Before Racing To National Healthcare: Listen

[Old Rocks]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.

I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.

To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

 

[Old Rocks]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care, Part II: Debunking the Free Marketeers | OurFuture.org
May 12, 2009
more»
In the previous post, I looked at ten of the most common myths that get bandied about whenever Americans drag Canada into their ongoing discussions about healthcare. In this follow-up, I'd like to address a few of the larger assumptions that Americans make about health care that are contradicted by the Canadian example; and in the process offer some more general thinking (and perhaps talking) points that may be useful in the debates ahead.

Government-run health care is inherently less efficient -- because governments themselves are inherently less efficient.
If anything could finally put the lie to this old conservative canard, the disaster that is our health care system is Exhibit A.

America spends about 15% of its GDP on health care. Most other industrialized countries (all of whom have some form of universal care) spend about 11-12%. According to the WHO, Canada spends a bit over 9% -- and most of the problems within their system come out of the fact that it's chronically underfunded compared to the international average.

Any system that has people spending more and getting less is, by definition, not efficient. And these efficiency leaks are, almost entirely, due to private greed. There is no logical way that a private system can pay eight-figure CEO compensation packages, turn a handsome a profit for shareholders, and still be "efficient." In fact, in order to deliver those profits and salaries, the American system has built up a vast, Kafkaesque administrative machinery of approval, denial, and fraud management, which inflates the US system's administrative costs to well over double that seen in other countries -- or even in our own public systems, including Medicare and the VA system.

 

[Old Rocks]

Simple facts. The health care systems of the other industrialized nations cost from one half to two thirds, per capita, of what the health care system of the US does. Their citizens live longer, have healthier old age, and they all have a far lower infant mortality than does the US. They have no families going bankrupt because of medical bill, we have 700,000 annually. All of their citizens have access to preventive health care, rather than those without health care insurance having to wait until a situation qualifies for emergency room assistance.

It is time that we create a real health care system in this nation. One whose purpose is the maintanance of the health of our citizens, rather than the creation of wealth for HMO CEOs. If the majority of our citizens get behind that idea, then the rest of you can move off to Outer Slobovia. Time for the US to leave the 19th century, and join the 21st.

 

[Old Rocks]

Considering the news yesterday regarding SSI and Medicare, can anyone see a reason this should be rushed through?

How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor - WSJ.com

How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor
Expect longer waits for appointments as physicians get pinched on reimbursements.
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

At the heart of President Barack Obama's health-care plan is an insurance program funded by taxpayers, administered by Washington, and open to everyone. Modeled on Medicare, this "public option" will soon become the single dominant health plan, which is its political purpose. It will restructure the practice of medicine in the process.

Republicans and Democrats agree that the government's Medicare scheme for compensating doctors is deeply flawed. Yet Mr. Obama's plan for a centrally managed government insurance program exacerbates Medicare's problems by redistributing even more income away from lower-paid primary care providers and misaligning doctors' financial incentives.

Like Medicare, the "public option" will control spending by using its purchasing clout and political leverage to dictate low prices to doctors. (Medicare pays doctors 20% to 30% less than private plans, on average.) While the public option is meant for the uninsured, employers will realize it's easier -- and cheaper -- to move employees into the government plan than continue workplace coverage.

The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and consulting firm, estimates that enrollment in the public option will reach 131 million people if it's open to everyone and pays Medicare rates, as many expect. Fully two-thirds of the privately insured will move out of or lose coverage. As patients shift to a lower-paying government plan, doctors' incomes will decline by as much as 15% to 20% depending on their specialty....

Really? Is that the experiance of Canada? I think that this peice of propaganda is a tissue of fabrications.

 

[sealybobo]

Simple facts. The health care systems of the other industrialized nations cost from one half to two thirds, per capita, of what the health care system of the US does. Their citizens live longer, have healthier old age, and they all have a far lower infant mortality than does the US. They have no families going bankrupt because of medical bill, we have 700,000 annually. All of their citizens have access to preventive health care, rather than those without health care insurance having to wait until a situation qualifies for emergency room assistance.

It is time that we create a real health care system in this nation. One whose purpose is the maintanance of the health of our citizens, rather than the creation of wealth for HMO CEOs. If the majority of our citizens get behind that idea, then the rest of you can move off to Outer Slobovia. Time for the US to leave the 19th century, and join the 21st.

Isn't it obvious? But this is a tough issue because people are afraid they'll be giving up something or that their healthcare will get worse.

