Canada's health system is as good or better than the US new research suggests

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 9, 2007

There are two issues with healthcare at the moment:

1. Finding a way to provide coverage to 15% of the people too poor or too unconcerned to cover themselves. Yes, a good chunk of that is purposely uninsured. In that mix is a way to provide somewhat more consistent primary care.

2. Finding a way to use healthcare as a proxy to socialize the American gov't.

At 8.8 Trillion dollars, the federal debt is a massive drain on the private economy. Add several more trillion with programs such as gov't restricted healthcare and you will crash the private sector economy, which is the ultimate point of gov't restricted healthcare. At THAT point, the gov't will pull a 1930's takeover of the economy. This is just a backdoor attempt to socialize the economy by using socialism to destroy the economy.

It never fails to amaze me how the answer for runaway socialism always seems to be more socialism.

Many of the current healthcare problems come from gov't intervention. The neo-mercantile view of gov't meddling in how businesses operate have helped to create the 3rd party payor system that is a mess. Know why your employer pays for your health insurance? The gov't capped incomes during WWII so employers had to come up with other ways to entice employees. The results: fringe benefits. The gov't liked the idea of it so much, it instituted tax savings for employers to do just that. The result: health insurance from your employer became defacto coverage.

The result was also to insulate insurance companies from competition. As a result, their administrators can be brazenly sloven with how they spend money on themselves. Many like to point at insurance companies as part of the problem in an attempt to suggest that private enterprise doesn't work. Only the big fat insurance companies aren't just private enterprises: they are GOV'T INSULATED private enterprises. Their market shares are protected by gov't tax breaks to businesses (for providing healthcare) that leave the ultimate consumer out of the loop. Your gov't, at work. But, do, let's have more.

So, everybody out there complaining that employer driven health coverage is the problem and the solution is more gov't should understand that that employer driven health care WAS a gov't solution.

The gov't will never look out for you better than you. No matter who you are.

Can you find support for providing gap coverage to most Americans. Yes, I think you can. America is a generous place. Can you find support for a gov't restricted healthcare plan designed as a proxy to socialize the economy? Not a chance. No way Americans will ever agree to pay that much more in taxes for that much less choice in care.

You can talk up the platitudes of 'universal coverage' all you want. When the insured masses understand how much more gov't restricted healthcare will cost and just how restrictive it will be, the idea suddenly loses steam. Helping people is one thing. Being screwed over to do it is another. Ask Hillary about that.

Gov't restricted healthcare is a pipe dream. Those that believe it is remotely possible do not understand the voting electorate. If it were at all possible, the progressive moment would have pulled it off in the 1930's, at its peak. That movement is well past its peak now.

This is a center-right nation. Gov't restricted healthcare will not fly.

If you are truly interested in improving healthcare, it would be better to promote practical solutions to the current system over progressive dreams of transforming the economy. The current system - it isn't going anywhere.

~faith,

Timothy.

pickledpepperRN · Jun 9, 2007

This is quite interesting. You have to register to read the entire article:

...The question of how to distribute the financial responsibility for America's health care bill dates back to the late '20s and early '30s...
...In 1929, half the country's families would have had to pay the equivalent of one month's income for a hospital stay.
Of course, it was only the families with serious medical problems that ran into such high costs. But that was precisely the problem, according to the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care, a privately funded task force whose 1932 report is considered the first thorough review of health care costs in U.S. history. The Committee determined that, although the total cost of health care in the United States (then around 4 percent of national income) was one the nation could certainly afford, most of the burden fell on a relatively small number of people who, because of accidents or serious disease, required extensive medical care. And, while some people saved money for the possibility of future medical expenses, the Committee concluded, "[T]he unpredictable nature of sickness and the wide range of charges for nominally similar services render budgeting for medical care on an individual family basis impracticable." ...
...(FDR is said to have dropped health care from the Social Security Act, because he feared the hostility from state medical societies might doom the entire package.)
In the absence of national health care, a much different system evolved. It began in 1929, in Dallas, Texas, when Baylor Hospital, desperate to fill its beds with paying customers rather than charity cases, approached the public school teachers of Dallas with a deal: If most of the teachers would agree to pay the hospital a small amount of money every month, then the hospital would agree to provide medical services to any teacher who needed it, anytime. The plan was a hit, and soon hospitals around the country, most of them facing similarly dire financial situations, began copying and expanding the Baylor plan, which eventually became the Blue Cross system. By the 1940s, it was enrolling millions of new people each year--a pace that quickly lured the commercial insurance industry, which had dabbled unsuccessfully with disability-style benefits in the early twentieth century, back into the business....
...As private insurance spread, the link to employment became entrenched--in part because large workforces guaranteed a large number of healthy beneficiaries to cover the costs of those few with severe illness, and in part because employers themselves found it advantageous....
...Government encouraged this arrangement by exempting employer health insurance from taxes--in effect, making health insurance connected to a job more valuable than cash on a dollar-for-dollar basis. By the 1970s, the vast majority of working-age Americans had private health insurance through their jobs. They still paid for this coverage indirectly, through the lost wages their employers were spending instead on health insurance. But they shared it among themselves, for relatively modest sums, rather than facing it individually, at potentially crushing levels. And most of these people seemed to think the system worked very well....
...But it might have worked too well. Critics had long worried about the "moral hazard" of insurance--the possibility that generous benefits might encourage people to seek care they really didn't need or to consume care with little regard for its cost...
...In the 1990s, this mindset led employers to switch their workers into health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and other forms of managed care. Managed care promised to hold down medical bills by restricting beneficiaries' access to medical services--and then bringing down the price of those services through hard-nosed bargaining....
...Individual doctors and hospitals resented the medical second-guessing, not to mention the bullying about prices. Consumers resented the limits on what doctors they could see and what treatments they could get. Soon, politicians on both sides of the aisle were looking for another way. ...
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20051107&s=cohn110705&pt=7ekyxQdyc%2FSUEtBATw8%2BSy%3D%3D

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 9, 2007

This is quite interesting. You have to register to read the entire article:
...(FDR is said to have dropped health care from the Social Security Act, because he feared the hostility from state medical societies might doom the entire package.)

And THAT was at the height of the progressive movement. How on earth do socialists, I mean, er, progressives intend to pass such a thing TODAY when even FDR knew it was doomed to fail?

First off, Medicare doesn't work. It will be out of money within a decade. 2nd, to the extent that it IS viable it is because it piggybacks off the private system to such an extent that the private system dictates or at least checks the abuses of Medicare. Even then, Medicare funding is a constant issue; when Medicare is ALL the funding a hospital can get, look out! If you were to universalize Medicare so that the gov't had a monopoly on dictating prices and/or services, the restrictions would be such that the AARP alone would engineer the defeat of every single Congressman.

Of course, they don't have to do that. All they need do is prove that they can.

Gov't restricted healthcare will never pass. It's the tragedy of the commons combined with the free rider problem of economics. A double economic disaster. Unlimited access must equal unlimited supply or - restricting said access. It's the law of supply and demand. That's unmutable by political desire.

Look at the problem with our ERs. EMTALA equals unlimited access. The results are as plain as day. Now, this is EXACTLY what gov't restricted healthcare will do to the entire system. Not just the ER. Not just the hospitals. Not just the nursing homes. Not just home health. Not just DME supplies. Not just medications. Not just doctor visits. The whole system. Until.

Until the gov't must, beyond choice, restrict access to the system. That means longer waits. That means elective procedures takes a far back seat to emergent ones. That means gov't restricted healthcare.

The public will never buy it.

Ask Harry and Louise. They'll tell you.

You want to help the less fortunate. The American People are a generous lot; I'm sure you could find a way to do so. You just will not be able to accomplish it by demanding that the average citizen must give up what they already have in order to do so. It will never sell. Being generous is one thing. Taking from me to give to another is something else. In fact, it's called theft.

Gov't restricted healthcare is a morally bankrupt idea that cannot sell in a basically moral nation.

