NHS provides private medical care for its staff
posted at 9:25 am on October 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The Telegraph reports yet another great moment in government-run health care today. The National Health Service, Britain’s government-run health care system, finds itself so unresponsive that it doesn’t trust itself to provide care for its employees. Instead, they paid private physiotherapists to treat its staff rather than wait for NHS providers to become available (via Q&O):
An NHS trust has spent more than £12,000 on private treatment for hospital staff because its own waiting times are too long. The money was used to bring in physiotherapists to help workers recover from muscular-skeletal injuries at West Suffolk Hospital in Bury St Edmunds.
Bosses said it prevented them from leapfrogging NHS patients and enabled them to return to work more quickly.
However, the private treatment, which amounted to £12,116 for 271 appointments over the past year, was described by critics as “shocking”.
Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “Their staff should have to wait like everybody else. Perhaps if they experienced it as their customers – that is the taxpayer – experienced it, they might be a little keener to improve their waiting times.”
Gee — you think? Only in an Orwellian system like the NHS would their explanation make sense. In order to get the staff back to work in order to serve the public that is forced to use the NHS that they fund, they have to go outside their system to get them the medical care they need more quickly. Given the constraints of the status quo, they actually saved British taxpayers money and longer wait times. Actually, Wallace’s suggestion would have cost everyone more money.
Obviously, Wallace misses the point. The real problem with responsiveness isn’t the NHS staff, but with the lack of competition and the lack of resources in a shortage-management monopoly system. The UK decides how many resources to provide the British populace, and the staff is just another rationed resource. If the UK let Brits keep their money and relied on a free-market health care industry, the resources would grow to meet the demand, and wait times for treatment would no longer be an issue.
The NHS apparently agrees with this assessment. They used the private market to get resources that the NHS itself had rationed into near oblivion to make sure they didn’t lose productivity. Why not eliminate the NHS and let everyone have that option? As long as the UK sucks income from its citizens to fund the NHS, most Brits won’t realistically have that option.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
lol, unintended, but not unforeseen
ballz2wallz on October 14, 2008 at 9:27 AM
But remember kiddies, socialized medicine is better than the medical rat race in the US because it costs less money.
Please ignore that it only does so because it is rationed that way just to be used as a talking point. The human cost? Who cares. Marxists get to say socialized medicine is cheaper than private health care.
BKennedy on October 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM
ROTFLMAO!
TheSitRep on October 14, 2008 at 9:33 AM
My dad–born in England, with dual citizenship–moved back to the UK years ago because he had been spending so much on his health care. He moved back here after two years because he had been getting so little health care.
jgapinoy on October 14, 2008 at 9:33 AM
But Ed, this would mean about 200,000 diversity advisers, gender equality monitors and other bureaucrats losing their jobs. And think of all the management consultants and efficiency analysts who won’t get hired when health bosses aren’t spending the taxpayers’ money.
Have a heart, man.
EnglishMike on October 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM
The liberal response: Obviously not enough money is being pumped into NHS to make it as responsive as it could be.
More taxes. Higher taxes.
whitetop on October 14, 2008 at 9:35 AM
physician (govt program) heal thyself……
Rovin on October 14, 2008 at 9:38 AM
It’s patriotic!
trubble on October 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Oh, this is rich…
null on October 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I just sent my Congressman, FJ Pallone a letter about socialized medicine. When i joined the workforce in the 80’s, you only needed major medical health insurance. I asked my Rep. to explain why we continue to tie health insurance to employment. Why is it not a market driven purchase?
red131 on October 14, 2008 at 9:41 AM
It always works this way in a socialist system. First thing that happens, regardless what it is, is the corruption starts. Who needs to wait in line, I am too important, go to the side door for your pie …
The old Soviet Union didn’t fail, it just ran out of money.
tarpon on October 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Ed, fix your spelling of “yet” in the first sentence.
Maxx on October 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM
“Their staff should have to wait like everybody else.”
