• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

If America adopts Canada's health care system

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomahawk6 said:
While your point is valid I wasnt doing anything more than relate the anecdote. In long term gout sufferers the goal is to address the lowering of uric acid levels which evidently is done with medicines like Probenecid or Allopurinol. I think that Steyn's point is that in any national healthcare there is rationing of care to achieve cost savings[rarely accomplished]. From what I have read the UK's NHS is a growing disaster that is affecting their other government programs and that is a country with 50m people and one of every 7 people are employed by NHS. Providing national healthcare to a country the size of the US hasnt been successfully accomplished. India,China and Russia are not shining examples in this area.


But relaying the anecdote, in which he implies that simple "Tylenol" equivalent is was only used, and it was not until the American Doctor treated it, that it got better, is creating a myth surrounding proper procedure in helping the Gout.

I would be interested in hearing the complete story, as opposed to him picking and choosing the parts that suits his story.  I am sure the English doctor treating the woman for ten years, has more to offer than telling her to buy off the shelf Tylenol to relieve her gout.

dileas

tess
 
tomahawk6 said:
. . . From what I have read the UK's NHS is a growing disaster that is affecting their other government programs and that is a country with 50m people and one of every 7 people are employed by NHS. . . .

1 in 7 (or roughly 14.3%) employed by the NHS which makes up the majority of health sector workers (and includes what would be considered health insurance sector and public admin workers in the USA) - I think you misread something.  Granted public sector employees in the UK make up a significant portion of workers (approx 1 in 5) however the NHS is not the only public sector employer (think armed forces, police, prisons, fire, garbage, etc - and below garbage collector in the chain of respect, tax collector)

This is probably closer to the mark:

England
NHS employees 1.33m in a population of 51m - 2.6%

USA
Health Sector Workers (not including insurance, public admin and possibly pers without direct patient contact e.g. clerical and housekeeping)
12m 16.1m in a population of 307m - 3.9% 5.2%

(found some more recent stats)
 
"There's a taste in my mouth, as desperation takes hold..."

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-would-like-you-to-see-government.html

Obama would like you to see government as religion.
He addresses a group of religious leaders:

    “I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Mr. Obama told a multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders who support his goal to remake the nation’s health care system.

Bearing false witness? Breaking the 9th Commandment? So his opponents are sinners. I'm trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.
According to the lede paragraph in the linked NYT article:

    President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.

Strangely, the context of that quote — "a core ethical and moral obligation" — is missing from the body of the article. Was something cut? Was it too embarrassing? Too Bush-y? I have to go elsewhere:

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: OK, for some, that public option has gone over like a lead balloon. So how about plan B, morality? Is that the secret weapon strategy to get health care reform? President Obama went on a conference call today with thousands of religious people, arguing health care reform is a moral issue. The president also argued against what he calls "ludicrous lies" made up about his health plan.

    BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

Now, we know that Barack Obama doesn't "keep" his actual brother — we remember George Hussein Onyango Obama, the brother who lives a hut — and it's clear that what he means is that government has the moral obligation to regard all citizens as brothers and sisters — I'm coining the word sibizens — and to care for them.

I'd really like to find the full text of what was — if I'm to believe Van Susteren — a big telephone call. It's not on the White House website. There's a bit more here (at ABC):

    Mr. Obama called on the religious leaders to help him share the good word about health care reform and set the record straight.

    “I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors. I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth,” he said.

Sharing the "good word"? Good Lord! Is this the Gospel? Mark 16:

    Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

    He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Obama says believe. Believe or be condemned as sinners. And go forth into the world. Preach the good news. Speak the truth.

    "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Talk about the blue pill! Just wait until the government lays its hands on you. In Barack's name, you will get well.

Government as religion — it's a poisonous notion! But drink it, drink it. Believe! It will not hurt you at all!

ADDED:

    "We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to [Rabbi Jack] Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."

BTW, God neither needs or wants a partner.....
 
Instapundit with a great analogy:

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/ 

DELL 1, APPLE 0. Okay, so I bought a new MacBook Pro a while back. The old one, meanwhile, has died of a hard-drive problem. No sweat, I’ve got the 3-year AppleCare, and it says I can just drop it at the Apple Store. So when I went by at lunch today, they tell me I have to make an appointment at the “Genius Bar” before I can drop it off. No appointments til Monday; first appointment I can actually arrive at, Tuesday Night.

Dell, meanwhile, sent a guy to my house the day after I called, fixed things in 15 minutes. Advantage: Dell. Having the old Macbook out of service for a while is no big deal to me — I have, ahem, other computers. Most people don’t have multiple backups like I do, though, and given how expensive the 3-year AppleCare contract is, the service ought to be better. Apparently, I”m not the only one to feel that way . . . .

UPDATE: Reader Ernest Gudath draws a larger lesson:

    The situation you describe doesn’t just apply to Apple computers. In any care and maintenance system, if the demand exceeds the capacity, you are going to get either rationing or queuing.

    That’s why it’s good to have a backup. When Apple is covered up, Dell is there. When the Toronto clinic has a six month waiting list, an ailing Canadian can drive across the border.

    When you don’t have a backup is when you’re screwed, like if there’s only one brand of computer, or only one way to see a doctor.

Indeed.
 
Ronald Reagan's view on socialized medicine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
 
The analogy isn't bad - but it seems to want to continue to propogate a great myth that Canadians en masse seek health care in the United States.  The only number I've seen is that 38,500 or so Canadians did so in a particular year (I think it was 2007).  That sounds like a big number.  Until you realize that in a country of 33,000,000 that's only a little more than 0.1%

Thucydides said:
Instapundit with a great analogy:

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/
 
We don't talk a lot about other models besides Europe, Canada and the United States. Maybe it is time to look farther afield:

http://reason.com/blog/printer/135906.html

A Different Sort of Health Care System

Jesse Walker | September 4, 2009, 4:46pm
Writing in Salon, Aruna Viswanatha describes India's health care system as "an anarchic hodgepodge, with little insurance, little regulation and a range of services offered by hundreds of government-run, trust-run and corporate hospitals." It is by no means a purely free-market approach, but it's much more market-oriented than the American model. Among the results:

    Almost 25,000 doctors graduate from India's medical schools every year. Because there is so much competition, doctors and hospitals are forced to keep their prices low to get patients. Residents, who go to medical school straight from high school, only make the equivalent of a few hundred dollars a month. An average surgeon's salary would be around $8,000 per month. The take-home pay to fix a hip fracture, for example, might run between $100 to $300, out of the $1,000 fee to the patient, says orthopedic surgeon M.S. Phaneesha. At his hospital in Bangalore, he says, there are 20 orthopedic surgeons alone on staff. For 1,600 beds, the hospitals employs around 700 doctors full-time; 300 of them are surgeons. In the U.S., by comparison, a first-year resident might take home around $2,500 each month, and the average surgeon more than $20,000 per month. A hip fracture would cost a patient around $30,000, of which the surgeon's charge is $5,000. Even general practitioners in America earn on average more than $100,000 a year.

    Another factor in India's costs is the tiered system of beds that most hospitals employ. One night in a general ward at the private Artemis Health Institute in a New Delhi suburb, for example, costs around $20 per night. One night in a single room, or a deluxe, or a suite, though, will cost you between $100 to $200. Services are similarly tiered. A general ward patient at Artemis would only pay $2 for an X-ray, while single-room patients would pay more. There are so many hospitals, says Artemis' chief operating officer Jose Verghese, that rates at the lower end stay low.

In addition, health insurance is uncommon in India, so patients typically pay out of their own pockets for routine care. That too plays a role in keeping costs low.

As a result, medical services in India are faster, cheaper, and far more consumer-friendly than here. Some examples:

    It was about 9:30 in the morning. My friend, who works for an outsourcing firm, called a gastroenterologist -- not a general practitioner but a specialist -- and set up an appointment for 10 a.m. We drove to the hospital, a mile away. It looked brand-new; the floors were shiny and everything glistened. The staff was courteous and the whole place was quiet. The doctor called me in at 10:02. He diagnosed the problem as a bacterial one, gave me a list of what to eat and prescribed a course of antibiotics. The pharmacy counter where I could pick up the drugs was just outside his office. The cost to see the doctor? $6. The pharmacy bill was about $1. Total cost, $7, with no insurance company involvement whatsoever.

    Before I left New York, I had spent $20 just on a copay to visit a doctor and get a blood test done, another $20 copay to pick up the test results, and a third $20 installment for a tetanus shot. That was $60, plus whatever my insurance company paid, just so I could get a clean bill of health....

    Even emergency care in India seems to work along the same lines. The same friend who first called a doctor for me had been in a horrific car accident about eight months before I arrived. He was taking a right turn at 2 in the morning when a truck came from the opposite side, ran into his car and just kept going. His femur was broken like a twig, as were his collarbone and wrist. His lip was split and his nose was hanging off his face. Two months and a few surgeries later, he walked out of the hospital. He walks now without any aid and has had no major complications. The total bill, paid by his Indian insurance company, was less than $10,000. A similar accident in the U.S. would run up a $200,000 bill and bankrupt almost anyone who didn't have health insurance.

Given all that, you'd think the point of the article would be the ways we can learn from India. Instead, Viswanatha notes some similarities between the two nations' systems, then concludes that "it is remarkable that the healthcare system of the world's most powerful country has anything at all in common with the healthcare system of an emerging industrial nation, and so little in common with the systems of the other Western democracies." Apparently, in the mainstream health care debate, the only models you're allowed to cite are countries that are relatively rich and white. Aside from some socialists smitten with Cuba, hardly anyone wants to look to the Third World.

That's a mistake. The Indian system is far from perfect, and Viswanatha lists several problems with it. But from an American perspective, her two chief objections to the Indian approach shouldn't be dealkillers. Taking them one by one:

    But this type of care isn't available to all Indians, since the average income in the country is still around $65 per month, and more than 300 million Indians out of a population of 1.2 billion still live on less than $1 per day.

That's a genuine and severe problem, but it's a much bigger one there than here -- America has plenty of poor people, but poverty is far wider and deeper in the subcontinent. It's thus much easier to think about ways to bridge those gaps here in the U.S.

    Only a handful [of Indian doctors] are from reputable institutions....Quality of care varies throughout India, and is a big concern in smaller towns, where the more questionable institutes are based. But it is also a concern in the big cities.

I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. There is a middle ground between "brilliant surgeon" and "dangerous quack," a zone that includes categories like "perfectly capable of dealing with a fractured tibia but not someone you want poking around your heart." The important question is how powerful and accurate a system ordinary Indians have for gauging different doctors' reputations. Unfortunately, Viswanatha doesn't explore that topic.

At any rate, learning from a country doesn't mean copying it wholesale. It means adapting the things it's doing right to a different social context -- by, say, reducing our reliance on insurance and eliminating our artificial restrictions on the supply of medical providers. There's an unstated assumption that the institutions that have grown up around the American and European medical systems are a cause of our higher standard of living. But what if they're a product of that wealth: vast bureaucracies that no nation needs but only the richest can afford? India is already a destination for medical tourists seeking more affordable care. If we could combine our wealth with Bangalore-style competition, they wouldn't need to travel: Prices would come down and doctors would be much more responsive to consumer demand, this time in a country where far more people can afford to participate in the medical marketplace.
 
As India has a class system I wonder what kind of healthcare if any is available to the poor ? In the US at least if you are sick and you show up at a hospital you have to be treated.
 
And that's precisely why all these arguments about reform in the US making everyone have to pay for illegal immigrants' healthcare, or for other peoples' in general.  You already do.  When an illegal immigrant's health finally deteriorates so much from lack of proper care that they have no other option, they go to a hospital ER, get treated in the most expensive manner possible, and then who pays the bill?  Everyone - through the inflated costs of just about everything consumers are charged for in US hospitals.  That's why the argument is so hilarious to watch from the outside looking in.

tomahawk6 said:
As India has a class system I wonder what kind of healthcare if any is available to the poor ? In the US at least if you are sick and you show up at a hospital you have to be treated.
 
Do you actually know any illegal aliens? I do. Most of the folks I know (well) that are here illegally (in Arizona) don't wait until their health finally deteriorates so much from lack of proper care that they have no other option before going to the emergency room. Rather, they go to the emergency room for emergencies and everything that the rest of us go to the doctor or a clinic for. The problem is that the government is NOT consistently reimbursing hospitals for illegals care - and hospitals are closing because of it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cosman/madeleine.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/national/21hospitals.html

http://lornakismet.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/illegal-aliens-could-close-your-hospital/

http://thelibertyjournal.com/2009/07/23/rejected-heller-amendment-opens-door-to-free-health-care-for-illegals/

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/catastrophe-in-care/Content?oid=1080476
The threat illegal immigration poses to American public health plays out every day at Arizona's hospitals. Until recently, the issue remained only marginally public, a problem medical people batted around among themselves, not with the media. Even today, several hospitals contacted for this story declined comment.

The Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee, one of the hardest hit, helped break that barrier when CEO Jim Dickson began returning reporters' calls, even though the subject, as he puts it, has become "like the third rail. You don't want to touch it."

But his problem had grown severe. Dickson's uncompensated costs for treating illegals rose from $35,000 in 1999 to $450,000 in 2004. His total shortfall now sits at about $1.4 million, a hefty deficit for a 14-bed hospital. To make ends meet, he had to close, in June 2000, the Copper Queen's long-term care facility, and cut back on staff and hours, forcing some employees to take second jobs to survive.

If this was a thread about health care in New Brunswick - I'm at the mercy of what I read and see on TV. You start talking about illegals, I have lived on the front line for 13 years. Sorry, but you know not of what you speak.



 
tomahawk6 said:
As India has a class system I wonder what kind of healthcare if any is available to the poor ? In the US at least if you are sick and you show up at a hospital you have to be treated.

Re-reading the article carefully shows that there are many "layers" of health care and the competitive system allows the poor to access health care on a reasonable basis. As well, there is no reason to suppose that charitable institutions in India do not provide higher levels of health care to poor people that they might not be able to afford (just as charities provide health care support to poor people in Canada and the US, another datum suspiciously lacking in the debate)

This is no different from any other market; rich people might like to shop at IKEA while poor people buy their furniture from Wal Mart. What works in any market from cars to groceries will work in health care as well.
 
That's actually an even more compelling argument for reform - because those who are considered "outside" the system really aren't.  There's already a massive free rider problem resulting from the fact that hospitals cannot deny treatment at ERs.  To suggest that a public option (or single payer system) will create such a problem is belied by the fact that the problem already exists!

As you may recall, my parents have started wintering in AZ (they are presently negotiating the purchase of a condo in Yuma), and they were appalled to see things like car washes to fund medical bills for those who couldn't pay.  A country like the United States, which has spent billions of dollars to fight a war that was based entirely on lies (Iraq) is a little hard to take seriously when it claims it cannot provide a system to ensure reasonable access to all for healthcare.

I note the same extremes occur on any debate when it comes to illegal immigration.  The US has millions of illegals, and to suggest that any policy will get them to leave and/or stop coming is rather silly.  Far better, thinks I, to work on a system which can regularize those that are there, accept that the US economy relies on low cost unskilled labour (it seems Americans aren't lining up to work on farms or in meat packing plants) in such a way as they can pay taxes and participate in society.

The US has a tremendous opportunity to look at every delivery system for healthcare in the world, cherrypick the best features of every system, and create something brilliant.  Instead, lobbyists obfuscate the debate, use ridiculous and fallacious arguments, and depend on the ignorant masses to fail as usual to really question anything.

muskrat89 said:
Do you actually know any illegal aliens? I do. Most of the folks I know (well) that are here illegally (in Arizona) don't wait until their health finally deteriorates so much from lack of proper care that they have no other option before going to the emergency room. Rather, they go to the emergency room for emergencies and everything that the rest of us go to the doctor or a clinic for. The problem is that the government is NOT consistently reimbursing hospitals for illegals care - and hospitals are closing because of it.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cosman/madeleine.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/national/21hospitals.html

http://lornakismet.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/illegal-aliens-could-close-your-hospital/

http://thelibertyjournal.com/2009/07/23/rejected-heller-amendment-opens-door-to-free-health-care-for-illegals/

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/catastrophe-in-care/Content?oid=1080476
If this was a thread about health care in New Brunswick - I'm at the mercy of what I read and see on TV. You start talking about illegals, I have lived on the front line for 13 years. Sorry, but you know not of what you speak.
 
The US has a tremendous opportunity to look at every delivery system for healthcare in the world, cherrypick the best features of every system, and create something brilliant.  Instead, lobbyists obfuscate the debate, use ridiculous and fallacious arguments, and depend on the ignorant masses to fail as usual to really question anything.

On that we can agree on.

I can't speak to your parents' experience, but most community fundraisers I see are for either funeral expenses, or miscellaneous expenses related to special care required for rare or unusual conditions. Those situations may require lodging, travel, etc to another city. Also, parents often need to take time off (often unpaid) for care, travel, etc. I can't say personally that I have seen fundraisers to specifically pay for medical bills. Maybe that happens, but I can't say that I have seen it.
 
Redeye,

I've been involved with a few fundraisers in Canada to help families with the cost of illnesses.
So your parents being appalled is rather a mute point......................
 
The funeral fundraisers they have seen too - as have I, one was done for my mother-in-law who died suddenly with no life insurance when we were younger and totally, utterly broke.  Bruce does have a point that such drives happen here - but they're for less lofty goals generally I suspect than trying to pay bills.

There was an excellent op ed type piece in the Rolling Stone (of all places!) about why healthcare reform in the United States is basically doomed from the outset.  It's unfortunate but also, sadly, inherently logical.  It's a http://tinyurl.com/lo6zao .  It's long but it is very, very insightful.  It explains why current proposals won't work, and why the process of developing reform are so complex and make it virtually impossible for any progress to be made.

muskrat89 said:
On that we can agree on.

I can't speak to your parents' experience, but most community fundraisers I see are for either funeral expenses, or miscellaneous expenses related to special care required for rare or unusual conditions. Those situations may require lodging, travel, etc to another city. Also, parents often need to take time off (often unpaid) for care, travel, etc. I can't say personally that I have seen fundraisers to specifically pay for medical bills. Maybe that happens, but I can't say that I have seen it.
 
Redeye said:
  Bruce does have a point that such drives happen here - but they're for less lofty goals generally I suspect than trying to pay bills.

Actually most were to help folks raise enough money to send sick children down to the States to receive a "humane" level of care or to receive treatments not available here.

Now I'm not defending or attacking either system, the health care problem is way above my puny frontal lobe capability, but I'm just saying.............
 
Of course the idea of the State controlling health care might fail if there are no health care providers. Calling Dr Galt...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.

The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.

IBD/TIPP's finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.

In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth.

From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors.

Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.

The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.

Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.

The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.

Adding millions of patients to physicians' caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.

"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.

Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.

The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory.

Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn't likely to change much.

On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.

Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that:

• The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year.

• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.

• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.

• Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care.

A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a "lingering poor practice environment in the state."

In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what's being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn't worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.

"Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate," according to a recent report from the Urban Institute.

Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.


This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.

In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.

"A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland" because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.

British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.

Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country's national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from todsay CBC web site, is another Canadian health care horror story:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/22/bc-prince-rupert-boat-crash.html
Prince Rupert crash survivor battles for hospital bed

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

CBC News

A Prince Rupert man who survived a boat crash that left him lost and alone with a broken neck in the B.C. wilderness says he has since been forced to battle the provincial medical system just to get the specialized care he needs in Vancouver.

Cameron Culver, 48, and his friend Mark Desaultes were boating as part of a hunting trip on the Ecstall River, south of Prince Rupert on the North Coast. Desaultes, who was driving, had an apparent heart attack and the boat crashed into a log.

From his hospital bed in Prince Rupert, Culver told CBC News that when he woke up after the Sept. 17 crash, he was completely disoriented.

'Survival skills just took over and my body followed my brain around.'—Cameron Culver, crash survivor

"I woke up on the floor of a boat ...I didn't even know we were in an accident," he said.

Culver found Desaultes' body and did what he could to stop it from drifting away.

"I had to tie his body to the boat and I had to tie the boat to the log we hit," he said.

Neck broken in 2 places

Dazed and grief-stricken, Culver dragged himself out of the river to look for help. He wandered around for almost a full day with a broken shoulder and rib, and his neck broken in two places.

Adrenaline kept him from feeling pain and the will to survive kept him alive, Culver said.

"Survival skills just took over and my body followed my brain around... and I pulled it off... it's a miracle... honestly a miracle," he said.

"I had to stay in the bush for 20 hours during a rainstorm and I had to combat hypothermia and sing to the bears so they wouldn't come around and bother me," he said.

Culver was eventually spotted by other members of his hunting party and taken to Prince Rupert Hospital.

No bed available for special care

After fighting for survival in the wilderness, Culver says he's now fighting the medical system for the specialized treatment he needs to recover.

After his rescue, Culver said he was forced to wait for five days in Prince Rupert Hospital because he was told there were no beds available for him in Vancouver where he could get the specialized care he needs for his neck injuries.

"I'm in serious pain right now... I'm being treated very well here in Prince Rupert, but I don't think there's a neurosurgeon," he said.

A spokesperson with the Northern Health Authority would not comment on Culver's case, citing patient confidentiality, but said there are a number of factors that determine when a patient is transported.

But after some calls by his mother to the local MP and MLA, Culver said the hospital has promised to fly him to Vancouver by air ambulance on Tuesday for treatment.

In recent months B.C.'s government has come under fire for its health-care funding policies, which have forced many hospitals to cut back on surgery and other programs in order to meet their annual budgets.

There are always two (or more) sides to every story – maybe a neurosurgeon has determined that Mr. Culver should remain in Prince Rupert for a while.

But, most likely, this is the outcome of the only real control mechanism we have on health care: rationing.

We ration by limiting supply, in terms of both active care beds, the most expensive kind, and physicians.

We could ration by limiting services but it is hugely complex – what is “medically necessary?” – and politically difficult when a suffering person goes on TV and says, “The cruel, heartless government minister will not save my life because his faceless bureaucrats say [disease] does not qualify as ‘medically necessary.’ I have to go to the USA and pay for my treatment and I will have to sell my house and I’ll be homeless and sick.”
 
Canada adops America's health care system:

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story

latimes.com

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option

In British Columbia, private clinics and surgical centers are capitalizing on patients who might otherwise pay for faster treatment in the U.S. The courts will consider their legality next month.
By Kim Murphy

September 27, 2009

Reporting from Vancouver, Canada

When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.

More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

Yet the move into privatized care threatens to make the delays -- already long from the perennial shortage of doctors and rationing of facilities -- even longer, public healthcare advocates say. There will be fewer skilled healthcare workers in government hospitals as doctors and nurses are lured into better-paying private jobs, they say.

"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, which is involved in the lawsuit to determine whether the Canadian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to choose their own care.

"There's so much money to be made by the insurance industry," she said. "If this [legal] case succeeds, what we would have is a system of U.S.-style healthcare -- along with a public system that is decimated."

Indeed, an investment group backed by Arizona businessman Melvin J. Howard this year filed a $160-million challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement, demanding that U.S. healthcare companies gain access into Canada. The consortium hopes to build Canada's largest private health center in Vancouver, offering orthopedics, plastic surgery, general surgery and other services.

In many ways, the prospect of private investment is alluring in British Columbia, where the provincial government, like those all across Canada, funds the healthcare system. Provincial officials recently announced a $360-million shortfall in the $15.7-billion healthcare budget for the fiscal year that ends in March.

The shortage will mean fewer surgeries and longer waits.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority has said it would reduce the number of nonemergency MRIs by 20%; nonemergency patients now are being booked for scans in March.

Vancouver Coastal Health, which serves a quarter of the province's population, said it would eliminate 450 elective surgeries, about 30% of the schedule, during the four weeks of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

And in the rapidly growing suburbs east of Vancouver, the Fraser Health Authority plans to close its spending gap by, among other things, holding the number of MRIs to last year's total, ending $550,000 in service programs for senior citizens and reducing elective surgeries by about 14%.

The authorities also are making administrative cost cuts and looking to pool resources for things like computers and laboratories.

"We need to be crystal-clear. . . . I'm not denying anybody access here to urgent or acute or immediate care," Nigel Murray, the Fraser authority's chief executive, said in an interview. "If our surgeons feel people need access to urgent care, they get it."

The Canadian government has invested a large amount of money nationwide in a successful effort to reduce wait times, especially for life-threatening conditions such as cardiac disease and tumors, and for procedures such as knee replacements and cataract surgery.

Under Canada's system, most doctors run private practices but are paid uniform rates by a government-funded network. (Many Canadians have private or employer-paid insurance that covers things such as dental and eye care, which are not part of the larger plan.)

Murray, a proponent of the system, acknowledged that the growing number of private clinics and public-private partnership hospitals could strengthen government healthcare.

"You can lose staff to the private systems. . . . But the other side of the coin is that you may be keeping nurses in your communities by providing other employment options for them, so that you're adding to the pool of overall healthcare professionals," Murray said. "Additionally, the private system can take some of the strain off the public system."

The heart of the legal case is the 1984 Canada Health Act, which established the framework for the national insurance system known as Medicare. It outlawed most private insurance for essential healthcare and provided the vast majority of Canadians with free medical services.

Canada spends about $172 billion a year on healthcare, which is one reason the nation's taxes are higher than those in the U.S. (Canadians pay about 33% of the gross domestic product in taxes, compared with 28% in the U.S.) British Columbia is the only province that still charges residents an extra health premium of $54 a month, subsidized for those who can't afford it.

The first foot in the door for private medicine came in 2005, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the laws in Quebec that banned private insurance. The court found that having people die while on wait lists violated the province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The ruling does not apply outside the province, because only a minority on the court found that the laws also violated Canada's basic human rights charter.

The case to throw out the law in British Columbia was launched when authorities attempted to audit some clinics that were collecting government payments for surgeries in addition to fees they charged patients for the use of their private operating rooms and nursing staff.

Day's Cambie Surgery Center refused to open its books and filed suit along with other private clinic operators, saying citizens deserved a choice.

"In Canada, the rights of the individual patient are trumped by the welfare of the system," said Richard Baker, who runs a Vancouver-based consulting group that helps patients find quick access to care in private clinics or in the U.S.

"We have patients come from all over Canada, because B.C. has the most liberal rules on private surgical centers, other than Quebec," he said. "They complain, 'They're all jumping the queue!' Well, it's not jumping the queue at all. It's leaving the queue."

In fact, the British Columbian government has been slow to crack down on private clinics. Health Minister Kevin Falcon told the Vancouver Sun newspaper in June: "I don't have an objection to people using their own money to buy private services, just as they do with dentists, just as they do with . . . sending their kids to private school or what have you. I think choice is a good thing, actually."

The outcome of the legal case, most analysts say, probably will determine the future of private healthcare in Canada.

Not all Canadian doctors have flocked to the defense of private clinics; many see the public health system, for all its strains, as a gem that ought to be protected from the out-of-control expenditures and huge inequities that are part of the U.S. healthcare system.

"We can and need to improve [healthcare]. . . . But it's always going to be more effective, and it's certainly going to be more equitable, if it's done within the public system," said Robert Woollard, a longtime family practitioner and member of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, which has applied to join the lawsuit in British Columbia. Woollard said the public system has the nimbleness to provide speedy, quality care to those who truly need it.

"Just six or eight weeks ago, I had a patient come in who needed urgent attention to her knee. She was in severe pain," he said. "She was seen by a [reviewing] team within a week, and she was slated for surgery that will probably happen in the next two to three months."

kim.murphy@latimes.com


 
Therein lies the public insurance dilemma. And let’s be clear we, Canadians, do NOT have public health medical care, we have public medical insurance.

The explicit promises of the public medical insurance regime are:

• You will not be denied medically necessary treatment;

• You will be treated in order of medical priority – no one can jump the queue with their gold card;

• Your insured treatments, no matter how long and involved, are all, always covered – you will not be forced into bankruptcy because of medical bill.

There is NO promise of timely treatment; there is no promise that pain will get you faster treatment; there is no promise that you will be treated near your home and so on.

The opponents of private insurance are, almost certainly, right: private insurance WILL provoke more and more private care options and many health care professionals will abandon the under-funded public system and will work, exclusively, in private facilities, thereby making public medical care even slower and more problematical.

But the alternative is to conscript doctors and nurses and so on.

I am sure the alternative appeals to many of the proponents of public medicare everything. It cannot and will not happen.

What will happen?

Left unconstrained, with insufficient rationing, the demand for “free” medical care will rise, higher and higher until it completely outstrips the public’s ability and will to pay – that’s what always, without fail, happens when supply appears to be infinite, i.e. free. Medical care is NOT free, we all pay for it; “we” are unwilling to pay too much. Therefore, eventually, a single payer system - which we have - will, either:

Contract until it provides treatment at affordable levels; or

Collapse.

Hence we ration care. Those who want to jump the queue may do so, easily, albeit not cheaply, because we live next door to the USA. We have gold card Medicare and sometimes the users of that private safety valve come home and then sue the government for the costs and sometimes they win. That’s wrong but it happens. It’s wrong because no one forces you to suffer but the implicit national ‘agreement’ is that all users of the “free” service suffer along together. Those who feel they must jump the queue are free to do so, but at their own, private expense.

“What about the poor, little dying baby?” you ask, “the one with the incurable disease whose parents want to take her to Los Angeles for some faint hope care that is not covered here? Surely,” you say, “we can pay a bit for her care.” Nope, she must suffer and die in pain and despair here or you and her friends and neighbours can have bake sales and so on to try and help her parents from paying for the guilt by losing their house. But it is NOT a public responsibility – nothing in our “national agreement” mandates compassion.

The argument isn’t for or against American or Canadian health care. On any list of medical care regimes they are going to at the bottom: one is too expensive and the other provides less than adequate outcomes. The argument is for an affordably, medically effective, universal system of medical insurance – something neither country has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top