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

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

~faith,

Timothy.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 11, 2007

Who pays for COBRA coverage?
Beneficiaries may be required to pay for COBRA coverage. The premium cannot exceed 102 percent of the cost to the plan for similarly situated individuals who have not incurred a qualifying event, including both the portion paid by employees and any portion paid by the employer before the qualifying event, plus 2 percent for administrative costs.
For qualified beneficiaries receiving the 11 month disability extension of coverage, the premium for those additional months may be increased to 150 percent of the plan's total cost of coverage.
COBRA premiums may be increased if the costs to the plan increase but generally must be fixed in advance of each 12-month premium cycle. The plan must allow qualified beneficiaries to pay premiums on a monthly basis if they ask to do so, and the plan may allow them to make payments at other intervals (weekly or quarterly).
The initial premium payment must be made within 45 days after the date of the COBRA election by the qualified beneficiary. Payment generally must cover the period of coverage from the date of COBRA election retroactive to the date of the loss of coverage due to the qualifying event. Premiums for successive periods of coverage are due on the date stated in the plan with a minimum 30-day grace period for payments. Payment is considered to be made on the date it is sent to the plan.
If premiums are not paid by the first day of the period of coverage, the plan has the option to cancel coverage until payment is received and then reinstate coverage retroactively to the beginning of the period of coverage.
If the amount of the payment made to the plan is made in error but is not significantly less than the amount due, the plan is required to notify the qualified beneficiary of the deficiency and grant a reasonable period (for this purpose, 30 days is considered reasonable) to pay the difference. The plan is not obligated to send monthly premium notices. COBRA beneficiaries remain subject to the rules of the plan and therefore must satisfy all costs related to co-payments and deductibles, and are subject to catastrophic and other benefit limits.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_cobra.html

While technically correct that COBRA can be purchased retroactive to the date of loss of coverage the beneficiary must pay up all delinquent premiunms to reinstate coverage. So if a person goes uninsured for 15 months that means that they would be responsible for 15 months of premiums before they could reinstate health coverage. Hardly a good deal for that person.

DarrenWright · Jun 11, 2007

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_cobra.html
While technically correct that COBRA can be purchased retroactive to the date of loss of coverage the beneficiary must pay up all delinquent premiunms to reinstate coverage. So if a person goes uninsured for 15 months that means that they would be responsible for 15 months of premiums before they could reinstate health coverage. Hardly a good deal for that person.

It's actually a pretty decent arrangement...retroactive coverage! And if they DON'T get sick, they don't pay a dime. Keep in mind, this is a concoction of the same gov't you want to oversee a universal/socialist kind of system. If you don't like this, why would you want to expand their role?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 12, 2007

single payer gets better results for patients at lower cost to society.....

see:

emphasis added.

from american prospect: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...icleid=1268 3

quote:
france's has a high floor and no ceiling. the government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state. this allows for as high a level of care as an individual is willing to pay for, and may help explain why waiting lines are nearly unknown in france.
...
france's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the world health organization to rank it the finest in the world (america's system came in at no. 37, between costa rica and slovenia). the french can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed.
...
a wiser approach is to seek to separate cost-effective care from unproven treatments, and align the financial incentives to encourage the former and discourage the latter. the french have addressed this by creating what amounts to a tiered system for treatment reimbursement. as jonathan cohn explains in his new book, sick:
in order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way health savings accounts threaten to do -- the [french] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses.
in addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.
the french do the same for pharmaceuticals, which are grouped into one of three classes and reimbursed at 35 percent, 65 percent, or 100 percent of cost, depending on whether data show their use to be cost effective. it's a wise straddle of a tricky problem, and one that other nations would do well to emulate.

a system for the us along these lines would be palatable to everyone and also assure that patients with chronic illnesses would receive care that prevents expensive health crisis management. (and did you know that the french achieve these results with about half the spending per capita of the us?)