How about no waiting?
forest on October 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Much of the spiralling increase in the cost of medical care in the U.S. is the result of government interference and slip-and-fall ambulance-chasing lawyers – John Edwards,for example.
ManlyRash on October 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Yes Sir, Government ran health care, it will work as good as Congress !! We’re all going to die !!
Maxx on October 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM
This is what happens in a political economy.
Since the rulers of the economy can get whatever they want. why would it not be in their interest to have this organization.
Great…
benrand on October 14, 2008 at 9:54 AM
An interesting read:
The Hidden Costs of Single Payer Health Insurance: A Comparison of the United States and Canada
Date Published: 9/30/2008
A free PDF download of the publication.
Xiphos on October 14, 2008 at 9:55 AM
All the health care that I can wait in a long, 6 month line for, for free???
I WANT THAT SYSTEM HERE, I WANT IT HERE!
Oh please please!
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Better than you.
lorien1973 on October 14, 2008 at 10:06 AM
A guy I work with just sent out an e-mail saying he couldn’t meet today because aq crown fell out of his tooth and he’s going to the dentist.
That’s right, his crown fell out this morning, and hes going to the dentist – this morning.
Did I mention I’m not posting from the UK?
forest on October 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Our pediatrician is Canadian Like many Canadian health professionals he moved to the states because of all the restrictions in income and where they can practice. The amazing thing is that this doctor, like most canadian and american doctors I have talked to, still believe that socialized medicine is the best option. Go figure.
neuquenguy on October 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Let’s set something just like this up in the US! We’ll make it work!
/
Bob's Kid on October 14, 2008 at 10:24 AM
As Communism and Socialism and Nationalized Health Care continuously and repeatedly suffers epic failure all over the world, as they have since their inception and for all time since, our Democrat party fervently and unceasingly endeavors to bring Communism and Socialism and Nationalized Health Care, or some variant thereof, to our very own people here in the once great U.S. of A., despite historical proof that suffering and ultimate failure is the only logical and persistent end result.
Why?
FlatFoot on October 14, 2008 at 10:25 AM
A sign of things to come under the Obama National Health Insurance Plan.
rplat on October 14, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Schadenfreude. The British are, of course, welcome to change their system — I think.
unclesmrgol on October 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Ooooooooo….wouldn’t an Obiffy administration be fun?
Bishop on October 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM
You guys do realize, don’t you, that Obama is not proposing government run health care. He is proposing government financed health care.
Government run health care means that doctors are government employees, and as such, they are paid by the government and work under the direction of the government.
In contrast, government financed health care means doctors are part of the private sector just like they are now in the US. However, medical services are paid for by the government rather than insurance companies.
factoid on October 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I don’t think I can add anything to this discussion of such a macabre freak show.
The brits have people doing their own dentistry with pliers.
I forget the number of people I have encountered, here in the US, that advocate such a socialist healthcare system. I just stare at them, then when they’ve finished rambling, I simply ask them “you’ve never actually lived under one of these systems, have you?”
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM
“In contrast, government financed health care means doctors are part of the private sector just like they are now in the US. However, medical services are paid for by the government rather than insurance companies.”
We’re reacting to what will inevitably happen under Obama’s “plan”, not what Obama says, which is nearly always a lie or a distortion.
Obama will inevitably squeeze the private sector to the point that health care will no longer be a viable investment or business.
It’s no secret that Democrats believe people have a “right” to health care. Why should we have to pay for our rights? It’s no secret that Democrats believe in “universal care”. If health care is guaranteed to everyone regardless of the ability (or realistically, the will to pay), the profitability of it goes out the window.
Health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are demonized by Democrats for being greedy. Already, physicians are leaving the field because reimbursement is too low and malpractice insurance is skyrocketing (thank you Democrats and your trial lawyer donors).
Under Obama, we will devolve into de facto socialized medicine, everyone can see that. It’s only a question of how fast we get their and how bad the care will be.
Fortunately for Democrat politicians, they’ll be able to fund private care for themselves and their families, just like they bail their children out of the crappy public schools they force the rest of us to fund.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Staggering naivete.
