I have decided to present the issue this way for a number of reasons:
1) I do not like repeating myself
2) I do not like arguing
3) It is easier to read than to listen
Over the last fifteen years, I have spoken to a dozen doctors, a half dozen nurses, and three people who work in medical offices / hospital billing. recently, we can add a couple more to that list, but as yet I have not ascertained exactly what role they have played in medical issues.
I admit, it is not a huge sample, but I am not trying to do a scientific poll, nor am I interested in publishing facts that would need further development - I am making a statement based upon more evidence than most people who offer their theories on socialized medicine in Washington.
I have spoken to two doctors, three nurses, and ten or twelve people in England who have explained their medical program, policies, and experiences.
I have spoken to one doctor, one nurse, one medical assistant, and seven people from Canada, about their medical system.
I have spent some time reading about the medical system in Canada - Thomas C. "Tommy" Douglas and Claude Castonguay, are two important characters, and reviewing what they wanted, created, and believed would become - may be useful. How they envisioned it, and what became of their vision. Claude Castonguay has disowned the system he helped to create:
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.
Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis." "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
I understand neither of these two men seem important, but they are.
To create a system, one needs a model. One does not simply develop anything - even firetrucks, without a model. The model that those people in the US who do not like what exists, look to - Canada and Britain.
It is only fair to look at those systems - which is why I have spent time over the last few years talking to people, visiting hospitals when I am in those countries, and generally considering the options in so far as what they have to offer.
In the end, the answer is clear.
One idea is - click on MEDICAL and review the postings - I may or may not have attached CANADA or UK / BRITAIN / ENGLAND to the postings regarding medical, but I should have. Review the articles, and return to this post.
It would really be more helpful if you stopped reading and went and reviewed the MEDICAL for Canada and UK/ENGLAND/BRITAIN (I have 3 different labels and may or may not use them all - yes, a bit confusing). Then return to this post! Go on. Get.
Assuming you did as I suggested, you still don't see the argument for the other side, but we should begin with points of clarification - I am not asking for agreement or argument, as the following is not debatable, rather it is what I state.
Secular society views the individual in a more utilitarian fashion than a less secular and more religious society. Socialism values the state and what the individual contributes to the state. Socialism does not value the human/individual for any intrinsic value (that is religious or emotional and does not fit within a secular/socialist ideological outlook). Again, I am not offering this for agreement, I am simply stating is as a general truth about secular/socialist society.
Therefore, while you provide value, you are of greater importance - you find socialist states nearly all support or encourage or pay for or have legalized euthanasia and or assisted suicide.
Canadian medicine is socialized. British medicine is socialized.
In Canada - a patient went to the hospital, was told they had a tumor, but the hospital was not able to perform (her doctor) that type of surgery due to costs, until January. She died several weeks before. I have seven more stories like that, and while you can find eight stories of terrible actions within US hospitals, any cases you find will show that the hospitals were negligent - in Canada, their hospital was operating according to procedure in each case.
The reasons for this death process in Canadian medicine is complicated and nearly entirely related to money. I strongly suggest you research Canadian medicine and review 3-6 articles to ensure you get a fair sampling.
Very simply. Canada has 10 provinces, 33 million people. BC is very large. Alberta is very large. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are small. Ontario is large. Quebec is large. That equals 5 regions. I believe they have 6 regions with the sixth covering the smaller provinces on the East coast. For our purposes not important. Each year, funding is provided based upon the number of patients in the region and the expenses incurred for the preceding year. Expenses are calculated just the same way we calculate them: $100 to see doctor, $1000 for an xray, $10,000 for an MRI, $100,000 for an aspirin, $10 for a band aid (I am making up the numbers). Every charge is calculated and becomes a near maximum amount for the following year. There are variances and factors that alter the figures, plus tax revenues play a huge role. Sometimes the federal government makes it known they want less hospital activity to lower costs, and doctors will avoid sending anyone they can to hospital to cut costs. Then the federal government sends a check to each region for the fiscal year. We can pretend for purposes of this issue, that the check arrives January 1. You would want to go to hospital January 2 for serious surgery. Why? Because December 20, you walk in needing a triple by-pass - you will get sent home until January, especially if the region ran out of money. THAT HAS HAPPENED more times than you could count on your fingers, in the last ten years. 10,000 new immigrants to a region and they all go to hospital or doctor - those figures get deducted from the total check they receive and when you arrive and your surgery will cost $250,000 (to someone, not you) - they have run out and you go home until they can fit you in.
Fitting you in is also difficult when 33 million people want to go to the doctor. Because medical care is free (which is a lie - they still pay deductibles or office visits each time - however small the amount) - sometimes appointments are eight-twelve weeks away. Of course, if you are really ill, you can get in ... but then, so can you elsewhere. If however, you are very ill and it is November 27, and your region ran out of funds - the doctor or hospital will stabilize you and you will be sent home.
Another fascinating feature of their system - it creates massive numbers of doctors to care for the massive numbers of people who are hypochondriacs - it creates few specialists. A Canadian woman was about to give birth to quadruplets. They flew her to Montana, where the US hospital could handle her - the only three hospitals in Canada that could handle quadruplets, already each had one, and were unable to help her. No, she didn't have serious issues.
The final aspect of their system worth paying attention to - costs. Imagine a 40 year old male who needs triple by-pass surgery. Cost is $250,000 (I made the number up, but it is at least that much or more). He has 25 years of working. Consider a 67 1/4 year old man who needs the same surgery. Which one is LESS likely to get the surgery, and why. It is not optional - ONE of them IS less likely to get the surgery. Caring for the 67 year old in a hospice, or providing medication and telling him to take medications to alleviate the issues, weekly checkups - but no surgery. More than 39% of people over 65 were denied surgeries with costs over $100,000. In the US, that number is 2.8%. Perhaps more data would be helpful - 43% of those who had the surgery had private medical insurance, and 15% came to the US.
Why? Taxpayers, people who are useful and will be useful should be cared for - given every advantage to survive in order that they provide resources to the state. Those people who no longer provide revenue streams - should be cared for as best possible.
The interesting part - it is almost exactly the same conditions in England, and the same reasons.
I lost people in both countries, to a medical system that is utilitarian in its determination of usefulness - who will benefit the country more, if we spent the large sums of money on them.
Of course the response is - those systems have problems, and we'll do something different. The problem is - nothing can exist unless you provide a model for the program. Those are the models - nothing else. So you say - it is a shame what they do, but we can do it better. Yes, but why spend trillions on a system for less than 30 million people. Canada's entire health care system is approximately $42 billion for 33 million people. Coincidentally, about 44 million people are without health care in this country. 1/3 of those make over $50,000 a year, and 75% are under 35 (feeling of immortality and why spend money when I don't need to).
About 2/3 are the OTHER group - or 29, 330,000 ... LESS THAN IN ALL OF CANADA and costing 100 times their cost for more people. And you trust government. The 1/3 do not want medical insurance and you are going to tell them they need it, and must have it. Social Engineering? Invasion of privacy. Intrusion into the lives of others. Stealing their money. But not if you do it because you care. Then again, isn't caring subjective.
Even if we say that for every 1 million people you add 1.3 billion - we could spend 58 billion on all uninsured people in the US. NOT $7 TRILLION.
But you want better care than that - well, no you don't. 3, 900,000,000,000 is the cost for EVERY American using the Canadian dollar figures of 1.3 billion for every 1 million. Isn't it interesting that not only are we using Canada as a model for a system, but the figures bantered about are very similar to those spent in Canada, for our population!! And their system is failing.
Estimates in the US range from $4 to 7 trillion. Interesting. We should be able to do it for no more than 3.9 trillion given their spending numbers. Yet our estimates are higher. Why? Why the heck should I tolerate one person to make more money than they would. Why should I tolerate theft to give me a system that kills its patients and condemns all of us to mediocrity.
In Canada, they are developing a parallel system - private pay, to ensure you get health care that doesn't kill you. They are moving away from what it is some in this country want.
Yet some here, want to move toward a failed system. Odd.
Still others believe we should have medical care for everyone and then for some of us, we can have even BETTER health care we can pay for. That is not fair, that is not equal. That would create an unconstitutional situation of separate systems - for rich and poor - separate but equal. Which means, you would lose your ability to have the better health care, and would be required to settle for the care that kills.
As I made clear -
NEARLY EVERY (95%) child under 18 years of age is covered by CHIP - a medical system passed under Bush and expanded under Obama.
EVERY American and non-American can get EMERGENCY medical care, regardless of whether they have insurance or not. If they have NO money, it will be free to them. If they have some money, they will be asked to pay a percentage.
There are three federal programs and state programs that provide free care or care based upon a sliding scale cost, to ALL Americans and even to non-Americans.
That is the state we are in today. The care you receive is no worse than the care I would receive with having private insurance. To argue otherwise will fail - are doctors trained differently that attend the poor than those who can afford a PPO? Legally they cannot and do not. Same hospitals train the doctors, same schools teach them. There is no difference except my doctor sees fewer patients, and you believe it would be best to send 300 million people to fewer doctors, and the result would be .... BETTER? Yet you argue that is why the doctors who attend the poor are not as good - they are busier. And your plan, the plan offered by the followers of the socialist model, would dump 300 million more patients onto doctors already over burdened. care would decrease, lines would increase, costs would skyrocket, and the elderly would die because they are no longer useful.
No - the answer is work with what we have, provide tax breaks for those people who pay for their own private insurance, provide tax breaks to employers who provide medical insurance, and provide those people who have neither - an option - to secure a low cost HMO medical and dental (without pre-existing issues) would cost less than $90 a month. $900 a year and then let the taxpayer write off that amount.
Everyone will have care, and we will not need to create a new medical system, regional centers, thousands of new government employees, government controlled medical plans ... and a failed socialist medical system that drags us down.
medical
Posts
