• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

If America adopts Canada's health care system

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just announced: the ruling is that the Bill is unconstitutional and the cannot be enforced.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling will be the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since groups began filing lawsuits against the bill passed by Congress last March. Twenty-six states are parties to the suit, which claims a mandate to insist Americans purchase a product is unconstitutional.

To the U.S. Court of Appeals,  then probably to the  Supreme Court.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/obama-health-care-reform-act-unconstitutional-judge-says-in-26-state-suit.html

Link has more. Underline emphasis for Redeye.

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional


U.S. President Barack Obama lost the second of four court challenges to his health-care law as a federal judge in Florida ruled that the measure went beyond the power of Congress to regulate commerce.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola declared the entire law invalid today in a 78-page opinion in a suit brought by 26 states. He said a provision requiring Americans over 18 to obtain insurance coverage violated the U.S Constitution. The U.S. Justice Department said it will appeal.

Florida sued on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the day Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Seven states joined the suit last year, and six this year. Virginia sued separately on March 23 and Oklahoma filed its own suit on Jan. 21.

“Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” Vinson, 70, wrote. “This case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government.” He declined to issue an order blocking enforcement of the law.

The ruling by Vinson, who was named to the federal bench in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, would be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. An appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is already slated in May to hear challenges to two conflicting lower-court rulings in that state, one upholding the legislation, the other invalidating part of it.

 
And the point of the emphasis was?

Great, it's off to the Supreme Court.  We'll see what happens there.  Though, given their record (like Citizens United) and what seems to be a disturbing lack of actual judicial independence, I'll really have to watch and see what happens.

All I can say is I'm very, very glad my wife moved from the US to Canada, and not the other way around.

Rifleman62 said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/obama-health-care-reform-act-unconstitutional-judge-says-in-26-state-suit.html

Link has more. Underline emphasis for Redeye.

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional


U.S. President Barack Obama lost the second of four court challenges to his health-care law as a federal judge in Florida ruled that the measure went beyond the power of Congress to regulate commerce.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola declared the entire law invalid today in a 78-page opinion in a suit brought by 26 states. He said a provision requiring Americans over 18 to obtain insurance coverage violated the U.S Constitution. The U.S. Justice Department said it will appeal.

Florida sued on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the day Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Seven states joined the suit last year, and six this year. Virginia sued separately on March 23 and Oklahoma filed its own suit on Jan. 21.

“Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” Vinson, 70, wrote. “This case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government.” He declined to issue an order blocking enforcement of the law.

The ruling by Vinson, who was named to the federal bench in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, would be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. An appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is already slated in May to hear challenges to two conflicting lower-court rulings in that state, one upholding the legislation, the other invalidating part of it.
 
A legal analysis of the ruling. I suppose very convoluted arguments can be raised against the ruling, but the essential argument against Obamacare is quite elegant and hard to refute:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/01/obamacare-hoisted-on-obamas-petard.html

Obamacare hoisted on Obama's petard

From the Washington Times:

    In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

    “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

    Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

    The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

I had forgotten that Obama himself once upon a time took seriously the broccoli hypothetical.

Ilya Somin recently explained precisely why the broccoli objection to Obamacare has teeth:

    Opponents of the constitutionality of the individual mandate have emphasized that upholding the mandate would give Congress the power to mandate virtually anything, including forcing people to eat broccoli.... First, even if Congress would never actually enact the broccoli mandate, the fact that it could so under the same logic as the health insurance mandate highlights a logical flaw in the argument made by defenders of the latter. It strains credulity that a constitutional text that gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce gives it unlimited authority to force people to buy products they don’t want, even within the borders of a single state.

Somin then goes on to discuss why broccoli-like mandates are not infeasible as a political matter:

    Congress need not admit that they’re intended to help powerful interest groups. They could instead be defended as efforts to stimulate the economy by helping a vital industry (the same justification as was used to justify government bailouts of the banks and auto industry). Forcing people to purchase broccoli or other food could be defended as a public health measure. Indeed, paternalists of both the “libertarian” and traditional varieties have successfully advocated numerous coercive regulations on precisely those kinds of grounds. There is no reason why they couldn’t use similar strategies to justify purchase mandates. An alliance between well-intentioned paternalists and industry interest groups is precisely the kind of “baptist-bootlegger” coalition that has often been successful in the past. Given widespread political ignorance, voters will often be hard-pressed to tell whether such proposals will really increase public health or not.
 
Parliamentry moves to repeal Obamacare. The interesting question for us should be what provisions of Canada's health care act and various Provincial acts are the "worst" in terms of stifling supply, restricting access or otherwise raising costs and waiting times. Perhaps a similar approach to jettisoning the most dysfunctional parts of Canadian legislative and regulatory apparatus could provide incrimental improvements to patient care and roll back the huge costs that are crippling government (healthcare spending in Ontario will soon reach 50% of the budget).:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122520508633078.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opini

ObamaCare's Repeal Has Begun
This week's Senate vote to scrap an IRS reporting requirement is the start of a piece by piece approach.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Mark this date: On Feb. 2, 2011, a Democratic Senate killed the first piece of the health-care law it passed less than a year ago. Bowing (finally) to reality, 34 Democrats rushed to be among the 81 senators who axed the bill's odious 1099 tax reporting requirement.

Let the ObamaCare dismantling begin.

The White House and Democrats have worked hard in recent weeks to suggest that this first casualty of their signature legislative achievement was no big deal. President Obama went so far as to make the idea his own in his State of the Union address, offering up the end of 1099 as an example of his willingness to "improve" his health legislation. And the death of 1099 was indeed overshadowed by this week's headlines that the Senate GOP had failed to repeal the larger bill.

It is nonetheless worth recalling the 1099 saga. The entire arc of this tale—from Democrats' initial defense of the provision, to this week's full-scale rout—is an example of how dramatically politics has shifted. It has also starkly laid out the real threat that the White House faces over ObamaCare in the coming year. It's not full repeal. With 1099, Republicans have shown they intend to rip it up piece by piece.

The 1099 provision was a new requirement that businesses report to the IRS annual purchases from any contractor above $600. The provision targeted 40 million businesses and other organizations, crushing them under a costly bookkeeping mandate. But hey, desperate Democrats needed funds to pay for their $1 trillion healthathon. By closing this "loophole," they claimed, the IRS could commandeer a whole $17 billion in previously uncollected taxes.

This was symbolic of the entire slapdash process and rotten substance of ObamaCare. Like so many provisions, it mysteriously appeared in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 2,000-plus page bill; to this day, no Democrat has claimed authorship.

Like so many provisions, it received no due diligence, and no attention until after it became law. Only then did National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, a federal employee, explain that its giant costs would likely outweigh any new tax compliance. The requirement, it turns out, doesn't just crush businesses—it also crushes churches, charities and municipalities.

Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns and California Rep. Dan Lungren turned the issue into a cause. By last July, the business community was in an uproar, and both Republicans had introduced 1099 repeal. Yet Democrats refused to back down.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a vote on a House bill that would have repealed 1099 but also imposed costly new taxes on multinationals. She knew Republicans wouldn't vote for it (they didn't), which allowed her to keep 1099 while blaming the GOP.

Senate Democrats flat-out defended the provision. When Mr. Johanns got a September vote on repeal, he lured just seven Democrats—not enough for passage. In truth, many Democrats simply liked the provision, as evidenced by their votes for Florida Democrat Bill Nelson's amendment to keep 1099 but to raise the threshold to $5,000. (That, too, failed.) The White House remained opposed to repeal.

Only after their November rout did vulnerable senators begin to jump to Mr. Johanns. Yet Mr. Reid obstructed. In late November, Mr. Johanns marshaled 61 votes for repeal—including 21 Democrats—but Mr. Reid set the rules so that he needed 67. As for the nay votes, they were now balking at cutting even $17 billion from unused government money.

By January, the pendulum had swung. The White House, eager to put on a centrist smile, adopted 1099 repeal as its own. Senate Democrats followed this week. Mr. Reid, knowing he'd be hard-pressed to stop another vote, deputized Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow (who needs some re-election help) to steal Mr. Johanns's bill.

She changed five words and offered it as her own amendment to the Federal Aviation Authority reauthorization bill. Mr. Reid then allowed a vote on her amendment, while blocking Mr. Johanns's.

With a Democratic sponsor, 1099 repeal got 34 Democrats. Thus does the leadership that wrote the offensive provision, voted for it, and defended it, now take credit for exterminating it.

Republicans aren't exactly bitter. If the GOP is to dismember ObamaCare, it must pressure Democrats into helping. That's what Republicans did this week. Next up for debate will be other odious elements: the individual mandate, taxes on kids' braces, restrictions on health savings accounts, cuts to Medicare. The GOP will highlight each one and then ask 2012 Democrats what they are willing to defend.