Where gubmint dollars flow, gubmint shackles follow.
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Are you actually a Brit who have lived under their system? Curious. BTW, British soldiers we’ve worked with in RC South in Afghanistan, awesome.
hawkdriver on October 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Epic failure my ass.
No country on earth spends more money on health care than the US of A. Yet infant mortality in the US is more than twice as high than in Sweden, almost twice as high as in France, 50% higher than in Germany and 15% higher than in the UK or Canada. Similarly, the US is 46th in life expectancy, way behind, Sweden, Germany, France, Canada and the UK.
Look it up
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
and
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
factoid on October 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
’nuff said
bloghooligan on October 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Yes. My HotAir nickname is no lie. I am also one of the rarest of breeds, here in America – a legal immigrant. I should be on the endangered species list ;)
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:19 AM
bloghooligan on October 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM
You really need to study statistics to help you understand what such figures are really telling you, instead of parroting others’ propagandized interpretations.
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I’ve never been a british patriot, but I must salute their military as one of the finest. I’m glad you had the opportunity to work with them.
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
This is just a semantic difference, if the government pays for it, the government runs it. Obama is taking the first step to fully nationalized medicine. Once his system is in place the next big issue for the democrats is going to be “fairness” in health care: “How come underprivileged people have to receive care form government paid doctors while “the rich” can have the best care money can buy?” this is what happened in Canada where this idea of a “two tier” system became one of the worst anathemas in the country, thus the advent of universal health care, because everybody must be equal when it comes to their “right” to health care.
Obama is very good at selling plans that look fabulous to people who don’t think things through very much, but that in practice are demonstrated failures.
neuquenguy on October 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Oh, and factoid, “infant mortality” is also a red herring, as the definition of “birth” is different in every country. Any child in the US who is born (eve if not born alive) is considered a birth, whereas in other countries those children would not be considered “born” and therefore don’t get factored into infant mortality rates. In many countries, even in Europe, a baby must be “alive” for a specified amount of time before being considered born alive, to factor into such infant mortality rates.
bloghooligan on October 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM
factoid
What you fail to understand, according to Bernadine Healy, MD, medical columnist for US News & World Report, these stats are from WHO (World Health Organization). Sorry, I don’t have the link, but she points out that infant mortality rates in these nations are underreported b/c they do not report every “live” birth. If a baby is born at 24 weeks in the US and takes one breath and dies, it is reported as a”live birth”. In France, Sweden and elsewhere, it is not. If it is a preemie born b4 some arbitrary week number (I can’t remember) they don’t even count it, even it if survives. They only count full term babies. She was on fire when the WHO stats came out in the spring about this. She says that all the reporting is skewed and the US is the BEST place for neonatal care and the BEST place to have a baby born period. I may go look for the article. It may take a while.
JAM on October 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM
You don’t suppose every other company in the country wouldn’t also love to get their employees back to work more quickly?
As usual with socialism, there are two classes of service. One for the people who run the system, and one for everyone else.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM
You can tell that an individual has no idea what it is they are talking about when they trot out that tired and completely discredited “infant mortality” statistic.
“the US is the BEST place for neonatal care and the BEST place to have a baby born period.”
ABSOLUTELY. Here’s a story about a Canadian woman who was flown to the US (of course) because Canada’s atrocious health care system doesn’t have enough Neonatal Intensive Care Unit beds:
http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=54850&sc=58
I fear that like they’ve ruined public schools and like they’ve dumped trillions on atrocious public schools, the Democrats will ruin health care and then trot out the same lousy excused: 1) Underfunding 2) It’s the “customers fault” (i.e., kids are too stupid/unruly and patients live lousy lifestyles and should all become vegans).
NoDonkey on October 14, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I debated a fervent marxist a few years ago. He readily admitted that Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried, but he was confident that once it was installed here, it would work.
According to him, the only reason why marxism failed in those other places was that it was being run by crooks and thugs. He was completely convinced that Americans were so much better that our brand of marxism would have the right people running it, and hence it will work this time.
