LETTER: Canada knows health care

Want an answer to the health care dilemma? Ask any Canadian -- they're only a few miles across the lake from Sandusky. If they get s
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010

Want an answer to the health care dilemma? Ask any Canadian -- they're only a few miles across the lake from Sandusky. If they get sick: they walk into a healthcare provider, they get treated, they walk out -- without a thought about money, because it's all free. For every single Canadian.

They don't worry about finding a plan with a level of coverage they can afford. Or losing their house to pay for one extended stay in the hospital. Or what they'll do for health care when they get older. They just get it.

Occasionally they wait for a complicated procedure, but they don't have an insurance company telling them that they'll have to die because treatment's too expensive. No worrying about insurance exchanges or public options -- it's all one big public option.

Before the hate mail from right wingnuts begins arriving at my house -- no, I'm not going up there to live if I don't like it down here, and no, Canada's isn't more expensive than the true cost of health care in the U.S. if you factor in everybody turned down by insurance, those who can't afford it, the high deductibles, out-of-network charges and procedures that aren't covered.

We need to fix it here, like they did in Canada, Europe and countries where corporations don't control their citizens' healthcare -- where people's number one worry isn't whether they'll go bankrupt if they get sick -- where they are happy to pay a few cents more for a candy bar if it keeps them from losing their house over medical bills.

Put Congress on the same health care as the rest of us and watch how fast they "socialize" health care. They could hitch a ride with the seniors who bus to Canada for prescriptions, if they want to see for themselves.

Gary Polvinale

Sandusky

Comments

Cross

The reason people in the US have so much higher survival rates for medical disasters is due to prompt, effective, expensive, and cutting edge medical care.

Yes, that care costs money and is not over subsidized. However, if you are trying to say the government would pay for more, with less red tape than an insurance company, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you, also.

Duhast

OK, so if he wants a socialist system and you say it should move toward capitalism, please tell me what you think it is now. If it's not already a capitalist system, then what is it?

libertarian

jimbo wrote: "That is....... for the people that have, or can afford the high dollar coverage. Then..... there is the other 75% of the population......Have to admit.........a lot of the uninsured and under insured, go away every year, they make one last showing....... in the obituaries."

OK, I'll be less nebulous (even though I presented enough information to make that label superfluous).

Let's talk about obituaries then: According to a study published in the British medical journal, "The Lancet", the United States is at the top of the charts for cancer survival. For men, the survival rate (five year) is about 63% and for women, 66%. Countries with national (socialized) health care fare far worse. For Italy, the rate is 60% and for Spain it is 59% for men and 49% for women. Britain is even worse with a rate 45% for men and a 53% rate for women.

For heart disease, the pattern continues: 44% of Americans who could benefit from the use of statins use the drug. This number seems low until compared with countries with national health care: Germany, 26%; Britain, 23% and Italy, 17%.

That's a whole lot of obituaries.

duhast wrote: "BTW: Heard a press conference from Obama yesterday where he expressly said socialized medicine might work for Canada but is not practical and would not work for the US. So, there you have it."

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like duck-it's a duck. Socialism is the government ownership or control of the means of production of goods, services, wealth or property.
While this plan is not communist (government ownership), is certainly makes health care more fascist (government control-corporatist). Fascism (one of two types of socialism) is the government control of the means of production and distribution of goods, services, wealth and property (typical in cooperation with favored interests-cartels (AMA and ABA)and corporations). So, yes, this health care system is indeed socialist, though not quite as socialist as Canada's.

The only way preserve and improve the superior quality of our health care and bring down it's cost is to move away from the socialist aspects of our current system and adopt a capitalist system.

Duhast

You are right, she's not in Canada. She's in the US. So, why is she (and many others) allowed to be treated like this if we have such good standards?

brutus smith

Wanting to privatize SS was not trying to dismantle it?????????? Red is green, brown is blue, yellow is ..........

Cross

Duhast, first best wishes for your sister.

However, if your sister was in Canada, she probably wouldn't get any treatment at all.

So, is it better to be bankrupt and alive, or dead?

Anyways, a big part of what I posted was in regards to proper regulation and competition. The reason costs are so high is the industry does not allow one to choose, and it's limited by nefarious backroom deals made by corporations, and not individuals.

W did not try to dismantle SSN. He tried to overhaul it because it currently is a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable long term. Just like with Obama and health care reform, the opposition distored and used it for propaganda purposes to score political points.

IF the Dems lose the 2010 midterm, it won't be because of 20somethings with no health insurance. It'll be due to the AARP contingent who saw they might lose some of their benefits, and actually help out the next generation. Can't have that!

Duhast

The oncologist actually fought with the insurance company explaining that this was a needed drug and it worked. He also ended up fighting over her radiation treatment a few years back. The doctor ended up eating the cost because he said it was needed and that’s what they specialize in at that new cancer center. The insurance company said it was “experimental” and denied it.

I don’t have the perfect solution. But I do know that playing with peoples lives based on profit is simply wrong. Without consumer protection laws, we would have a system like China where they don’t care if lead goes into your children’s toys. I can’t understand why the insurance industry has been so poorly regulated. It has to be lobbyists.

BTW: Heard a press conference from Obama yesterday where he expressly said socialized medicine might work for Canada but is not practical and would not work for the US. So, there you have it. Do you think the crazies will quit saying he wasn’t socialized medicine? I doubt it.

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

Best wishes for better health to your sister.

Assuming that govt. bureaucrats would approve your sister’s treatment over more than private ones is a fallacy. It ain’t necessarily so.

It’s my understanding that the percentage of denials for treatment under govt. programs like Medicare is greater than private insurance.

Economically, better service and benefits for less cost is impossible – BH Obama lies.

Libertarians – anarchists? Govt. is like poison, the less in one’s drinking water the better.

Better than one-size-fits-all Federalism don’t you think?

I’d like to see a lot more of the 10th Amendment enforced.

Duhast

Cross, you can’t seem to differentiate between level of medical technology and access to it. Nobody is disputing our level of achievement, just affordable access to it. Canada has lost many doctors to us because our system PAYS them much better.

My sister is receiving the best chemo technology right now. It’s keeping he cancer in check. It’s $14,000 a dose and the insurance company said it wasn’t officially approved for her KIND of cancer, so they won’t pay for it. To date she’s had something like 30 treatments. Do the math…

Kimo

re:Cross wrote on Mar 8, 2010 1:49 PM:The problem we have right now is the AARP owns this country, and it's political suicide to tamper with any of their entitlements, be it fair or not. Not to mention the partisan nasty rhetoric prevents real, smart progress. This was the case with Social Security reform in the W years It's also the case with Obama and a lot of good things he's trying to get done.

More nebulous BS.

If W had his way he would have killed SS.

Kill SS, the people that live on the checks
don't die with the program.

They are still alive and need food and shelter
the next day.

What would you do with them?

Let them starve?
Send them to live with dumpster Don?

Be pretty crowded in that fish shanty.

Feed them feral cat stew?

If you want to solve a problem and create
another problem, it is not a solution.

Kimo

re:I could go on and on, but the fact is that the WHO report is biased nonsense that collectivist thugs use to downplay the superiority of the US health care system.

A nebulous comment bub.

Have to agree it's pretty damm good in the USA...........
That is....... for the people that have, or can afford the high dollar coverage.

Then..... there is the other 75% of the population......

The problem with you wingnuts, you feel if you ignore a problem, it does not exist.

Have to admit.........a lot of the uninsured and under insured, go away every year, they make one last showing....... in the obituaries.

libertarian

duhast wrote: "I’m not sure which rock some of you have been living under. But this nationalism over healthcare is absurd. We do not have the best healthcare in the world. The WHO has ranked the U.S. 37th back in 2000. I would say our technology is at the top, but affordability and access could be better"

The WHO report is biased against capitalism and penalizes the US for things unrelated to health care. For instance, the WHO report penalizes the US for not having a sufficiently "fair". In fact, much of the low ranking of the US health care system comes from our ranking 54th in the category of "fairness". Of course, according to the WHO report, the "unfairness" of the US health care system stems for the US not having a sufficiently "progressive" tax system, for not (guess what!!!) providing all citizens with health insurance not having enough social welfare programs, because patients pay too much out of pocket and (of all things) for adopting Health Savings Accounts. Basically, the WHO report ranks the US so low mostly because we aren't collectivist-socialist enough.

What the collectivist thugs here leave out is the same report rank the US number one in the world in responsiveness to patients' needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care and confidentiality. Which is more important to health care, these factors or a lack of a "progressive" tax system?

In addition the US easily has the highest survival rate for cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, AIDs and most other diseases, which is why those who can afford abandon socialist health care for marginally free market health care in the US. The Mayo clinic alone treats about 7200 foreign patients a year. For John Hopkins it is over 6000 while for the Cleveland Clinic, it is over 5000. One in three Canadian physicians sends a patient to the US for treatment each year.

I could go on and on, but the fact is that the WHO report is biased nonsense that collectivist thugs use to downplay the superiority of the US health care system.

Duhast

Cross,
Fostering more competition would require a health care exchange where people can pick the insurance they want. The Lending tree of insurance if you will. The problem with that is most people with insurance get it through their employer with little choice of provider. I am in that boat. If I were to look for other insurance, I’d get dinged with the pre-existing condition clauses. I’m in essence trapped in my current insurance system. Our libertarian friends below would find it a paradox to have more regulation and more competition.

So, I’m with you. Regulate it with consumer protection laws. If my cell provider gives me crap, I can switch companies. They don’t give me a “previous dialed phone numbers” exemption.

Cross

Everyone knows what 'should' be done, Brutus.

The problem is it won't, due to political expediency.

The system should be completely overhauled, better regulation should be put in place, more competition should be allowed, and affordable support should be mandated.

I'm not sure where the 'Auschwitz' comment comes from. What's likely to happen is America in 10 to 25 years will bankrupt itself from bloated policies that can't be changed due to special interest inertia.

The diminishing returns from the Ponzi scheme of Social Security, the added costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and the pressure from so much debt that keeps growing is like a juggernaut of destruction. It'd be nice if we put the brakes on it now, but you and I know it's not going to happen.

What's comical is the same nasty rhetoric is what's happening this time. Sadly, what goes around, comes around.

brutus smith

So cross, truth comes out. What should be done with the "boomers". Auschwitz maybe?????

Cross

If you think we have free market health care, you completely ignore the facts.

Also, the way they rank health care systems is absurd. There's a reason when most world leaders need something medical, they come here. Heck, go google the Canadian premier who came here just a month ago.

The problem is the system is insular, ripe with corruption, and in need of a complete overhaul. Insurance companies have a cabal. Government supported programs are rife with corruption, and cost overruns.

The problem we have right now is the AARP owns this country, and it's political suicide to tamper with any of their entitlements, be it fair or not. Not to mention the partisan nasty rhetoric prevents real, smart progress. This was the case with Social Security reform in the W years It's also the case with Obama and a lot of good things he's trying to get done.

I fear our future when the large amount of boomers retires and crushes our public entitlement programs.

Duhast

I’m not sure which rock some of you have been living under. But this nationalism over healthcare is absurd. We do not have the best healthcare in the world. The WHO has ranked the U.S. 37th back in 2000. I would say our technology is at the top, but affordability and access could be better.

For those of you claiming that a free market will take care of things are delusional. That’s what we have NOW! That’s what we’ve had for many years. Not working out so well for us, is it?

So, you have four options as I see it:
1. Let the health system go nuts and remove all laws governing them.
2. Implement socialized medicine or expand single payer Medicare.
3. Regulate the begeezes out of the industry so they treat consumers fairly. Like you do in other consumer industries.
4. Mix 2 and 3.

How do you pay for it? Raise taxes, reduce spending, or both. I’m for buying a few less bombs to pay for it.

Duhast

6079 Smith W wrote on Mar 8, 2010 11:39 AM:
The purveyors of socialism feed on people’s emotionalism and their base sense of envy and avarice.

Winston, Ever watch Fox news?? Talk about playing on people’s emotions. Anyway, that’s quite an unsupported broad generalization there. I could say the purveyors of libertarianism are all government hating anarchists. Would I be correct?

brutus smith

So surgery after 7 months versus no surgery at all for 46 million here, hmmmmm. Yeah that sounds good to me Winston. Aren't you missing the Rush Limbaugh program????

kURT

Still love America.
Yet we have have bad stats compared to other countries. Highest amount of people in prison compared to other developed countries. Poor quality food commerically compared to European communities.
Now healthcare.
America needs better.

6079 Smith W

BobWilliams wrote on Mar 7, 2010 10:05 PM:

‘I'm a trained history teacher…’

Does that mean an M.A. or a Ph.D?

Essentially, the difference between socialism and capitalism is who controls the means of production.

In our mixed economy, the state is increasingly controlling consumption (distribution) and leaving production somewhat in private hands.

However, through regulation, the U.S. is becoming a society that is fast culminating into fascism or corporatism.

In a true socialist economy, the state controls both consumption and production.

In “Socialism,” Mises rationally demonstrates that as an economic philosophy, socialism is fallacious and untenable.

The purveyors of socialism feed on people’s emotionalism and their base sense of envy and avarice.

Even in a true socialist society, some prosper more than others. Equality of consumption (distribution of resources) is impossible.

6079 Smith W

Back to topic:

While on the road recently, I happened onto a Canadian couple outside the hotel.

Neither of them had anything positive to say about Canadian health care and they were even less favorable about the U.K. brand.

The woman, who had emigrated from the UK, said that she was diagnosed with a hole in her retina in May and wasn't operated on until December.

