Before You Get Your Granny Panties In A Wad… Look Behind You

March 21, 2010
Author Black Tea

One thing Americans don’t seem to be aware of is just how insular our general population has allowed themselves to become despite our government’s apparent ‘finger in every pie’ world policies. As a people we know little of what has passed nor what coincides, despite the many battles our forefathers fought to make this the land of milk and honey… the land of freedom.. and the land of opportunity…

Go to the nearest mall today. Ask ten random people, ‘Who was the President of the U.S. at the beginning of World War II?’ See how many can answer correctly.

Ask ten more to even vaguely describe how the healthcare system works in Canada. Or for that matter, ask them how it works here in our own US of A.

Ask even ONE person what kind of government system is in place in France. Or India.

And finally… ask twenty people why they think national health care would be a good or bad thing.

If it does not pertain to most people’s general sphere of personal life space, it doesn’t seem to be all that important. It doesn’t pay their bills. It doesn’t change what’s on that night’s scheduled television shows.

But you better believe that EVERYONE has an opinion on national health care. (Thanks Fox News!)

Now. I will attempt to cease my meandering and move on to the point(s) of this article. Using Canada (our nearest neighbor) as an example, let’s make a reasonable effort to bring some hard facts and reality to this situation.

First off make a note that ALL Canadians, rich and poor, regardless of the state of their health, age, or employment status, are covered by the same comprehensive system. Canadians go to the doctor of their choice and receive hospital care for free. There are essentially no financial barriers to health care in Canada, and there is an ample supply of physicians. Private insurance that duplicates the comprehensive services covered by the provincial plans are prohibited. Co-payments, deductibles, and direct patient payments to providers for covered services are also not permitted.

Now on to current ‘myths‘.

National health care is communist. Communism is ‘evil’.

Oh those evil, evil Canadians.

This is not the first time this scare tactic has been used when the idea of national health care has been presented as an alternative within a population or community.

The current system in Canada originated in Saskatchewan in 1959. This was at a time when a huge percentage of our planet was just starting to move past the Second Red Scare. Communism and Socialism were words of hard, real threat and power. As the early stages of planning for the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act began, many among the population and medical community were crying “communism” in an attempt to prevent the coming change.

Big change is always a scary thing to face. I mean, think about what a daunting decision it would be just to change deodorant if they quit making the one that for 20 years has unfailingly kept you dry and mostly stink free? What if the one you choose instead leaves you with those nasty moisture stains in the crook of your arm in the middle of an important business presentation? Now THAT is frightening! You better believe I would be sending some rather ‘opinionated’ letters the manufacturer who took my personal hygiene security blanket off the shelf.

According to The Medicus Firm Physician Survey, 46% of the doctors in the US have threatened to leave the medical community if nationalized health care passes, leaving the population without adequate providers.

Doctors in Saskatchewan threatened to leave the province before they would work in a ’socialized’ system. They were so intimidated by this impending threat against their career and freedom that when the legislation was passed on July 1, 1961, every doctor in the province (other than minimal staff at emergency medical facilities) went on strike for 23 days.

(Strange but true fact: The mortality rate in the province actually declined during the strike, primarily because of the decline in surgery.)

The local media supported the doctors and demanded that the government back down on its program. In spite of the local media’s support, however, as the strike wore on public opinion in Saskatchewan turned against the doctors.

The government eventually gave each of the physicians the choice to opt out of the new system and bill patients privately. Of the doctors practicing in Saskatchewan at the end of July, 1961… none of them chose to opt out. Life moved on in the forward thinking little province.

Doctors are against the health care bill because they will make less money after years dedicated to medical school and an accumulation of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans.

Again. The same concerns were brought against the government of Saskatchewan in 1959.

In current day Canada, 95% of the doctors are private and bill on a fee-for-service basis.

In the five years preceding the introduction of the national health care system, physicians’ incomes averaged 33.94% above the average for other professionals. For the five years following, their incomes surged to 47.02% above other professionals.

Doctors still remain the highest paid professionals in Canada today.

Taxes are higher in Canada to compensate for the cost of health care.

Below is the standardized federal income tax rate directly quoted from the Canada Revenue Agency:

*  15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income
* 22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452)
* 26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264)
* 29% of taxable income over $126,264

I’m somehow missing the astronomical ‘highness’ of these numbers in comparison to current U.S. income tax rates. Is this just me? Should I schedule an appointment with my local eye doctor?

National health care will mean more big government and even more red tape.

Less than 3% of the expenditures in the Canadian system go to administrative costs.

Existing government-run health care programs in the U.S., which many people find inhibitingly complex, are hardly appealing models for a national system. One recent study revealed that 1 million medicare enrollees a year find the claim process so complicated or time consuming that they do not seek reimbursement, losing about $ 100 million in benefits to which they are entitled.

($ 100 million in un-reimbursed medical payouts. This isn’t chump change, people. Especially not for the medicare recipients of this country.)

There is more choice in the Canadian public run system, where patients may go to the physician of their choice and the physician need not worry about the patient’s ability to pay for treatment.

Can you say that about your HMO or PPO?

If you have an HMO or PPO, that is.

The level of care in Canada is sub par, and you could die on a waiting list before receiving a life saving surgery.

Infant mortality deaths per 1,000 live births is 10.4 in the U.S., compared to 7.9 in Canada.