Most of these marxists are so convinced of their mental and moral superiority, that they have no doubt that they will succeed where everyone else has failed.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:44 AM
No difference. A person works for whoever pays you.
The govt will be setting all the rules.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
My wife is Mexican. She has the same reaction.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I tend to reduce the debate to this concept:
As soon as you attempt to revoke my right to say “no”, the lead will start flying.
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Wrong on both counts.
1) You can’t directly compare costs because in other countries medical costs are hidden in other budgets.
2) You can’t directly compare outcomes because:
a) Definitions differ
b) Not all outcomes are directly the results of the quality of care.
Infant mortality is a prime example of this.
Just what is infant mortality. That depends on how “live birth” is defined.
In the US, any baby that is born with a heart beat is considered “born alive”, regardless of how early in the pregnancy the birth occurrs.
In Germany for example, any baby born prior to 7 months gestation is labeled a spontaneous abortion, so it’s death does not count towards infant mortality.
In Germany again, any baby that dies in the first 24 hours after birth is labeled a still birth, once again it’s death does not count towards infant mortatity.
The US has a much, much higer rate of teenage pregnancies. Children born to young mothers have a much, much higer rate of infant mortality.
The list of reason’s why you can’t compare such statistics goes on and on, yet the ignorant keep touting them as if they actually meant somethhing.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Seems you missed this.
BKennedy on October 14, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I am not a big fun of malpractice suits, or at least not a fun of lawyers making millions on it (tort reform is required), but it is extremely important for individuals to be able to hold doctors accountable. Good luck suing the government or holding bureaucrats accountable in any way when they remove your kidney instead of an ingrown toenail.
neuquenguy on October 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM
One of Obama’s astroturfers appears…..
…..what a maroon LOL.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on October 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM
that was supposed to be “fan”, not “fun”. No, I didn’t learn to spell in government school.
neuquenguy on October 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I thought you were attempting to coin a new collective – like a wunch of bankers.
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM
The list of reason’s why you can’t compare such statistics goes on and on, yet the ignorant keep touting them as if they actually meant somethhing.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Thank you. The media love to tout WHO stats every year when they come out, yet no statistical protocols is every given. SHeesh!
JAM on October 14, 2008 at 12:00 PM
When the President of the United States, an ardent opponent of government health care, goes to get his annual checkup, where does he go?
Bethesda Naval Hospital, a government-run health care facility.
I’m just sayin’…
factoid on October 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Did you actually expend any energy thinking about your contributions to this thread?
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Even if those infant mortality statistics meant what the astro-turfers say they mean, it’s still ridiculous to tout proportions. Saying that “infant mortality in the US is more than twice as high than in Sweden” sounds alarming, but when you examine the details, you learn that “twice as high” means SIX dead babies per 1,000 live births compared to THREE dead babies per 1,000 live births.
SIX TO THREE!
That’s what we’re going to screw up the entire health care system for? That’s why we’re going to start UK- and Canadian-style rationing and compulsory euthanasia (eventually)?
No, thank you.
Kensington on October 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Maybe that’s because Obama voted against giving live born babies healthcare.
pannw on October 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM
No surprise.
Wasting a whole thread on this though?
Sapwolf on October 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
“Bethesda Naval Hospital, a government-run health care facility.”
More precisely, a military-run health care facility.
And the military is a pure public good, one thing that the government should actually be running.
The President goes there for check-ups, physicals, screenings and possibly in a dire emergency.
He would receive treatment from non-military physicians, believe me, if he had any sort of condition with complications. And that’s what we’re talking about.
Anyone can run a cheap health care system for checkups and physicals. You can train people for two years to do those.
It’s the very sick that are expensive and that nationalized health care systems don’t treat or treat inadequately.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Whoa, dude!
Roughly 4.2 million babies are born in the US every year. If six out of every 1,000 die, that’s 25,200 dead babies a year. You cut that rate in half, like the Swedes have, and you save 12,600 babies that now die, before they turn one, every year.
