sad story of Noor Almaleki who immigrated to the United States with her Muslim family from Iraq. Not long ago the father took Noor to Iraq for an arranged marriage, one which Noor rejected. She returned to the Phoenix, Arizona area and left her family and moved in with her boyfriend.

Her father, Faleh Almaleki, felt his daughter's actions brought dishonor on the family and in accordance with his "traditional family values" and his "religious convictions" used his car to run his daughter down when she was walking in a parking lot. She was with her boyfriend's mother who was also seriously injured in the attack. Noor died.

The father then fled to Mexico where he caught a plane to London. British authorities apprehended him when he landed and sent him back to the United States where he is now in custody. The brother, Peter-Ali Almaleki said he was sorry his sister suffered seemingly tried to justified the execution by saying: "One thing to one culture doesn't make sense to another culture." No, it may not. But murder is murder and any culture that condones murder is barbaric and unworthy of survival.

Yes, traditional family values and religion can be used to do awful things to people. Oddly Americans can understand that when the evil is perpetrated by Muslims. Tomorrow Christian voters will go to the polls in the hopes of stripping the equal rights of gay people away. They do so in support of traditional family fvalues and their religious beliefs. The principle is the same, only the degree is different.

Let the baby die?

A child is born with a serious neuromuscular condition. It is one year old and has been in hospital since birth. The child can see,hear and respond to his parents. He can play with toys but can't breath on his own. The insurer tells the parents that the plug has to be pulled and the baby should be left to die.

Ask yourself if this is an example of the evils of private medical care and private insurance schemes? Isn't this sort of case precisely the reason that we are told that state medical care is necessary and compassionate. With the state behind the care, and with universal coverage, then infants like this child won't be left to die. So we are told.

The problem is that the infant is not American but British, and the insurer is the socialized medical system in England. Doctors for the National Health Service have decided that the quality of life for the infant is not good enough to warrant living. They believe that medical care ought to be removed and the child left to die. The boy's father is going to court to try and stop this.

It appears that life support has been withdrawn from children, without parental consent, when brain damage existed. But no such damage is present in this case. A loss in court could substantially change the powers that physicians have over life and death in the British national health system.

Photo: Noor Almaleki.

Is this the future we will face?

The drive to impose a nationalized health system on the US is a major goal of the far Left. They really are quite rabid about it. I've previously discussed the failures of all health systems and why I think the US is the least worst of the lot. I'm no defender of the muddled system we currently have where various laws and regulations horribly distort the system and limit choice. But I couldn't possible embrace the nationalized system that the UK has, for example. Consider these two recent cases in the British press.

Matthew Millington enlisted in the British military at the age of 16, some 15 years ago. While stationed in Iraq he was diagnosed with a lung illness and it was determined he needed a double lung transplant. But the National Health Service gave him the lungs of a man who had been a heavy smoker and which contained cancer. Because Millington was taking drugs to surpress his immune system the cancer had a field day and spread rapidly.

Remember, the NHS hospital gave Millington lungs infected with cancer during his transplant. They also gave him drugs to suppress his immune system which allowed the cancer to grow. And when the cancer was discovered they said he was ineligible for another lung transplant because the hospital's rules. I quote the Times of London: "Because he was a cancer patient, he was not allowed to receive a further pair of lungs under hospital rules." The cancer he had, which made him ineligible for a second transplant, was literally given to him by the hospital.

The Times reports: "The cancer was discovered only six months after the operation, because of a lack of communication between radiographers and consultants. The tumour had grown from 9mm to 13 mm in that period." The hospital admits "a string of problems, including difficulties with communication, record-keeping and patient handover."

Hazel Fenton, 80, came down with pneumonia and was placed in the local NHS hospital. Doctors determined immediately that she was terminally ill and placed her in a controversial NHS program "to east the last days of dying patients." The program is actually something else entirely. When a patient is placed in the program the hospital ceases to feed the patient and given them care, allowing them to die.

And that is what the NHS was doing to Hazel. They refused to feed her, to ease her last days, by ending her life. Hazel's daughter, Christine Ball, was there to fight for her mother. She fought the hospital for days before finally getting them to begin feeding her mother again. Nine months later, the woman the NHS deemed in her "last days" was alive and well in a nursing home near her daughter.

The Times reports: "Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying." Miss Ball was equally blunt: "My mother was going to be left to starve and dehydrate to death. It really is a subterfuge for legalised euthanasia of the elderly on the NHS."

Ball says that while she was trying to convince the hospital her mother was not dying a nurse asked her for instructions on what to do with her mother's body.