What does the White House do then? Some Democrats are already jumping ship on these other issues. This week also showed that—unless Mr. Reid intends to halt all legislation—Senate Republicans may be able to force ObamaCare votes. The White House gave its sanction to 1099 repeal, but that won't end the debate on "fixing" ObamaCare. That debate has just begun.

Write to kim@wsj.com
 
>It's not insurance?

Insurers will just be middlemen.  Once everyone above certain means is forced to pay in (either by paying for their own, or paying a penalty), it shouldn't take long for the arguments to remove the middlemen to prevail - unless they are preserved due to misguided corporate welfare policies.  I understand that the mechanism is and may continue to be "insurance".  I understand also that people without insurance are able to get care, but status quo ante has the overwhelming majority of people either paying for their own insurance or paying their own care costs directly without any legal compulsion to do either.

>(hey, I'm not the only making this claim, the CBO that does far more in-depth research also studied this and found that "Obamacare" will in fact reduce the cost to taxpayers of the healthcare system).

I'd like to see the numbers.  I'm aware that overall the US deficit position is supposed to improve, but that happens by definition whenever a spending program includes a mandate to increase takings by a greater amount - which can be done with any public spending program, with no complexity at all.  If you mean that literally the dollar cost of public spending by the federal government on healthcare is going to decrease, those are the numbers with which I'm unfamiliar.

Why is "entitlement" a misnomer?  It just means people have a civil right to make claims against the program.  As far as I can tell, all entitlements provided by government are essentially paid for out of taxation.

I agree that the US system has problems with portability of insurance.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Insurers will just be middlemen.  Once everyone above certain means is forced to pay in (either by paying for their own, or paying a penalty), it shouldn't take long for the arguments to remove the middlemen to prevail - unless they are preserved due to misguided corporate welfare policies.  I understand that the mechanism is and may continue to be "insurance".  I understand also that people without insurance are able to get care, but status quo ante has the overwhelming majority of people either paying for their own insurance or paying their own care costs directly without any legal compulsion to do either.

Brad Sallows said:
I'd like to see the numbers.  I'm aware that overall the US deficit position is supposed to improve, but that happens by definition whenever a spending program includes a mandate to increase takings by a greater amount - which can be done with any public spending program, with no complexity at all.  If you mean that literally the dollar cost of public spending by the federal government on healthcare is going to decrease, those are the numbers with which I'm unfamiliar.

Here you are: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11379&type=1  It's somewhat heavy reading, but the info is all there.

Brad Sallows said:
Why is "entitlement" a misnomer?  It just means people have a civil right to make claims against the program.  As far as I can tell, all entitlements provided by government are essentially paid for out of taxation.

Well, that's why I'd say it's not an entitlement program  - at the very least, not purely one, since the act requires people to buy, using their own money, a minimum level of health insurance coverage.  It's not giving everyone insurance from a single payer system like Canada's (which I'd say is fairly reasonably described as an entitlement program).  There's an entitlement provision in the sense that SOME people will be able to get assistance in obtaining coverage, but a large part of the effort is to address the market failure in the US health insurance market vice really creating a new entitlement.

All that said, I don't think entitlement programs are necessarily bad, so long as they are addressing a social problem or a market failure.  Even those rabidly protesting against Obamacare probably wouldn't want Medicare taken away from them when they're older.  I particularly loved the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" sign some moron had at a Tea Party rally.  The jokes, they write themselves sometimes.

Brad Sallows said:
I agree that the US system has problems with portability of insurance.

The best way to fix this, in my opinion, is to unhook basic insurance from employment.  They haven't got to that point yet, they may never, but that's still what I think is the best thing.
 
At present, we almost have a two-tier healthcare system. My doctor accomodates patients who are on the waiting list only he they can pay him out of their pockets. And he has lots of clients who pay him either cash or private health care benefits. We have private health insurance companies exisiting side by side with universal health care. They even charge the government 33% for the patients' disability benefits excluding the drug plan. There is some sort of confusion and this is due to ignorance..We now have a perfect system.
 
BrianHarris said:
At present, we almost have a two-tier healthcare system. My doctor accomodates patients who are on the waiting list only he they can pay him out of their pockets. And he has lots of clients who pay him either cash or private health care benefits. We have private health insurance companies exisiting side by side with universal health care. They even charge the government 33% for the patients' disability benefits excluding the drug plan. There is some sort of confusion and this is due to ignorance..We now have a perfect system.

