ABC News 20/20 shows the reality of socialist healthcare.

A little over a year ago ABC News’ 20/20 produced a remarkable 1-hour special on the realities of our current system in comparison to socialized healthcare models like those in Canada and Great Britain.   During the report ABC News discussed the facts about quality of care and the rebellion of Canada’s medical profession against their own system.

Most remarkable is the fact that this 20/20 special also covered innovations by major employers that have proven to be effective in confronting the unique challenges of our healthcare dillemma with purely free-market solutions.

And that employer was WHOLE FOODS, a bastion of progressivism.  Remember this report was played on national TV in 2007, a year before the election and TWO YEARS before the fiery end-run to demolish the healthcare insurance industry that we are seeing today:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “ABC News 20/20 on Healthcare“, posted with vodpod
Advertisements

16 thoughts on “ABC News 20/20 shows the reality of socialist healthcare.

  1. “Hi:

    Two things

    1) I’d like your permission to (re)print your article on Frontline
    for our website

    2) I was hoping we could use your ‘scribing’ talent for our website.

    The Best Shows Youre Not Watching (dot) com [all one word]

    ‘The Clone Wars’ is one of our featured shows. We’re hoping to round up a few people who can occasionally contribute perspective (via an article/blog) on the shows – maybe a recent episode, future direction, plot shortcomings etc.

    What’s in it for you?
    Primarily a larger audience back channeled to your blog. We don’t pay but the site has a lot of promise and we’re pretty excited about getting it off the ground. Let me know what you think.

    Thanks

  2. Know that I fully support your position regarding health care decisions being better made by the employers than the government. It’s more efficient, it’s better, it’s worked in the past (though, strangely, never in this country), and it’s one big step in the right direction for us all. Manor lords never had to put up with this crap from their serfs, why should business owners?

    • Heh, cute.

      Unfortunately, the facts do support that it HAS worked in this country.

      It has worked for the millions of prostate cancer survivors in the USA who enjoy a 24% higher survival rate than in the next highest rated socialized healthcare system (the UK). It has worked for Breast Cancer survivors, Colorrectal Cancer survivors, at-risk pregnancies, you name it.

      In fact, as problematic as our “feudal” healthcare system may feel like to the kneejerk anti-capitalist sensationalists. The fact is that the socialized healthcare systems so aggrandized by the left have been imploding in recent years with canadian doctors in open revolt by privatizing their own services on the side:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html

      In fact, Anne Doig, the new head of the canadian healthcare system was forced to acknowledge that their system was “imploding” (her own words) earlier this year:

      http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277758

      The UK’s NHS and NICE have had their abundance of well-publicized disasters this year that go beyond anecdotal bits. So dysfunctional is the UK’s NICE when it decided to discard hundreds of thousands of liver cancer patients to save a few bucks that even fabian socialists in parliament have begun to lament the idiocy of rationing.

      So while your glib “serfs and lords” commentary may have satisfied your quota of good liberal deeds today, it’s simply as empty as all the other arguments for a redistributive healthcare system have always been.

  3. Rationing is just a jingoist euphemism for coverage. We ration just as much as they do, the only difference is we use dollars to do it. If you can afford it, any procedure imaginable is open to you. If you can’t afford a happy meal, then the system just rationed you, didn’t it?

    This, of course, precludes the actual rationing that occurs every day by health insurance companies. Will the anesthetic for your wife be covered by your insurance? That all depends on your provider. One brand might, but hundreds of others won’t be covered. That’s rationing. Little girl needs a liver transplant but she’s deemed high risk? Your life just got rationed, little girl.

    And whose to say that private coverage couldn’t supplement a single-payer system? They do it in Switzerland. They have tiered packages one can add to their basic government provided health care. Where’s your Swiss horror stories? The fact is that our current health care system is terribly mismanaged, as transparent as lead, and severely lacking in innovation.

    Ah, but private companies couldn’t possibly compete with a single-payer system, you say. To that I point out that Social Security hasn’t killed retirement investing.

    It all boils down to who you want rationing health care: a for-profit system, or one with the general welfare of its citizens in mind; one where only shareholders have a say, or one where, theoretically, every person has one vote? One is obligated to maintain a strong citizenry and meet the voters’ demands; the other needs only to hit their quarterly marks.

    • Rationing is just a jingoist euphemism for coverage. We ration just as much as they do, the only difference is we use dollars to do it.

      What does the definition of “rationing” have to do with nationalism or patriotism? In order for it to be a “jingoistic” euphemism for anything, it would have to have some commonly held association with the subject. I may have been out of the country for over a year, but last I checked the word hasn’t become anymore overloaded than normal.

      But I can see you’re trying to put some sting behind your assertion there, unfortunately it doesn’t make sense the way you constructed it. Maybe you should’ve just come out swinging and called it a “Teabagger Euphemism” or a “RACIST KKK VERSION” of coverage.