12,600 dead babies, dude! Don’t you think that should warrant some action beyond blaming the whole thing on Obama?
factoid on October 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM
“12,600 dead babies, dude! Don’t you think that should warrant some action beyond blaming the whole thing on Obama?”
Who brought up abortion? And that’s a whole lot more dead babies.
How will Obama bring up those stats, by funding abortions for poor women or by forcing mothers into pre-natal treatment? They’re already free for the poor, will we bribe moms to attend and to stop drinking/drugging?
Obama is a failed lawyer who knows nothing about healthcare. His entire campaign knows nothing about how to provide healthcare. Obama has repeatedly lied about McCain’s plan which is good, in fact it will save the middle class billions if enacted.
NoDonkey on October 14, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Know how many days worth of Abortions that is, skippy?
Four. More like three and a half. We could literally save more babies in a week by abolishing abortion than we theoretically could through socialized medicine.
Barack Obama supports infanticide and socialized health care. So he’ll save 12,600 babies at the cost of 1.3 million. Progress.
BKennedy on October 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Not to mention the vast numbers of aborted babies, dude!
LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM
While your ass may be an epic failure, that is only for you and/or your “significant other” to know for sure. I don’t care and I don’t need to know.
Daffy Lib’s are very quick to bleet, “Infant mortality rates!”, and start comparing percentages of a paltry few of the hundreds of countries in this world (245 and counting) when discussing healthcare. Then after bleeting their ridiculous percentages and claiming socialized medicine makes the difference, where are your percentages of people that DIE while waiting for medical care in socialized healthcare countries? How about the ones who don’t die waiting, but suffer horribly while waiting?
There are any number of reasons infant mortality and longevity rates vary. From the sheer size and vast population of the country, to lifestyles, to anything and everything you can almost imagine. Nationalized Healthcare vs. Private (in the U.S.) has absolutely nothing to do with it. Each and EVERY and ANY female in the U.S., who is pregnant with child, can and WILL receive social services and private healthcare if THEY seek it themselves, or if the court orders it under a conservatorship. It’s not for lack of healthcare, Einstein, it’s for lack of caring and because of personal CHOICES (among other possible personal factors) by the MOTHER’S that prevent the mother’s from getting any and all care and food and other services, FREE, for the asking, when they are pregnant.
Then there are other differences and reasons already stated by others.
Despite your Wizard of Oz fantasy world in which you reside, why would a socialized medicine country’s socialized medicine offices send their own people to OUTSIDE healthcare providers if socialized medicine is such a bitchin’ deal? Because it’s NOT!
FlatFoot on October 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Just a Bit of FYI for all. Just got back from visiting shirt tail relatives in Hungry and Romania. Both groups of relations when asked, and it took a bit of prying, was that their socalized health systems are too bad until you get about 70. Then health care is strictly rationed because it costs to much to replace knees, hips, and the like of the “Old folks”. Only basic care is provided for those who are over 70. Many in their 60’s are denied knee or hip tranplants because the return for society is small.
Its all because it costs more than the population can afford. So, if you want your health care limited as you grow older, just when here in the US we are given more care, then go along with the liberals. Further investigation when in Switzerland a few weeks ago also revealed that old folks, those that are retired have their options limited. Saw many older people walking on crutches. As one who has had their knees replaced one notices those who walk with bowed or wobbly knees. It seemed that the majority that who were on crutches either needed knees or possibly hips.
So, lets sign up for it? Then as you age you can sit around, because it difficult for you to get replacments, and talk about the good old days.
Have fun.
Rockman44 on October 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM
…our Democrat party fervently and unceasingly endeavors to bring Communism and Socialism and Nationalized Health Care, or some variant thereof, to our very own people here in the once great U.S. of A., despite historical proof that suffering and ultimate failure is the only logical and persistent end result.
Why?
FlatFoot on October 14, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Because they are mentally ill.
trigon on October 14, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Comment pages: