PC Medicine

Of the many foolish ideas I had when I was young, a belief in government run medical care wasn’t one of them.  This rare moment of youthful intelligence came from the fact that I spent a very enjoyable year as a student abroad during the twilight years of the Thatcher administration. Maggie had managed to make a lot of changes, but she hadn’t touched national health care. I therefore got to see that National Health program with my own eyes.

What I learned was that, even though it was true that everyone had access to doctors, there was a little, unspoken, problem: While in America most got good to excellent treatment, with some unfortunates getting lousy treatment, in England, everyone got lousy medicine. My friend’s mother spent years in a wheelchair in excruciating pain because she was too far down on the list for hip replacement surgery. I know for a fact that wouldn’t have happened in America. My father, once he was diagnosed as needing a hip replacement, had the same surgery within a month of diagnosis.

To me, the British national health care system was always the perfect symbol of socialism: better that everyone should be miserable, rather than anyone being happy.

My point is that, as Hillary gears up to make Hillarycare a reality, stop and think about what happens when the government, not the market, controls health care. If you’re having a problem visualizing that system, watch this video:

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Zhombre

    That’s the difference between capitalism and socialism. The former creates often enormous wealth but distributes it unevenly. The latter creates poverty and misery and does a darn good job of making sure everybody has it (except for the party nomenclatura, of course).

  • http://infidelphialive.blogspot.com Jauhara al kafirah

    Why go looking to England or even Canada, close as they are…when you can look to modern Russia, whose medical system has never recovered from socialism. Socialized medicine will be the nail in our coffin as a democracy.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Powerful film, Book. Power of the internet. Power of decentralized systems.

  • Oldflyer

    When I was last employed I worked for a very large British Corporation and in the late 90s went to England frequently. One of the prize perqs Employers were beginning to offer highly sought recruits was “private” health insurance. The Brits just simply hated their health care system.

  • http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com Laer

    We all see it, so here’s the question: What do Democrats see when they look at public health care?

  • Al

    BW, I did not view the video, because I did not have to. A parent of a patient of mine has a sister who lives in England.
    Every time the sister becomes pregnant, my parent packs up her entire family,(my patients) and goes to England to care for her sister IN THE HOSPITAL. Why? you ask. Because 36 hours after delivery, the staff of the “hospital” will not even give the patient so much as a cup of tea. It is expected that a family member will provide care if the woman, who has just delivered a baby, and is still in pain, but is 36 hours beyond delivery, still needs help to go the the bathroom,(excuse me, the leu) may need to have a glass of water, or even a vitamin,
    (but she is expected to breast feed)(to reduce the strain on the National “Health” Care System)
    Yes, there are people in the USA who can not get the health care they need. And that is a shame. And most of us donate to organizations to reduce their numbers. But…..A government mandated “health care system” would simply create a universal “access to health care”, which would NOT be the best, which would ignore, and actively deny the possibility of something better, and hide its inadequacies under the cloak of Government. A “National Health Care System” would give everyone the same level of pain, making the poor voter, feel that “well, we all have the problem, there is nothing we can do about it.”
    That is the very difference between capitalism and socialism. The individual, in a capitalist society, can see the need, and do something about it, personally, and/or societally. In a socialist environment, no individual has a voice.
    As Harry Truman would say, I’ll refreshen my glass, and strike another blow for freedom.

  • JJ

    As with anything else, look at programs the government runs now. How are they doing?

    So – what on earth would lead you to believe they’d handle health care any better?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Every time a Liberal/Lefty extols the benefit of national health “insurance”, I ask them what it is about a) rationed health care (the old lady in the video) and b) politicized health care (the transexual in the video) that they like. They never have a good answer. Most of them imagine some form of “Mommy health care”, whereby Mommy gives them everything they want and when they want it, together with a good tuck-in at night and a kiss on the forehead. Liberals think like children.

