The United Kingdom has one of the most statist healthcare systems in the world. Indeed, my Cato colleague Mike Tanner produced an excellent study showing that the U.K. system is more rigid and centralized than what is found even in nations such as Germany and France.
Not surprisingly, this has generated terrible results for the British people, as I’ve noted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
But those posts were mostly anecdotal. This new video from the U.K.-based Taxpayers Alliance measures the deadly impact of government-run healthcare.
But it’s not just a matter of lost lives. The video also make a very strong argument that more government spending doesn’t have any positive impact on health outcomes.
During the Obamacare debate, Paul Krugman told us we could ignore stories about what was happening across the ocean, writing that “In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.”
I wonder if he’ll watch this video and somehow apologize? For some reason, I suspect we shouldn’t hold our collective breath waiting for a retraction.
@MoreFreedom has it right on the nail.
People who mistakenly think government is the solution rather than the problem ignore the **enormous contribution of motivation** in everybody’s life.
An entrepreneur with a great idea and the desire to produce wealth will do a far better job than any number of government employees who can neither make a fortune nor go bankrupt. You’ll change your life once you understand that since a government bureaucrat has no significant stake in the outcome, customer satisfaction is largely irrelevant. Yet bureaucrats are also amazingly difficult to fire. You’ve perhaps had experience of such government failure?
But don’t people suddenly become selfless guardians of the public interest as soon as they are appointed or elected? No, absolutely not! The 1986 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to James Buchanan for his work in Public Choice analysis. Professor Buchanan showed that both politicians and bureaucrats behave just as selfishly as everybody else in furthering their own interests. They just pretend otherwise. see:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
The reasons are clearly identified: “public and private choice processes differ, not because the motivations of actors are different, but because of stark differences in the incentives and constraints that channel the pursuit of self-interest in the two settings.”
[…] also warned that it will make our health care system less efficient and could lead to some of the horrifying examples of rationing and poor care that you find in the United Kingdom (scroll to the bottom of this post for some shocking […]
Krugman would say such stories are false, as he wants government control of our health care, and generally ignores evidence contrary to his view.
Many liberals (as psychiatrists have written, and Krugman fits the bill) have a mental disorder because they refuse to acknowledge reality because it conflicts with the vision in their head. And they’d rather deny reality than accept the pain of cognitive dissonance one gets by having a conflict in one’s head between reality and their vision.
Krugman’s been trying to save face for years given his pronouncements.
[…] […]
[…] of makes you wonder what Paul Krugman was thinking when he wrote, “In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. […]
[…] Healthcare that Can’t Possibly Be True According to Paul Krugman Jan 1st, 2012 by Lux Libertas Paul Krugman has told us that awful stories about government-run healthcare in Britain “are […]
And yet, those stupid British love them some NHS:
Which system would you rather be treated under?
89.9% —- The NHS, every time
10.1% —- I’d prefer to avoid the waiting lists and go stateside
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2009/aug/14/nhs-health
There are many polls done in a reliable manner that show similar affection for the NHS, as well as other European countries’ affection for their systems.
Nobody would trade their system for ours.
Most Americans have figured out that our system is severely wanting:
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2009/10/americas-health-care-is-fairly-average.html
Being born and raised in England, having been in the nursing profession there and having many relatives still living there – take my word for it – it is a damn disaster.
The only ones who think it is great are the handout welfare crowd – they do not realize that the premium is paid from the rest of the nations WORKERS paychecks before they ever see their salary. Size of monthly premium —- depending on the size of their family!
Labor has destroyed the UK and if we are not very careful about the next several elections here, the bloodsucking Liberal Democrats will destroy our country, the disaster of a president in the W.H. for the past three years has given the Nation destoyers one hell of a good start.