Okay... so what your doctor is doing is illegal, I'm 99% sure.  There's been much debate about this with the Cambie Clinic in BC.  Private health insurance companies sell extended benefits - that is, things that are not covered by the basic universal health care system.  That has always been the way it was intended to work.
 
"Brian Harris" has been banned. He had his say, we had our fun, now it's time to move on.

No need for responses to his tripe.

Staff
 
The model for Obamacare is failing in a most dramatic fashion. given Healthcare threatens to consume 50% of Ontario's budget, and other provinces in the near to mid future, perhaps we need to look at this as well and see how costs can be constrained or if the model is even vialbe anymore:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/massachusetts-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-obamacare/?print=1

Massachusetts: The Canary in the Coal Mine for ObamaCare
Posted By Paul Hsieh On May 12, 2011 @ 12:12 am In Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Five years ago, Massachusetts adopted its “universal health care” plan, which served as the template for President Obama’s subsequent national health care legislation. However, Massachusetts’ problems of rising health costs and worsening access foreshadow similar problems for the rest of America — as well as how to avoid them.

The Massachusetts Medical Society [1] recently reported that the state law has resulted in “longer patient wait times [and] continued difficult access to primary care physicians.” The average wait time in Massachusetts to see an internal medicine physician is now 48 days — double the national average. Over half of primary care practices are no longer accepting new patients. Fewer physicians are accepting the state-run Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice insurance plans. So although Massachusetts politicians frequently boast that they have increased “coverage,” many patients cannot find doctors to provide them with actual medical care.

Meanwhile health costs continue to skyrocket out of control, both for the state government and for privately insured patients. In a recent Forbes article [2], Sally Pipes notes that over the next 10 years, the plan will cost the state government $2 billion more than predicted. Similarly, prior to the new law insurance prices in Massachusetts increased at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average; after the “reform,” they’re increasing 5.8% faster.

To cut costs, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has proposed replacing the standard payment system with draconian “global budgets [3]” where doctors and hospitals would be given a fixed amount to care for the patients assigned to them. The providers would then keep a portion of the savings if they came under budget (or suffer penalties if they ran over budget) — thus creating morally perverse incentives to deny care to their patients.

The access problems have gotten so bad that the state legislature even considered forcing doctors [4] to accept government-controlled insurance rates as a condition of retaining their state medical licenses (regardless of whether or not the doctors lost money on each patient). As Massachusetts-based health policy analyst Jared Rhoads describes it, this would be responding to the failures created by the government’s insurance mandate by imposing a new “physician mandate [5].”

Given this hostile practice climate, it is no wonder that many Massachusetts physicians are considering opting out of the government-run system into “concierge practices [6]” — or leaving the state altogether. Dr. Lorraine Schratz, a Massachusetts pediatric cardiologist, noted that half of physicians trained in the state are leaving [7] due to the poor practice environment and poor reimbursements.

Because the ObamaCare national health plan is closely modeled after the Massachusetts plan, we are beginning to see early signs of similar problems developing nationally.

One of the ways ObamaCare will attempt to expand “coverage” will be via dramatically expanding the Medicaid program [8]. But as Medicaid patient Nicole Dardeau [9] recently told the New York Times, “My Medicaid card is useless for me right now…. It’s a useless piece of plastic. I can’t find an orthopedic surgeon or a pain management doctor who will accept Medicaid.” New Orleans ER physician James Aiken similarly noted, “Having a Medicaid card in no way assures access to care.” Once again, politicians can promise theoretical “coverage,” but this is not the same as actual medical care.

Like in Massachusetts, the Obama administration plans on controlling rising medical costs nationwide through a system of “bundled payments [10]” to “Accountable Care Organizations [11]” that would essentially reward doctors and hospitals for limiting care. Although the buzzwords may be new, one patient astutely observed [12] to New York Times medical writer Dr. Pauline Chen, “Whatever that care plan is called, it still sounds like an H.M.O. to me.”

Hence, it is no surprise that many doctors are increasingly seeking to opt out of government programs [13] such as Medicare. Others are moving towards “concierge practices [14]” that allow them to practice according to their best medical conscience free from the restrictions of the government-controlled insurance system. And just as many fed-up Massachusetts doctors are leaving that state, some fed-up American doctors may start taking a closer look at overseas “medical tourism” practice opportunities.