The Times also writes: "In a separate case the family of an 87-year-old woman say the plan is being used as a way of giving minimum care to dying patients." The daughter of the woman in question says that her mother was put on "the plan" and "her medication was withdrawn. As a result she became agitated and distressed." Justified as a way to make the last days easier for the patient it appears "the plan" is a way to make medical care cheaper and meet budgetary restraints by denying treatment to old people.

Meanwhile another scandal is brewing in regards to NHS staff members who become sick. It appears that the National Health Service doesn't trust its own care when it comes to their staff members. Recent documents reveal that over the last three years the NHS spent £1.5m (about $2.4 million) so that their staff could receive private treatment outside the NHS system. Some 3,000 NHS employees received private care paid for by the NHS, care denied to patients of the NHS. Norman Lamb, Shadow Health Secretary for the Liberal Democrats said: "If the NHS thinks it necessary to pay for private treatement for its staff to jump waiting lists then it raises serious questions about whether the current system is working as it should."

One local newspaper looked at how the NHS paid to have ambulance staff receive private care and was told by a spokeswoman for the amubulace service that "we want to get [our staff] back o work as quickly as possible so they can continue to provide services to the people of the east of England..." Apparently to give quick service they have to scuttle the NHS and go private.

The BBC recently reported that a report on NHS procedures show that: "More than 5,700 patients in England died or suffered serious harm due to errors lastest figures for a six-month period show." And another NHS report shows that one in 50 patients are receiving treatment to undo the harm done by the NHS with previous care. This includes those with reactions to medication, those suffering from "misadventures" during surgery and "adverse incidents" related to medical equipment.

Another example of how nationalized systems lower costs comes with the drug tocilizumab. This drug appears to work very well for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have not responded well to other medications. But nationalized systems are known for being cheap and being cheap means not offering medical care deemed too expensive. The NHS has an agency called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (which they abbreviate as NICE). NICE is not nice when it comes to recommending drugs. NICE said that the medication is too expensive and has advised against its use, not because it is ineffective or dangerous, but because it costs too much. The National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society says the decision is "extremely bad news."

However, while they can't afford to pay for medication that would ease the pain of patients, the NHS can afford to continue to pay executives who no longer work for the NHS. A publication in Wales reports: "The Western Mail understands that chief executives and finance directors displaced by new arrangements that came in last week have a guarantee that their existing salaries will be protected for 10 years." So, a job is ended, but the staff member stays on salary for 10 years at full pay.

Photos: Upper left, Lester Millington with a photo of his deceased son, Matthew. Mid right: Christine Ball with her still quite alive mother, Hazel Fenton.k

UK's health system: more bureaucrats than doctors.

I was reading the British news, as I often do, and came across a story regarding the National Health Service in the UK—an institution that the Obamatrons and sundry statists in America want to emulate. The UK, as might be suspected, has had problems keeping medical costs down. As new technologies develop more medical options are available. And the more that is available the more that gets spent. One easy way to cut medical costs in any country is to simply ban all new technologies and drugs. If you want 1950s health care costs then use only 1950s health care technology.

But the UK doesn't want to be quite that drastic, even if they do restrict medical choices significantly. So the upward pressure on their health budget has a tendency to get completely out of control. Apparently the Labour government commissioned a study on how to cut NHS expenses. The report came back suggesting cutting 137,000 staff members.

I find that highly unlikely. Remember these are 137,000 government employees. Many of them have families and friends. They will be angry if they get sacked and they vote. So a political decision is likely to be made to keep the staff and cut costs somewhere else, where they hope it won't harm election night totals as much. One thing to remember under a politically-controlled health system is that what's good for the ruling party comes before what may be good for the patient. So the report looked for ways to cutting staff, without actually cutting staff, not filling vacant positions, for instance.

Cutting staff may not be a bad idea for the NHS, however. Buried at the bottom of the news story were some figure regarding staffing at the NHS. The NHS employes 1,368,694 people. Of those 49%, or 666,863 are classified as "non-medical staff." So for every medical staff member they basically have one staff member who is not medical. What I found interesting is that the total number doctors (both general physicians and hopsital doctors) is 121,808. The entire staff of doctors of the NHS are outnumbered by administrators alone, 178,151. If you add in the "senior managers" then the bureaucrats, 219,o64 of them, who control the system outnumber the 121,808 physicians who work in the system. For every 100 physicians in the NHS there are 180 administrators.

Video: Just some appropriate amusement from the classic British series, Yes Minister.

How nationalized health care victimizes immigrants.

Evangeline Stanner is a victim of nationalized health care. As is her husband and two children.