RN4MERCY · Jun 13, 2007

And THAT was at the height of the progressive movement. How on earth do socialists, I mean, er, progressives intend to pass such a thing TODAY when even FDR knew it was doomed to fail?
First off, Medicare doesn't work. It will be out of money within a decade. 2nd, to the extent that it IS viable it is because it piggybacks off the private system to such an extent that the private system dictates or at least checks the abuses of Medicare. Even then, Medicare funding is a constant issue; when Medicare is ALL the funding a hospital can get, look out! If you were to universalize Medicare so that the gov't had a monopoly on dictating prices and/or services, the restrictions would be such that the AARP alone would engineer the defeat of every single Congressman.
Of course, they don't have to do that. All they need do is prove that they can.
Gov't restricted healthcare will never pass. It's the tragedy of the commons combined with the free rider problem of economics. A double economic disaster. Unlimited access must equal unlimited supply or - restricting said access. It's the law of supply and demand. That's unmutable by political desire.
Look at the problem with our ERs. EMTALA equals unlimited access. The results are as plain as day. Now, this is EXACTLY what gov't restricted healthcare will do to the entire system. Not just the ER. Not just the hospitals. Not just the nursing homes. Not just home health. Not just DME supplies. Not just medications. Not just doctor visits. The whole system. Until.
Until the gov't must, beyond choice, restrict access to the system. That means longer waits. That means elective procedures takes a far back seat to emergent ones. That means gov't restricted healthcare.
The public will never buy it.
Ask Harry and Louise. They'll tell you.
You want to help the less fortunate. The American People are a generous lot; I'm sure you could find a way to do so. You just will not be able to accomplish it by demanding that the average citizen must give up what they already have in order to do so. It will never sell. Being generous is one thing. Taking from me to give to another is something else. In fact, it's called theft.
Gov't restricted healthcare is a morally bankrupt idea that cannot sell in a basically moral nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
~faith,
Timothy.

According to a poll by the New York Times/CBS News in February, 64% of Americans think that "the federal government should guarantee healthcare for all Americans," and 76% believe that universal access to healthcare is more important than recent tax cuts. The survey also found that 60% of those polled are "willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can't lose no matter what." Public support ("Harry and Louise") for comprehensive health reform is at it's highest level in over a decade!

Speaking of a restrictive and morally bankrupt bureaucracy, what about the insurer's and HMOs that profit by denying care and restricting access to care? (Now THAT'S what I call THEFT!) Think about this: Co-pays and deductibles, caps, gaps, pre-existing conditions, pre-authorizations, PPO/HMO in-network, out-of-network exclusions and denials are a form of RATIONING...to maximize profits for their shareholders! An insurance-based approach is discriminatory; the private insurance industry is rank with onerous multiple intrusive and restrictive regulations imposed on patients and providers. This despicable "system" punishes the sick, leaves millions vulnerable and violates our basic social principals of decency and fairness.

A single-payer, publicly financed and publicly administered program, like Medicare (efficient: YES!...3% administrative overhead, compared to over 30% waste of the private plans!), everyone in, no one out, is the only way to eliminate the enormous disparities and inequalities in our healthcare system. No exclusions based on ability to pay, health status, or prior conditions. If you move travel, or lose your job, your healthcare coverage always goes with you. We should remember that the government is elected by the public and we are responsible for it. The so-called conservative values and practices, ("every man for himself"), when they lead to people getting hurt and undermining our democracy, has to be confronted overtly. As nurses, the most trusted professionals in the country, we have empathy for others and we must act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for ourselves and socially responsible as well. We're all in this together.

Do you really believe that the wealthiest nation of all is not financially equipped to do what all the other progressive, industrialized nations have done? According to Marcia Angell, M.D. of Physicians for a National Healthplan, (former Editor-in-Chief, NEJM), "We live in a country that tolerates enormous disparities in income, material possessions, and social privilege. Those disparities should not extend to denying some of our citizens certain essential services because of their income or social status. One of those services is healthcare. Others are education, clean water and air, equal justice, and protection from crime and fire, all of which we already acknowledge are public responsibilities. We need to acknowledge the same thing for health care." At some point in our lives all of us, without exception have needed or will need some level of health care.

