Socialized healthcare: Man forced to cut off own toes to save foot after being denied hospital treatment
J.D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Any American who truly believes that government-run healthcare (not just the catastrophe that has resulted from government-run health insurance via Obamacare) is a much better alternative than the private market, a) has not been paying attention to how badly the government runs the VA hospital system, and b) has never had to deal with government-run healthcare.
But there are plenty of examples of just how bad government-run healthcare – or more commonly known as socialized medicine – really is. And one need only look across the Atlantic to our closest ally, Britain.
Paul Dibbins, in an interview with the BBC, told the news network that he was forced to cut off his own gangrenous toes after his scheduled hospital operation for the same thing was cancelled.
"I came in and took me shoes and socks off, and the ends of my feet were completely black," he said, adding that it was like they had been "dipped in soot."
Socialized systems are always subject to budget cuts
During the interview, Dibbins said that his toes likely changed color from a case of frostbite. But when he was preparing to have a procedure at a local hospital to remove his gangrenous toes, medical officials cancelled on him.
That left him with little choice but to cut off his own toes using surgical pliers.
"I probably saved me foot," he told the BBC.
In addition, he may have saved his life, considering that gangrene is a painful, acute medical condition requiring immediate care, including antibiotics and removal of dead skin. Left untreated, gangrene can spread toxins throughout the body and cause life-threatening septic shock.
But surely hospitals and medical professionals in Britain know this, right? Of course they do.
The problem isn't a lack of knowledge, but a lack of funding and resources, which is very common in socialized medicine. And while many Brits and especially British politicians and National Health System officials will say that the system works like a champ, the reality is very different.
For instance, noted Investor's Business Daily in July 2013, a report on the country's socialized system found that as many as 13,000 needless deaths have occurred in about 14 NHS hospital trusts since 2005.
"This is no fluke," the business news site noted. "It's the result of socialized medicine, done by experts."
According to the OECD, the country's public medical system then accounted for 82 percent of all healthcare spending, but was in a shambles.
The U.S. system is so inefficient because of government over-regulation
Before the report, some hospitals, such as one in Mid-Staffordshire, were found to be more akin to death traps, due to neglect, misspent funds and lack of investment. But the OECD report found that neglect and "needless" deaths are essentially characteristics of the entire system.
The UK has attempted reform after reform of its NHS, but never to much effect or difference in terms of delivery of service. That's because in a socialized system versus a private system – in the OECD, only the U.S., Mexico and Chile have private systems – the financial priorities of the state trump those of consumers. And it's always been that way.
When the economic situation demands it, government budgets get cut, and that means the services that government (via taxpayers) support have to be cut as well. When there is no medical system other than one supported entirely by tax dollars, then obviously that gets cut as well.
But the U.S. system is no better, you say; it's rife with paperwork requirements and no incentives to be more efficient or place responsibility on patients for care. That's because the American healthcare system is so regulated by state and federal governments that really, it's "private" in name only.
Only a healthcare system free from government regulation and control would best serve the public. The problem is, there are too many little Napoleons in Congress and the federal bureaucracy who don't want to relinquish control over our healthcare decisions.
Sources:
(NaturalNews) Any American who truly believes that government-run healthcare (not just the catastrophe that has resulted from government-run health insurance via Obamacare) is a much better alternative than the private market, a) has not been paying attention to how badly the government runs the VA hospital system, and b) has never had to deal with government-run healthcare.
But there are plenty of examples of just how bad government-run healthcare – or more commonly known as socialized medicine – really is. And one need only look across the Atlantic to our closest ally, Britain.
Paul Dibbins, in an interview with the BBC, told the news network that he was forced to cut off his own gangrenous toes after his scheduled hospital operation for the same thing was cancelled.
"I came in and took me shoes and socks off, and the ends of my feet were completely black," he said, adding that it was like they had been "dipped in soot."
Socialized systems are always subject to budget cuts
During the interview, Dibbins said that his toes likely changed color from a case of frostbite. But when he was preparing to have a procedure at a local hospital to remove his gangrenous toes, medical officials cancelled on him.
That left him with little choice but to cut off his own toes using surgical pliers.
"I probably saved me foot," he told the BBC.
In addition, he may have saved his life, considering that gangrene is a painful, acute medical condition requiring immediate care, including antibiotics and removal of dead skin. Left untreated, gangrene can spread toxins throughout the body and cause life-threatening septic shock.
But surely hospitals and medical professionals in Britain know this, right? Of course they do.
The problem isn't a lack of knowledge, but a lack of funding and resources, which is very common in socialized medicine. And while many Brits and especially British politicians and National Health System officials will say that the system works like a champ, the reality is very different.
For instance, noted Investor's Business Daily in July 2013, a report on the country's socialized system found that as many as 13,000 needless deaths have occurred in about 14 NHS hospital trusts since 2005.
"This is no fluke," the business news site noted. "It's the result of socialized medicine, done by experts."
According to the OECD, the country's public medical system then accounted for 82 percent of all healthcare spending, but was in a shambles.
The U.S. system is so inefficient because of government over-regulation
Before the report, some hospitals, such as one in Mid-Staffordshire, were found to be more akin to death traps, due to neglect, misspent funds and lack of investment. But the OECD report found that neglect and "needless" deaths are essentially characteristics of the entire system.
The UK has attempted reform after reform of its NHS, but never to much effect or difference in terms of delivery of service. That's because in a socialized system versus a private system – in the OECD, only the U.S., Mexico and Chile have private systems – the financial priorities of the state trump those of consumers. And it's always been that way.
When the economic situation demands it, government budgets get cut, and that means the services that government (via taxpayers) support have to be cut as well. When there is no medical system other than one supported entirely by tax dollars, then obviously that gets cut as well.
But the U.S. system is no better, you say; it's rife with paperwork requirements and no incentives to be more efficient or place responsibility on patients for care. That's because the American healthcare system is so regulated by state and federal governments that really, it's "private" in name only.
Only a healthcare system free from government regulation and control would best serve the public. The problem is, there are too many little Napoleons in Congress and the federal bureaucracy who don't want to relinquish control over our healthcare decisions.
Sources: