Thread: Who's Really 'Sicko' - More on the National Healthcare Debate

Who's Really 'Sicko'
In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years.

BY DAVID GRATZER
Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


TORONTO--"I haven't seen 'Sicko,' " says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate--winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.

Mr. Moore goes to London, Ontario, where he notes that not a single patient has waited in the hospital emergency room more than 45 minutes. "It's a fabulous system," a woman explains. In Britain, he tours a hospital where patients marvel at their free care. A patient's husband explains: "It's not America." Humorously, Mr. Moore finds a cashier dispensing money to patients (for transportation). In France, a doctor explains the success of the health-care system with the old Marxist axiom: "You pay according to your means, and you receive according to your needs."

It's compelling material--I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.



Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.


This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over.

France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics--some operating in a "gray zone" of the law--are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.



Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."


Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services--perhaps even to American companies.

Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.

Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.
Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing.

Dr. Gratzer, a practicing physician licensed in Canada and the U.S. and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author of "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care" (Encounter, 2006).

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

The TRUTH is, CHOICE now becomes a thing of the past when Governments start running things. The common thread of any Socialized system is more "Generalists," waiting lists, long lines and mediocre care.

Some of the same Socialists and Leftists who will argue for choice when it comes to the market place for Goods and Services, argue the opposite when it comes to retirement and Health Services. When has removing CHOICE ever been a GOOD thing?

Here's the pertinent issue:

"In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years. "

But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

as I see it though, the healthcare insurance market has failed.
Prices are through the roof. Medical Costs are the biggest reason for people to get bankrupcy in this country. We already provide medical insurance to the poor - medicaid - but not those who are too rich to be poor, and not rich enough to be rich. Medical costs are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the economic scene.

The 'invisible hand', guiding the market, has guided it too far in favor of those providing the health insurance.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

as I see it though, the healthcare insurance market has failed.
Prices are through the roof. Medical Costs are the biggest reason for people to get bankrupcy in this country. We already provide medical insurance to the poor - medicaid - but not those who are too rich to be poor, and not rich enough to be rich. Medical costs are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the economic scene.

The 'invisible hand', guiding the market, has guided it too far in favor of those providing the health insurance.

So your solution is to make the entire system mediocre and rotten for everyone?

Your solution also presumes that Government can manage ANYTHING effectively without increasing the COSTS. Do you think Government is effective?

Is this what you think is the answer?

For a "truth" detector you sure like to bloviate while tossing out strawmen....hip replacement for a dog takes less time to get into a vet then a human to a doctor? Eh? Hmmm how many dogs have hip replacements vs how many humans? Yup quite a few more. How long did my grandmother wait for her hip replacement surgeon to come free here in the good ol US of A? FOUR MONTHS. Why? Because of the backlog of geriatrics who need the surgery.

As to waiting 4 years I call shenanigans as I have family up their (what native american/ Irish/African American yooper doesn't!) and NO one has waited that long for healthcare in my family. My stepfather waited a year to get his knee replaced at Mayo Clinic due to the doctor having a long waiting list does that mean that that is the norm? Nope and somehow I doubt that stat about a four year wait being the norm in Canada either.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

So your solution is to make the entire system mediocre and rotten for everyone?

Your solution also presumes that Government can manage ANYTHING effectively without increasing the COSTS. Do you think Government is effective?

Is this what you think is the answer?

wow I took a hiatus from PH, and I don't think I really should have come back...my life was so peaceful for those 5 minutes....

No.
The choice is not between 'rotten and mediocre' or 'expensive, but effective'.
How about a system where there is both public and private healthcare available? For the people who cannot, or will not pay for the private healthcare, there is the public healthcare. For those who can pay for the private healthcare, there is the private healthcare.
While I do not think that government intervention reduces costs, the government is also in a unique position with its ability to act outside of the market. It has the ability to work society towards ideals. While I disparage the fact that it has come to this, with the rise of influential businesses, the biggest threat to our freedoms doesn't necessarily come from the government. At the very least, the way that the system is set up now, there is no 'choice' for many people. There is just no healthcare.

Having choices is all well and fine if you can afford them.

Originally Posted by liberalman

As to waiting 4 years I call shenanigans as I have family up their (what native american/ Irish/African American yooper doesn't!) and NO one has waited that long for healthcare in my family. My stepfather waited a year to get his knee replaced at Mayo Clinic due to the doctor having a long waiting list does that mean that that is the norm? Nope and somehow I doubt that stat about a four year wait being the norm in Canada either.

I don't know what "stat" you are speaking about that claims a four year wait is the "norm" in Canada. Obviously your "reading" skills are lacking.

So you are saying this lawsuit is a strawman?

Lawsuit launched against province to expand role of private health care

As for your family's personal experiences, you only make the case for what this commentary is all about.

I have lots of friends up there in Canada too. One of them called once to blow off steam about how he had to wait for a month to see a doctor for his acid reflux problem. I told him he was preaching to the choir here.

How long do you think I would have to wait here for that? A few hours?

Originally Posted by liberalman

For a "truth" detector you sure like to bloviate while tossing out strawmen....hip replacement for a dog takes less time to get into a vet then a human to a doctor? Eh? Hmmm how many dogs have hip replacements vs how many humans? Yup quite a few more. How long did my grandmother wait for her hip replacement surgeon to come free here in the good ol US of A? FOUR MONTHS. Why? Because of the backlog of geriatrics who need the surgery.

I assure you that the "bloviating” is all yours and Michael Moores.

Now why don't you STOP “bloviating” and share with me where the FACTS in this commentary are somehow FALSE. Or better yet, make YOUR case why waiting for four years, a year or even a month for care is a GOOD thing.

I'll leave you with a personal story a friend told me about her father in England:

Her father was not feeling right and decided he'd better see a doctor. It was determined that he had a serious heart condition and would be requiring heart by-pass surgery. He was placed on a "waiting" list and told it could be three to six months. They decided that they would pay to opt around the system because of the seriousness of his condition.

In the weeks waiting for his surgery he died of a heart attack. You see, even opting around the system didn't save his life as there still were not enough surgeons.

How long do you think he would have waited in America for this type of surgery? Speaking from personal knowledge with my father, they never let him leave the hospital.

You can "bloviate" all you want about your "personal" experiences and your "OPINION" about what constitutes a "reasonable" wait for critical care, it doesn't change the FACTS that Government run programs only guarantee you TWO things; long waits and less choice.

The invisible hand does not exist in the healthcare industry in this country. Lawyers and judges handed out too many gazillion-dollar settlements over the last 30 years. As if a larger number in the award column would do more to fix the wrong (or maybe it just made a lot of lawyers really rich). That has helped to drive up insurance premiums for doctors, to the point that some of them simply packed up and left certain areas because they couldn't cover their premiums. Or they stopped offering those services that insurance companies figured could cost them the most.

That isn't an invisible hand.

Oh, and hospitals are not allowed to turn people away at the doors. You can't pay, that's okay. Come on in, and we'll have our team of underpaid overworked med students and young doctors bust their asses to give you all the healthcare you need, and figure out a way to pay for it later.

That is not the invisible hand.

If you want to mandate that hospitals cannot turn people away, then you may as well get over the terror of socialism, because it's a done deal. And now that you've effectively socialized medicine by making it illegal for hospitals to refuse care, you really shouldn't stop there. That's irresponsible. If everyone is, by law, entitled to that care, then everyone should pay for that care. As soon as you mandate the care, you have a responsibility to figure out how to pay for it. Take $5 a month out of my paycheck, and take it out of the people's paychecks or welfare checks who currently pay NOTHING for healthcare. In the end, I'll watch as the cost of my own supplemental privately purchased health insurance drops like a stone, because at least that way, people who pay NOTHING now would pay at least something to cover their own needs. As it stands now, me and other hard-working people like me have to foot the whole bill, and that's costing me TEN FUCKING THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

I have lots of friends up there in Canada too. One of them called once to blow off steam about how he had to wait for a month to see a doctor for his acid reflux problem. I told him he was preaching to the choir here.

How long do you think I would have to wait here for that? A few hours?

Ooohhh, so funny funny funny. It's moments like those that are why I can't help but open up a TD post and read it once in a while. Golly, you just can't buy this stuff.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

No.
The choice is not between 'rotten and mediocre' or 'expensive, but effective'.
How about a system where there is both public and private healthcare available? For the people who cannot, or will not pay for the private healthcare, there is the public healthcare. For those who can pay for the private healthcare, there is the private healthcare.

While this is noble thought, but who pays for those who cannot pay for Private care? Who funds the "Public" care facilities and decides who is "entitled" to use them?

You walk a slippery slope that needs a bit more thought before you make such generic statements.

I would also add that those who argue for Government run healthcare rarely if ever support the notion that there would be TWO systems. The reason for that is simple and the same reason they argue against people having a CHOICE for education, most would OPT out and funds would DRY up for the PUBLIC sponsored ones.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

At the very least, the way that the system is set up now, there is no 'choice' for many people. There is just no healthcare.

Having choices is all well and fine if you can afford them.

There IS choice for EVERYONE in this country. ANYONE who wants health insurance can get it. ANYONE who needs critical care can get it.

I see NO statistics to support your contention that there is no CHOICE.

Now what we do see are individual choices on how much they are willing to spend on insurance and what level of care they believe they need, but to suggest that one should not have to choose between that new big screen TV and healthcare is absurd.