Evangeline, 35, was born in the Philippines. She is married to Richard Stanner of New Zealand. The couple, who met over the internet, have been married since 2006, together they have two children, a two-year-old and a six-month old infant.

After her marriage in 2006 Evangeline was given a work permit in New Zealand so she could be with her husband. That work permit was renewed twice but is due to expire in January. You would think that as the legally married spouse of a Kiwi that she'd be able to stay in New Zealand. And Kiwis are allowed to sponsor their spouses for citizenship—something Evangeline and Richard have put into motion.

But the Stanners were told that Evangeline must leave her home, her husband and her children and return to the Philippines. Evangeline says: "Immigration is tearing our family apart." But she is wrong. It isn't actually immigration that is doing it, it is nationalized health care.

Evageline's only crime was that she got sick. New Zealand has a nationalized health care system and immigrants are not allowed into the country if they might impose costs on the system. It doesn't matter that Evangeline only became ill while in New Zealand. Immigrants are allowed in provided they fund the system, as Evangeline did with the taxes she paid from employment, but they must not collect from the system into which they are forced to pay. Their only purpose is to keep the system funded for aging Kiwis who don't have private insurance, thanks to the crowding out that happens when government provides this care.

During her first pregnancy, with son Josh, she developed a slight kidney problem. With the birth of her second child the condition became much more severe. Her application as the mother of two Kiwi children was scrutinized by medical bureaucrats who wrote her "that you do not meet the acceptable standard of health... on the basis that you are likely to impose significiant costs or demands on New Zealand's health services."

Evangeline has until January 10th to be with her children and then she will be exiled for the crime of being ill.

Immigrants going into New Zealand are taxed for the health care system. Many immigrants simply can't afford to purchase private insurance on top of the heavy taxes they pay for the "free health care" which they better not use. So, if they use the national health system they may end up getting deported, but they can't purchase private care either since the national health system eats up a good portion of their income. Its a case of damned if your well, double damned if your sick.

On top of kidney problems Evangeline has to cope with the stress of being exiled from her husband and children just so the illusion that "nationalized" health care is cheap can be kept alive.

Evangeline, and other immigrants, are not allowed to forgo the nationalized health system, the purpose of such a system is to guarantee "equality" not improve people's lives. So while many would find a better life in New Zealand, even without the socialized health care, they aren't allowed to have it. That would undermine the real principle at work, equality of outcome. So to pretend that the system grants equal access to health care, anyone who might get sick is deported.

You will also find that older people are also routinely discriminated against by New Zealand Immigration, even if those people are quite capable of funding their own health insurance. The system is set up so that nationalized health care trumps everything so anyone who could conceivable use that care is forbidden from moving to New Zealand.

Oddly this has nothing to do with a Kiwi fear of people taking advantage of the welfare state. People can immigrate and join the welfare rolls, that isn't the problem. The problem is that health care is a more precarious situation. Most Kiwis will never be on welfare, so the government can tax them to pay for those people who are on the system. But everyone eventually needs health care and the Kiwi system, like all socialized systems is costly with demand exceeding supply. So anything that strains this already over-strained system has to be cut out.

The result is the rationing which I have spoke about on numerous ocassions. Some medines simply are forbidden. Some procedures are simply banned. Hospital beds are rationed, as are doctors and health care in general. And, some people are simply banned from having health care. If you ban enough people then you can offer "universal health coverage" albeit not very honestly.

Evangeline Stanner had the misfortune of becoming ill under nationalized health care before her residency was approved. So, for that, she will be deported. Chances are also good that she will die in the Philippines because of her illness. She did pay into the health system for three years, her husband paid in for his entire life, but under socialized health care rationing takes place. Nameless bureaucrats decided where to draw lines over who is, or isn't allowed to have care. They drew the line and Evangeline was on the wrong side of it.

Of course, it is possible that lots of negative publicity will ge the politicians to step in and change the ruling. But that won't change the system. All it will mean is that lots of other people, good people who won't get the publicity, will still be excluded because the national health system is only looking for immigrants that can be plundered, not immigrants who may need health care.

In a rational immigration system health, in the sense of communicable diseases, may be an issue. But Evangeline posed no threat to the health of others. I would suggest her presence, with her children, would lessen risks they may have in life. But she was a "liability" not an "asset" to a system that she had no choice in joining.

National health care systems impact on freedom in more ways than meet the eye. It won't just be the reduction of freedom of choice in medical care, and it won't be just a reduction in the amount of the wages you earned which you are allowed to keep. It will also mean greater restrictions on freedom of movement between countries. Nationalize health care makes it harder for would-be immigrants to find a better life. And that means that they, and everyone else, is made poorer because of it.

