Health Care - Medical Care - anybody care?

[Richard]

Something to think about as O-bee and the MoveOn crowd rattle the tin can and crank up the megaphones for this one. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Words Versus Realities
Thomas Sowell, TH, 22 Apr 2009

Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, I must report the shocking facts: Medical care is medical care. Nothing more and nothing less.

This may not seem like a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. But it completely contradicts what is being said by many of those who are urging "universal health care" because so many Americans lack health insurance.

Insurance is not medical care. Indeed, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care.

The bottom line is medical care. But the rhetoric and the talking points are about insurance. Many people who could afford health insurance do not choose to have it because they know that medical care will be available at the nearest emergency room, whether they have insurance or not.

This is especially true for young people, who do not anticipate long-term medical problems and who can always get a broken leg or an allergy attack taken care of at an emergency room -- and spend their money on a more upscale lifestyle.

This may not be a wise decision but it is their decision, and there is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make questionable decisions.

If you don't think government bureaucrats can make questionable decisions, then you haven't dealt with many government bureaucrats.

It is one thing to deal with bureaucrats when you are at the Department of Motor Vehicles and in good health. It is something else when you have to deal with bureaucrats when you are lying on a gurney and bleeding or are doubled over in pain on a hospital bed.

People who believe in "universal health care" show remarkably little interest -- usually none -- in finding out what that phrase turns out to mean in practice, in those countries where it already exists, such as Britain, Sweden or Canada.

For one thing, "universal health care" in these countries means months of waiting for surgery that American get in a matter of weeks or even days.

In these and other countries, it means having only a fraction as many MRIs and other high-tech medical devices available per person as in the United States.

In Sweden, it means not only having bureaucrats deciding what medicines the government will and will not pay for, but even preventing you from buying the more expensive medicine for yourself with your own money. That would violate the "equality" that is the magic mantra.

Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of trying to understand realities, make much of the fact that some countries with government-controlled medical care have longer life expectancies than that in the United States.

That is where the difference between health care and medical care comes in. Medical care is what doctors can do for you. Health care includes what you do for yourself -- such as diet, exercise and lifestyle.

If a doctor arrives on the scene to find you wiped out by a drug overdose or shot through the heart by some of your rougher companions, there may not be much that he can do except sign the death certificate.

Even for things that take longer to do you in -- obesity, alcohol, cholesterol, tobacco -- doctors can tell you what to do or not do, but whether you follow their advice or not is what determines the outcome.

Americans tend to be more obese, consume more drugs and have more homicides. None of that is going to change with "universal health care" because it isn't health care. It is medical care.

When it comes to things where medical care itself makes the biggest difference -- cancer survival rates, for example -- Americans do much better than people in most other countries.

No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other countries is likely to want to switch. But those who cannot be bothered with the facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for political rhetoric.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/22/words_versus_realities

[JJ_BPK]

Everyone is talking one side or the other,, do we deny medical aide to the poor, NO, do we spend to much on insurance, Probably, do we want socialized medicine???

I think not,, I don't have the answer,, but I do read the papers, the news articles in the UK and in Australia,, and in Canada. They all have socialized medicine.

1)In Australia I read an article about a your pregnant mother that had to drive herself 300 miles, after she broke her water,, because the local council didn't think they needed a maternity ward and would not pay for an ambulance.. Their retort, "she should have planned a trip to the hospital, instead of waiting until the last minuet.. " Her water broke at 2AM...

2)In the UK, I read about one council that underestimated their budget for blood pressure medicine for the locals,, they ran out in June and had no viable way to shift funds so the patients at the local home could get their prescriptions.. People had to go to the next city, where that council would SELL them the free medicine..

3)Most everyone in South Florida is familiar with the large Canadian population in the North Miami & Ft Lauderdale area,, they come down for the sun,, Right??

Watch what this Canadian couple had to go through to get treated for a brain tumor,, scary.. Gotta bet this will never happen here,, Right???

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U


We need to think very seriously about changing the American Medical system.. We currently have Federal laws that mandate that ALL patients that walk into an emergency room will receive 100% of the treatment they need FREE, even if they do not have insurance.. Ask the 30 gazillion illegal Mexicans,, they be very very happy...

Is it fast,, maybe not as fast as wiping out an insurance card,, but I bet it's faster than Canada's system???

Vote your conscience,, just don't vote my savings account...

JJ

PS: Here is an article I sent to friends back in 2004 during the POTUS race,, Kerry was big on free medicine,, probably still is..

I wasn't in favor then,, still not.. Also notice the similarities to the story in the video,, very scary...



Interesting article.

I am not an advocate of socialized medicine,, but my reasons pertain to a dislike for "tax & spend" bureaucrats.

