So, you’d like Canadian/British-style health care?
By JR Hoeft | Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 | PolicyMuch is being made (and will be made in the coming months) about the socialized medical care available in Canada and Great Britain. Conservatives for Patients’ Rights provided this video clip as food for thought:
For a more detailed discussion about these two health care systems, watch this video:
Health care is also the subject of a column by Newt Gingrich today.
President Obama said something at his White House healthcare event last week that offers a disturbing hint of our future under his vision of health reform.
He suggested one way to save costs is not to spend on procedures that “evidence shows [are] not necessarily going to improve care” for the sick and the dying.
“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” the President said.
Maybe. But the question is, who decides?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
14 Responses to "So, you’d like Canadian/British-style health care?"
You know, I am fed a steady diet through conservatives about how bad socialized medicine is. I do understand that there are drawbacks to the system. But have you personally talked to the average person who is subject to the system? How many Canadian citizens have you polled about their system?
In my occupation, I get the opportunity to talk to Canadian truck drivers. Without exception, every one of them sings the praises of how their system is better then ours. These guys are not experts, they are only truck drivers. If they personally had severe medical conditions they would no longer pass the physical that allowed them to drive that truck. However many of them also have families and this includes family members that have special needs.
I am not insisting we follow the lead of the Canadians. But I will insist that our system is broken. Perhaps we can come up with an “American Way” that is better, but we MUST come up with something better then how we do things now. Right now, here in America, those who can afford it get the best care in the entire world. Those who can not afford it get nothing. Well those who vote and get nothing can exercise their right to vote at the polls and insist that they get something. The minority who get the best care possible can not continue to attempt to stand in the way of the desires of those who get nothing. Those who get nothing still have the right to vote, even if that vote is recorded while they lie on their death bed.
LD,
I totally agree with you our system is broken and it needs to change. The problem is that the debate has to extend beyond just total government takeover vs doing nothing. And I blame the conservatives partly for focusing their debate simply by screaming about the pain of government care without actually putting up an alternative. We do need change – badly. However, a lot of reforms can be made so that costs come down drastically for private healthcare so that it then becomes more affordable and the government then only has to come in and patch the holes.
One of the big missing pieces in this debate is why most national systems keep costs down. It is largely because they don’t utilize the newest treatments and procedures, which not only reduces some quality in areas such as cancer survival rates but there’s another missed dynamic. Essentially in the global system, out healthcare system subsidizes everyone else. New drugs and procedures are largely created and implemented first in the US and for top dollar. Only after economies of scale and better improvements do the costs come down for these treatments later and at this point other countries pick them up. This is similar to consumer electronics. They are very expensive when they first come out, mostly only rich people buy them, and they a few years later the price comes down and the masses buy them. In short then, we are the driver of medical innovation. If we go over to a price control, cost containment state managed system like canada, britain etc, then there are no other major markets that are going to subsidize us and medical innovation outside of a few areas that have political clout and can get government subsidies is going to come to a grinding halt.
Right now the system is filled with perverse incentives and inefficiencies. What we need are some pricing incentives for providers to keep their costs down, and for patients to shop around for lower cost treatment whenever possible. This is how cosmetic surgery and dentistry work and as a result prices in these markets don’t rise nearly as fast (in the case of the prior, they have actually fallen in inflation adjusted terms – same goes for Lasic). When this is done, not only will far more people be able to get private coverage but it reduces the cost of public healthcare and then the government will now be able to cover more people in need without needs for more funds. Currently the Obama plan, like the MA plan, is only really concerned with extending coverage, and does little to actually reduce costs. It just shifts around who pays for the costs, but the problem is still there. The result in MA, is that there is now a major shortage of doctors, particularly primary care, emergency room costs have gone up 20 percent since the plan, the state budget is a wreck, and far less people have been covered then originally planned.
EJ,
One of the problems with our present system is being addressed. I will describe this as being the “previous condition” problem. If your problem existed prior to your enrollment, your current provider is not required to cover your current medical problem because it is pre-existing.
Let’s see, you lost your job because of a medical problem. You find a new job, but the new job’s health care will not cover your medical condition because it is pre-existing. Does anyone else see a problem here?
LD,
I’m not saying thats not a problem. This unfortunately is a problem with our system that is tied to your employer. That worked when most people worked for the same firm their whole lives but not now in a highly dynamic economy. And thats why reforms have to be made to tie insurance to the individual, not necessarily the employer, or at leats through other collective groups. Why should you not be able to get insurance pooled through your fraternal organization, neighborhood association, church, civic group etc, ect? Why must we have a tax policy that pushes everyone to get insurance through their employer? But doing what the current bill does now, just mandating that insurance companies cannot deny coverage, may help those with conditions, but it only exasserbates the underlying problem – that costs are exploding. Thats my point – that this is the primary issue. And if that is not addressed we are in for some major trouble, doesnt matter what system we have, and heavy handed rationing will have to occur.
EJ,
Every attempt to pool the risk is tied to some requirement to limit the risk.
Those who are most sick and most in need of coverage find it most difficult to find coverage.
