Today someone dissed the Canadian healthcare system because it

[GreenPartyVoter]

is bankrupt and therefore unworkable. Have you heard this one before?

[BlueJazz]

1. I would have said "At least Canada and most of it's Politicians are not (Morally) Bankrupt."

:)

[NanceGreggs]

2. Yeah, I've heard that one before ...

... but that punchline cracks me up every time!

:rofl:

[Warpy]

3. The only thing that will bankrupt it is intentional underfunding

by conservatives. This is what's being done in the UK, but hasn't been done in Canada.

I have never met a single Canadian who would exchange his system for ours.

[TheBigotBasher]

6. Just For Your Info

Conservatives have not been in Government for 12 years in the UK. So they have not "starved funds".

Britain is proud of its NHS and every PM has boasted of how much more they have spent on it above the official inflation index. Even under Thatcher (50% real growth). About the same as Labour, depending how you include PFI (which is a wretched con devised by the Treasury).

The USA spend about the same per head as the UK in government expenditure for health care. In addition it then spends a bit more than that again in insurance and patient charges. US life expectancy is 37th in the world.

About half of the money spent on medical care for each person is spent in the last year of life. In reality, the UK could save a lot more on the NHS. Preventative care will be key to controlling health care costs over the next Parliamentary term. More effective public health measures - increasing the amount of exercise people take, reducing the amount they eat, smoke and drink. It can not be done by diktat, but it can be done.

[Warpy]

12. The problem is that you don't realize it's the last year of life

until the patient dies.

My own dad had a pretty drastic surgery at 78 that kept him going with about 95% of his original function until he was 89. He made himself DNR during his final illness and avoided massive bills then.

However, other people have the same surgery even younger, don't do well, and run up huge costs, only to die within days, weeks or months.

The point is that there is no real way to tell who's going to benefit and who is not.

Preventive care will cause genetically programmed diseases of aging to emerge later, but they will eventually emerge.

As for the lifestyle changes, you can only accomplish what the patients themselves want to do. Some don't want to change and prefer living a shorter life the way they enjoy living. Medicine has to deal with that, too.

Focusing on cost cutting has pretty much destroyed healthcare in the US. While new technology is being bought, the buildings themselves are deteriorating and short staffing is starting to show up in increased patient complications and mortality.

Cost cutting has run its course. The only cost cutting we can possibly focus on in the future is cutting the appalling administrative costs we in the US pay, over 50% of every health dollar.

THAT requires single payer.

[TheBigotBasher]

15. You missed my point.

I was talking about the British system, not the American system. We are starting with the position that we already have a good single health payer system. It can be improved. Like everything, it can be made to work better.

The US system is far from efficient. It is expensive and it does not deliver. You have almost as many uninsured as the UK has residents, and the UK is forth largest economy in the World. I would suggest that by not having a decent single payer system, your Industry suffers and costs Americans jobs.

Something that the GOP who claim to be "Conservative" should learn.

[bemildred]

19. Word. The problem with US health care is greed. nt

[PDJane]

4. Yep. Along with others.

It's not bankrupt. It's not overfunded, either, mind, and money would help.

Health care is not rationed. There are waiting lists, yes. Some of them are longer than others because of the number of people who need them. Those in most need go to the front of the lists. You choose your doctor. There are some things I don't like, user fees for instance, but medical care is crowded everywhere!

The US is the only industrialized country without universal health care, and the only country in the world with no control at all on drug prices. When you have to make a choice between medical care and a roof over your head, it's pretty ugly.

[jody]

7. You say "Health care is not rationed" meaning that a 70 year old person needing open-heart surgery

receives it without considering how many additional of years of life would be added by the surgery as one example of your statement.

That's wonderful and a policy other countries including the U.S. and UK should follow.

[TheBigotBasher]

8. The UK has NO waiting lists for things like that.

Lower priority treatments (hip replacements) do have a waiting list. Not long though. Except Wales, which is trying its own thing with regard to NHS priorities.

(edited to UK was Us by mistake)

[jody]

10. Are you sure the U.S. funds all open-heart surgery for the elderly without regard to cost? Funding

is totally different than your claim "US has NO waiting lists for things like that".

Perhaps you were not aware that your answer focusing on "waiting list" was completely different than the question I asked about "how many additional of years of life would be added".

[TheBigotBasher]

11. Mistake - corrected now. Sorry

[jody]

14. Thanks but your assertion appears to be contradicted by recent medical articles, see below.

Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes

Decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) about whether the NHS should fund treatments are based on cost effectiveness. NICE methods guides refer to a threshold of £20 000-£30 000 ({euro}22 000-{euro}34 000; $30 000-$45 000) per quality adjusted life year (QALY). However, this is an arbitrary figure. Evidence on the public’s willingness to pay suggests that it should be higher. There is a lack of evidence on opportunity costs.

[TheBigotBasher]

16. NICe uses these as budget estimates

(which it also points out Local NHS trusts are not especially good at following). A 70 year old needing open heart surgery in the UK would get it, free at the point of use, paid for by the taxpayer.

If that did not happen - merry hell would kick off.

There ARE NO WAITING Lists for priority Open Heart Surgery (eg immediate requirement). Non priority open heart waiting lists went 6 years ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/21/NHS.medicineandhealth

[jody]

17. You again shift to "ARE NO WAITING Lists" when the question I posed was about rationing health-care.

If you are correct and UK's NICE does not ration health-care, then the authors of the following current article in the Healthcare Economist will be roundly criticized for their incompetence.

Should the U.S. get NICE? (March 9, 2009)

All health services researches know that comparative-effectiveness research is a vital link towards improving quality and decreasing cost. Comparative effectiveness examines different medical treatments and evaluates which are the most cost effective. The UK’s NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) publishes clinical appraisals regarding which treatments the NHS should cover.

Should the U.S. create a NICE-style government agency to conduct comparative effectiveness research? Few researchers doubt that comparative effectiveness research is needed. The question is whether it should be provided by the government.

[TheBigotBasher]

18. That is deciding for the amount of money you have

and the likely number of patients, which is the best treatment, both medically and financially.

It will be a medical decision, often taken at the point of operation how a person is treated. NICE uses Comparative effectiveness to decide which treatment is best. If a treatment costs 3 times as much but saves no extra lives it will not be used. If it costs 3 times as much but saves 3 times as many people it will be.

I must also point out it is about whether the US should set up a similar organisation to NICE, which was done to ensure that decisions over the medical safety of medicines and treatments and their financial efficacy were removed from politicians and returned to medical experts.

The US spends vastly more per person on its medicare system than we do on the NHS, but proper negotiation of drug prices, has resulted in a much better universal service in the U, for less than the US pays for a service delivering care only to those aged above 65

[jody]

20. Thanks, have a wonderful day. n/t

[TheBigotBasher]

24. No problems

I hope I killed off a GOP scare about "rationing" of health care. There are waiting lists. These waiting lists are minimal compared to the waits caused by the fights with insurance companies I have heard from people who have standard levels of insurance cover in the US.

The NHS is not a perfect system. It needs and is getting reform. (Ability to choose any hospital, state or private). In fact, Singapore has better results for much less money. However it is better than nothing. At the moment, America has an expensive mess. If the US can get past the scare stories and look at all the schemes, it can develop a good scheme.

By doing so, rather than being a breaker of the capitalist system as the GOP keeps saying, Obama is likely to be the saviour of it. http://thebigotbasher.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/if-universal-health-care-is-achieved-barack-obama-can-inherit-the-mantle-of-popular-capitalism/

[jody]

28. I'm glad you killed the "GOP scare" because Obama is clearly mistaken about needing to discuss

rationing health care.

See DU thread President Obama's Grandmother and the Ethics of Health Care Reform

[provis99]

22. no user fees in Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

but of course, that's the heart of "eeevil socialism" in Canada.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. There are alot of problems with the Canadian healthcare system

And virtually all of them are a result of the a generation of Liberal and Conservative Federal governments underfunding the federal contribution to the provincially administered healthcare programs.

I'm not convinced the quality of care is really any better or any worse than an average HMO, although it is universal.

[Spazito]

32. Oh, it is much better than an average HMO...

There are NO pre-condition limitations, there are NO high costs for insurance to be paid by Canadians, there is NO limitation on who one can choose as a Doctor - NO list to "choose" from, and I could go on but I think what I have posted is suffusive to show you as being incorrect.

[Cleita]

9. Yes, from as far back as 1996. Most of it has been propaganda by our

for profit health care industry to stop a similar system from being implemented here. There is a movement by conservatives to underfund it and start introducing private insurance plans like we have here in the USA. I think Mike Moore's "Sicko" pretty much tells you what it's like to get health care under the Canadian system. There wasn't a single Canadian he interviewed who was unhappy with their system.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Bankrupt? I've never heard of any bankruptcies

Health care in Canada is mainly the responsibility of individual provinces. The federal govt. helps with "transfer payments".