In a recent Washington Post piece, Dr. Manoj Jain reported on his visit to a medical tourism facility [15] in Bangalore, India. This facility catered to Americans by offering surgeries of comparable quality to American hospitals, in a clean, modern, high-tech setting — but at one-tenth the price. Similar facilities will be opening soon in the Cayman Islands, a mere hour’s flight from Miami.

Of course, under ObamaCare not every American doctor will relocate to another country. But as government controls increase, those doctors who most value their freedom to practice according to their best independent judgment will be least willing to be compelled to practice according to government “clinical guidelines.”

America may thus experience a combined internal and external exodus of the best, most independent, most conscientious doctors out of the government-controlled system — akin to how the best scientists, musicians, and artists fled the Eastern Bloc countries for the West during the Cold War. The remaining doctors will be the ones more willing to abdicate their professional responsibility to offer their patients their best independent expertise and instead practice “cookie cutter” medicine [16] as dictated by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Is this the kind of doctor you will want caring for you five years from now when you are seriously ill?

Fortunately, it’s not too late for the rest of America to learn from Massachusetts. Instead of adopting that failed system at the national level, Americans should demand that Congress “defund” and repeal ObamaCare — and adopt genuine free-market health care reforms like those advocated by Tea Party physician-activist Dr. Milton Wolf [17] and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey [18]. Such reforms include fixing the tax code to put employer-provided health insurance and individually-owned health insurance on a level playing field, repealing costly mandates specifying which benefits insurers must offer, allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, and eliminating monopolistic medical licensing requirements that prevent doctors from practicing across state lines. These reforms would lower costs and improve access to quality medical care, while respecting the individual rights of patients, doctors, and insurers.

The ongoing failure of the “universal health care” plan in Massachusetts serves as a clear warning to the rest of America. The only question is whether we’ll heed it.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/massachusetts-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-obamacare/

URLs in this post:

[1] Massachusetts Medical Society: http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=MMS_News_Releases&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=54338
[2] Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/25/health-care-mitt-romney_print.html
[3] global budgets: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/massachusetts-pioneer-of-universal-health-care-now-may-try-new-approach-to-costs/2011/04/07/AFDrunkD_print.html
[4] forcing doctors: http://mamedicallaw.com/blog/2010/01/13/physician-licensure-targeted/
[5] physician mandate: http://lucidicus.org/editorials.php?nav=20110510a
[6] concierge practices: http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-17/business/29428534_1_concierge-medicine-mdvip-boutique-practices
[7] are leaving: http://biggovernment.com/lschratz/2010/01/19/evidence-based-health-care-reform-lessons-from-massachusetts/#more-61686
[8] expanding the Medicaid program: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/562964/201102112011/Obama-Mandates-Push-States-To-Cut-Medicaid-Benefits.aspx
[9] Nicole Dardeau: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/health/policy/02medicaid.html
[10] bundled payments: http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2603-bundled-payments-another-health-care-fix-lacking-evidence
[11] Accountable Care Organizations: http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=14106
[12] astutely observed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/health/views/27chen.html?_r=3&src=tptw
[13] opt out of government programs: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7457767.html
[14] concierge practices: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110402/ap_on_re_us/us_two_tier_medicare
[15] his visit to a medical tourism facility: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health/medical-tourism-draws-growing-numbers-of-americans-to-seek-health-care-abroad/2011/02/09/AFkbobeC_story.html
[16] “cookie cutter” medicine: http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2011/05/noodlecast-76-cookie-cutter-medicine.html
[17] Dr. Milton Wolf: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/10/cousin-barack-obama-obamacare-family-feud/
[18] John Mackey: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
 
A new American film on the subject of health care.

Everyone in EMS knows the seriousness of hospital overcrowding and diversion, but the public may be unaware that there is a problem in their own backyards.
In July, "Firestorm" will have its premiere on the Documentary Channel.

"Firestorm" trailer:
http://www.firestormmovie.com/index.html

"This is the canary in the mine of healthcare throughout the United States. The system is broken, and it's not a have versus have not problem anymore."

