Health Care Canadian Style

Canada’s system is called Medicare, and is much like Medicare in the U.S.  except it  treats virtually the entire Canadian population of 33 million, its a single-payer system, in which the government picks up the tab  i.e. the tax payer.

Canadians have complaints about their health care system such as long waits for elective care, including appointments with specialists and selected surgical procedures; shortages of doctors and nurses, particularly in rural areas; and the growing costs of covering an aging population.

The Canadian Medical Association wants to mix private insurance into the government monopoly. There have been lawsuits demanding the right to buy private health insurance.

Canadians do pay higher taxes than Americans, the average family pays about 48 percent of its annual income in taxes, partly to fund the health care system.

“It is in fact a very poor health care system that regularly fails Canadians,” says  Nadeem Esmail of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank.

He said Canada has the developed world’s second most expensive universal health care system yet lags behind other industrialized countries in access to medical technologies and physician-to-population ratios. He noted that Canadians on average had to wait longer to see a specialist or receive elective surgery than in other developed countries with universal health care.

Canadians are barred from purchasing private medical insurance for services covered by the government, and doctors cannot charge patients extra fees. Excluded services are optometry, dentistry and outpatient prescription drugs

Outgoing CMA president Robert Ouellet told a news conference that most doctors “believe there is an urgent need to fix Canada’s health care system,” “We need to stop deceiving ourselves into believing that we have the best health care system in the world,” he said.

Advertisements

American Thinker: You’re A Racist! The Ultimate Emotional Intimidation

American Thinker: You’re A Racist! The Ultimate Emotional Intimidation

Shared via AddThis

“death panels”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., said in March that as part of responsible healthcare reform people must recognize they would not be able to get every treatment they wanted. The government would use a cost-benefit analysis to determine treatment options.

Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother and one of Obama’s health-care advisors, wrote in a January 2009 white paper that health care should be rationed in a way that “promotes and rewards social usefulness.”

“Services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Obama said “Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. … And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”

“We will spend money we don’t have to pay for health care, or we will prioritize who gets treatment. It is an inevitable fact of life that the more the government outlays to keep you alive, the more your life becomes subject to a cost/benefit analysis.”

HR 3200 would not require doctors or families to pull the plug on grandma. The proposal would require that grandma, and others who bureaucrats deem have limited social utility, wither and die while people with greater social utility get treatment first.

They don’t call them “death panels” in the legislation, but Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow “advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on ‘what treatments work best.’”

These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.

What could go wrong

Obama’s health care plan will be,

written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it — that would be John  Conyers — his health care plan will be,

passed by Congress that has not read it;

signed by a president who smokes;

funded by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes;

overseen by a Surgeon General who is over weight; and,

financed by a country that’s nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong with this?

Government- health care

The White House is in full campaign mode trying to label any opposition to its government- health care agenda as “misinformation” or “myths.

The White House now has a taxpayer-funded Web site to “reality check” criticisms and arguments.

Problem is the “debunking” of each “myth” is low on facts.

Checkout A “Dose of Reality Fact checking the White House” From “Fix Health Care Policy” by the Heritage Foundation

download the full text of the Senate Health Bill here

« Frugal Café Blog Zone

well worth reading

« Frugal Café Blog Zone.

Health Insurance Competition

Congress thinks it can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

In the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market

National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office

But what most people don’t know competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care.

Obama denounced the insurance companies in the New York Times, saying: “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”

Maybe that and the cancer.

In a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business.

The reason competition does not exist in the health insurance industry can be summed up with two statements:

1. After World War II, Congress codified employer-based health benefits through the tax code. This was done to benefit the labor unions.

2. The insurance companies had their markets protected through a law known as ERISA (also passed by Congress), which does not allow insurance products to be sold across state lines.

The result is that there is a lack of choice by the people that use health insurance. Giving the control to choose to the government is no choice at all. True choice and true competition in the health insurance market will come when the above two items are corrected.

All private insurance will be forced to become identical to the government option in 5 years per HR 3200, so choice and competition will be removed completely. Then what do you do if the government won’t approve the medications?