Perhaps you are not one of them. You are healthy without special needs family members. For you health care coverage is cheap under our current system. But God help you if you happen to have a special needs child who drives up the health care costs of your employer. You might be a valuable employee, but your kid’s health care costs might cause you to get the pink slip.
I find it hilarious the cons want to get all doomsday about Canada and Britain’s healthcare… considering I’d be surprised if even one reader of this site has ever even utilized healthcare in either of those countries.
Now while I haven’t, my wife has and I sure as hell would take her word over this guy:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Scott
Who’s that? He’s the founder of the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights that Jim couldn’t wait to shill for. Read about Richard Scott… then tell me, truthfully, you really want to be on the side of that guy? You really think he has your best interests at heart? Come on.
Both Canada and Britain have a higher average life expectancy than the United States, as do any number of other countries with “socialized medicine” like France, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, etc.
Socialized medicine worked pretty well for me when I was in the military.
Bring it on.
The real problem with the options on the table at this point is that they aren’t “socialized” enough.
Once again, libs will only attack the messenger and not come up with any serious arguments because they know that what their proposal amounts to is government bureaucrats making health care decisions and the American people having to hand over their paychecks to enable it.
While I agree there are issues with the current system, as I think too much power resides with HMOs, I do not concur that the right approach is to hand over all the power to an all-knowing government worker.
J.R.
I am not a liberal. As a moderate I understand that Medicare has reduced administrative costs when compared to private insurance. If private insurance is such a good deal, it should be able to withstand the government competition. If the private industry can’t compete, it should be swept away by the more efficient government competition.
Please understand that the solution we come up with is not required to please you only. It must also please the majority of voters, many of whom right now have no health care coverage.
Medicare? The first problem you have is finding a doctor that will accept you. More and more are rejecting Medicare patients because of the low payout.
Also if we adopt a national healthcare program, shouldn’t Medicare go away? Shouldn’t VA health care go away? VA works because the vast majority of veterans aren’t eligible to go to a VA hospital. How about Tricare? You will find out how great this program is, when your 400 dollars a year becomes 400 dollars a month. And what about those people who move to other countries where this insurance isn’t even accepted. Are you going to maintain a useless plan because the government wants to fine you if you drop it?
AND IF this plan is supposed to be NATIONAL insurance, then by God the Congress better not be exempt from it’s requirements.
Darrell,
I do not have problems, as a retired veteran, finding a health care provider that is willing to take Tricare. It is my understanding the payments for Tricare are similar if not the exact same as those for Medicare.
What concerns me is about what you state the $400 deductible per annum might become a monthly deductible. Do you have anything that supports this or is this just something you think might happen?
I was referring to Medicare. Tricare is also beginning to see this type of activity. I had a doctor I saw for several years until he dropped out of the program.
As far as Tricare goes, you have the bargain of the century. However, if national health care goes into effect, why would there be such a program as Tricare? Doesn’t that seem redundant? DoD is already pushing retirees to get off the program and onto employer based systems because of the expense. That’s what all the hubbub was about last year with quadrupling your base premium and outlawing employer sponsored supplemental plans.
The Dem plan downplays these inconvenient issues with existing socialized plans, preferring to play up universal coverage. As Tricare, Medicare and VA have shown, even with a limited pool of enrollment the costs are not cheap. In any event, Congress is basing their ideas on the wrong model.
I’ve been on Tricare since I retired. For me the reason was more than the low price. It’s called the real world environment. As you change from one job to another, employer health care automatically increases if for no other reason than inflation. Lose your job and your health care goes with it unless you can afford to carry it over privately. If you retire and decide to travel or live overseas, Medicare isn’t any good because it’s a US only program. Tricare still works in other countries if you can find a plan provider, even if you pretended to be Fletcher Christian on Pitcarin Island.
Tricare is the model Congress should be looking at.
Oh yeah, as for the cost. Military health plans are expected to rise to 64 Billion dollars a year by 2015, with a total population of 10 million eligible enrollees. That’s 640 billion over ten years, about the same as some of the rosy estimates that Congress says an additional 48 million people can be insured for. Now how is that possible? Well you could raise the rates on everyone now carrying their own insurance, call it an insurance welfare tax, to pay for the others. You could totally bomb what’s left of the economy by forcing companies to bear the added cost. Or you can ration health care for everyone to keep the costs in line.
As things stand today, the country is in hock for 11 trillion dollars plus interest in current obligations. Federal benefit programs like SS and Medicare have an impending cost of 52 trillion, states are going broke and will require more taxes to make up immediate deficits, localities that depended on subsidies are finding an empty checkbook, and citizens are defaulting on 9 trillion dollars of personal debt. Even with all these issues staring them in the face, it’s business as usual for politicians. Now we have the Goldman Sachs Enrichment Plan with Cap and Trade, a health care plan that will bankrupt the middle class, even Mayor Fraim whining about the GA and his Third Crossing. “We have listened to the members of the General Assembly long enough,” Fraim said.
You got it wrong there, Mayor. The citizens have listened to the politicians long enough. We’ve allowed your faulty, corrupt representation to take America down the road to oblivion.
nice blog if you get time please check out my site
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.