I generally agree with your points. Unfortunately, the healthcare debate is socio-political and not economic, unless of course one is describing the profit-oriented motives of American pharmaceutical and medical insurance companies and the AMA. Certain interests would have us believe that public healthcare is a mere step away from the StaSi, or in the case of Fox News, from Al-Qaeda. The truth is, some goods, services and regulations are better provided by the public than the private sector, including infrastructure, national defense, policing, basic education and yes, healthcare.

 

Soldiers and the police are merely glorified security personnel: if Americans value individual choice, why not leave this service to the private sector? The wealthy will be protected, some will free ride, others will be left defenseless, and foreigners will be better off, not unlike in the American medical system. Furthermore, each individual can be responsible for their own infrastructure - the diversity of which will reflect the triumph of personal choice.

 

So long as human beings are social and reside in communities, one cannot have a wholly laissez-faire or libertarian society, and some things are better off left to the people as a whole rather than individuals. One can accuse social democrats of being power-hungry bureaucrats or neo-conservatives of being the pawns of greedy fat cats, but neither is constructive.

I myself don't think the issue is socialized medicine vs. open market medicine anymore. The real problem getting medical care in the future will be the increasing anarchy of certain communities in the West and that anarchy filtering into the medical profession and attacking those with the least ability to defend themselves. It won't matter whether the political organization is left or right although I would suggest that the precincts with central planning warrant more concern. Many hospitals in left-wing minority jurisdictions in the US are closing down these days from corruption and sheer incompetence.

If you did some further digging you might find that the hospitals in minority areas are vast sink-holes of government funding. Trauma and drug problems. There are wide disparities in health care in the US but I would say the general trend is two-tier. If you can afford it and live in the right ethnic area you may be protected, if not, good luck.

I would also suggest that if Dr. Belien's grandfather were a member of a "victim group" and that group or even one prominent member of it could be galvanized into action and (among other things) threaten a lawsuit describing this hospital's action as a violation of their rights and thus racist, and if the hospital staff were to anticipate all of this (not difficult) then I would suggest that Dr. Belien's grandfather would have been treated somewhat differently.

Before the Brussels Journal engages in knee-jerk reactions to public healthcare, perhaps it needs to examine FACTS rather than merely relying upon personal anecdotes:

 

1. US government contribution to total national healthcare spending is 44.4% of the total, whereas it is 78.5% for other industrialised states

2. 15.4% of US GDP is spent on healthcare, as opposed to 9.25% for other industrialised states (and even lower for Canada)

3. 15% of Americans do not have health insurance and the number is increasing by 0.4% annually

4. Medicare, which is not unlike a national public healthcare system has very low administrative costs (3% ACR), whereas private healthcare companies have ACRs at approx. 25%

5. $333 billion is spent annually on administrative costs (e.g. medical coders) and services that do not have any direct benefits to the patient

6. Billing and coding personnel from US medical clinics are in an adversarial relationship with those at insurance companies, which seek to deny payment where possible

7. Employer-provided healthcare coverage is actually a burden to corporate competitiveness given that companies in other industrialised states do not have to provide it (although they can provide dental, optical, etc.)

8. General Motors spends more on health benefits than it does on inputs

9. Does the United States have better health? No. In terms of infant mortality, f.e., it is just ahead of Belarus and Lithuania

 

Should public healthcare be reformed to better prevent free-ridership, especially in light of an obesity epidemic? Yes. Could the government increase medical insurance premiums slightly (if possible)? Yes. Should unionized nurses and support staff be prevented from arbitrarily striking and sabotaging for increased pay where it is unwarranted and a drag on services? Yes. Should the world embrace the inefficient, ineffective, costly and profit-oriented American healthcare system? No.

I was hospitalized for three weeks at the American Hospital in Paris a few years ago. The French doctors and lab were excellent. Overall, I felt the indigenous French nurses were more sympathetic to me (I'm a mid-50s American of scandinavian background speaking a little French) with one or two exceptions, while the foreign born were less sympathetic or in some cases slyly hostile, also with one or two exceptions. One orderly from the Caribbean was especially kind. My French physical therapist told me darkly that I would be a "number" in the larger state-run hospitals around Paris. The American Hospital is also known for the disproportionately large number of wealthy Muslims who use the facilities. The only other hospital stay I've had in my life was at a private one in Shanghai, China. A very different experience, indeed. What I learned from both encounters (as I slide into the years of lengthening shadows) is that when the chips are down I want the most Judaic-Christian, Western-educated medical practitioners I and my loved ones can afford.