Thread: So when Obama tauts Government Health Care tonight....

Keep this in mind

"
By NADEEM ESMAIL

President Obama and Congressional Democrats are inching the U.S. toward government-run health insurance. Last week's expansion of Schip -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- is a first step. Before proceeding further, here's a suggestion: Look at Canada's experience.
Martin Kozlowski


Health-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.
Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.
Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.



On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well."

Nadeem Esmail Says Nationalized Health Care Will Cost Us Pain and Suffering - WSJ.com

It seems the two sides to the argument (for UHC and against UHC) are widely cherry picking statistics to support their arguments. This OP article included.

Yes, waitlists exist in Canadian health care, however, they differ greatly depending on how serious the condition is. As well, Canada is fine tuning this, getting agreements from all provinces to further improve the length of wait time for some conditions by 2010.

For example, in Saskatchewan, Dental surgery can take a longer wait time than other things, of course, this also depends on the seriousness of the condition in which dental surgery is needed.

In Saskatchewan, the wait times for dental surgery:

26% within 3 weeks
13% 4-6 weeks
21% 7 weeks-3 months
29% 4-12 months
4% 13-18 months
7% 19+ months

Now, if we look at cardiovascular surgery, the numbers are quite different:

81% within 3 weeks
7% 4-6 weeks
8% 7 weeks-3 months
4% 4-12 months
0% 13-18 months
0% 19+ months

http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=canadaonline&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sasksurger y.ca%2Fwli-wait-list-info.htm

So let's look at the wait times in central Toronto, where the population is much more.

For bypass surgery, for example, the average wait time is 49 days. This would be the most populated area in the country.

The time in central Toronto to get an MRI, however, is much longer- 100 days.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_public_mn.html#

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

It seems the two sides to the argument (for UHC and against UHC) are widely cherry picking statistics to support their arguments.

Nope, they are typical of what any honest accessment, as has been shown in many threads here, would discover.

Yes, waitlists exist in Canadian health care

,

And even using the US health care system as a crutch doesn't solve all the problems it faces.

however, they differ greatly depending on how serious the condition is.

So what, it seems the most serious have the longest waits else they have to come here.

As well, Canada is fine tuning this

They are about to scrap it, they can't pay for it nor maintain it nor expand it to provide the services required.

So as I said, when he talks about government health care tonight, keep in mind the the premier government health care system, the one everyone likes to point to is on the verge of collapse.

The argument against nationalized health care is simple.

It's not authorized by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Nope, they are typical of what any honest accessment, as has been shown in many threads here, would discover.


,

And even using the US health care system as a crutch doesn't solve all the problems it faces.


So what, it seems the most serious have the longest waits else they have to come here.

Why did you ignore the statistics I posted in your assertion? Care to address them?

They are about to scrap it, they can't pay for it nor maintain it nor expand it to provide the services required.

So as I said, when he talks about government health care tonight, keep in mind the the premier government health care system, the one everyone likes to point to is on the verge of collapse.

They aren't about to scrap it. They are making new goals for improvements by 2010. First off, where do you get this information? Or are you pulling this out of thin air? Either way, I would like a source that supports your claim.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

The argument against nationalized health care is simple.

It's not authorized by the Constitution.

That would be a better argument than "no, you're wrong! They're scrapping Canada's!"

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

The argument against nationalized health care is simple.

It's not authorized by the Constitution.

Sounds like promoting the general welfare to me. So I guess a judge will have to decide, huh?

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

Why did you ignore the statistics I posted in your assertion? Care to address them?

What about them. OK different waits for different needs. So what?

They aren't about to scrap it. They are making new goals for improvements by 2010. First off, where do you get this information? Or are you pulling this out of thin air? Either way, I would like a source that supports your claim.

"The solution to the dilemma lies in opening up the Canadian system to competition."
Sally Pipes
Health Care News > May 2004
Health Care
Health Care > Canada/Britain
In no-nonsense language cutting across their diverse political stripes, Canadian provincial premiers lashed out at the federal government for reducing its share of provincial health care budgets at a time when costs are rising 10 percent a year.
The premiers met in February 2004 in a special session to discuss the state of health care in Canada. On March 8, the premiers of all 13 provinces and territories launched a national advertising campaign to air their concerns.
Prince Edward Island Premier Pat Binns warned, "our current system is not sustainable, the principles of the Canada Health Act are at risk, and health care as we know it will not survive the end of the decade."


"Canada's leaders have predicted that their health care system will collapse unless a way is found to regularly fund it from central government, say Canada's premiers.

They said that Ottawa should transfer C$2 billion more each year to the provinces. If not the system will be in a shambles by the end of the decade.

The country's leaders also accepted that they had to reform their health care practices. They said it was necessary to make the national system more sustainable. They pledged to look at ways of doing this.

Canada has always been famous for having a universal health care system. The trouble is it is bursting at the seams."
Canadian health care system will collapse, say leaders


In the meantime

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
July 24, 2007 at 1:53 AM EDT
Women with high-risk pregnancies in three provinces have been sent at taxpayers' expense to give birth in the United States, where fragile infants spend weeks to months in hospital neonatal intensive-care units.
Expectant mothers from British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have been sent to four U.S. states, a development some attribute to an increase in the number of premature births, a nursing shortage and a stretched health-care system.
This year, 26 mothers from B.C. have been sent to three hospitals in Washington State; nine patients remain there today, according to Sarah Plank, spokeswoman for the B.C. Health Ministry.
In Ontario, 10 women with high-risk pregnancies were transferred to U.S. hospitals from April to the end of June, according to Kris Bailey, executive director of CritiCall, an emergency-referral service for physicians in that province. That is one patient more than the entire number Ontario transferred to the United States in fiscal 2006-07. In Alberta, four pregnant women were transferred to Montana this year.
Mothers sent across the border are typically those who have gone into labour before 32 weeks gestation, at which point the premature babies require the highest level of neonatal intensive care. With no beds available in their home province or nearby, expectant mothers are often sent by air ambulance to hospitals in Washington, Montana, Michigan and New York.
One mother, Michelle James of Port Coquitlam, B.C., had the nightmare experience of going into labour in late April four months early – 24 weeks into her pregnancy. With no neonatal intensive-care unit beds available in B.C. or Seattle, she was sent to Spokane, Wash.



Canadians sent to U.S. for neonatal care (Alert Michael Moore)

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Sounds like promoting the general welfare to me. So I guess a judge will have to decide, huh?

don't know the difference between promoting and providing?

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

That would be a better argument than "no, you're wrong! They're scrapping Canada's!"

Yeah. Its the correct argument, because it's true.