"The nation's nearly 4,000 hospital emergency departments are a portal for as many as three out of four uninsured patients admitted to U.S. hospitals.
    Approximately 500,000 ambulances are diverted (turned away by an overcrowded hospital) annually in the United States. This is about one ambulance diversion per minute.
    Fire departments nationwide went on about 15.8 million medical calls in 2008, up from about 5 million in 1980, a 213% increase.
    50 years ago, half of the nation's doctors practiced primary care. Today, almost 70% of doctors work in higher paid specialities; it's estimated that in 10 years, the shortage of family doctors will reach 40,000.
    In 38 states, health insurance companies can deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition, and nearly 4 out of 10 Americans has at least one chronic medical condition.
    Every year, the deaths of at least 22,000 people can be attributed to a lack of health insurance. This makes uninsurance the sixth leading cause of death, ahead of HIV/AIDS and diabetes.
    Between 2000 and 2007, the average premium for job-based family coverage increased by more than 90%, rising from $6,351 to $12,106.
    More than 3 out of 5 adults who report having problems paying their medical bills had insurance.
    78% of those with private insurance and medical debt work full-time.
    Medical bills are involved in more than 60% of U.S. Bankruptcies, an increase of 50% in just six years, and more than 75% of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts.
    In the past 10 years, 90% of medical school graduates have entered higher-paid sub-specialities, while only 10% have chosen primary care.
    The amount of uncompensated care provided by hospitals has increased by $14.8 billion in eight years, from $21.6 billion in 2000 to $36.4 billion in 2008."

"So much of this could be alleviated if people had ongoing access to primary care. That was a resonant theme: So many people need to be able to go to a doctor, and if they can't, they end up in the emergency room. They end up calling 9-1-1 for pretty much everything, because they don't know where else to go."

 
Reply to add to the above.

"The legal duty of physicians and hospitals to provide emergency care":
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/4/465

2002:
"The family has recently commenced legal actions against the Government of Ontario alleging negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and against the ambulance service and the hospital that was on critical care bypass alleging negligence and breach of contract."

"Critical care bypass: coming full circle: A tragedy in Toronto early this year became the flash point for a health care system in crisis. On Friday, Jan. 14, 2000, the emergency department (ED) medical director at the Markham Stouffville Hospital, Dr. Anne Clarke, called to inform me about a teenaged boy with asthma who was on life support after a severe asthmatic attack early that morning. Because the nearest Toronto hospital had been on critical care bypass, the boy's ambulance transport time was 18 minutes -- 15 minutes longer than it would have taken to reach the closer facility.":
http://www.cjem-online.ca/v2/n3/p212

"Critical care bypass, a state previously utilized only under the most extraordinary conditions, became commonplace. It was unclear to EMS whether hospitals on CCB were truly unable to resuscitate patients brought to their door, whether CCB status reflected overflowing critical care units, or merely that it indicated staff frustration."
 
If we're committed to 6% annual growth in expenditures in an economy which does not grow at the same rate, then in a short while we're f*cked.  That is the way things are.  And the response from the centre and leftward parts of the political spectrum is to ignore that disparity and try to think of new excuses to cut ribbons (program spending); if asked whether any other spending could be cut to make up the difference the response is inevitably "oh no, not that one".  In my view, they have abdicated their responsibility to their own signature/keystone program and do not merit serious consideration for the reins of government.
 
June 27, 2011
Time Magazine: 
"How ER Crowding Kills"
By Dr. Jesse M. Pines and Dr. Zachary F. Meisel
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2079935,00.html
"This number is expected to increase further when health reform is implemented and more than 30 million Americans get health insurance. And the supply of ERs is shrinking. Over the past 20 years, more than a quarter of the ERs in the U.S. have permanently closed."

Same story of lawsuits in the U.S.A.:
"If you or a loved one was injured or died due to a delay in care because of emergency room overcrowding or ambulance diversion, you need to contact a law firm that has the experience in investigating all the possible reasons on why there was a delay in diagnosing or treating you or a loved one.":
http://www.beasleyfirm.com/blog/medical-malpractice/an-ambulance-ride-can-kill-you-especially-if-the-ambulance-was-diverted-away-from-an-overcrowded-emergency-room/

Meanwhile in Ontario this month, "Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath says she will eliminate the $45 ambulance fee if her party is elected to power in October.":
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/06/15/ambulance-ndp-fee-promise.html

That - combined with the shortage of family doctors* - would put even more pressure on the health care system in Ontario. Toronto EMS** alone is now processing a call for help almost at an average of every 60 seconds, 24 hours a day ( 425,700 per year and rising ).

*June 27, 2011
"Aging baby boomers and more chronic illnesses are at the centre ( sic ) of the problem.
It's the second national report in the space of a week warning that chronic illness is pushing Canada's health care system to the brink.":
http://chch.com/index.php/home/item/4255-doctor-shortage-in-canada

** "The 'Baby Boom' generation is aging. As it does so, all of those 'boomers' become net consumers of health care, driving up demand for services. Simultaneously, all of those 'boomers' employed by the service in the early 1970s are reaching the end of their careers and retiring. Since subsequent generations are typically much smaller, the service is experiencing difficulty in recruiting suitably trained replacement staff, just as demand for services is increasing.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_EMS#Challenges

From what I remember, at a local level, this emergency health-care storm has been a long time coming. It has been studied by various experts.
Emergency Room overcrowding and ambulance Off-Load Delay OLD:
"Multiple stakeholders and various levels of government are currently seeking solutions to this problem, but have, so far, experienced only limited success."







 
The real issue is that there are no alternative solutions being offered. Increasing funding is not the answer, Canadian health care has been receiving billions of dollars without improvement (indeed you could say there is a perverse incentive not to improve service, since ever more funding is being diverted towards the health care system because it is bad). Since health care promises to crowd out all other spending in the near future, throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.

Market forces do work, and switching health care back to consumer pay will force consumers to choose health care options that are of the lowest cost/highest benefit ratio to them. I particularly like the idea of registered health care savings plans, where the consumer keeps the monies not spent on health care (which can then be used at a future date for health care. Over time, an astute person can save a considerable sum for their old age health care needs). Catastrophic health care insurance for unforeseen events (car accidents, being hit by a bus) and long term care insurance for chronic illness  are the other legs of the plan, and charity and government support as last resorts complete the picture.
 
Market forces can work.

I am in Ireland at the moment. Where economic theories go to die.

And it is painfully clear that market forces only work if everyone plays along.

One of the crucial problems with health care spending is that medicine is one of the few professions where incompetence is frequently rewarded. Wrong diagnoses, incorrect and unnecessary medications, unneeded investigations, more visits, all of these things are more profitable than doing your job correctly. Inefficiency isn't going to be rooted out by competitors, the competition will be to see who can charge for the most scans, the most drugs, the most interventions. And just  like women can routinely expect to be charged more than men by auto mechanics, medical customers in private clinics can expect to get 'the best possible care', because they are generally not knowledgeable enough to realize they're being ripped off. The financial incentive for health care providers in a private system is to be less efficient.

I think that the only way to control costs in MOST (but not all) of health services is to have them government regulated. You have to de-incentivise spending money. A fee-for-service system will never do this. 

In some cases, where services are reasonably uniform, there may be room for competition. For example, the private radiology clinics, because an out-patient knee MRI is going to be more or less the same procedure every time. Anything that's fairly routine and done in large volume on an outpatient basis can reasonably fall into this category (dentistry being another reasonable example).

At the moment, I work in a two-tiered healthcare system, and it is a complete failure, which has done nothing but drive up costs to the public, and create gross inefficiency. The public money simply subsidizes the consultant physicians' private work, which is done at a greater cost than the same physician's public work (that's why they do private work, after all, to get more money). It is shockingly corrupt, administrative costs are through the roof, and the desire here is to move to an all-public health care system more or less analogous to the Canadian model.

I think the biggest failing of the Canadian health care system is not the service delivery model, or the source of payments, or the amount of money being spent. It is simply poor management and administration, by the armies of people who are administering the system. This starts pretty much at the top of the totem pole at the ministerial level.

Given the level of administrative competence shown in Canadian health care, I think attempting to implement a two-tiered system would be catastrophic. We would be much better served by firing 50% of the people with the word "health" in their job title.
 
But why are people poorly managing the system? Because they are paid to do so and not held to account.

The "everyone plays along" model is nonsense; if it was true then the costs of everything from bread to diamonds would be totally incalculable, but this is clearly not the case in any market, from commodities to professional services. Ask yourself about how accountants, plumbers or RMT's charge for their services?

I strongly suspect that many of the perverse mechanisms that drive up costs and drive down quality that you cite in Ireland are similar to the NHS model in the UK, where private care providers can "dump" their problems onto the government funded service and are not penalized for doing so (indeed the incentive is greater, since they no longer incur expenses but pass them on to the taxpayer). A fully private system does not have these perverse incentives. What is needed is a system which minimizes perverse incentives (any system can be gamed), while providing maximum accountability to the consumer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top