[…] though Paul Krugman has told us that horror stories about government-run healthcare in Britain “are false,” we keep […]
Not being a conservative I wouldn’t know about shaking in my boots because of a blind partisan ideologue like Krugman. He’s more like a religious fanatic than a scientist and if you didn’t buy his religion you’d be happy to scoff at his Nobel Prize. A Nobel Prize doesn’t confer unquestioning authority except to the fellow believers. I didn’t say he was a fool.
And obviously you’re quite confused conflating Ayn Rand, Social Darwinism, privatization, and using taxpayer money for private enrichment along with an answer of more taxpayer money. It doesn’t appear that you have the ability to distinguish between the private sector and government power politics, something that also goes with blind “eagle-eyed” partisans and the “revolution for the hell of it” crowd.
I repeat that the problem is caused by government power and control and the answer is not more government power and control and more money.
For Scott Replogle:
Hey Scott, In Ayn Rand/Social Darwinist “reasoning” the answer to all problems is privatization and using taxpayer money for private enrichment. The answer to problems created by corporate “solutions” is more private ownership and taking more taxpayer money. Under the guise of “reform”, we see a growing attempt to do this to public education. Why should it be different in medical, especially as the insurance companies are now in an absolute panic that their monopoly over health care pricing and access is less popular than ever? (If it were up to the American public, private insurance companies would be abolished within weeks; which is why those companies had to hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers to bribe Congress—with “Campaign Contributions”—into maintaining such a horrific, non-workable and unpopular system.)
Paul Krugman isn’t a fool. He’s an eagle-eyed partisan who won a Nobel Prize for economics. No wonder his writing makes the corporate errand boys and the ideologically obsessed shake in their boots. If I were a conservative, I’d hate Krugman too.
[…] / Liberty. Thomas Sowell, Malaria, and DDT Herman Cain: The Flavor of the Week? The Deadly Impact of Government-Run Healthcare in the U.K., but Don’t Expect a Krugman Retraction … U.S. govt’s General Services Administration wants $113,680 to respond to FOIA request for […]
“Have you no shame? How can you post such flimsy and obviously manipulative information from a far-right, extremist group in the UK, and expect that anyone schooled in even elementary statistics couldn’t see right through this mendacious baloney.”
If what this video has done is fudge statistics as you state, then how come you have not explained to us how they have done it if it is so easy to understand and instead have just launched strawman arguments?
Jimcap,
Your black and white assessment of this argument being either for total state control or total anarchy, you miss the forest for the trees. What is being stated here is that despite an increase in government spending and centralization (which is what people like Krugman are advocating), people in the UK are not getting prompt access to health care and are instead being put on a wait list and getting early access to the mortuary.
That’s not health care.
Jimcap,
Where are you plucking that strawman from?
Daniel,
Have you no shame? How can you post such flimsy and obviously manipulative information from a far-right, extremist group in the UK, and expect that anyone schooled in even elementary statistics couldn’t see right through this mendacious baloney.
Do you really want to attach your name to such garbage? Do you want your ancestors to see who you were aligned with at this point in history?
Tell us, Daniel—with absolute specifics please—the name of one country in the world that provides health care for all of its citizens entirely through the private, for-profit sector, with zero government involvement.
All we’re asking for is one. Just give us the name of just one country, “living the dream” (most would say laughable fantasy) of providing ALL health care, through private, for-profit companies, with zero government involvement.
One precondition: that country has to exist on our planet. Okay. 😉
Waiting for your answer. (This will be fun.)
Cheers,
JC
I hope the conservatives don’t fall into Obama’s political trap. The administration knows that national healthcare would be found unconstitutional by the supreme court, they should make sure there is a ruling.
This is such BS – Cameron is talking “reorganizing health care” and the people are screaming a resounding NO! They like it just the way it is. This is just more propaganda from insurance companies. Don’t be fooled.
In statist/socialist reasoning the answer to all problems is government and money. The answer to problems created by government solutions is more government and more money. We see this in education. Why should it be different in medical?
Paul Krugman isn’t a fool. He’s a blind partisan statist.
Paul Krugman is a fool.