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » PC Medicine()

  • swampacreage

    Of the 10 leading industrialized nations of the world America is the one where citizens are most dissatisfied with their healthcare system.America is the nation that allows the most characteristics of the free market to operate in her economy.Hmmmmmmm.
    Conservatives think the US health care needs reform because there is too much government involvement while the Liberals think there is not enough.
    Statistics show that nations(the industrially wealthy)who have universal health care and reduced poverty in their midst are happier and healthier.Hmmmmmm.Better more should benefit than the few!Solution,America needs to re-route their spending to reduce poverty and invoke a national health care system.Happy times will be their again.And we all know the more the merrier.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Liberals think like children.

    Cruel, Cruel world out there. Someone has to take care of them. They certainly can’t take care of themselves, and they won’t even allow others (US military) to do it for them with their temper tantrums.

    Happy times indeed, Danny. Just look at greg and swamp here. Happy times.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Funny but very much to the point, as usual, YM.

    The Swedish economic think tank, TIMBRO, published a study back in 2004 that looked at that mecca of low poverty, socialist benevolence, and universal healthcare – Sweden. http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

    See, especially, page 21, titled “It is better being poor in a rich country than in a poor one”, which addresses poverty in the U.S. versus Sweden. Beware, it involves facts, figures and graphs, so it will no doubt be confusing, if not incomprehensible, to Liberal/Left Democrats.

    Money quote: “Poverty is a highly relative concept. As we saw in the preceding section, for example,40 per cent of all Swedish households would rank among low-income households in the USA, and an even greater number in the poorer European countries would be classed as low income earnings by the American definition.”

    So, we could easily eliminate poverty in the U.S. – simply reclassify the poor as “Swedish Middle-Class”.

    Rather than celebrate our progress here, however, all we hear is the stamping of angry little feet by the Gregs and Swampies of our society. Never mind the facts…these poor emotional souls really, really, really want to return to the comfortable womb of a nanny state like Sweden or Canada, where Nanny or Mommy Dearest can take care of their every little need.

    An international economist once told me that “poverty is a state of mind”. How true.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    There’s more total wealth in this world than probably all the wealth added together from 20,000 BC to 1 AD.

    The reason is simple rather than scientific. The power to summon water in a parched and dry farming community is invaluable. The value of things increase and decrease according to how great the need is and how great the supply. But all of that relies upon the assumption that the object or product of value exists.

    How much would a medieval King pay for the military technologies of today’s world? How much would he pay for the medical technology which will save his children and the children of his people?

    While human suffering added up for the last 20,000 years could easily outspace the suffering we see here today, wealth is a different function.

    I think people get a little bit spoiled in taking things for granted when they don’t have an adequate grasp of history, their ancestors, and previous ages. I’m not talking about events, memorizing timelines, and names. I’m talking about people, their lives, empathy. Simply living history through the lives of those that have gone before. There’s a lot of wisdom for those who make the attempt to understand. But few do. There are very few students of history. More are being produced, because of the availability of the internet, providing the tools and the convenience, but we are still a pretty uncommon breed.

    Maybe as much as 70+% of Americans who saw 300 never really looked into the history of Ancient Greece and Rome. That’s another problem with entropy and evil actions in the United States school system. The human mind has a few initial years that it learns very quickly. If that person doesn’t learn the right things, he will usually spend much of his time unlearning before he could start learning. And when he does start learning, it will be slower, because his mind works slower now at processing new information.

    One of the reasons the United States has been so successful in the fight against annihilation and chaos is because of the US’s deep roots in human history and strife. In a sense, when you see people researching their family trees, it is to seek a certain kind of connection, greater connection to something larger than oneself. Sure, you could ignore the greater fields of knowledge and just focus on the career, but as you see with academics, there is a consequence. Both to you and to the nation as a whole.

    Individuals who do not know the truth are naive and easily manipulated. The cynical ones are even more easily manipulated, just tell them what they wish to hear. Naive folks at least have a sense that they might have a problem called being ignorant, cynics don’t have this advantageous problem.

    Everyone likes practical knowledge. It is not that people don’t want to learn history, it is that nobody tells them how to make use of it. In the schools, that is, and this on purpose I believe. To further the goals of entropy, as the servants of darkness does on this world, you must disengage a person’s defense mechanisms. And then, just let nature take its course. AIDS figured something very valuable out. You don’t win by overpowering someone’s defense system, you win by subverting it.