There are persons that need help. Any society using any government style,, can not have a top 5% that wants for nothing without also having a bottom 5% that has nothing.. Charity is not limited to the right or the left,, it's more of a common goal that we all need to address.. The actualization of the goal, the implementation of concerns, the articulation of the process is what distinguishes our democratic process from one that we don't want....

If Ms Pipes comments are correct, she is discussing a much more serious problem,, that of a government of autocrats that don't care,, a state that is run FOR the people not BY the people..

God bless him,, maybe George Orwell was more of a fortuneteller than given credit for????

My ambivalence toward making Orwell's Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) mandatory reading is a sword with two edges,, Will future generations understand the nuances of his implied warning -vs- the biblical mandate of a social primer???

Jim
An Old Parrot Head
In The Conch Republic
Just South of Reality

Health Care, Canadian Style, Saturday, September 18, 2004, By Sally C. Pipes,

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132785,00.html

Reforming America's health care system has become a defining domestic issue in the presidential race.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry wants the federal government - that is, the taxpayer - to become the country's catastrophic insurer. Other Democrats openly assail any private involvement in health care.

"Does this mean that the American way is wrong and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single payer system?" writes New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (search). "Well, yes."

Before Americans embrace those who advocate joining the Canadians in government-dominated health care, they ought to take a look north. Just as American pundits and politicians are calling for us to adopt policies that put us on a path to a Canadian-style system, Canadians fed up with rationed care are questioning their own. A July poll conducted for the Canadian Medical Association (search) found that 40 percent of Canadians now grade their health care system as a C or worse.

"Year over year, Canadians have identified that their confidence in their health-care system is eroding," said former CMA president Sunil Patel.

The reason is simple and the problem is structural.

In theory, Canadians enjoy an almost ideal system - the government pays for all necessary health care, which is delivered by private practice physicians and independent hospitals. The day-to-day reality is starkly different. When Canadians need care, they face a series of waits: one for access to a primary care doctor, another for access to scarce diagnostic equipment, and another for the necessary procedure.

Between 1993 and 2003, the median waiting time from referral by a general practitioner to treatment increased by 90 percent, from 9.3 weeks to 17.7 weeks, according to an annual survey of physicians by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. For cancer patients, the waiting time for medical oncology more than doubled from 2.5 weeks to 6.1 weeks, and the waiting time for radiation oncology increased from 5.3 weeks to 8.1 weeks.

That's the experience of 58-year-old Don Cernivz, who noticed blood in his urine in fall of 2003. He waited three weeks for his first diagnostic test and then another month for an MRI (search). Actual treatment for his cancer of the pelvis didn't commence until May of the following year.

"The waiting time is ridiculous at the hospital," his daughter complained to the Calgary Herald. "He is in pain."

The waits for care are not aberrations, but the logical result of the incentives of a government-supported system. To the government, health care costs are merely the checks it must write. To the patients like Cernivz, however, costs are broader, including the value of lost or diminished work while waiting for care and the diminished quality of life, while waiting in pain. Government planners control monetary costs by shifting non-monetary costs on to patients. The system then prohibits Canadians from avoiding those non-monetary
costs by paying out of pocket for their care, unless they leave the country.

That's exactly what former champion figure skater Audrey Williams did. After waiting two years for a hip replacement in Vancouver, B.C., she traveled to Washington State and paid $25,000 to stop the pain. "I couldn't wait any longer," the 71-year-old Williams told the National Post. She could barely walk, wasn't getting enough sleep, and pain pills had upset her stomach. "I wanted a life."

Canadians are finding they now have to wait for primary care, not just advanced procedures. One Canadian tells of a 5-year wait to see his wife's general practitioner. Nearly 4 in 10 Canadians reported waiting longer than they thought reasonable for access to a family physician in a poll conducted for the CMA in the spring of 2004.

"At the moment," writes CMA president Dr. Albert Schumacher, "millions of Canadians would love to find just one family physician, let alone choose from among several."

Nearly half of doctors and nurses polled in July reported that their patient's conditions had worsened while waiting for care.And the waits only promise to get longer, as a stagnating pool of physicians struggles to serve an aging population that isn't allowed to pay privately for care. That' s the reality of a health care system dominated by the government, and the reality Americans need to be wary of when considering options for health care reform.

Sally C. Pipes, a Canadian residing in the U.S., is the president & CEO of the
California-based Pacific Research Institute. She is the author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer," with a foreword by Milton Friedman

[Gypsy]

My father's former doctor (well, since dad passed) was Canadian. His father had cancer so they came here for treatments because they were more comprehensive and available...for a fee. The doc became a US citizen and now treats my brother.

He said the last thing anyone should ever want is socialized or government run health care. Then again, most of us already knew that.