They don't want government in between them and their doctor, so they don't realize they have a bean counter who's more worried about profit than they are fixing what ails you.

And the same guy who Swift Boated Kerry is leading the way on this cause. So you know they are just lying every step of the way.

This country has come a long way on many issues. On this issue, we have taken some major steps backward.

Why is it MANDATORY that every child go to school but not mandatory that we give every American healthcare?

 

[Care4all]

Well, I do not believe it will be any better with our own government running it when it comes to tests they allow or don't allow for whatever reasons...our government will have to be the ones making these decisions if they are the single payer and our insurance company is the one making it if they are the one paying...

Our health care HAS BEEN out of our own hands for quite some time...., when insurance companies came in to the picture, especially HMO's, and PPO's...they have been determining what kind of health care you are allowed to get.

My sister had surgery a couple of years ago...after about a week out of the hospital, she became violently ill and returned to being hospitalized with a severe infection, regular antibiotics were not fighting it, so the doctor prescribed the strongest new antibiotic out there that he felt would save her from dying...

The INSURANCE COMPANY REFUSED to pay the $750 bucks for a week of this antibiotic...my sister put it on one of her credit cards in order to get this drug that could save her own life....she got the drug, it fought her infection and she was out of the hospital 2 days later...she had been in the hospital for 5 days before she finally got the medicine she needed....in order to LIVE....

(Amazing that the Insurance company would pay for every day they had her hospitalized, thousands of dollars a day to keep her there, but refused to pay the $750 bucks for the antibiotic that brought her home from the hospital 2 days later? Sheesh!!!)

She works 2 jobs, teacher at public school during the day and then teaches English at Night School 3 times a week for extra bucks so she was able to pay her credit card off...BUT OTHERS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CREDIT CARD, AND WOULD BE DEAD as a door nail without this NEW antibiotic.

I am battling an $1850 buck insurance claim myself, over a year now, that my own insurance company refuses to pay....and we paid them $600 amonth for the policy???

Life is not grand, either way you look at it....in my opinion... from personal experiences...

care

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sorry, just can't help myself.
3-4 treatments and your done? Then why the fuck are you still seeing him after 26 years? Are the treatments 8-9 years apart?

for other back ailments dipshit....im a mailman....you get plenty of back and knee problems and they do have tendency to return.....been hanging with Bobo lately....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ah yes, legitimately. And tell me, dear moron, who decides whether its legitimate or not? I'll tell you, since you seem to be too stupid to know: The Constitution decides, which is what I referenced. Your asinine views on whether its legitimate or not really doesn't matter. So you think its illegitimate? Nobody gives a fuck. What the Constitution says matters. What you decide in your little fantasy land is legitimate or not doesn't.

And the government isn't "ignoring people". 2/3rds of the American public want a government sponsored healthcare plan. What it is doing is ignoring radical fringe elements like you who just assume your views are always in the majority and that you get to decide for everyone else what is legitimate and whats not.

who decides if the disease you have is covered under your national plan Nik?....you yourself in a previous thread said you did not know,BUT they can,just like the private plans.....turn you down.....so how is that different than what is out there now?....i have a disease....oh sorry we dont cover it....doesnt do me any good does it.....♠

 

[HUGGY]

Sorry, just can't help myself.
3-4 treatments and your done? Then why the fuck are you still seeing him after 26 years? Are the treatments 8-9 years apart?

for other back ailments dipshit....im a mailman....you get plenty of back and knee problems and they do have tendency to return.....been hanging with Bobo lately....

You owe me. Who do you think made it possible for you to wear good walking shoes? Comfortable short sleeves and shorts. Me that's who. Guess how I did it?...The union dipshit. How do you think your back would be doing if you had to wear the patton leather dress shoes I had to wear as a letter carrier in 68. Quit whinin about your damn back..it could be worse.

 

[Nik]

another voice of experience:

UnionLeader.com - New Hampshire news, business and sports - Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands - Tuesday, May. 12, 2009

Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands

Tuesday, May. 12, 2009

One of the more unproductive elements of President Obama's stimulus bill is the $1.1 billion allotted for "comparative effectiveness research" to assess all new health treatments to determine whether they are cost-effective. It sounds great, but in Britain we have had a similar system since 1999, and it has cost lives and kept the country in a kind of medical time warp.

As a practicing oncologist, I am forced to give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost of this penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients -- and higher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly: Sick people are expensive....

As the government takes increasing control of the health sector with schemes such as Medicare and SCHIP (State Children's Health-care Insurance Program), it is under pressure to control expenditures. Some American health-policy experts have looked favorably at Britain, which uses its National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise the cost-benefit of new treatments before they can be used in the public system.

