Comments on: Does the NHS Provide Better Health Care?

By: Blagnet.net » Socialized medicine links

Blagnet.net » Socialized medicine links — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:09:59 +0000

[...] Two posts from David Z. at No Third Solution: Is it “Un-American” to Disagree with Nancy Pelosi? and Does the NHS Provide Better Health Care? [...]

By: RWW

RWW — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:23:45 +0000

What good is "the best health care in the world" if only 1% of the population can receive it?

But my point is that, even if the best healthcare in history could be provided to 100% of the population, by the nature of government it would be wasteful. If such a situation is possible but not accomplished in a free market, it can only be because people don't want that level of healthcare for all.

In this case, you are responding appropriately to a challenge on Twitter, but in general it is a fruitless approach to point out the failures of other socialist systems. Socialism is not a failure simply because of empirical observations (which always allow the assertion that this time we'll get it right); socialism is known a priori to be a failure.

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:05:04 +0000

RWW, in case your comment doesn't ever show up (I've lost some comments under these circumstances, mysteriously), I love the conclusion you offered:

"Socialism is not a failure simply because of empirical observations (which always allow the assertion that this time we'll get it right); socialism is known a priori to be a failure."

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:03:48 +0000

It was a false-positive in the spam filter. I just "approved" it, but it sometimes takes a while for them to show up on the site under those circumstances.

By: RWW

RWW — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:57:44 +0000

Why did my reply get eaten?

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:32:17 +0000

RWW, when you said "this argument could be dangerous, because it's based on the same myopic vision that demands the funding of health care at all costs," I agree - however in the context of the twitter-thread to which I was responding, the challenge presented was "The NHS is better." I conclude that it is not better. However, I have to disagree with your introduction. Let me explain: You said that an NHS could provide better quality but it would be provided in a wasteful manner, as if those two properties can be isolated in a vacuum. I submit that they cannot. What good is "the best health care in the world" if only 1% of the population can receive it? Or if it is "provided in a wasteful way"? The quality and quantity of the service both need to be taken into account. The fact of the matter is that "health care for all, at any cost" as you point out is extremely myopic. The reality is that there are, and always will be trade-offs. Determining how much, and of what quality, and in what time and place a service will be offered are responsibilities for which the market is uniquely qualified, and the State is not.

By: RWW

RWW — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:42:47 +0000

You know, it is conceivable that a national healthcare system could provide better quality than a free market system. The problem is that it would be provided in a wasteful way — that is, contrary to the priorities of those who fund it. While it is somewhat instructive to point out that socialized medicine is usually of lower quality than that in a somewhat freer market, this argument could be dangerous, because it's based on the same myopic vision that demands the funding of health care at all costs.

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:15:55 +0000

I have (very recently) outed corporate shills for the Insurance Companies, and highlighted attempts by Big Insurance companies trying to get monopoly power from the Gov't. I am vociferously anti-fascist, anti-corporatist, anti-big-business. A 30-second perusal of this blog would've given you a clue. You are an idiot.

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:09:31 +0000

For the record, I do not consider the US some "rosy place." Just because I don't want an American NHS doesn't mean I think the "system" in America is perfect, or even admirable.

There are plenty of problems with it, and I've commented on those here a number of times. There are solutions to the problems that don't involve taxes or socialism.

The US is not the rosy place you paint it, and I have multiple examples of INSURED people missing out on necessary care due to hospital shortfalls, indifference, and HMO/insurer denials.

We use more, we get better, and faster treatment, and we have higher survival rates for most cancers, but the UK's is "less broken." That's Orwellian, to say the least.

By: nothirdsolution

nothirdsolution — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:02:28 +0000

…and the only reason they are not drawing from similar samples (you meant "samples" not "populations") is because the NHS does not offer the same treatment/procedures.

It's not some exogeneous factor that we need to control for, it is the variable under consideration!!!! That's a FAIL in my book.