A Stitch in Haste

To review: "Health care," like any scarce good, must be rationed. If it is not rationed by the free market (or even a semi-free market), then it will be rationed by the government. But it will be rationed.

The latest data point:

Women in labour could face lengthy journeys by ambulance to distant specialist units under plans which would strip dozens of local hospitals of consultant-led maternity services.

Department of Health proposals unveiled yesterday seek a smaller number of consultant units to deal with the most complicated births and the sickest babies.
...
It would be left to local, midwife-led units to handle the majority of births, while more women would be encouraged to have their babies at home.

I'm not sure how someone can argue with a straight face that a supposed "right to health care" does not include a "right to a maternity ward" — or a "right to an obstetrician" for that matter. So much for the idea that subjective terms like "necessary," "essential" or "cost-effective" can be unshackled from "petty" economics — and petty politics. (Incidentally, this proposal is coming from the Labour Party government and is being opposed by the Conservatives — go figure.)

So what's next — refusing to provide epidurals, which are arguably "unnecessary" to the childbirth process (let alone the midwifery process)? What's a little labor pain when the national health care budget is at stake?

One other small detail, regarding the NHS' proposal to increase reliance on the (medieval) concept of midwifery:

The Royal College of Midwives said there was a shortage of 10,000 midwives and the service was facing cuts, job freezes, shortages and financial crises.

Replace highly trained physicians with lesser trained (at best) semi-professionals — who don't even exist!

Thus ever with socialized medicine.

(Via John Ray.)