12) NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS
It
disturbs me to hear many of my fellow conservatives refer to all
national health programs and, indeed, to any “single payer” program as
“socialized medicine,” a term which, as I recall, was introduced by the
American Medical Association in the early 1970s. By this definition,
Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration and all military health
programs, are single-payer government programs, that fits the definition
of “socialized medicine.” It would, however, be political folly for
anyone to so label these popular and widely accepted programs.
(Incidentally, Medicare reportedly devotes only two percent of its
outlays to overhead expenses as opposed to 12% to 20% for private health
programs.) I am fond of reminding all who will listen, that national
health programs were introduced to the world by arch conservative “Iron
Chancellor” Prince Otto von Bismarck in Germany in 1883 and by equally
conservative Emperor Franz Josef I in Austria, in 1887. Can you imagine
either being labeled “Socialist?”
I lived for many years in both Austria and Germany and found that their
national health programs worked, not perfectly, but usually very well.
One can there, for example, still choose one’s own doctor or hospital.
And doctors still make house calls. The Austrian program was especially
generous, but has been forced to reduce or eliminate some of its
benefits, for example, long post-operation sanatorium stays. The
excellent German program depends on some 200 private insurers and is
less “socialized” than health care in the U.S. as noted above. The U.S.
remains the only Western industrialized country without a national
health program. These programs in other countries are often criticized
by their citizens, for example, in recent years, mostly for increased
co-payments, which generally still remain modest. In Great Britain, for
example, there are often long waits to see a specialist. For example,
there one can get on a waiting list for permission to be treated in
another European Union country, but there is reportedly a long waiting
list for this waiting list. On the other hand, an American friend of
mine, who has lived with his British wife for several years in Great
Britain and is one of the most conservative people I know (and was a
special forces officer in Vietnam and Laos), has, in recent years, had
to rely on the British National Health Service (NHS) for treatment of
cancer and then next open heart surgery. He raves about the great
treatment he has received from the NHS in both cases. Although, as
noted above, programs are criticized, one would be very hard pressed to
find anyone in these European countries who would want to give up their
national health plan. This holds true even in Canada whose health
program is much criticized in the U.S.. The U.S. spends far more of its
gross domestic product (GDP) on health care than do the average
countries with national programs (which usually include dental care)
where virtually everybody is insured, whereas some 47 percent of
Americans have no health care insurance and an even larger percent are
underinsured. Moreover, by most standards, citizens in countries with
these programs are generally healthier than Americans. An excellent
description of various national health programs is in T. P. Reid’s book The Healing of America: A Global Quest of Cheaper and Fairer Health Care (Penguin Press, 2009)
This
situation obviously has to change, but I cannot see how, in the
foreseeable future, we could have a program like those in Europe, for
example, because we now have an extremely well-entrenched system of
private health insurance providers some of which are quite good. “ The
so-called “Obamacare,” the 2010 Affordable Care Act health plan, has
been much criticized by conservatives and others including many
Democrats, and one non-conservative, Professor Arnold Relman, for
example, wrote in the New York Review of Books
that “the law does very little or nothing to address some of the most
important causes of the high cost of care and its rapid inflation.” (Washington Post
October 21, 2011) Moreover the law is being challenged in the courts.
Its future is uncertain. One solution, which, during the 2008
Presidential campaign, I suggested to presidential candidate John
McCain’s campaign staff, would be to extend to all Americans some form
of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program which is now enjoyed
by all U.S. Federal employees, including all members of Congress and
their staffs and which can be carried over into retirement. McCain’s
staff ignored my suggestion, but soon thereafter, Barack Obama, quite
independently, picked up on it. The FEHBP plan offers a number of
private health plan options.
The
U.S. is certainly by far the most advanced country in the world when it
comes to medical science; however, unfortunately most American
physicians look down on often very effective “alternative medicine”
which is often conventional medicine in Europe and Asia. When, for
example, I have an upset stomach, I find nothing helps as much as good
old-fashioned peppermint tea. I also find an infra-ray (heat) lamp ideal
for treating muscular and joint aches and pains. I also use it when I
have a tooth extraction (protecting my eyes with three or more layers of
tinfoil covering wraparound glasses) which usually quickly eliminates
swelling, bleeding and pain. This is a common practice among dentists in
Central Europe, but never here. (I would like to stress that here I am
simply describing what I do. Not being an M.D., I cannot recommend the above treatments for anyone else.)