Under nationalized health care immigrants are an invisible victim of the system. Evangeline is one of those victims, albeit one that has managed to received some publicity.

Socialized health care: the equal right to wait, and wait, and wait.

While Americans were debating the Obama administrations attempt to have government grab the health care sector no one was paying attention to the news from Canada. Canada is one of those state-controlled health care systems that is lauded and praised by those who want a form of health care fascism in America.

The article in question appeared in the Vancouver Sun and mentioned a document that was leaked from the local Health Authority. In Canada, health care is run by the provinces on behalf of the federal government. I should mention that a couple of years ago the Canadian Supreme Court legalized private health insurance, which had been banned by the government, saying that the government was doing such a poor job of providing care, that banning private care on top of what they were doing, was a violation of the rights of Canadians. Since the state was unable to provide decent health care as promised it could not also ban private care as that put the lives of people at risk.

The document that the Sun mentioned was a report from the health authority on the number one problem of socialized care: the inability to pay for it. The problem is that once you announce care is “free,” by which they don’t actually mean free, just that payments are divorced from consumption, the numbers of people wanting more and more care explodes. The demand for care exceeds the supply of care. That is how it is with any good or service that people desire: demand will always exceed supply.

AS the demand explodes so do the costs. But the big slogan of the advocates of nationalized care is that they offer “cheaper” care. So, with exploding demands they have to ration the care to keep costs down. Unfortunately, as they keep trying to reduce the supply of medicine the demand continues to escalate. That leads to budget shortfalls. They don’t have the funds to pay for it.

The Fraser Health region in British Columbia is facing a $160 million shortfall so they were trying to figure out what health care they could end. The document discussed included more rationing of care. A representative of the New Democrat Party (socialists) said this indicated cuts to: “Diabetes clinics in Delta and Mission, regional maternity and pediatric services, and seniors’ aid and mental health programs….” The bureaucrats admit the report is genuine but say it is misleading to allow the public to read it. They admit discussing “a potential 10-per-cent drop in the number of elective surgeries… and longer waits for MRI scans.” Remember, that under government health care programs they decide what is elective surgery not you, not your physician.

Canada’s Health Minister Kevin Falcon said “We’re in the situation right now where there is no more money” and that cutting care is necessary to keep the system sustainable.

The article mentions one hospital that will be forced to close its emergency ward entirely requiring patents to be taken to hospitals another 20 minutes away.

One way that the state health systems keep costs down is to limit the number of people who can have care at any one time. The result is waiting lists, patients are told they are on the list for treatment or surgery and that in some week’s time they will get the care. If you only have one MRI machine, which is expensive, then only so many people can use it in a day. Reduce the capital expenditure on health care, which socialized systems do, and you end up with patients waiting, and suffering longer, in order to get that care.

In Canada the Wait Time Alliance monitors the waiting lists that result from rationed care. The WTA is not a batch of “right-wingers” or “tea party activists” or whatever other stereotype one may use to describe opponents of nationalized care. It is an alliance of groups like the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Association of Radiologists, the Canadian Medical Association and ten other associations of health care professionals.

In their June, 2009 report, Unfinished Business: Report Card on Wait Times in Canada, they attempted to measure the average waiting time for patients. Under the Canadian system an individual must first see a family physician. That physician acts as a gatekeeper, you don’t get see a specialist unless you are recommended by your physician. The waiting period includes the time period between seeing your physician to get permission and the time you actually see the specialist. In addition a second layer of waiting is then measure: that is the period between seeing the specialist and having access to treatment. What is not included “is the wait patients may experience to access their family physician or the fact that nearly 5 million Canadians do not have a family doctor.” (p.3)

In particular they tried to measure the waiting time in comparison to “benchmarks” set by the government. WAT, however, notes that the government benchmarks for waiting periods “represent maximum acceptable wait-time targets and should not be viewed as desired wait-time targets.” In other words, the benchmarks the government set for itself are absolute minimum possible before getting a failing grade completely. Sometimes, what the government considers “acceptable” wait-times, are considered highly undesirable by the actual physicians involved. WTA and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society argued that, with cardiac bypass surgery, no more than six weeks should pass from the initial doctor’s visit and surgery. The government is quite happy with a target of 26 weeks. (p. 4)

Even with somewhat loose targets the government system fails: “Based on the… target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target.” For cancer patients “the median wait for radical (curative) cancer care was 46 days or nearly 7 weeks… the majority of these treatments exceeded the CARO [Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology] benchmark for curative cancer treatment of 4 weeks (2 weeks for the consult wait and 2 weeks for treatment). This is troublesome given the clear link between delay in radiation therapy and a chance of cure.” (p. 7)

This sort of waiting is routine even for emergency treatment. The report said that “the media wait time for patient [in emergency care] presented at the ED to the time they were admitted to an inpatient bed was 19 hours (average is 23.5 hours or nearly one full day,) which is substantially higher than the CTAS [Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale] thresholds (e.g., more than three times the 6 hour guideline for high-level acuity patients). The longer wait for patients to be admitted is often due to the inability to find an available hospital inpatient bed.” That inability is because hospital beds are expensive to maintain (not just the bed but the care that goes with it) and one way to reduce costs is to limit availability to that care by limiting the available of hospital beds.

