The horror of socialized medicine

Those who may wonder what socialized medicine in the U.S. would look like would do well to study the NHS in Merry Old England. What follows hospital to  here is a story that has been repeated many times in GB pointing to the lack of incentives and more importantly competition in the healthcare delivery system in that country.  Should this disgraceful care be delivered in a free enterprise driven private hospital in this country the law suits would fly, the hospital's reputation would plummet and doctors would never recommend that hospital to their patients. Competition keeps companies, hospitals and individuals on their toes, the reality that escapes socialized anything crusaders.  As reported on Powerline Blog:

Recent investigations have revealed hospitals administered by Britain’s National Health Service to be veritable houses of horrors. Here is the latest shock headline: Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards. Hospital conditions under socialized medicine appear to be trending toward the medieval:

Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.

The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.

The Office for National Statistics figures also showed that:

* as well as 43 people who starved to death, 287 people were recorded by doctors as being malnourished when they died in hospitals;
* there were 558 cases where doctors recorded that a patient had died in a state of severe dehydration in hospitals….

The records, from the Office for National Statistics, follow a series of scandals of care of the elderly, with doctors forced to prescribe patients with drinking water or put them on drips to make sure they do not become severely dehydrated.

Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said the statistics were a grim and shaming reflection of 21st century Britain. …

In many wards nurses were dumping meal trays in front of patients too weak to feed themselves and then taking them away again untouched.

Many of those who starve or die of thirst are elderly, but by no means all:

In July, an inquest heard that a young man who died of dehydration at a leading hospital rang 999 for police because he was so thirsty. Officers arrived at Kane Gorny’s bedside, but were told by nurses that he was in a confused state and were sent away.

The footballer and runner, 22, died of dehydration a few hours later, an inquest heard in July.

…[H]e was in hospital for a routine hip replacement. Doctors had warned that, without regular medication to control his fluid levels, he would die. But when he was admitted to St George’s Hospital in Tooting, South London, staff ignored repeated reminders from Mr Gorny and his family to give him the tablets, and he became severely dehydrated after being refused water.

His mother told the inquest that in May 2009 she received a distressed phone call from her son, in which he said he had called the police because he was so desperate for a drink.

Shortly before he died, his mother found him delirious and saw that his medication was untouched. … He died of water deficit and hypernatraemia, a medical term for dehydration, three days after he was admitted to hospital.

Revealing editorial from the NYTimes

Reading this editorial from the NYTimes, one realizes how far liberals have sunk into the world of make-believe, fantasy and the most virulently destructive philosophies of the 20th century.  It is inconceivable that anyone could take seriously the arguments in this editorial that claim Romney is flip flopping, changing his basic positions on issues and/or lying.  And yet the libs who run that paper make all these claims and only fault Obama for not taking Romney to task for all this dissembling.  In truth everything Romney said rebutting the Obama campaign's serial distortions of the Romney/Ryan campaign positions is consistent with the platform put forth at the Republican Convention in Tampa last month.  Smaller government, strong defense, lower taxes to stimulate economic growth, elimination of socialized healthcare and regulations that stymy business activity that creates jobs and opportunity for those willing to put forth the effort.  But since none of these prescriptions for success involves controlling other people's lives that the liberal elites prefer, they are forced to resort to these mindless attacks on conservatives' lack of specificity in matters of policies of their agenda.  Which is exactly the point.  Liberals want 3,000 page bills that control every conceivable contingency concerning the delivery of healthcare services.  They want regulations that control all aspects of businesses trying to serve consumer needs and wishes.  They want total control over citizens' lives in order that their vision of the correct society can be achieved.  In the end their proscriptions for society are the same as those of the National Socialism of the Germans,  the Fascism of Mussolini, and the Marxist utopia of the USSR, and we all know how well those isms turned out.  In short, Republicans want maximum freedom for the individual while Democrats want maximum control of each individual's life by the state.

Odds and ends

If anyone needs proof that the so-called MSM media is hugely biased to the Democrats, read this: Al Gore versus "2016".


This explanation of the madmen we see  rioting over perceived 'insults' in the Middle East all the time is quite timely considering the election and chaos in the M.E at this very moment:Why Arabs are so Easily Offended

This book is not only easy to read but is deadly accurate.  It should be read by everyone in the country as a warning to beware of anyone who ever says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.""Crazifornia: How California is Committing Suicide"

For those who do not understand capitalism and free enterprise and how this country became wealthy, lead this brief by Theodore Daylremple: "What is Entrepreneurship?""

An important speech by Netanyahu

It may be difficult for anyone who has never been to Israel to understand how vulnerable this tiny country is.  It is minuscule in size and if that alone is not enough it has a a population of 6 million surrounded by 180 million hostile, mostly unreasonable Muslims.  One more thing:  it is the only progressive democracy in the Middle East with the only thriving, dynamic economy.  While living amidst backward and hostile countries Israel also has to cope with a militant, medieval regime led by religious fanatics with hegemonic global aspirations.  Wow!  Over the last 60 years the Israelies have successfully beaten back three major attempts to annihilate them and yet have survived and prospered.  Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to the UN here, provides a brief history of the country, why it fears an Iran, and what it intends to do about the idea of terrorists and their sponsors actually becoming a nuclear powers.