      Unfortunately, it would still be wrong because “rationing” isn’t a euphemism for anything. It’s simply the most context-appropriate word to describe the behavior of organizations like NICE or Medicare. To what degree that rationing becomes problematic could be debatable but it’s not just “jingoistic teabagging KKK grand wizards” who use the term to describe that behavior. Not to say they don’t, because I’m sure they do.

      This, of course, precludes the actual rationing that occurs every day by health insurance companies. Will the anesthetic for your wife be covered by your insurance? That all depends on your provider.

      Correct, it would depend on your provider. Hence the central dilemma in any given single-payer system: your choice of providers. Under NICE, you have a false choice of providers, since all the caregivers you could possibly employ will revert to their SINGLE PAYER’s decision—the same single payer that now refuses to pay for Nexavar ( http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/141111 ) to refuse to pay for any treatment that doesn’t conform to their least-common-denominating redistributive metrics.

      Under an HSA-based system, the metrics that inform decisions on quality-of-life are entirely left to the individual. Some folks may decide their health is worth all the wealth in the world, others may decide it simply isn’t. A fair and democratic system would enable individuals to come to those decisions on their own and allow them to allocate their own resources appropriately.

      This isn’t the case under NICE, it isn’t the case under Medicare and it isn’t the case under the Reid/Pelosi plan.

      You wouldn’t HAVE a choice of providers under those plans. They would be cost-mediated by a taxpayer-subsidized entity that artificial imposes PRICE CONTROLS and thus imposes a planned economy with a sector that represents a sixth of our total GDP. No matter who your provider would be, it would be subject to price levers and opportunity costs imposed by a public option.

      In fact, by controlling the marketplace in this way, Obamacare can impose more draconian restrictions via price controls than NICE can by fiat.

      Compare that with the dramatic improvements in availability, funding and coverage that we are now seeing with Bush’s Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500919.html) where the coverage gap had been so effectively addressed by a free-market based solution that it now enjoys the HIGHEST satisfaction rating among all federal healthcare programs. By promoting incentives and putting coverage decisions back in the hands of patients and their families, part D potentially eliminates any of the sad-sack anecdotal stories about patients being denied coverage by one provider or another, they simply find a provider that will.

      It all boils down to who you want rationing health care: a for-profit system, or one with the general welfare of its citizens in mind; one where only shareholders have a say, or one where, theoretically, every person has one vote? One is obligated to maintain a strong citizenry and meet the voters’ demands; the other needs only to hit their quarterly marks.

      There’s the core fault in collectivized reasoning: the assumption that collectivized greed of one form can be overcome by collectivized greed of another form. That theft committed by a frightened and anxious public is somehow more pure than the theft committed by a frightened and anxious boardroom. In both cases, it’s still theft.

      If you’re going to compare profit-motive versus self-preservation, you have to regard actions by each party and judge them by their overall consequences on society as a whole. What happens when stockholders decide to gouge their patients and deny coverage or triple their recission rates? Are you stuck with them? No, there are legal and market consequences to that sort of behavior.

      On the other hand, what happens when people are denied treatment for brain tumors in closed government-run single-payer environments like in the UK? Oh, that’s right, they’re screwed. If they’re REALLY lucky, their family will harbor a really healthy distrust of collectivized healthcare and find a second opinion ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1199471/At-19-Meg-told-brain-tumour-inoperable-Nonsense-said-mother-I-wont-let-daughter-die.html ). But usually they’re just screwed. No legal or market forces can restrain collectivized greed when it finds itself elected into office.

      Incidentally, I do believe that a sensible, HSA-based single payer system is more than desirable. But under Obama we’ve seen single-payer healthcare packaged as a cynical vehicle for statist intrusion on individualism. Not even John Kerry’s 2004 health plan (which I heartily supported) came close to being this intrusive with an individual mandate and thinly-veiled central economic planning.

      Maybe one day a free-market based single payer system like the one proferred by John Mackey in the video above (or like the excellent national healthcare program in Singapore) can be introduced by a republican administration.

  4. I just want you to know that your episode regarding health care is a bunch of bs! I DO shop around for the lowest cost and I have healthcare…BUT have you EVER tried to call a clinic and find out the cost of procedure. NO ONE can tell you! And do you want to know why that is…because different health insurance companies have different arrangements with different clinics on what they can charge you different procedures. So regardless of how dilligent you try to be by planning ahead and getting the best care for the lowest cost it doesn’t work out that way. NOT to mention I’m not going to go to a doctor JUST because he’s cheap! I want a doctor who will listen and actually HELP me with my issues and those doctors are hard to find so once I find one I’m willing to pay whatever he charges because I know I will be getting the best care! If health insurance had an overhaul this would only HELP matters NOT hurt them. Millions of people are without health care. I graduated from law school and I’m barely making it. Thank god I have a father who is willing to pay for me to have health insurance or I would be without. And I’m educated, with two degrees, and I have a job! How ridiculous that in the “BEST” country in the world I wouldn’t be able to see a doctor if my dad wasn’t paying my health insurance. THEN my health insurance denies MOST of my claims. Please explain how YOU think health insurance doesn’t need help right now! Your episode is full of falicies and is misleading and you talk about each of us citizens as though we are stupid and don’t try and shop around for the cheapest care. The next time you do a news program do a little f***ing research before spewing your lies out to the public!