These wait-times are critical. Whatever flaws the US system has, and most of those are due to political interference, the US stacks up quite well for actual treatment needed and received, compared to Canada. A report by June O’Neill and Dave O’Neill, Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S., investigates the percentage of people, with particular conditions, receiving care for those conditions in the United States verses Canada. As previously reported here:

In Canada 84.1% of those with high blood pressure were receiving treatment for it. In the United States the number was 88.3%. Those with emphysema or related illnesses are far better off in the US where 72% are receiving treatment versus 52% in Canada. In the US 69.6% of individuals with heart disease receive treatment while in Canada the rate is 67.2%. When it comes to coronary heart disease 84.8% of American sufferers receive treatment as compared to 88.9% of Canadians with the problem. Out of eight conditions they investigated Americans have higher treatment ratios in six categories with Canada leading in asthma and angina. These were for individuals age 18 to 64.

But these differences remain fairly consistent for individuals over the age of 65 as well. The only change was for angina where the U.S. now has a higher treatment rate than Canada: 77.7% to 73%. The report noted that “the U.S. generally performs better with respect to treatment of all conditions except that of asthma.”

What about preventative procedures like PAP smears, mammograms and PSA tests for prostate cancer? Again higher percentages of the American public receive such tests than do Canadians. In the U.S. 88.6% of women ages 40 to 69 have had a mammogram. For Canada it was 72.3%. In the U.S. 74.9% of the woman had the test within the last two years where only 54.7% of Canadian women had a recent test. For PAP smears the rate was, over the last three years, was 86.3% for American woman versus 88.23% for Canadian women. The men get a worse deal in both countries when it comes to testing for prostate cancer. In the same age group, 54.2% of men have been tested while in Canada the rate was an abysmal 16.4%. And testing for colorectal cancer is done, both for men and women, about six times as often in the United States as in Canada.

When the study looked at survival for cancer in both countries they also found that Americans were slightly better off. They looked at the ratio of the mortality rate to the incidence rate for cancers and found that Americans are ahead. They concluded, “in terms of the detection and treatment of cancer, the performance of the U.S. would appear to be somewhat better than Canada’s.”

The use of MRIs and CT scans are also much, much rarer in Canada. Canada has 5.5 MRI scanners per million people as of 2005. The US, in 2004, had 27 per million. When it came to CT scanners the US had 32 per million in 2004 while Canada, for 2005, had 11.3.

Considering that one of the alleged virtues of Canada’s health system is the “equality” factor it is interesting to see that more individuals in the US, with specific conditions, are receiving treatment than do their counterparts in Canada. The report also found that the poor in the United States reported as much, or more health care, than those in Canada did.

How England Saves Money on Health Care

I have argued that the main method by which nationalized health care systems, such as the National Health Service in the UK, saves money is simple: deny health care. Care is bureaucratically rationed out. Some people get it, some people don't and it often depends on the whim of untrained bureaucrats or by which "health district" you reside in. This story illustrates NHS health savings in action.

Expectant mother Carmen Blake had sudden and unexpected contractions indicating that her fourth child was about to be born whether she liked it or not. The contractions were strong enough that Carmen realized that she had virtually no time left and called the hospital for an ambulance. The hospital refused her an ambulance and told her to walk. Under normal circumstances that is not too unreasonable as she did live close by. But she was already in labor when she called. Blake recounts: "They said they were not sending an ambulance and told me I had nine months to sort out a lift."

Blake, with some friends also on foot, tried to walk to the hospital as instructed. But she didn't make it. The woman couldn't move any further. A passing woman, Helen Ivers, who is a physio-therapist ended up delivering the child on the sidewalk. Worse yet the umbilical cord was wrapped around the baby's neck so she wasn't breathing. Ivers said when she got there she shouted: "Where are the paramedics." Ivers said "When the baby's head came out I realized the cord was around its neck. Its all a bit of a blur but I think instinct kicked in and I just pulled it over the baby's head."