BY the way, yesterday, on June 12th in Sacramento, California, I was privileged to watch a special preview of Michael Moore's new documentary, "SiCKO", with over 1,000 other RNs from across the country, including several representatives of the Canadian Nurses Federation. I hope you'll make a commitment to watching it the first weekend it opens to the general public, on June 29. It was a sad and truthful documentary, that exposes the festering wounds of our broken health care system, the pain and suffering that cannot heal until we become the social advocates the public trusts us to be.

Some people believe that a single-payer system is politically unrealistic and it seems to me that you have inadvertently bought into that idea. Once the facts are known and the myths are dispelled many of us believe that the public will be even more enthusiastic about a single payer system! As Ralph Nader's father said to him after school, "Did they teach you to believe, or did they teach you to think?" With courageous ethical and principled political leadership, such as that provided by Rep. Conyers of Michigan, (HR 676), State Sen. Kuehl of California, (SB840), and the responsible moral professional advocacy of physicians and nurses, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that there is nothing unrealistic about a National Health Plan.

"Health Care Security = MediCare for All"

http://www.SinglePayer.com

Support Ca. SB 840 (Kuehl) - USA HR 676 (Conyers)

"...the call to the nurse is not only for the bedside care of the sick, but to help in seeking out the deep-lying basic causes of illness and misery, that in the future there may be less sickness to nurse and to cure."

Lillian Wald, Founder of Public Health Nursing

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 13, 2007

According to a poll by the New York Times/CBS News in February, 64% of Americans thing that 'the federal government should guarantee healthcare for all Americans,' and 76% believe that universal access to healthcare is more important than recent tax cuts. The survey also found that 60% of those polled are 'willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can't lose no matter what.' Public support ("Harry and Louise") for comprehensive health reform is at it's highest level in over a decade!

Ask those same Americans if they want to restrict their own coverage in order to do all this, and your polling takes a serious tank.

Yes, I understand that pollyanna polls will always favor the concept of Americans being generous. Americans ARE generous. But, the 85% with good health coverage isn't going to tolerate month long waiting lists to see a doc or get a CT scan in order to accomodate the 15% that doesn't have coverage.

Higher taxes is one thing.

A fair share is a dismal healthcare system is another. Especially when combined with the unfair share of those higher taxes.

The insurers and HMOs might be morally bankrupt, but only because they are neo-mercantilists in bed with the gov't. So your solution with the gov't tainting the healthcare market is for the gov't to take it over? Your solution is more of the same. Much more. Whatever you choose to call it, it is not compassionate.

Gov't restricted healthcare cannot save costs. No amount of administration savings can account for a sudden increase in unlimited demand, because of course, it's free. Look at any Emergency Dept in this nation that must deal with the unlimited demand that is EMTALA. Now, expand that to every aspect of healthcare.

You want to defy economic laws: supply and demand, free rider problem, and tragedy of the commons. Of course, the laws of economics don't care a twit about your compassion. The result will be that the system you create will be incredibly uncompassionate as it meets the unmovable barrier of economic reality.

The result is rationed, limited, care. Gov't care. "Close enough for gov't work" should never have to apply to your health . . .

I haven't inadvertently been sold the idea that gov't restricted, socialist healthcare is unworkable. I'm an advocate of the idea that it is unworkable. It IS unworkable, in reality as well as concept. Socialism is a failure. It has always been a failure, everywhere it's been tried.

History is on my side.

Even the current nations with universal healthcare are either buckling under the strain, or moving to some level of privatization in order to deal with the strain.

~faith,

Timothy.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 13, 2007

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

Let's look at the CBS poll, quoted above:

41% of Americans are very satisfied with their healthcare coverage.

The majority are at least generally satisfied.

Less than 1 in 3 Americans believe the gov't could do a better job than private insurance.

The above is a telling number of the level of support for when the debate moves beyond the gov't covering someone else and TO the gov't covering the average American, 2/3rd of which don't trust the gov't to do so.

Only 36% of Americans favor a complete overhaul of the system on the scale of socialist, gov't restricted healthcare.

~faith,

Timothy.

DarrenWright · Jun 13, 2007

According to a poll by the New York Times/CBS News in February, 64% of Americans thing that 'the federal government should guarantee healthcare for all Americans,' and 76% believe that universal access to healthcare is more important than recent tax cuts. The survey also found that 60% of those polled are 'willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can't lose no matter what.' Public support ("Harry and Louise") for comprehensive health reform is at it's highest level in over a decade!
Speaking of a restrictive and morally bankrupt bureaucracy, what about the insurer's and HMOs that profit by denying care and restricting access to care? (Now THAT'S what I call THEFT!) Think about this: Co-pays and deductibles, caps, gaps, pre-existing conditions, pre-authorizations, PPO/HMO in-network, out-of-network exclusions and denials are a form of RATIONING...to maximize profits for their shareholders! An insurance-based approach is discriminatory; the private insurance industry is rank with onerous multiple intrusive and restrictive regulations imposed on patients and providers. This despicable "system" punishes the sick, leaves millions vulnerable and violates our basic social principals of decency and fairness.
A single-payer, publicly financed and publicly administered program, like Medicare (efficient: YES!...3% administrative overhead, compared to over 30% waste of the private plans!), everyone in, no one out, is the only way to eliminate the enormous disparities and inequalities in our healthcare system. No exclusions based on ability to pay, health status, or prior conditions. If you move travel, or lose your job, your healthcare coverage always goes with you. We should remember that the government is elected by the public and we are responsible for it. The so-called conservative values and practices, ("every man for himself"), when they lead to people getting hurt and undermining our democracy, has to be confronted overtly. As nurses, the most trusted professionals in the country, we have empathy for others and we must act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for ourselves and socially responsible as well. We're all in this together.
Do you really believe that the wealthiest nation of all is not financially equipped to do what all the other progressive, industrialized nations have done? According to Marcia Angell, M.D. of Physicians for a National Healthplan, (former Editor-in-Chief, NEJM), "We live in a country that tolerates enormous disparities in income, material possessions, and social privilege. Those disparities should not extend to denying some of our citizens certain essential services because of their income or social status. One of those services is healthcare. Others are education, clean water and air, equal justice, and protection from crime and fire, all of which we already acknowledge are public responsibilities. We need to acknowledge the same thing for health care." At some point in our lives all of us, without exception have needed or will need some level of health care.
BY the way, yesterday, on June 12th in Sacramento, California, I was privileged to watch a special preview of Michael Moore's new documentary, "SiCKO", with over 1,000 other RNs from across the country, including several representatives of the Canadian Nurses Federation. I hope you'll make a commitment to watching it the first weekend it opens to the general public, on June 29. It was a sad and truthful documentary, that exposes the festering wounds of our broken health care system, the pain and suffering that cannot heal until we become the social advocates the public trusts us to be.
Some people believe that a single-payer system is politically unrealistic and it seems to me that you have inadvertently bought into that idea. Once the facts are known and the myths are dispelled many of us believe that the public will be even more enthusiastic about a single payer system! As Ralph Nader's father said to him after school, "Did they teach you to believe, or did they teach you to think?" With courageous ethical and principled political leadership, such as that provided by Rep. Conyers of Michigan, (HR 676), State Sen. Kuehl of California, (SB840), and the responsible moral professional advocacy of physicians and nurses, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that there is nothing unrealistic about a National Health Plan.
"Health Care Security = MediCare for All"
www.SinglePayer.com
Support Ca. SB 840 (Kuehl) - USA HR 676 (Conyers)

Fortunately for us, access to universal healthcare is already guaranteed to all Americans. Noone is restricted by legislation from pursuing all approved available therapies. There may be financial restrictions, but these are not legislatively imposed, and socialist/single-payer systems do not somehow magically bypass the financial limitations of providing health care.

