• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sweden's Government Health Care

Cal

Well-known member
Sweden's Government Health Care
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.


Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

"OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."

These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Funny tho- how in the World Health Organizations 2005 ratings Sweden ranked 23rd in providing Health Care services- where the US was 37th :???:

Canada ranked 30th-- UK ranked 18th..All higher than the US :???:

And Swedens health care costs were only 9.2% (ranked 25th) while the US was ranked 2nd (next to worst- only behind the Marshall Islands) at 15.2% GDP (and now in 2009 the US is #1 in costs and over 16% GDP) :???:

Canada 18th at 9.8% of GDP-- UK 24th at 8.2% of GDP

And Sweden was ranked 4th in Life Expectancy- while the US was rated 24th :???:
Canada 12th--- UK 14th
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Maybe it's not the costs, maybe it's the GDP, that's the problem!

What will the costs be compared to GDP next year, with costs staying constant?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Maybe it's not the costs, maybe it's the GDP, that's the problem!

What will the costs be compared to GDP next year, with costs staying constant?

Thats the problem- costs aren't staying constant...Neither in health care costs or health care insurance costs....That is one of the reason stagflation/stagnation has prevailed over most working folks income over the last few years....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
That is one of the reason stagflation/stagnation has prevailed over most working folks income over the last few years....

Check your census report, avg. income went up!

And costs went up faster.....More people moved out of middle class or lower in status...Health Care/Health Care insurance was the fastest raising of the costs- until Bush/Cheney helped out their oil buddies with oil/gas profiteering :roll: ...

Health care costs are projected at reaching 19.5-20 percent of GDP by 2017--- IF nothing is done to reform the Health Care/Health Care Insurance system ....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OT, "IF nothing is done to reform the Health Care/Health Care Insurance system ...."

And putting the same outfit in charge that "manages" Social Security and couldn't turn a profit at a whorehouse is the answer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
OT, "IF nothing is done to reform the Health Care/Health Care Insurance system ...."

And putting the same outfit in charge that "manages" Social Security and couldn't turn a profit at a whorehouse is the answer?

That was the Bush Crew that couldn't turn a profit with a whorehouse- and had to auction it off...Just like every other financial venture GW touched (including administering the country)- it went broke .... :(

Luckily the folks saw that- and made him keep his fingers out of SS....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
OT, "IF nothing is done to reform the Health Care/Health Care Insurance system ...."

And putting the same outfit in charge that "manages" Social Security and couldn't turn a profit at a whorehouse is the answer?

That was the Bush Crew that couldn't turn a profit with a whorehouse- and had to auction it off...Just like every other financial venture GW touched (including administering the country)- it went broke .... :(

Luckily the folks saw that- and made him keep his fingers out of SS....

I don't think Bush was an active participant in managing the whore house.

Here you've got the government managing a retirement account that cant't even keep up with inflation - that means that every participant is LOSING purchasing power - and you want this same outfit to manage health care? Every year this same outfit goes deeper and deeper in debt, and you want them to manage health care? OT, for God's sake, look at the Federal Government's job at managing ANYTHING, and tell me again why you're going to put them in charge of making decisions that will mean the difference between life and death!
 
Top