The friends had called the hospital which, now realizing that Blake was giving birth on the public sidewalk, thanks to their cost-cutting, finally sent the ambulance she had previously requested. The communications manager for the ambulance company said: "This was clearly a traumatic eperience for all concerned." I suspect it was more traumatic for Blake because she was refused an ambulance and then traumatic for Ivers who had to do the hospital's job on the sidewalk because the NHS was saving money.

A spokesman for the state-run hospital said: "We are disappointed that Ms Blake was not happy with the advice and care she received and will of course investigate any complaint." Wow! How compassionate! Note that they didn't apologize for telling a pregnant woman to walk to hospital. Instead they said they are disappointed that she isn't happy. And they again pretend they offered care, which they did not. Blake wasn't disappointed by care she received but by the absence of care requiring her to give birth in front of traffic.

At roughly the same time another expectant mother, Rebecca Molloy, turned up at an NHS hospital. She was 38 weeks pregnant and having contractions. The hospital told her that she wasn't ready and to go home, they were unwilling to admit her. (Too costly you know.) Three hours later Rebecca found herself on the floor doubled up in pain from contractions.

Husband Tony called the hospital for help but "could not get any response." (Perhaps the NHS staff were busy writing letters in defense of state-managed care in England because the criticism they received from opponents of Obamacare.) Left hanging by the hospital, Tony ran out and got the car to rush Rebecca to hospital.

When he returned she told him it was far too late and the baby was being born. Tony Molloy began delivering his daughter. The infant was ashen gray in color and not breathing. It too was born with the cord around its neck. Remembering birthing videos he had watched Tony removed the cord from the child's neck and slapped her on the back to start her breathing. Tony said: "She was grey and not breathing. I was talking to her, saying 'come on little one, breathe for daddy."

When the NHS hospital was asked by the media about their sending a very, very pregnant woman home, without being helped, the hospital spokesman said: "We would encourage the family to contact our patient advice service if they have any concerns over the care received." Actually wouldn't that be "over the care NOT received?"

There is no magic in cutting health care costs—just cut health care. That is how it is done in England and that is how it can be done in the US. You do get what you pay for. Pay for less, get less. It's not that hard to understand. So why does the Left believe that Obama is some messiah who can magically take "a loaf of health care," bless it, and pass it around so that everyone has as much as they want at no additional cost? When government controls health care it saves money by denying treatments and services to people.

Consider poor Ms. Blake. Had she lived in the US, she would have called the ambulance saying she was in labor. It would have showed up and the cost of that would be added to America's health care costs. She would have gone to hospital where she would have had the child, again racking up costs toward the US health care total. All that care, in the current debate, would be counted AGAINST America's health care costs and would be considered a bad thing.

In contrast, in the UK, she was told to walk to hospital, to save on ambulance costs. She delivered on the sidewalk with care given by someone not being paid by the NHS to deliver that service. All that added up to health care savings for the NHS. And, based on the tenor of the debate over Obamacare the costs show that NHS service is superior to health services in the US precisely because the NHS doesn't cost as much. Imagine how efficient the NHS would look if it had patients perform their own heart bypass at home! (Sort of the way NHS patients were forced to pull their own teeth because the government rationed dental care.)

The NHS, life expectancy and America's health care debate.

Bureaucrats who work for the British government’s health care system are unhappy that their system of centrally planned care is being used as an example of what Americans should fear with Obamacare.

One such individual, from the Faculty of Public Health, Alan Maryon-Davis, claimed “The NHS (National Health Service does a damn fine job.” And his proof:

“We spend less on health in terms of GDP than America but if you look at health indices, especially for life expectancy, we have better figures than they do in America.”

What is interesting is how Maryon-Davis was able to include so much misinformation into one sentence. It is almost breathtaking. So let’s unpack his claim one phrase at a time.

“We spend less on health in terms of GDP than America...” This is true. But does it mean anything?

Americans spend more on cars, in terms of GDP, than do Brits. Does this mean Brits have better automobile transportation than Americans? Not at all, they have significantly less. The British government puts a lid on health care in some very simple ways: they deny it. So you can’t get the treatments in the UK that you can get in the United States.

Americans can choose to spend on these treatments, British subjects can not. If we cut the amount of health care we give out, we could cut our costs significantly. Take one example that was in the news recently, because this British woman, agreed to be interviewed by opponents to Obama’s take-over of health care.