The consequence of universal suffrage

Like Howard Stern or not, he has provided a useful insight into the perhaps fatal flaw of democracies: the unengaged, uneducated, unthinking voting population.  Surely the founding fathers did not anticipate that huge segments of the citizenry would remain essentially uninformed and yet have the right to vote.  What follows is the direct report with quotes from random interviews by Stern's staff of people on the street in Harlem.  The level of ignorance is appalling.  What's even more appalling is that these people have the vote.  From the article:

Howard Stern contributors Sal and Richard travel to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and ask them why they are voting for Obama. 

Stern and his crew ask denizens of Harlem various outrageous questions, including if they believe Obama will find and kill Osama bin Laden; if Romney is a Muslim and if Obama is a Mormon; if Obama made the right choice by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate and if he did it because he is black.

One interviewee was under the impression that 2008 Republican nominee John McCain is also running this time. 

"Just trust me, not one person knew that Osama bin Laden was dead," Stern said during the segment. 

"Well, we're obviously dealing with a whole population that doesn't listen to the newscasts or read a newspaper," co-host Robin Quivers said.

Alexis de Toqueville, an admirer and discerning critic of democracy, had this to say about universal suffrage:

Again, it may be objected that the poor never have the sole power of making the laws; but I reply that wherever universal suffrage has been established, the majority unquestionably exercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved that the poor always constitute the majority, may it not be added with perfect truth that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making the laws? It is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure a comfortable subsistence. Universal suffrage, therefore, in point of fact does invest the poor with the government of society.

He went on:

The disastrous influence that popular authority may sometimes exercise upon the finances of a state was clearly seen in some of the democratic republics of antiquity, in which the public treasure was exhausted in order to relieve indigent citizens or to supply games and theatrical amusements for the populace. It is true that the representative system was then almost unknown, and that at the present time the influence of popular passions is less felt in the conduct of public affairs; but it may well be believed that in the end the delegate will conform to the principles of his constituents and favor their propensities as much as their interests.

And further what happens when those with no "skin in the game" can vote themselves benefits:

Let us now suppose that the legislative authority is vested in the lowest order: there are two striking reasons which show that the tendency of the expenditures will be to increase, not to diminish.

As the great majority of those who create the laws have no taxable property, all the money that is spent for the community appears to be spent to their advantage, at no cost of their own, and those who have some little property readily find means of so regulating the taxes that they weigh upon the wealthy and profit the poor, although the rich cannot take the same advantage when they are in possession of the government.

In countries in which the poor have the exclusive power of making the laws, no great economy of public expenditure ought to be expected; that expenditure will always be considerable either because the taxes cannot weigh upon those who levy them or because they are levied in such a manner as not to reach these poorer classes. In other words, the government of the democracy is the only one under which the power that votes the taxes escapes the payment of them.

The consequence of robbing Peter to pay Paul:

In vain will it be objected that the true interest of the people is to spare the fortunes of the rich, since they must suffer in the long run from the general impoverishment which will ensue. . .

But lest you think de Toqueville, himself an aristocrat, did not truly believe in democracy and in capitalism:

The extravagance of democracy is less to be dreaded, however, in proportion as the people acquire a share of property, because, on the one hand, the contributions of the rich are then less needed, and, on the other, it is more difficult to impose taxes that will not reach the imposers.

In other words a rising tide lifts all boats because an opportunity culture provides social mobility while  redistribution saps incentives and eventually impoverishes everyone . In the end  the opportunity culture is the only way to create a successful democracy. 

The phenomenon of Oikophobia.

Oikophobia explained.  This phenomenon is fear of the familiar and causes its victims to hate what they know best, such as their own country, its traditions and core beliefs.  Sadly many Americans now suffer from this malady and it also accounts for the Jews who hate Israel and would like to see that little country go away.  Most sufferers of Oikophobia in the U.S. can be found in academia, the liberal media (which is to say most of the media) and college students and the Democrat caucus of the US Congress.  Their is no known cure other than to leave the surroundings that bring on this dread disease and not many of its victims seem willing to take that step.  So the rest of us are stuck with them and must do our best to simply avoid them as they do not want to change or hear about their affliction.

Unintended consequences

The idea that IT  mandates built in to the Obamacare socializing of medicine will be driving huge cost savings throughout the system is challenged by the   recent studies outlined in this article from the WSJ.  Apparently many of these studies are indicating that the IT investments made by hospitals are producing higher costs rather than savings.  Once again government intervention in free markets is proving to be counterproductive.