Posted on 08/26/2006 1:27:51 AM PDT by goldstategop
Canada's nationalized health-care system, admired by the left all over the world and deplored by the right all over Canada, took another hit last week. The Canadian Medical Association, long its unfailing supporter, suddenly turned against it.
The CMA elected as president Dr. Brian Day, a Vancouver surgeon and one-time supporter of state medicine, who is now an outspoken critic of Canada's "Medicare" system. In fact, he runs the largest private clinic in the country, offering an array of surgical procedures to people prepared to pay for them. In doing so, he challenges the Canada Health Act, which prohibits for-profit medical practice.
For two reasons, Dr. Day's election was viewed as a tidal change in the CMA attitude. For one, he not only opposes Medicare, he is one of its most articulate critics. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week," he told the New York Times earlier his year. "Humans can wait two to three years. ... In a free and democratic society, where you can spend money on gambling and alcohol and tobacco, the state has no business preventing us from spending our own money on health care."
Raised in Britain, he came from a socialist family and began by supporting the state system. "But then when you find that your operating room time is cut from 22 hours a week progressively over the years to five hours a week, and you have 450 patients waiting for health care, you realize that something has to give."
Second, that Dr. Day had to stand for this election at all was an intriguing irregularity. The CMA has a rotating presidency, and it was British Columbia's turn to provide its chief officer. In the B.C. voting, Dr. Day won handily over the other candidates, all of whom ran on the understanding that the B.C. winner would not be opposed nationally. But one man among them reneged.
Dr. Jack Burak, also of Vancouver, an unreserved supporter of state medicine, decided it was his public duty to force a national election. After all, with an important social cause at stake, why quibble over some trivial moral principle about keeping promises? He campaigned vigorously, probably on the assumption that B.C. doctors may be prepared to allow for-profit medicine but the national body would prove more "truly Canadian." So the national vote became a referendum on the state system. Dr. Burak and the state system both lost.
Once elected, Dr Day hastened to protest that he does not favor dismantling the public system; he merely thinks Canada needs supplementary private services. This did not reassure Medicare's defenders, who viewed his election with obvious consternation. "Medicare has been good for patients and it's been good for doctors," said outgoing president Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai. "If we begin to put doctors' interests ahead of patients' interests ... we will lose public trust."
Added Dr. Danielle Martin, chairwoman of Canadian Doctors for Medicare: "CMA delegates appear to be out of touch with the evidence, with the values of Canadians." The union-financed Canadian Health Coalition and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario declared that Day's election clearly indicated withdrawal of CMA support from Medicare.
This was the second reversal inflicted upon Medicare this summer. In June the Supreme Court, arguably the most liberal judicial body in the Western world, decided that even it was not quite liberal enough to endorse the Medicare monopoly. It thereupon threw out a Quebec ban on private medical insurance. "Access to waiting lists is not access to health care," observed Justice Jack Major, who wrote the decision.
Long waits for medical and hospital services are the system's chief symptom of failure. The causes are many, not least a steady exodus of young Canadian doctors to the U.S. – which means, of course, that Canadians are training many doctors to work elsewhere. System proponents, however, cite an exhaustive report on Medicare commissioned by the late Liberal government, authored by Roy Romanow, previously the socialist premier of Saskatchewan. Its conclusion: Spend more money and let the government fix the system.
But more and more Canadians are starting to wonder whether any government can fix much of anything and are ready to contemplate alternatives. Not long ago, for instance, one B.C. surgeon publicly offered to take over the majority of surgeries of the local regional health board and perform them at 60 percent of present cost. The offer was angrily rejected as frivolous. The doctor who made it was Brian Day.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Hillary and other liberals are pushing it, not other Americans.
After some year long brainwashing with the help of the press, who knows, maybe Americans will want it?
Medicare was originally conceived to protect people from losing everything in the case of catastrophic illness. It's evolved into a free for all that is at best taken for granted, and at worst, liberally abused.
Good article on medicare. Ping!
Because some pigs are more equal than others.
The minor problem is every other advanced western society has some form of national health care, Japan, England, Ireland, France, Germany, Hong Kong and so forth.
While the Canadians don't love their system, they sure as hell don't want to go to the US system.
Our current system is f*cked up and we need to do something.
There is a need to do something about US health care cost (which usually has higher inflation rates than other sectors), and I don't think socialist-style is the answer. However, we probably need to look at the 'hybrid' style.