Having a single-payer system does not improve delivery, or improve access. It reduces the number of available providers, reduces the wages for nurses who already claim to be underpaid and look to unions for help, and creates circumstances where people will now be put on lists. One of our colleagues pointed out that Canada recognizes it's problem with wait times; they forgot to mention that one of the key resolutions has been loosening the restrictions on private insurance and private provision of health care.

And while private insurance was portrayed as a big bad meanie, is one to believe that a single-payer (gov't) program is going to function with unfettered altruism and a seamless lack of beaurocracy? Not in this lifetime! The gov't will operated with an even stronger lack of regard for the victimized patient because they will be harder to sue, and many providers will opt out (because private insurance will never go away). Few physicians will be willing to accept the substandard reimbursements that a single-payer will provide with the rampant John Edwardian multi-million dollar litigation that will go on with the approval of single-payer advocates; it doesn't function anywhere near like this in the comparative countries (Europeans think we are insanely sue-happy), so I'm not sure what poorly thought-through process led anyone to think a single-payer/litigatory combination will improve US health care delivery. And off-hand comparisons to other single-payer countries simply doesn't distract the 'thinker.' There are blistering problems with their systems, and people are not counting on the gov't to fix them; they are taking matters into their own hands and paying their own way.

Since I already know that M.Moore uses significant creative liberties in "exposing" issues, he has no credibility in this truthfulness that is so important in this discussion, this truthfulness you speak of that M. Moore is not inclined to respect.

There is nothing unrealistic about a national health plan; there is simply nothing realistic about the plans offered by Clinton, Kuehl, Kucinich, and others, and nothing realistic or truthful about a M. Moore documentary.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 13, 2007

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010071

A recent effort, by a popular Gov, to bring universal healthcare to Ill.

The vote?

107-0, against the measure. THAT, btw, was a Democrat controlled house.

Why?

Because, this wasn't just some pollyanna idea absent cost. It actually was a design for a system, costs and all. After considering the true costs of such a system, even the Gov came out against his own plan.

From the article:

"Universal" government health care has once again returned as a political cause, with many Democrats believing it's the key to White House victory in 2008. They might want to study last week's news from Illinois, where Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich's tax increase to finance health care became the political rout of the year.

The Democratic House in Springfield killed the proposal, 107-0, after Mr. Blagojevich came out against his own idea when it became clear he was going to be humiliated."

"One lesson here is that it is far easier to talk about "progressive" political causes than to pay for them without doing larger economic harm. In today's global economy, the margin for policy mistakes is smaller, even for individual states."

107-0. THAT is why I'm confident that gov't restricted healthcare cannot pass, even if some have inadvertently bought into the idea that it could pass.

~faith,

Timothy.

pickledpepperRN · Aug 2, 2007

Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald

It's been said that during the 12 or so years they spend in medical school, doctors learn to think of themselves as gods.

Well, the gods must be crazy. Or greedy. Or both. How else to explain the Canadian Medical Association's ridiculous support for physicians' right to work simultaneously in both a public and private system, including the introduction of private health insurance -- and the gall to label this as standing up for their patients?

It is patently obvious they are standing up for their bank accounts, not their patients.

That they are so eager to place patients at the mercy of insurance companies, whose subterfuges for skipping out on claims are well-documented in the U.S., shows their patients' best interests are the last priority….

… A recent New York Times article profiled Gordon Hendrickson, 66, of Albuquerque, whose best bet to beat pancreatic cancer was risky surgery performed by a Houston specialist. His insurance company refused to pay for the surgery. Hendrickson had it done anyway. Today, he is cured, but owes $80,000 in medical bills.

Is this what the CMA wants to inflict on Canadians?...

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=ab96889d-3cbc-4d5d-87ce-ad46de9db0a3

From part 2:

… Economist Paul Krugman, also writing in the New York Times, shatters one of the cherished myths of Canada's proponents of private health, when he discusses hip replacements. This surgery is always seized upon by the private-health cheerleaders as something for which there is no waiting in the U.S. system:

"There's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

"That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems….

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=ab96889d-3cbc-4d5d-87ce-ad46de9db0a3&p=2