Katie Brickell asked for a pap smear when she was 19. The NHS told her she could not have it. When she turned 20, she was told, she could ask again. She asked again, one year later. Now they told her they had changed the rules and she could only have a pap smear when she turned 25. So, once again she delayed the test. When she was 23 they told her she had cervical cancer, the very thing the test is designed to detect. She said: I gave an interview and everything I saw was truthful...” She said: “I would say to anybody in my situation now that if they had the money, they should go private.”

Luckily she was working a company that also provided private insurance. So she was immediately put on drugs that, so far, have saved her life, and appear to have put the cancer in remission. She has to take two different drugs and she acknowledges, that under NHS care “I would have had to get a lot of clearance to get that level of care. On private, that just was not an issue. If I needed a scan, it was immediate. On the NHS, it was often a two or three-week wait.”

The NHS was doing what it was designed to do: cut the costs of health care by rationing health care according to edits set by bureaucrats as their best guess as to what, is a good idea, on average. The rules are set to cut costs. In most cases a 19-year-old doesn’t need a pap smear, Katie wasn’t “most cases.” The system can’t individualize needs the way that private care can.

Thelma Nixon was told that her case of wet macular degeneration would mean she would go blind. She need injections into the eyes to prevent this. Injections, or blindness, there was no other option. The NHS told her she didn’t fit their guidelines because the cost was too great. So they decided she needed to go blind, after all NHS provides health care at a lower cost than the US and that’s a good thing.

Thelma remortgaged her home while the Royal National Institute for the Blind went to bat for her. The press caught on to the story and started campaigning for her. Since British health care is politically controlled this was causing bad publicity for the ruling party and the NHS relented—for Thelma. Those who don’t manage to create a media frenzy around themselves are not so fortunate.

But Thelma’s initial treatments were paid for by herself, from the house mortgage. And when that ran out a local businessman gave her the funds for two more treatments. Other readers of her local paper rallied to her case and provided funding. ONLY after this media frenzy was created did the NHS relent. They sent up new guidelines for assessment and will not disqualify people from care according to the new policies.

Jane Tomlinson knew that the squeeky-wheel gets the grease in the NHS system. But she didn’t want to go that route. She was an avid supporter of the NHS. She worked for the NHS as radiographer. She spent much of her time raising additional funds for the NHS. It is estimated that she raised close to $2.9 million for the NHS.

She was diagnosed with cancer. Her medical team told her that the best option for situation was treatments with Lapatinib. But that costs $11,000 for a year’s worth of care, but that’s just a fraction of the funds she raised for the NHS. Were the bureaucrats thankful? No. They told her she could not have the treatment in her region. Had she lived in other regions of the country, the bureaucrats had decided differently and she would have had the treatment. She died. The NHS Trust said: “We were deeply disappointed not to be able to offer Jane the treatment she and her consultant wanted. We support Jane and Mike’s (her husband) views that we need to debate about access to drugs that have not yet been licensed or nationally approved.” They were disappointed! Tell that to her her small son.

Remember, it is easy to cut the percentage of GDP spent on health care. Just ration it. Cut the amount of care that people are allowed to receive and you will cut the costs.

What matters, is not the percentage of GDP you spend on care, but what you get for it. We could give Americans 1950s costs on health care if we limit the care to 1950s technology. Cut out CAT scans and you can save a lot of money, and lose a lot of lives. Cut out bypass surgeries and you can lower the total amount spent on care. There is no magic in cutting health care costs. It’s easy and it is done in country after country, merely by limiting the supply of care.

We could cut the costs of education in America the same way. Just fire half the teachers and ration education. We could set up schools with waiting rooms where kids line up in the morning and the first 200 in get to go to class and the rest go home. Of course, they can try again tomorrow!

The proponent of government-run health care only whine about the costs of health care. If education is being discussed they attack America for “not spending enough.” When it comes to public transit they whine about “not spending enough.” When it comes to government programs then more. When it comes to private services then more is evil. It isn’t the cost that offends them. In the UK the same proponents of socialized care want government to spend more. Spending more is only considered evil when it is done privately.

Let’s look at the second phrase in the defense of the NHS: “if you look at health indices, especially for life expectancy, we have better figures than they do in America.”

The problem here is that life expectancy is not a measure of health. It is and it isn’t. It is a measure of life expectancy which is determined by countless other factors, of which health care, is just a small factor.

Imagine two towns, with the identical number of people, fitting precisely the same profiles. They get the exact same health care. But in one town the villages like to drive wildly, while the other town is inhabited by people afraid to drive fast then 20 mph. Which town will have a lower life expectancy?

People who smoke have a lower life expectancy than people who don’t, even if they get the identical care. A town with a higher murder rate will have a lower life expectancy than a town with few, or no murders. People who exercise and eat their vegetables will have a higher life expectancy than people who don’t. There are literally hundreds of factors which impact life expectancy which are entirely outside of the health care system.

