If America adopts Canada's health care system

[muskrat89]

I guess the ACoS are RTFO too...


Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama


CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

About the American College of Surgeons
The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 74,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

Web site: www.facs.org

 

[tomahawk6]

I have been perturbed by professional organizations that throw their members under the bus. This so called reform isnt good for doctors,patients or anyone else. Now that pharma's deal with Obama is out in the open I would expect doctors to shut their doors to the pharma reps. We can easliy make changes that will improve coverage without going to Obamacare. This bill will even give the government access to a citizens bank account.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I have been perturbed by professional organizations that throw their members under the bus. This so called reform isnt good for doctors,patients or anyone else. Now that pharma's deal with Obama is out in the open I would expect doctors to shut their doors to the pharma reps. We can easliy make changes that will improve coverage without going to Obamacare. This bill will even give the government access to a citizens bank account.

I will accept that as a resident of the USA, you have been exposed to more of the rhetoric from both the multiple sides of the debate than those like me who really listen to it on the margins since it won't have a direct effect (unless I can get some consulting contracts with doctors down south to show them how to make money from evil socialized medicine).  While I respect your opinions as presented above, perhaps you can provide some background (with links to legitimate comment, if possible) on why you arrived at those conclusions.

Admittedly, I haven't reviewed any drafts of proposed legislation concerning this matter, but that probably puts me in the same boat as the majority of Americans including (most likely) some members of your legislative branch.  As for the (financial) effect this will have for doctors, my gut reaction is that it will be similar to that which occurred following implementation of most of the provincial health insurance plans here in Canada (late 1960s) - doctors (especially GPs) started to see their incomes increase.  Though recognizing that there are many differences (regulatory and business models) between the USA and Canada, my expectation is that with a greater percentage of the population having basic health insurance, more patient/doctor contacts will be generated and thus doctors' incomes will increase.

As for doctors shunning pharmaceutical reps - !!! - who would pay for their lunches, golf trips, provide them with free samples of medication (like Viagra, which they give only to patients) or most importantly (and seriously) provide information about new developments and reminders about current prescribing indications, counterindications, dosages, interactions, etc.  Though reps are in the business of hawking their company's drugs (and they can be a pain in the rear sometimes) they do have some legitimate use.

 

[1feral1]

Watched the POTUS in Montana live this am our time, and heard his 'only bull' in Washington joke, ya, I actually laughed.

This plan he has is truly controversial. Here in Australia we have a two tiered health system. Public and private.

There is a joke here in Queensland, and goes as fol: "Going to Mexico? Don't drink the water. Going to Queensland? Don't get sick."

This being said there is some serious healthcare issues in this state alone, but with public you wait, and with private you pay, first a entry fee into the hospital, say $500, then a gap payment between each service. Say tonsilectomy costs $2000 and the insurance pays $1200, you cough up the remainder.

A mate who had open heart surgury had private insurance, but went in under public as he could not afford the $$ for the surgery. He got top treatment and is still with us today.

Does public work? Yes but our hospitals are so overcrouded one often is shuffled from place to place by the ambos for a bed.

It scares me.

I don't know how the US will make their plan work, but there is lots of opposition to it, adn that being said, how will Mr Public be covered if he becomes sick?

Public heath is funded by a nationwide medicare levy on all working people, I think its 1.5% of your gross annual income. Defence Force pers are exempt.

Regards,

OWDU

 

[tomahawk6]

Pharma-Obama deal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

 

[Rifleman62]

The White House talking to Lobbyists!!! I thought there was going to be "Change", a new way in Washington??

 

[GAP]

I'm not able to discern all the ramifications of the various details, but what I can see is the Public getting screwed one way or the other, price wise....

 

[Blackadder1916]

Pharma-Obama deal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

So what?
Is your objection that a politician made a deal with a special interest for their support? (What else is new? - regardless of political stripe)  or
Is your objection that he got caught, sort of? (What else is new?)    or
Is your objection that pharmaceutical companies may be able to sidestep returning some money and continue to make profits? (outrageous profits though probably less in the future) -  With the exception of not having to return some, they were probably going to anyway.  My take after a cursory review is that pharma may benefit from this initially but it will level out in the end.

. . . but what I can see is the Public getting screwed one way or the other, price wise....

It's likely they would will be screwed price wise whether there was a deal or not . . . we are talking about pharmaceutical companies here.

While the optics of this deal are not favourable to Obama from a strategic political point of view, it would be naive to think that he (or any other politican) could reform the American health care system industry without making some sort of deal with either the drug company bloc or the private health insurance block (they are the groups that have the real money needed to grease the wheels of any political play down there).  Since insurers will be the ones that may eventually take the biggest hit after reform, it's unlikely they would want to deal (because basically it's about reforming radically changing the health insurance system).

 

[a_majoor]

Since this is really all about accumulating political and economic power, then the attempts by Pharmacutical companies to make a deal is only common sense; do you want to be the guy sitting at the same table as the King, or the guy waiting for scraps to be thrown your way?

I notice that any attempts to question the attempts to "reform" healthcare elicit hysterical opposition usually based on ad hominem attacks; even the CEO of Whole Foods, hardly a paragon of right wing thought, is under attack in the US for his WSJ Op Ed piece which simply points out a selection of low cost or cost saving options to improve health care, none of which require government intervention in the health care market and most which actually have the effect of removing government and ending regulatory failure.

As for numbers, the Canadian Institute for Health Information discovered that: (paraphrase)

Age standardized rates of surgery outside the priority areas are about the same as they were in 2004-2005" despite the fact that provincial health spending grew $16.5 billion or @ 25%.

So we have increased spending 25% in 5 years without any increase in surgeries? I remind the reader that the wait time for referral to a specialist was 17.3 weeks (45% longer than the median wait time in 1997. Sorry, their baseline seem all over the place) so where is all this money going? It does not seem to be in patient care.

US Medicare/Medicaid, the "National" element of UK National Health and so on show similar outcomes as bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients capture the increase in tax dollars, so there is plenty of  examples to demonstrate that nationalizing health care will have negative outcomes for patients. With a record like that, is it any wonder that ordinary Americans are now uniting against health care "reform" as being proposed?

 

[muskrat89]

it would be naive to think that he (or any other politican) could reform the American health care system industry without making some sort of deal with either the drug company bloc

I would argue that Obama got elected because he said, and many people believed - that he would be different. Now when things are not going well, defenders say "Well, what did you expect?"

 

[a_majoor]

For those of you who argue that health care "reform" in the United States is not about extending the power of the State:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/irs-new-health-care-enforcer.html

IRS The New Health Care Enforcer

People often joke that government-run health care will have the efficiency of the motor vehicle department, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service. This joke will become reality if present Democratic health restructuring proposals are enacted.

Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.

The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and "such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe." (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.

The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage:

(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at "any time" during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a "shared responsibility payment" not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually

The Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).
The reporting requirements can only be understood in this tax context. In order to know which taxpayers to tax, the IRS needs to know which taxpayers do not have coverage received from someone else (normally, an employer).

These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.

These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.

The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement. Somehow, I doubt that most supporters of Democratic health care restructuring concepts will like this detail. But it's in there.

 

[a_majoor]

Democrat party tactics are now being used against them, and they don't like it one bit. The end of the article demonstrates the weakness of the State providing any contractual service:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574356512455523766.html

Rules for Republicans, Too "Community organizing" comes back to bite President Obama.

JAMES TARANTO

Not long ago, Barack Obama and the Democrats were invincible. Republicans not only had substantially reduced minorities in the House and Senate, but they didn't even have a leader.

Suddenly Obama seems quite vincible, with his signature project, postalizing the health-care system, in deep trouble. How could that have happened?

Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist, argues that the opposition's lack of leadership, far from being a hindrance, has been a necessary condition for its effectiveness. He notes that the tactics of the left have long been informed by Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"--the bible of so-called community organizing--and especially this rule:

"Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"

For years, of course, the obvious target was President Bush. Since last year's campaign got under way, Bretibart notes, the left has set its sights on a series of lesser targets, with varying degrees of success: Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Carrie Prejean. But with the exception of Palin before her resignation, none of these people actually held political power. For the moment, the Democrats have a monopoly on power, which makes them vulnerable to Alinskyite tactics. As Breitbart writes:

A grass-roots movement of average Americans has stood up, making it extremely difficult to isolate and demonize an individual. Mr. Alinsky noted in "Rule 12" that it is difficult to go after "institutions." And attacking "tea baggers" and "mobs" has only created more resistance and drawn attention to the left's limited playbook. Even Americans expressing their constitutionally protected right to free speech are open game. Now that many people are Googling the Alinsky rule book and catching up with the way Chicago thugs play their political games, Mr. Obama and the Fighting Illini are going to be forced to create new rules--or double down on the old ones. The Financial Times reports that Dick Armey, a former House Republican leader who now leads Freedom Works, a free-market community-organizing group, "draws consciously on the forms of agitation pioneered by Mr Alinsky":

Mr Alinsky believed that packing public meetings with highly vocal activists would sway their outcomes and give people a taste of the power they could exercise when they showed up in numbers."What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said Mr Armey, who was one of the leaders of the "Contract with America" Republican landslide in 1994.One lesson of the 1994 experience is that the tactics and attitudes that make an opposition movement effective are not sufficient for governing. Newt Gingrich was a lot better at the former than the latter. The same seems to be true--at least so far--of the Democrats and their leader, Barack Obama. Obama's supporters are now reduced to portraying him as a victim, as in this column by New York Daily News sportswriter Mike Lupica:

We hear that all of this is democracy in action. It's not. It's boom-box democracy, people thinking that if they somehow make enough noise on this subject, they can make Obama into a one-term President. The most violent opposition isn't directed at his ideas about health care reform. It is directed at him. It is about him. They couldn't make enough of a majority to beat the Harvard-educated black guy out of the White House, so they will beat him on an issue where they see him as being most vulnerable. In the process, they'll come after him on health care the way Kenneth Starr went after Bill Clinton on oral sex in the Oval Office. With that kind of zealotry, screaming about government programs as if Medicare isn't one. It is why so many of them, all these wild-eyed red faces in the crowd, look completely certifiable, screaming about how Obama wants to kill Grandma, as if he's suddenly turned into Jack Kevorkian.

Not very persuasive, is it? Lupica whines that the most powerful man in the world is being victimized by people with "red faces." He thereby makes Obama look weak and himself look like a bigot. And this observation underscores Breitbart's point: It's a lot easier to ridicule a powerful individual than a variegated group of citizens.

Which brings us to a word of caution for those who don't want to see Obama re-elected: Inasmuch as the condition of being leaderless gives Republicans significant tactical advantages now, they will not enjoy those advantages in three years. Even if Obama's performance as president leaves much to be desired, he could win a second term if the Republicans nominate an opponent who makes an easy target for ridicule. Just ask John Kerry.

Boycott Dissent!

"Joshua," a 45-year-old New York blogger "who asked that his last name not be published," tells ABC News he will no longer shop at Whole Foods, the organic grocery chain. Michael Lent, 33, of Long Beach, Calif., and Christine Taylor, 34, of New Jersey say the same thing. They're angry about an op-ed CEO John Mackey contributed to The Wall Street Journal last week arguing against ObamaCare and for sensible reforms to health care.

In addition to this trio, ABC reports, "countless Whole Foods shoppers have taken their gripes with Mackey's op-ed to the Internet, where people on the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook are calling for a boycott of the store." How widespread are the boycott calls? "Countless" is journalese for "heck if we know."

By way of precedent, ABC notes that "Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza who was outspoken in the pro-life movement, ostracized [sic] many of his consumers who weren't sure how much of the money he earned making pizza was then going to support the pro-life movement." At the time that boycott began, Domino's was one of America's biggest pizza chains. Today, by contrast, Domino's is one of America's biggest pizza chains.

Blogress Ann Althouse has some fun at the expense of the Whole Foods boycotters. She starts by linking to a blog post that claims Mackey has "managed to piss off his company's core demographic" and "shot his company in the face." The blogger in question writes for a site that styles itself the "moderate voice." Althouse, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, reports on her own weekend visit to Whole Foods:

There's your comedy in a "moderate voice." And of course, Whole Foods does sell cola, cheese puffs, hotdogs, and grits.

The place was packed as usual--here in lefty Madison. It occurred to me that the boycott will not only fail, it will backfire. Whole Foods shoppers won't give up their pleasure easily. If they are pushed to boycott, they will want to read the Mackey op-ed, and if they do that, they will see it is a brilliant and specific analysis that is stunningly better thought-out than what we are hearing from Obama and the Democrats. Moreover, once they do that, they should be outraged--or at least annoyed--by those who called for a boycott, who sought to enforce such strict obedience to the particular of legislation [sic] that the Democrats in Congress have been trying to ram through. Maybe some of the people who want to support Obama and the Democrats will stop and think for themselves about what health care reform should be.

Blogger Tom Maguire raises a pertinent question:

What is the endgame envisioned by these boycotters? Normally, I would expect the goal of a boycott is to induce a change in corporate behavior--for example, a boycott of Whole Foods until they unionized, or of Target Company A until they stopped advertising on Annoying Broadcaster B.Is the goal here to have Whole Foods CEO John Mackey pen a new "Whoops, what I really meant to say is . . ." idiotarial fawning over ObamaCare?If there is a purpose to the boycott effort, we suppose it is some combination of punishment and deterrence: to make Mackey suffer for expressing his views, and to dissuade other CEOs who may be inclined to weigh in against ObamaCare. The left, in other words, is trying to stifle dissent against the president of the United States. And here we thought dissent was supposed to be patriotic!

America Held Hostage: Day 210
"U.S. President Barack Obama, pushing for healthcare reform during a trip to the West, said on Friday the country was 'held hostage' by insurance companies that deny coverage to sick people," Reuters reports from Belgrade, Mont. Hmm, given the experience of recent one-term Democratic presidents, maybe "America held hostage" is not the best slogan for Obama to use.

Then again, you can see why he might try to demonize insurance companies, which are not the most well-loved institutions in America. But blogger Mike Hanlon makes a compelling case that if the government supplanted insurance companies, it would leave us with the worst of both worlds:

Currently, consumers enter into a health-care contract with an insurance company. This contract has an asymmetric payoff, in that the insurance company gains when a consumer stays healthy, and the consumer gains if they fall [sic] ill. If a consumer falls ill, the insurance company would like to renege on its obligation. Yet it cannot, because the contract is enforced by an unbiased referee. That referee is the United States government.

The fundamental problem with the Democrat's [sic] health care proposal is that it will cause the the [sic] government to abandon its "referee" role in order to become my "contractual opponent." Democrats suggest that government can play the role of both opponent and referee. Maybe I'm too competitive, but I prefer when my opponent and my referee are not the same person.

Opposition to "health care reform" is not so much philosophical as it is practical. Sarah Palin learned something at the University of Idaho that a lot of folks didn't learn at Harvard: when contractual payoffs are asymmetric, you need a referee to ensure compliance. I want my referee, and the Democrats are trying to take it away from me.

Doesn't that justify a little anger? Imagine the heartless officiousness of the stereotypical insurance-company claims agent combined with the actual power of an IRS auditor or traffic cop, and you'll see the point.

 

[Long in the tooth]

I have a very personal stake in this, being in the US under an L2 NAFTA designation (spouse is L1 so has SS# and can work).  Currently I'm covered under her private health and dental, though haven't had to test it yet.

Obama's main plank of his policy is to enact a NATIONAL public system at NO COST.  Currently 300 million Americans are covered.  He will pay for the rest by taxing the health benefits the others receive.  This could create a perverse situation by both employers and employees ditching private insurance (and take the cash) and falling back on public insurance.

Interestingly, this perversity would be good for Canada, vastly increasing our competitiveness.  Once the US federal Gov't assumes health care risks taxes will have to rise to Canadian levels.  The brain drain will stop, and Canadian goods will become cheaper compared with American.  We'll regain our auto sector.

Interesting times ahead.  BTW, Americans seem to believe the Canadian health care rainbow includes drugs, dental and vision.  Just had a visit from a future American surgeon, and he had no idea of the complexity of the issue.

This is a prime example of politics at its worst, but both Canada and the US ignore the success of any European models.

 

[a_majoor]

Otto, I believe the perverse effect of causing people to ditch private healthcare plans is exactly the desired outcome of this crowd: no possibility of turning back or opting out.

More here:

http://oceanaris.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-banality-of-evil-the-health-care-debate-takes-a-dangerous-turn/

The Banality of Evil – The Health Care debate takes a dangerous turn

Posted on August 18, 2009 by Matt Holzmann
This evening the New York Times is reporting that the President and Congressional leaders plan to go it alone on their health care bill. Since this leadership includes Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and we have seen their hysterical response to the growing concerns of many in the electorate with the various bills introduced so far, I am deeply concerned. Despite massive and growing resistance and incontrovertible declines in the popularity of their positions, they plan to take the gloves off and pass something, anything to be able to declare victory. For that is what this is all about now. Better, more widespread health care is not the issue any more. This is the most craven of partisan politics.

In 1962, Hannah Arendt, in writing about Adolph Eichmann, the architect of the Final Solution, tried to understand the phenomenon of  pure evil. Having been a good German who lived under Hitler until her life was threatened, she escaped the Holocaust. These were her people who did this thing.  She was desperately trying to understand how the German people would participate in such horrors. “The Banality of Evil” was her description of the way in which ordinary people accepted the orders of their leaders and committed such crimes. The  defense of “following orders” was disallowed by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremburg, who stated that following illegal orders was not a valid defense provided a moral choice was possible.

So what does this have to do with health care? Please allow me to relate a true story. Today seems to be my day for such if you have read my earlier blog.

I had a relative in England who died less than three months ago. I will relate her story. She was never in the best of health, but contracted tuberculosis a few years ago in her late  50’s. Since treatments are weighted in the National Health Service, it was determined that her care would not have a high priority. Her children were grown and did not need a mother’s care. TB treatment is expensive, and there is a limit in the UK of GBP 45,000 per patient per year excepting extraordinary cases. Someone somewhere sat down at a desk and factored in all of these variables. This treatment was delayed as are many kinds of treatment in the UK. Then 3 years ago, in a weakened state, she contracted cancer. Once again, the actuarial tables were consulted, and she received only limited care. At that point it was only a matter of time. She survived much longer than anyone would have expected. Other illnesses attacked her body. And then, one day, she finally passed on. (BTW this is the sort of "Death Panel" thet Governor Palin was warning about)

There were steps in this process. There were procedures and guidelines. And decisions made to limit treatment. In the United States, she would have had immediate and aggressive treatment for tuberculosis by government order. She probably would have stood a much better chance of surviving much longer with a reasonable quality of life.

The fact is that today, our government is highly constricted in its financial options. We have already indebted ourselves to a point where we can no longer finance that debt. Medicare, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is controlled by the abovementioned leadership, will go bankrupt in 8 years. Social Security is predicted to do the same in the 2030’s. The CBO also has calculated that any of the bills now under consideration would cost as much as $1 trillion. So we have the two largest safety net programs yet undertaken by our government bankrupted by irresponsible government borrowing and poor management, and Congress own accountants predicting runaway costs.  The president cited the Post Office as a comparison in speech to his undefined health care proposal in Portsmouth, NH last week. How can he and our leaders fail to see the analogies? How can they fail to see the potential for collapse and the terrible pain it might cause? This should be one of the most serious discussions of our time and there is no discussion.

The warning signs are all around us. We are faced with a health care system that needs reform. So many issues have been identified in the public debate that serious, measurable reform may now be possible. Ideas are coming from all sides. And yet we are faced with a pigheaded, partisan leadership that is basically preparing to tell the rest of us to go to hell and ram through another highly defective piece of legislation without scrutiny and without debate. The  financial system bailouts and Stimulus Bill and Cap & Trade bill all point clearly towards where this will end up.

The Administration and its supporters have vilified the concerns of many about end of live panels, and yet this is a fact of life in the UK already. Somewhere far removed,  bureaucrats make life and death decisions based on the numbers. With all of its faults, our current system values life much more highly. One of the chief theoreticians they seem to be listening to, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, the White House Chief of Staff’s brother, has openly discussed the “life value” of infants and the elderly, noting that a child is not really self aware until the age of two. This is a very, very dangerous discussion.

One of the fundamental virtues Americans have always held is the value of life. Whether it is in the care for sick infants or the billions spent on AIDS research or the heroic measures in the operating room on an inner city gunshot victim, or on the battlefield where our troops are indoctrinated with “no man left behind”, or our fundamental obligation under Medicare for the care of our elders,  we have almost always managed to do the right thing. We make herculean efforts to do so. There is a preferential option for the weak in our culture that we must never lose that is based upon our humanity and our faith.

Or do we, like Eichmann, simply shirk responsibility by saying we were only following orders?

 

[retiredgrunt45]

So we have increased spending 25% in 5 years without any increase in surgeries? I remind the reader that the wait time for referral to a specialist was 17.3 weeks (45% longer than the median wait time in 1997. Sorry, their baseline seem all over the place) so where is all this money going? It does not seem to be in patient care.

I'm not sure were your getting these numbers from, but I didn't have to wait no 17 weeks to see an Oncologist when I was diagnosed with colan cancer. From the time it was diagnosed to my first treatment was 12 days here at the London Ontario cancer centre at Westminister hospital. Have you ever visited a cancer centre recently and asked the patients how long they had to wait for treatment. Maybe next time before quoting someone elses facts, do yourself a favour and learn some facts yourself. Hundreds of others myself included are recieving treatments every week at the cancer centre come visit and we'll enlighten you on these fictional wait times which someone seemed to pull from their hat.

It really pisses me of when I hear people talk about something in which they obviously have no clue as to what their talking about. Get a clue and you'll find our system works just fine for the majority of us everyday. I wish people would stop comparing our system to the Americans, because it seems everytime they do, they make up some fictional story of how bad the Canadian system is.
The next gime you get sick with a life threatning illness ask yourself who are you going to call first, your accountant to see if you can afford it or your doctor who can cure it? Right now i'm in my 11th week of treatment and the treatments have cost I figure roughly around the $50,000.00 mark so far, I still have 4 months to go before my treatments are finished, do the math, my portion "Zippo" Nada" also included are my drugs because I have home care so all my meds are also paid for and I have a nurse coming in once a week and if I can't drive myself to my weekly treatments because i'm to ill, they pick me up and drop me off back at home at no extra charge.

Some people like to complain for the sake of complaining...

 

[Edward Campbell]

retierdgrunt45 is exactly correct: In Canada most of the time, most people receive the most appropriate care within a medically acceptable time-frame. The same is true for most Americans when most ≈ 85%.

Let us begin by acknowledging that many (<5%) of Americans and Canadians receive lousy medical care: they are, almost universally poor, homeless, drug addicted  and so on; there is almost nothing, affordable, that can or should be done to try –and inevitable fail – to relieve their lot in life.

Most Americans and Canadians would benefit, materially, from a medical care system (it’s not, really, a health care system) that costs less (we have two of the most expensive systems in the world) and works better (we have two of least well performing systems in the world).

The very worst thing the Americans could do is to adopt the Canadian health care system.

The very worst thing the Canadians could do is to adopt the American health care system.

 

[a_majoor]

Facts and figures are available for RG45 and everyone else right here: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/splash.html

As for anecdotal evidence, I am very glad that you were diagnosed and treated quickly RG45; however there are cases where patients did not get the treatment in a timely manner (and I will have to Google this but I can recall a Canadian woman who was sentenced to death because she was consistently given painkillers to treat a sore back when the cause turned out to be a tumor. By the time she managed to persuade the physician to send her to a specialist, and then waiting to see a specialist for the diagnosis, the cancer had spread to the point there was no possibility of survival)

Personal anecdotes are also subjective; my own dealings with long wait times for what should have been a minor surgery (and prolonged time on medical category as a result) or waiting in an emergency room SIX HOURS while my daughter has a breathing emergency certainly colour my views...

 

[tomahawk6]

You dont know how good your healthcare is until you need it at which point you may find there isnt a bed for you, they dont want to run expensive tests,ect. Plenty of Canadians get sent south for medical treatment because either the system cannot handle the medical condition in a timely manner or there isnt a bed available. The people with money will generally be able to afford to go outside the system. Obama's healthcare would eliminate private insurance entirely leaving citizens at the mercy of the bean counters. I like the French system where private and public medical insurance exist side by side.

Mark Steyn told a story yesterday about his mother in law that came to visit from the UK. She had been struggling with a painful medical condition with her arm for 10 years. Ecvery month her NHS doctor prescribed the equivalent of tylenol. On her recent trip to the US her arm became acutely swollen so Steyn took her to their local New Hampshire hospital. They ran the tests on her that they never did in the UK because of cost. Her US doctor discovered that the woman had gout and treated it.

 

[the 48th regulator]

You dont know how good your healthcare is until you need it at which point you may find there isnt a bed for you, they dont want to run expensive tests,ect. Plenty of Canadians get sent south for medical treatment because either the system cannot handle the medical condition in a timely manner or there isnt a bed available. The people with money will generally be able to afford to go outside the system. Obama's healthcare would eliminate private insurance entirely leaving citizens at the mercy of the bean counters. I like the French system where private and public medical insurance exist side by side.

Mark Steyn told a story yesterday about his mother in law that came to visit from the UK. She had been struggling with a painful medical condition with her arm for 10 years. Ecvery month her NHS doctor prescribed the equivalent of tylenol. On her recent trip to the US her arm became acutely swollen so Steyn took her to their local New Hampshire hospital. They ran the tests on her that they never did in the UK because of cost. Her US doctor discovered that the woman had gout and treated it.

Acetaminophens are used in the treatment of Gout, AKA Tylenol, BTW.

dileas

tess

 

[tomahawk6]

While your point is valid I wasnt doing anything more than relate the anecdote. In long term gout sufferers the goal is to address the lowering of uric acid levels which evidently is done with medicines like Probenecid or Allopurinol. I think that Steyn's point is that in any national healthcare there is rationing of care to achieve cost savings[rarely accomplished]. From what I have read the UK's NHS is a growing disaster that is affecting their other government programs and that is a country with 50m people and one of every 7 people are employed by NHS. Providing national healthcare to a country the size of the US hasnt been successfully accomplished. India,China and Russia are not shining examples in this area.