    The greater problem isn’t so much that socialist ideas exist and are advocated by socialists, but that people actually believe in it. Now why is this when socialism is an inferior belief system? Wasn’t the First Amendment specifically designed to test out and discard weak ideas through the battle of speech and debate? Oh wait, Europe doesn’t have free speech any longer…

    Defense System subversion=Achieved

    You see how the attack plan begins via decay? I mean for any specific individual to figure out whether they are being manipulated or not in the absence of military history, history, human wisdom, and comprehension of rare topics such as science, requires personal experience. But personal experience cannot be mass produced, so it is slow. It converts people one by one… according to their experiences and according to their personal choices based upon those experiences.

    When a person learns how to critical think early on, how to connect different pieces of information together and make it of use, personal or otherwise, that person is able to mass produce something that would otherwise require personal time and effort on a village crafting level. Military history teaches you deception, human history teaches you politics, how to avoid mistakes, what consequences are born from actions, and political evolution. Unless you’re dumb and are unable to keep more than two thoughts in your head, there is no real reason why people of moderate intelligence cannot take useful information and extract wisdom and comprehension out of it.

    But both school knowledge (theory) and experience (actual) are not enough by themselves. If you have just one but not the other, there are still problems. If you lack knowledge, then you’re just stumbling blindly using your own two hands, without any machined tools to help. If you lack experience, you have the tools but not the skill and wisdom in order to know how to best apply the tools to the problem.

    A lot of people after 9/11 acquired a motivation and thirst for understanding, poured by human instinct, need, and emotion. They sought out the tools that they knew they needed instinctively.

    The Academics of the Left do have knowledge, after all. But what do they do with it? Do they really understand what is in their heads? I don’t think so. It is like knowing the value of pi but not how to use it to calculate certain traits of a circle. It is useless.

    The power of the internet, to me, is the power to create personal motivations in people, to give them a reason to learn. By exposing them to things that they would never be personally exposed to, in a visceral manner (i.e. youtube vids). The other component is obvious. Research capability. What usually took 5 hours at a library, takes about a few seconds with google. Neo-Neocon is perhaps a good example of a person who didn’t have time to do the requisite research to fully understand certain facets of human events and actions.

    The one thing that always confused me was understanding the motivations of the Left. As much as it was helpful to document overall trends of the Left using psychological tools (Shrinkwrapped and DR. Sanity’s psychoanalysis) combined with explanations of narcissism and selfishness, it wasn’t enough. I mean it in this sense, as a conclusion. I could understand the motivations of the Islamic Jihad because they were personal reasons. Jihadists are motivated, in essence, because of their pride and shame at their failure, their desire to get something for nothing. This went for everyone. But everyone on the Left isn’t a narcissist, even though they do have personality problems. But that goes for people on the right that agree with me as well, since all humans have personality problems. So the problem always became, you couldn’t really understand what motivated people like swamp and greg just by looking at what they wrote and said or even did.

    And I think that was cause they weren’t motivated by anything at all. If somebody just reacts through instinct, is there a reason behind his actions you could figure out through analysis and backwards engineering? Probably not unless you had more tools at your disposal. You could analyze it, you could say that it behaves according to a pattern like narcissism, but you could not perhaps explain the why of the matter. And without the why, we do not accomplish Sun Tzu’s strategic dictate, to know thy enemy.

    I don’t think even the Left understands why they simultaneously wish to destroy America and also love her at the same time. Why they simultaneously (and Daily Kos wrote this on their blog btw) why they see America as the greatest oppressor in the world yet willingly and eagerly choose to live here (their justification is that they can work inside and corrupt the greatest oppressive system in the world….)

    I mean, it really is doublethink in the end. It is not a reason, it is ALL the reasons, at once. 1984 was a hard book to understand, but combined with psychology, military strategy, and psychological warfare, I think the meaning is a lot easier now to get than it was before, for me.