This is widely known, but that doesn’t stop the proponents of socialized health care from using this statistic. The numbers they use are correct, but the spin they put on them isn't.

What is an objective criteria that can be used? How about survival rates for patients, suffering similar conditions, under various systems. Since the examples I used earlier, of Katie Brickell and Jane Tomlinson, involved cancer let’s explore the survival rate differences between the US and Great Britain.

The British medical journal, Lancet Oncology did just that. When it came to measuring the survival rates of cancer victims guess who came in first place: the United States, where 62.9 per cent of female patients survived. In England the rate was 52.7 per cent. For male cancer patients the news was better Americans but worse for the Brits. Sixty-six per cent of American male patients with cancer survive. In England only 44.7 per cent do.

Survival rates for cancer victims does measure health care, especially health care around the issue of cancer. Yet, the NHS apologists avoid mentioning this statistic and instead trot out life expectancy, which has little to actually do with health care. But then, what choice did Maryon-Davis have in order to make his case?

Photos: Photo #1 is of the queue outside one of the few NHS dentists in Wales taking new patients. To limit costs the NHS strictly limits the number of dentists. The results are long lines of people hoping to be allowed to see a dentist. Some pensioners have suffered so badly from tooth aches, and facing NHS restrictions on care denying them dental care, that they have resorted to pulling their own teeth. But, when they pull their teeth, instead of the NHS doing it, it lowers the percentage of health care as a part of GDP, and that's a good thing according to NHS proponents. Photo #2, Jane Tomilson and the family she left behind.

Labor protectionism by another name

Wal-Mart has recently released a letter supporting the idea that all employers be forced to include mandatory health coverage for workers. Think about this for a few seconds.

In the past Wal-Mart has fought state measures that would force them to provide health benefits for their employees. So then they were fighting something quite similar to what they are now supporting. Was this some benevolent change of mind? To quote an old TV show: "Don't bet your bippy on that."

Previously measures would have taken away a competitive advantage that Wal-Mart had over some of their major competitors. The current proposal, by mandating it for all employers, means that smaller competitors, who can't afford the measure, would be disadvantaged. Wal-Mart can afford it but they know that up-and-coming competitors may not be able to afford the same thing. Previously such a measure would have put them at a competitive disadvantage. The new proposal puts them at a competitive advantage.

Where state interference is good for profits then Wal-Mart supports state intervention. Where such measures reduce profits then Wal-Mart opposes state intervention. There is no consistent principle just a consistent desire to maximize profits coupled wiht an any-means-will-do mentality to secure those profits.

One of the most tragic features of the American health care model has been the union-inspired measure which links health benefits to employment. This sounds great but it means the policy is connected to one's job and not something the individual actually owns. Lose your job and you lose your coverage. Americans change jobs frequently, and that works to their good for the most part. It indicates a competitive market for employees.

But when health benefits are attached to a job it means Americans frequently lose their coverage for a period of time. The insurers don't mind. With each passing year your risks go up and so do your premiums. And since you are, in essence, starting over, all the previous payments you made don't count toward the new policy so the result is substantially higher premiums.

Individual health accounts would be far more beneficial to people than job-based benefits. But the unions don't want that. The current distortions in health care, caused by these programs to some extent, are now a major reason that employers are going to line up behind government provision of health care.

While everyone says that "all workers" should have health benefits no one wants to say that the workers are going to have to pay for it. So the debate is between forcing employers to provide it or having the state provide it. This means that employers will progressively begin lining up for the nationalization of health care. It will save them money.

Either way workers will be the primary funders. Either they pay directly, where they can monitor costs and know where their funds are going and what they are getting for them. Or they will pay higher taxes into the state and watch it disappear in the political black-hole. From that will emerge some sort of health care, muct akin to other government provided services. The services will be substandard and costly and no one will know why. There is no way to control what happens when that much money diasppeares into the federal treasury.

The net result is that workers will pay more their care and get less for it. A small number of people, who have nothing now, will probably be better off. A larger number of people will be made somewhat worse off. And a small number of people will be made substantially worse off. The total result will be a deduction in the quality of care in general.

As we move closer to a nationalized health care system we will see how the political process works. More companies will line up to try to push the laws in a direction favorable to themsevles or detrimental to their competitors. Other medical industries will push for "benefits" that they just happen to provide. Pharmaceutical companies will push for specific kinds of drugs while keeping competing drugs out of the markets. As political control of medical care increases the big players in medicine will work to manipulate the laws and regulations in their own favor.