She also said that if a person smoked, was overweight by 20 lbs. and had heart disease they could forget about any surgery.

The U.S. may have the worst health care system in the world, until it’s compared to everything else.

Remember:

Universal health care (Obamacare is it’s b*stard stepchild) will be just like going to an emergency where they perform triage.

Just because you show up, doesn’t automatically mean that you’ll be seen in short order.

libertarian

BobWilliams wrote: "To libertarian: Perhaps because I'm a trained history teacher, I don't see the benefit in deriding people who fail to grasp what I am saying. Teachers learn that people have different learning styles, different levels of development, and varying I.Q.s . So when students don't comprehend the lesson, we teachers tend to criticize our lesson delivery."

In most circumstances, I would agree with you completely. But when a person advocates violating one's natural rights and continually misrepresents facts and the clear principles of those who oppose them, they deserve and will get a good shaming and moral and intellectual pounding.

If you notice from my posts, I treat those who are simply misinformed and attempting to learn completely differently than those who willing flaunt the truth.

BobWilliams

To libertarian:

Perhaps because I'm a trained history teacher, I don't see the benefit in deriding people who fail to grasp what I am saying. Teachers learn that people have different learning styles, different levels of development, and varying I.Q.s . So when students don't comprehend the lesson, we teachers tend to criticize our lesson delivery.

Or as Napolean Camel once put it - "there's three ways to skin a cat, you just have to figure out the other two ways". :-)

BobWilliams

Oh, the confusion in economic language! Dr. Skip Oliver, "jimbo", and "pntbutterandjelly" are speaking a different language when conversing with "libertarian" (it's worse than overhearing a conversation between a Yank and a Brit). They're all talking about the same thing but know it because, although they use the same words, those words carry different and opposite meanings for those receiving them.

The problem goes back to Karl Marx's times living in London, England during the late 1800's. England at that time was ruled by a wealthy elite through a parliament in which only 3% of that country's population were eligble to vote; the other 97% could not vote and didn't get the vote until two years after African-Americans were given their right to vote in America. England's 3% practiced a form of corporatism called 'mercantilism', which is a type of socialism - only its propagators did not call it that; they called it 'capitalism' instead. They wanted to use Adam Smith's definition of 'capitalism' as camouflage to hide their despotic actions from plain view. This is a game that is still being played today by corporatists trying to justify their anti-free enterprise behavior by falsly claiming it is capitalism.

If we understand that capitalism is free enterprise; and that anything else - whether it is corporatism, socialism or fascism, is someone else taking control of what is yours, then it is plain to see that capitalism, properly understood, is freedom.

So few people today know what was originally meant by the word 'capitalism', and like Karl Marx, accept that it is what corporatists and fascists do because they say what they do is 'capitalism', which it is not. This is the definition of capitalism that Dr. Oliver understands when he hears the term 'capitalism'; he hears 'coporatism', 'economic fascism', 'socialism for the rich'.

Capitalism, properly understood, is simpy freedom - it is self-ownership and self-government; excersing your right to decide what is best for you while at the same time respecting the right of others to do the same.

When everyone is free to produce and trade to his or her individual liking, then no one can become a monopolist. Monopoly can only be had by the interventionist hand of government. Otherwise, others are free to copy and do exactly as I am doing.

England was not free during Karl Marx's time, and America's freedom is also dwindling as corporatists gain power with the backing of the state that creates their "artificial persons", giving corporations our rights under the Bill of Rights rather than holding their human owners responsible for their actions in the market place.

I recommend a reading of Paul H. Weaver's "The Suicidal Corporation" who relates his personal enlightenment on the confusion in economic language. In the end he realized that free marketeers and critics from the "left" had been criticizing the same thing, but didn't know it because they were talking past one another.

Kimo

Charge for health care by the pound.

More pounds = more problems = more dollars

Free market capitalism at its best, skinny
wingnuts would support this.........

Might make those "three towelers" lose
some pounds............

pntbutterandjelly

Chapter 2 of "An American "do do" list"

Federally fund campaigns for governors, congressmen and the president. Eliminate all other forms of funding.

pntbutterandjelly

Chapter 2 of "An American "do do" list"

Immediately began an all out effort to utilise our natural gas and "green energy"technology.

pntbutterandjelly

15,000,000 Americans on unemployment
10,000,000 Americans working two jobs or working grossly un-paid jobs.
25,000,000 total affecting 62,000,000 Americans or 1/3 of our total population
26% of mortages upside-down/under water

Is there a problem????

pntbutterandjelly

Sounds to me like there may be a "small" problem afoot.

Pages