  5. please remove my comment from above…it wasn’t intended for your website it was intended to be sent as an email to 20/20.

    • LOL Don’t worry, ABC was sooooo sympathetic to your simplistic “law-school educated” myopia of the healthcare debate that they pulled that piece and fired the man who produced it when they tried to air bits of it a year later.

  6. I am asking again, please remove all of my comments from this website immediately! It was a genuine mistake and now you are just being rude and malicious.

    Thank you,

    Sommer

  7. Clearly you disagree with my comment above and you think that I am stupid. So I am once again asking you politely to please remove any and all comments that I have made on your blog. It was not intended to be posted publicly and as soon as I hit the sent button I realized it wasn’t going to be sent to the person I intended. I immediately tried to delete it on my own, however your website does not contain a delete button and as such I could not delete the post. I have also tried to find a way to contact you privately about this matter however your website does not contain a link to contact you. So I am asking you again, please remove my posts from your website as I did not intend to have them posted publicly here on your webiste.

    Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.

    Sommer

  8. I am writing again to politely ask that you kindly remove any and all of my posts from your blog. It was an innocent mistake and I understand that it is funny to you but it is not funny to me. I am asking you politely to remove my posts and as I cannot delete them myself I can only hope that you do the right thing and delete them as I have politely asked you to do since I realized my mistake. If you could please do so this for me at your earliest convenience it would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you,

    Sommer

  9. This is obviously going to become a daily thing for me and until my posts are deleted I will continue to write to you asking politely that you delete them. I made an innocent mistake in posting on your page. My comments weren’t intended to made publicly and I’m genuinely sorry for that. Again, I tried to delete the post as soon as I realized it was public and as soon as I realized it wasn’t for the intended recipient. However, since your website doesn’t allow its users to delete their comments this was impossible. I’ve also tried looking for a way to contact you privately about this, but again, your website doesn’t offer a link to do so. I am genuinely concerned for my safety that my full name is on your website and would truly appreciate it if you kindly delete any and all of my posts from your website.

    Thank you,

    Sommer

      • I’m not even sure what that means, but I am asking, as I have asked throughout all of my posts, for you to kindly delete any and all of my posts from your website. I just don’t get why you won’t delete them. It won’t effect the content that you have already posted and I have continually asked you politely to delete them. I do not want my full name posted publicly on your blog. So I am asking, again, politely, please delete my posts.

  10. I think the thing that is the most disheartening is that you clearly see how this is effecting my life, as I have written to you every day asking you to please remove my posts. Yet, to you it is a joke and you refuse to remove them for no other reason than for your pure enjoyment. On your blog you identify yourself as a father, yet you are unwilling to show me any compassion at all and just delete my posts. In doing so it will not effect you at all. Your blogs content will remain the same and you will never have to hear from me again. Again, I am clearly upset or I wouldn’t be writing to you every day asking you to remove my posts. I haven’t been rude to you and I’ve said please and explained myself numerous times. So I am begging you to please remove all of my posts from your blog. It was an innoncent mistake and now my life will forever be effected by something that only you can control by simply deleting my posts. So I am asking you again, to please delete all of my comments from your blog.

    Sommer

  11. I give up. Since this is all a game to you and doesn’t effect your life the way it does mine…you win. I was naive to think that I could simply ask you politely to remove my posts and that you would oblige because it is the right thing to do. Clearly you don’t care about my feelings or how this effects me or my life at all. It was an honest mistake that my post ended up on your blog in the first place, but never in my life did I think me simply asking you to remove it would turn into this. I thought you would read my comment and then simply delete it, but instead you have used it to torture me throughout this past week. I have no idea why anyone would do this. And I know if I was in your position and I had a blog and someone asked me to remove their post I would simply do it because I would have nothing to lose or gain in fulfillig their simple request.

    I am a good person. I do the right thing almost all of the time. And I have worked very hard to get where I’m at in life. I am by no means perfect, but what you are doing is just plain mean. You have effectively ruined my chances of finding work in this already bleek economy because now when potential employers look me up they will see my stupid post instead of the good work I have done throughout my life. I hope that this makes you even more happy and proud than you already are. Knowing you have this much control over my life must give you the thrill of a lifetime. And while you hide behind your blog not revealing your name, my full name remains public. I hope all of this truly makes you feel good about yourself. And I only hope if you are ever in my shoes the person on the other end grants you a little more compassion and does as you are asking rather than putting you through the hell you have put me through this past week.

    I wish you the best of luck in the future with your blog and any other endeavors that you seek out.

    Sommer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s