Medical insurance, whether public or private, increases demand and increased demand increases prices.
But why should the US Health Care consumer subsidize the rest of the world?
"The CMA elected as president Dr. Brian Day, a Vancouver surgeon and one-time supporter of state medicine, who is now an outspoken critic of Canada's "Medicare" system."
Obviously Dr. Day in the real world got a lesson in economics that he didn't get in medical school. Better late than never.
Put another way, why should other countries get to extort US health care companies to get the latest pharmaceuticals and technology at a much lower cost than we pay in the US? Financing socialized health care in those countries that have it is a huge problem. Imagine what it would be like if the US consumer wasn't subsidizing these systems indirectly by paying more for technology/meds here while they pay falsely deflated prices.
"...In a free and democratic society, where you can spend money on gambling and alcohol and tobacco, the state has no business preventing us from spending our own money on health care."
Conclusion: Canada is neither free nor democratic.
Other countries don't extort the US Health Care Companies, There is no law that forces them to sell.
The other countries are treating the Health Care companies like Wal-Mart treats their suppliers.
That the U.S. will have some form of gov't subsidized health care within 10 years is pretty much a done deal. It's simply too expensive for businesses to purchase the healthcare for their employees and too expensive in terms of lost time etc. for employees not to have health care.
I'd like to have more PA's and Nurses be allowed to run offices with rights to prescribe and treat.
Increase competition; remove some burdensome laws.
Do you believe that, if they do, that their patients should retain the right to sue some physician when they screw up?
If so, this will never, never happen.
Where such people have prescriptive privileges, they have to have a physician "supervisor". As providers like this claim more and more independence, the risk of this "supervision" skyrockets.
If you sever the link, it can work. If you don't, it can't.
Choosing to spend my money on health care rather than a Jaguar and a plasma TV does not make me a pig. Simply a citizen with free choice.
When governments tell pharmaceutical companies that if you don't sell to us for the price we want to pay we will manufacture the drug ourselves generically, irrespective of patent positions, that is extortion, plain and simple. Also, if any US drug company played hard ball with a government that sponsors socialized health care the negative press would be astounding. "Drug company puts profits ahead of individuals." "Canadian government just wants to provide medicine to its citizens." And so on...
>>Even their conservatives are liberal.
It's a problem we have at times, no doubt.
A market solution must have a political precursor....the removal of laws limiting most areas to MDs.
The minor problem is every other advanced western society has some form of national health care, Japan, England, Ireland, France, Germany, Hong Kong and so forth.
While the Canadians don't love their system, they sure as hell don't want to go to the US system.
Our current system is f*cked up and we need to do something.
___________________________--
Dear Dunderhead,
Why ooh why are Canadians coming to the US for elective surgery?
The problem with the US health care system is government controls over its every component. The cost of satisfying government regulations doubles and triples the cost of maintaining a health care facility. Ask you Dr.
So the logic of Socialized medicine advocates is: When the fox has raided the henhouse and is still hungry we need to give him more chickens.
I remember Dr. home visitations into the mid 60's. That is, until Medicaid and Medicare made such personalized service impossible.
You want to improve medical delivery of services in the US? Get the government out of the health care business.
We need a whole lot of deregulation around here. Not more of the same.
Estimates during the Hillary fiasco of the mid 90's were that the Am health care system accounts for 10% of the US economy. Imagine putting that much power in the hands of sociocrats.
The solution is to get politicians and government out of the insurance and health care industries. I observed the Canadian pols dealing with this and their derelict hydro. What I learned is that politics and business management have different imperatives. Business requires constant attention and maintenance of service. Politicians are always chasing the spotlight today. That's why they cannot be trusted to pay attention to keeping electric plants maintained and upgraded or buying MRI machines. Rather than running businesses themselves, governments should stick to regulating them because that provides ample opportunity for scandal when there is no conflict of interest.
As a young physician (35) What always kills me about these threads is that those of you who are in favor of some sort of nationalized health care or see it as an unfortunate inevitability assume the doctors will go along with it. I for one did not give up my 20's(and I did give up my 20's to go through my training), and accrue over 100K in debt just So that I could take care of patients making a salary similar to middle management in corporate America. I am sure physician compensation will take a hit with any kinda health plan on a national level. What if the grand plan is produced and most doctors say thanks but no thanks. Generation x'ers as physicians are not as altruistic as the Boomer's. This physician seeing the light is a prime example of the attitude I think you will see with physicans under 45. You people might just end up taking care of yourselves.
