Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care; Isn't Central planning great?

Because of such hurdles and the risks of challenging them, countless great ideas have likely died in socialist countries while the defeated whispered, "Why bother?"  We are all likely worse off because of it.  Imagine where our world would be if the creative potential of the millions who toiled under socialist regimes in the 20th century had been unleashed. Chad Savage, M.D.

Forbes

"Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.

"Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

"Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.

"Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.

"Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009.

"And keep in mind that "on time" for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

"Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America."

Central planning destroys health care innovation   . . . "Being one of the doctors creating a new type of medical practice is unquestionably a difficult endeavor, but however challenging, I can't help but think how utterly impossible it would have been under a socialized health care system.  Under such a system, a doctor who wants to develop a new practice, innovative service, or a fancy new widget that could help patients wouldn't be able to do so relying on passion, talent, and hard work alone.  In a socialized model, innovation exists only if permission can be secured from that system's army of slow-moving, often uninvolved government bureaucrats and central planners, because individuals do not own the means of production in socialist systems." . . .