All errors should be reported to

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Government-run health care leads to cancer death

Government-run health care does not cause cancer, but it sure as hell does not stop it.

Consider the sad situation in England.

From ITV:
A "large number" of hospitals are canceling cancer operations, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons has said, revealing the depth of the NHS funding crisis.
Clare Marx said cancer surgery was no longer protected in the health service, and that hospitals had been canceling operations since the start of the year.
She told The Observer: "Historically, they have been protected due to their urgent nature.
"However, feedback from our members suggests that since the start of January, a large number of hospitals across the UK are now canceling cancer surgery.
"It is increasingly clear that no part of the system and no patient is immune from the pressure the NHS is experiencing."
Government paying for things makes it more expensive and less effective.

Look at university education in America after the federal government guaranteed a trillion dollars in student loans.

The bureaucracy became bloated and the tuition skyrocketed.

But the standards fell. Required courses in hard science and U.S. history gave way to mandatory classes in black history, women's studies and the like.

When you make money easy to get, you encourage sloth. My guess is NHS has far more administrators per doctor than the USA has.


  1. When resources are stretched thin, or in times of crisis (both of which apply in England now in the NHS) you are reduced to triage. Acute illnesses and injuries get attention. Cancer surgeries, while most people regard them as urgent, are elective surgeries. You aren't going to lose life and limb to them tomorrow, but car accidents and phlebothromboses will, so these get attention today. And if the case is the same tomorrow, the cancer surgery gets put off again. And the surgery needed gets more complex, and eventually the case becomes inoperable.
    Health care is not a right. No one has a right to demand the time and effort of others at a price fixed by the consumer. The flip side of this is that no one should be expected to pay out the nose to a cartel of providers that try to fix prices with monopolistic practices. But this is what we have in most countries, and most certainly in social democracies: a couple of monopolies fighting each other with a resultant stalemate.
    The only realistic way out of this is to end both monopolies. The government should not be fixing prices with programs, and the medical-industrial complex should be shorn of its monopoly by eliminating licencing and accreditation.
    Again: Chapter nine Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.

  2. 'Government paying for things makes it more expensive and less effective.'


    Rant Master Denninger when over this the other day with the math

    His preface: 'Roughly one dollar in five spent today in the United States goes toward health care. This is double what other developed, industrial nations spend and virtually all of them have socialist health care systems.'

    There's been almost a complete lack of discussion/coverage of Trump's intention to have the feds re-negotiate the obscene gouging we're taking from Big Pharma. That will knock some numbers off the red column real quick if they come in (which they will). The "cost shifting" issue also doesn't usually show up in current discussions, but I can guarandamntee it soon will.

    Raise your hand if your shocked that this hasn't been attempted before.

  3. But, Paullie "The Beard" Krugman has told us and told us and told us that these are lies because the NHS is run by the government over there. Would he lie to us? Since he writes for the NYT, yes.

  4. As a disabled veteran I've relied on the Veterans Administration for my health care for almost twenty years now. Up until recently getting anything done was like watching molasses in the winter time. Since Trump was elected I have seen a marked improvement in waiting times and service. I have also (finally) been enrolled in the Veterans Choice program that allows me to seek help outside the VA. So, even though he isn't actually President yet it is obvious that Trump has already made improvements at the VA. - Elric

    1. Thank you for your service. I am so glad you get your choice now

  5. I lived 30 years in Australia. My wife died there, at the age of 47, from breast cancer. Statistically she would have fared better in the USA, which has a significantly higher percentage of recovery than Australia, and far better than Canada or the UK.

    As to the socialized medicine practiced in most countries- well, in Aust. I was shocked to walk through a modern hospital which had patients of all ages and sexes lining the corridors; while the wards were empty and dark. The reason? Government "saving" money.

    Western Australia had two MRI facilities back in the '90s, but shut one down leaving only one facility, in Perth; again, to save money. (there are now 3 rural facilities.) Patients living outside the metro area had long travel times, and long waiting times. I am not surprised that US health care has far better results than the much-touted Australian system.

    I could go on; but my point is that being able to buy what you need is far, far better than only being able to take what the gov't offers. Beancounters don't care whether you recover, that's not their job.

    1. I presume some of the problems you wrote about stem from Australia's size: it is an enormously large country with a relatively small population, most of whom live on the East Coast in either QLD or NSW. A fairer comparison might be of the entire Oz with one US state like NY. US states don't all do a great job in delivering or promoting health care for their citizens. Some states in the US do a lot better than others; some cities are meccas for health care (Cleveland and Boston and Minneapolis, for example), others are places you wouldn't want to visit in your entire lifetime, much less expect to get top-notch health care.