Here in Ontario, it certainly isn't bankrupt, but it is a challenge to maintain universal coverage. The main problem we have is the # of doctors in rural and remote locations.

But there are no "emergency" situations anywhere in Canada that I'm aware of.

Overall, the system works very well. And as for myself and my family, we've never had a problem.

I'm proud and grateful for our system and yes, I would fight tooth and nail if anyone tried to institute the American "pay through the nose for everything" system.

[Oregone]

21. Its has enough money to cover everything I need

Including our upcoming birth of our child.

[rucky]

23. One think I haven't heard is a single Canadian going bankrupt over a medical bill. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I haven't heard of that either

[pnutbutr]

26. interesting piece on Canadian Helathcare

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

[AllieB]

29. The Manhattan Group is a RW Think Tank.

Please don't push their garbage here.

[pnutbutr]

30. What was garbage in that piece?

I'm not interested in the political affiliation of the group the author is a member of as much as the information presented in the writing. His writing has forced the Canadian government to alter it's stance on allowing private healthcare for the citizens who were receiving subpar care at the hands of the government. IMO he has done great things for the people in Canada who were being ignored by their government and needed immediate help.

[AllieB]

31. In case you're interested in a debunking of the article:

The original link, by Dr. David Gratzer in the journal published by the RW Manhattan Institute:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Some research on the dear doctor:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html

As factual support for the mayor's claim, the Giuliani campaign cited an article that appeared in the "City Journal," published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative New York think tank, slamming the Canadian and British systems of "socialized" medicine. The article by David Gratzer provides no sources for its assertions about five-year survivability rates from prostate cancer.

Another critique of the author:

http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2007/11/giuliani_a_case_example_of_cla.htm

"Mr Giuliani’s campaign did not give an immediate response. But a spokeswoman has previously insisted that he would continue to repeat the statistic and run the advertisement. She said the 44 per cent figure came from an article in a “highly respected intellectual journal” published by the right-wing Manhattan Institute, which he had read because “he is an intellectually engaged human being”.
The article’s author, David Gratzer who is an adviser to Mr Giuliani’s campaign, has acknowledged to The New York Times that the statistic is seven years old and “crude”.

He said that it came from the Commonwealth Fund, which specialises in health policy issues. But the same organisation has since issued a statement accusing Dr Gratzer of misusing its research."

Excerpt:

"How it works: Right wing think tank gets money from the health industry. Right wing think tank then hires 'experts' to 'research' (objectively of course) and compare 'socialized' medicine vs. 'free market' medicine. The 'experts' determine that more people die from not getting the treatment they need in countries with commie pinko medicine compared to America's system. To seal the deal they often offer up numbers which we all know has to make it true. Often the numbers offered up as 'proof' that socialized medicine doesn't work are old and outdated.

But it doesn't matter; the propaganda campaign is a success. You see, the think tank will get their research article published even if it means they have to establish their own damn journal to do it. They will then reference that research article in op-ed pieces all across America's papers. Few papers are going to do any serious fact checking. Also, being an op-ed piece gives the writer much more flexibility with the truth."

[Spazito]

34. LOL, nice try...

POS right-wing propaganda piece written by a POS who was an advisor to Giuliani in the 2008 presidential campaign and we KNOW how well his campaign went! :rofl:

David George Gratzer (born September 5, 1974 in Winnipeg, Manitoba) is a Canadian psychiatrist, conservative columnist, author, and critic of the Canadian health care system. He is a practicing psychiatrist in Toronto and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute<1>, and as advisor to Rudy Giuliani in his 2008 presidential campaign he was the source for a disputed statistic that led to much criticism of Giuliani by foreign politicians, and the media in the U.S. and Europe.

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

[AllieB]

35. So I'm not the only one that noticed.

:eyes:

RW propaganda is not a credible source on DU and certainly calls into question any argument that a poster would make relying on this information.

Stinks to high hell, doesn't it?

[Spazito]

36. Citing a propaganda piece full of 'anecdotal' stories as an authoritative...

source does give one 'pause', doesn't it!

:hi:

[underpants]

27. Since when do you demand perfection? from our healthcare? Really?

:shrug:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.