If we fight the good fight, it is.
You should see how docs manipulate these Medicare patients. I used to drive three people to the doctor and they had us coming and going every month. We wouldn't have time for a round of golf, if the docs had their ways.
"Hillary and other liberals are pushing it, not other Americans."
Unfortunately, though, that means that it's inevitable. The libs will destroy all alternatives, and then say "We told you so. This is the only alternative."
Suggesting that physicians manipulate medicare patient's indicates your total lack of knowledge of this topic. The last thing I want to do is see a medicare patient on a recurrent basis. These patients cost me money to take care of. I do it, despite what my post above indicates, because I do feel an obligation to take care of all people.
I am followed by a specialist. I pay a $10 copay and get a record that the HMO pays another $10. To cope, the doc now uses a nurse practioner and certainly has to limit how many HMO patients he sees. Someone above wonders why they subsidize foreigners. Does she realize ho much she subsidizes government patients when the government is so stingy?
Do you know how Hillary ran all of the vaccine manufacturers out of business? Why would anyone think a bunch of lawyers with no business experience know best about insurance or health businesses?
You are probably not part of the Florida Medicare HMO scene as I am.
Typical arrogant MD, thinks he is the only one who went to graduate school. There are other types of doctors who also know a few things.
Would the absence of public school system made USA better off?
Long waits for medical and hospital services are the system's chief symptom of failure.
Many people in USA who cannot afford medical care, go without it, and then when they get very sick they get into emergency rooms. Many cannot afford dentist either so they go toothless.
"Once elected, Dr Day hastened to protest that he does not favor dismantling the public system; he merely thinks Canada needs supplementary private services."
Is this the supposed tidal wave shift in Canadian attitudes towards national medicine? The author notes that the national health care system is what the left loves and the right despises in Canada. Since 80% of surveyed Canadians love their health care system, can we conclude that less than 20% of Canadians represent a conservative point of view?
It might mean that 20% of Canadians feel very healthy or are affluent enough to pay for medical care from their own pocket. Well, they can always go across the border and pay.
I find your comparison between communist Hong Kong and Democratic America to be a little hard to accept.
If you find Hong Kong so wonderful I feel sure that you can return there anytime you want and give it a go. Some of the luster might fade.
Yes. In 15 years time it would give us the best workforce in the world. Let the government give everyone a voucher, but there is no reason for the government to actually run the schools.
We already have a "subsidized" health care system. It is taxpayer subsidized. Medicare and state welfare agencies (usually called some form of medi-cal) all provide payment to doctors, hospitals, etc for medical care for people. There are clinics open all across the U.S. that provide free or reduced priced care. Most of those are subsidized by cities/counties, etc. In California there is a program called "Healthy families" that provides insurance to families with children for as little as $3 a mnth. It is state run.
The people who seem to fall through the cracks are the middle wage earners who are actually trying to do right, make a living, and have insurance. That is because they are subsidizeing care for everyone else thru higher insurance premiums and taxes.
I am not sure what the answer is but higher taxes or insurance premiums from me is NOT the answer. And as usual it is me (looks around) that will pay for it
It's a good thing you didn't say Austrians, like your governor, who is pushing it, incrementally.
Right now we have a kind of cobbled together patch-work system that's straining all concerned.
Some companies, such as GM, are actually moving some operations to Canada to avoid healthcare costs.
My guess is that by the 08 elections the issue comes to the front with even conservative candidates putting out plans for universal healthcare that are cast as "business friendly" and "taxpayer friendly."
Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.
Actually, I'm based in HK now.
There's a difference between Democracy and Socialism. One is a political system, one is a economic system. Please, read a book, unless you enjoy making us conservatives look stupid.
Hong kong is not communist.
In fact, the hippies over at the Heritage Foundation ranks Hong Kong as the world's freest economy. The US is ranked 9th.
Singapore, Ireland, the UK, Iceland and Denmark(!) all rank higher than the US.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Off track, but is it true that a lot of companies are moving to mainland for cheaper real estate and labor?
"A voucher"?! I see, so would you say that the vouchers/single payer for the medical services would be good for the health care too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.