Deaths from heart disease per 100,000 is 434 in the U.S. compared to 348 in Canada.

Overall life expectancy in years is 75.3 in the U.S. and 77.1 in Canada.

We have waiting lists in the existing U.S. medical system. Do you know anyone waiting for a kidney, heart or lung transplant?

How many times have you or someone you know been turned down for what your physician deemed a necessary procedure because the insurance company either didn’t want to pay for it, or did not agree with the diagnosis nor ‘necessity’ of the procedure.

According to a recent report by the General Accounting Office of Congress on Canada’s health insurance, “patients with immediate or life-threatening needs rarely wait for services, but waiting lists for elective procedures may be several months long.”

Every country, including even the U.S., rations health care to some degree.

The real issue is on what basis should this be done: ability to pay, or severity of need?

-
The Politics Of Canada’s Healthcare System

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “ Before You Get Your Granny Panties In A Wad… Look Behind You ”

  1. bc42
    bc42 on March 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM

    Hear, hear! Well put. These are the things that we (Liberals) have known all along. It is time for the conservatards to stop worrying about themselves and start worrying about this country and its people. There is a prevailing attitude that we (Cons)will protect your rights right up until you are born, then it’s screw you, you’re on your own. Well screw you conservatards, it’s a modern world and we must evolve if we are going to survive.

  2. Rob
    Rob on March 21, 2010 at 12:36 PM

    Another interesting statistic would be the proportion of bankruptcies in each country where at least 33% of the debts put under bankruptcy protection were medically-related.

  3. Dr.Strangegun
    Dr.Strangegun on March 22, 2010 at 12:34 AM

    Legislating the provision of health service coverage to the citizenry using tax dollars either is or is not provided for in the enumeration of powers to congress and the executive… and you’ve got to make a hell of a stretch to make the Constitution say “is”.

    This is supposed to be each state’s work, not the federal government.

    By the way, the bill in total has a component that would see it defeated in a battle in the supreme court. There is a provision that requires states create and provide for insurance exchanges. The federal government is restricted under the tenth amendment from directly forcing a state to enact federal legislation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  4. bc42
    bc42 on March 22, 2010 at 9:35 AM

    Dr. Stragegun,
    By that skewed line of thinking then you would have us white people still owning slaves. Amendments 14 and 15 impress rules on the states previously granted as states rights. When the states refuse to act morally the federal govt must and does act. This is what we saw at the end of the Civil War, then again in the 30’s, and again in the 50’s and 60’s. This is what we have seen here.

    I wonder how people can stand beside a system that will deny women coverage for cervical cancer, claiming that because she has a cervix it is therefore a pre-existing condition, or the child who gets leukemia at age four and is told he/she has a pre-existing condition.

    The countries that have implemented govt health care have seen a surge in their economies, their infant death rates have decreased, the average life span has increased, how can you still say “every man for himself”? Keep your immorality, the moral, completely constitutional, decision has been VOTED on and approved.

  5. Al
    Al on May 19, 2010 at 6:57 PM

    “When the states refuse to act morally the federal govt must and does act.”
    Why then, if the federal government is so morally superior to the states’ governments, don’t we just get rid of the states and have a unitized national (not federal) government?
    One driver license no matter where I live
    One vehicle title & registration (plate) no matter where I live
    Same gun laws everywhere (except for limited municipal regulation)
    About all that “states’ rights” means today is that the states have the right to abuse their citizens & any hapless passersby.
    One more question: Who acts when the federal government fails or refuses to act morally?
    Everyone should be provided a safe car. No more giving up safety in favor of other desired features of some cars.

  6. bc42
    bc42 on May 21, 2010 at 7:57 AM

    Unify the states. Fine. One DL. Fine. One gun law, and one only. If you have one you will go to jail.

    As for your final question, the states prove themselves over and over again to be incapable of making the correct moral decisions (i.e. prop 8, school desegregation, and this bs idea that they can simply opt out of nationalized health care)The federal govt on the other hand has been the one to continuously make the moral decisions (With the exception of King George) and have been continuously made to force the states to comply.

    One of the main jobs of the govt is to ensure the safety and welfare of its people. If people can’t be trusted to to that themselves then the govt must act.

  7. Al
    Al on May 22, 2010 at 7:17 AM

    The federal government was established due to the states’ realization that they made better decisions collectively than individually. Each state made its own monetary decisions on an individual basis for the first eleven years (1776-1787). Some states held to a hard money standard while others issued bills of credit (paper money), some conservatively, some with wild abandon. At the constitutional convention in 1787, they collectively determined that all would be better off with a single monetary standard and no bills of credit. Even though the federal government has abandoned the no-paper-money position, can you imagine what interstate commerce would be like with each state issuing its own?
    People generally come to better conclusions or decisions collectively than individually. The speed limit laws are an example. Though it appears that most drivers violate the speed limits, even chronically, few drivers are in favor of abolishing all speed limits. Then, thieves do not want theft laws abolished. They are in favor of punishing other thieves who steal from them.
    Many nations have a unified central government. Those of any size generally have provinces, counties and municipalities that deal with purely local concerns, but the national governments of those have ultimate power.
    That individuals cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of all is why we have government, not “advise-ment.” Many would, left to themselves, behave well if properly informed, but on the grand scale no one knows for sure who those individuals are. Almost everyone violates some law sometime.

Leave a Reply