If NICE concludes that a new drug gives insufficient bang for the buck, it will not be available through our public National Health Service, which provides care for the majority of Britons.

There is a good reason NICE has attracted interest from U.S. policymakers: It has proved highly effective at keeping expensive new medicines out of the state formulary. Recent research by Sweden's Karolinska Institute shows that Britain uses far fewer innovative cancer drugs than its European neighbors. Compared to France, Britain only uses a tenth of the drugs marketed in the last two years.

Partly as a result of these restrictions on new medicines, British patients die earlier. In Sweden, 60.3 percent of men and 61.7 percent of women survive a cancer diagnosis. In Britain the figure ranges between 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women. We are stuck with Soviet-quality care, in spite of the government massively increasing health spending since 2000 to bring the United Kingdom into line with other European countries....

Comparative effectiveness research is merely to figure out which medicines are...more effective. Horrible, I know, that we only want to use more effective medicines.

 

[Nik]

Ah yes, legitimately. And tell me, dear moron, who decides whether its legitimate or not? I'll tell you, since you seem to be too stupid to know: The Constitution decides, which is what I referenced. Your asinine views on whether its legitimate or not really doesn't matter. So you think its illegitimate? Nobody gives a fuck. What the Constitution says matters. What you decide in your little fantasy land is legitimate or not doesn't.

And the government isn't "ignoring people". 2/3rds of the American public want a government sponsored healthcare plan. What it is doing is ignoring radical fringe elements like you who just assume your views are always in the majority and that you get to decide for everyone else what is legitimate and whats not.

who decides if the disease you have is covered under your national plan Nik?....you yourself in a previous thread said you did not know,BUT they can,just like the private plans.....turn you down.....so how is that different than what is out there now?....i have a disease....oh sorry we dont cover it....doesnt do me any good does it.....♠

It is different in that the millions of people who are not now covered, would be covered. Besides the fact that that 2 organizations that do exactly the same thing, the one that is profit-neutral might just cover more things than the organization that makes billions in profits.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It is different in that the millions of people who are not now covered, would be covered. Besides the fact that that 2 organizations that do exactly the same thing, the one that is profit-neutral might just cover more things than the organization that makes billions in profits.

As I said before...if we got rid of the ILLEGALS in this country we could get back to reasonably priced health care.

I know you claimed before that a lot of the "non-citizens" have green cards and therefore have some "right" to healthcare.....but our lottery system only allows for about 55,000 green cards per year....otherwise they must be sponsored by an employer or get married or whatever.....

There are at least 2 to 3 MILLION illegals coming across our borders every year yet only about 1 million or less have been receiving green cards in total......the excess MILLIONS of ILLEGALS that have been coming in for YEARS are breaking down our formerly adequate health system....converting to a government program is not going to fix the main problem....

How many people are given green cards each year in the United States?

 

[Nik]

It is different in that the millions of people who are not now covered, would be covered. Besides the fact that that 2 organizations that do exactly the same thing, the one that is profit-neutral might just cover more things than the organization that makes billions in profits.

As I said before...if we got rid of the ILLEGALS in this country we could get back to reasonably priced health care.

I know you claimed before that a lot of the "non-citizens" have green cards and therefore have some "right" to healthcare.....but our lottery system only allows for about 55,000 green cards per year....otherwise they must be sponsored by an employer or get married or whatever.....

There are at least 2 to 3 MILLION illegals coming across our borders every year yet only about 1 million or less have been receiving green cards in total......the excess MILLIONS of ILLEGALS that have been coming in for YEARS are breaking down our formerly adequate health system....converting to a government program is not going to fix the main problem....

How many people are given green cards each year in the United States?

Great. Throw out the illegals, and we save money on healthcare. And then food skyrockets, construction costs skyrocket, and god knows how many things. Consumer spending dips dramatically, because suddenly there are 5 million less people spending. Awesoime, awesome idea.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I bet you believe that the average UAW worker makes $75 an hour don't you? That's what Fox and Rush told you so it must be true. The number has been debunked. The fact is that UAW employees in Michigan make almost exactly the same wages and benefits ($47-50/hr) as employees for Honda and Toyota make in the south. The difference is those foreign companies don't have legacy costs... yet.

Learn to tell truth from fiction. It will help you get along in this world.

that figure takes in benifits too.....the post office does that to us every time contract talks come around....the actual hourly wage is much less.....and if they actually make 50 bucks an hour...they should never complain about their pay ever again...

 

[Harry Dresden]

And? Whether someone is a citizen or not in this country, if they are here legally, they have rights.

You thought wrong, and nobody ever claimed that. Some treatments are just too expensive. But there is no reason for people who have treatable, fairly cheap diseases being not treated because they don't have the money. And then we all get to pay lots and lots when they go into the ER because the longer you wait before treating a disease, the worse it gets.

they w. the green cards might be here legally and have rights, but they dont have a right for free medical care.......and as such, they will be counted in with the non-citizens without Ins.

and what constitutes a "FAIRLY CHEAP DISEASE",and who makes that determination?

There are lots of "diseases" that can be controlled by lifestyle changes and medication. Emphysema is controlled by quiting smoking, and if it has progressed, an oxygen regimen.

not what i asked Maggie.....the people who are picked to make the determination may think type 1 diabetes is a "cheap disease" and wont cover the things it can lead too...

 

[Harry Dresden]

This same kind of dilemma faces legitimate existing government health care, Medicare in particular. It will always be one of those gray areas that will probably be determined case by case. To project that there will be specific treatments unavailable for certain age groups is a stretch, and it's an example of the hysteria over this subject by the right.

do you live in a cave or something?....are you now telling us that NOBODY on the left gets their feathers in a ruffle over this?.....only hysteria on the RIGHT?.....you got a lot to learn Maggie.....

 

[Chris]

This same kind of dilemma faces legitimate existing government health care, Medicare in particular. It will always be one of those gray areas that will probably be determined case by case. To project that there will be specific treatments unavailable for certain age groups is a stretch, and it's an example of the hysteria over this subject by the right.

do you live in a cave or something?....are you now telling us that NOBODY on the left gets their feathers in a ruffle over this?.....only hysteria on the RIGHT?.....you got a lot to learn Maggie.....

The right is all about FEAR.

Mostly fear of brown men with beards.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Probably, if it's legitimate. But seeing a doctor for a strained back 10 years ago isn't enough reason to deny back surgery required from a bad fall a week ago, which is the most recent example I've seen.

ok....what if they decide since you have diabetes you will not be covered for it...Cancer,Rheumatoid Arthritis....to the basterds deciding.....all these can be legitimate.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sorry, just can't help myself.
3-4 treatments and your done? Then why the fuck are you still seeing him after 26 years? Are the treatments 8-9 years apart?

for other back ailments dipshit....im a mailman....you get plenty of back and knee problems and they do have tendency to return.....been hanging with Bobo lately....

You owe me. Who do you think made it possible for you to wear good walking shoes? Comfortable short sleeves and shorts. Me that's who. Guess how I did it?...The union dipshit. How do you think your back would be doing if you had to wear the patton leather dress shoes I had to wear as a letter carrier in 68. Quit whinin about your damn back..it could be worse.

what the fuck are you rambling about?.....when did i EVER say anything about my Union or anyone elses?......and i wasnt whining about my back ....if you got all of that out of what i said in that sentence then i have only one thing to say......READ what we are debating instead of just jumping in....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ah yes, legitimately. And tell me, dear moron, who decides whether its legitimate or not? I'll tell you, since you seem to be too stupid to know: The Constitution decides, which is what I referenced. Your asinine views on whether its legitimate or not really doesn't matter. So you think its illegitimate? Nobody gives a fuck. What the Constitution says matters. What you decide in your little fantasy land is legitimate or not doesn't.

And the government isn't "ignoring people". 2/3rds of the American public want a government sponsored healthcare plan. What it is doing is ignoring radical fringe elements like you who just assume your views are always in the majority and that you get to decide for everyone else what is legitimate and whats not.

who decides if the disease you have is covered under your national plan Nik?....you yourself in a previous thread said you did not know,BUT they can,just like the private plans.....turn you down.....so how is that different than what is out there now?....i have a disease....oh sorry we dont cover it....doesnt do me any good does it.....♠

It is different in that the millions of people who are not now covered, would be covered. Besides the fact that that 2 organizations that do exactly the same thing, the one that is profit-neutral might just cover more things than the organization that makes billions in profits.

you are not answering the question Nic....you are doing exactly what the pro universal health people do.....you dance around the questions,and try to throw some "other" good stuff at me,hoping i will go away satisfied,question not answered,but satisfied....well it aint gonna work.....bottom line WILL they or will they not cover ALL diseases, existing ones you may have and all those you may get....YES or NO.....♠