Via email;
I am working on a documentary against socialized medicine in the US and Canada. We are now at the stage of looking for Canadians stuck on waitlists so we can find a select few to get free medical care in the US. If you know any suffering Canadians (especially in Vancouver) please feel free to pass on our details or to promote us to them.
This is all I know about the project - so be sure to apply a little "due diligence" should you choose to participate.
Posted by Kate at April 19, 2007 12:15 AMI've lived in Japan and I am currently living in the USA. It's amazing how fast doctors can work if there is money involved. Japan really cured all the misgivings I had about private insurance. I had a cut that required stitches - the bill without any insurance - came to about $10 a stitch.
Posted by: Mark at April 19, 2007 1:12 AMThe U.S. should be more "progressive" like Canada.
Why should only the poorest minority languish in public hospital waiting rooms. Just like Canada, every American should experience hallway medicine.
The more who suffer the better. As long as the suffering is "equal".
Posted by: biff at April 19, 2007 1:15 AMI am amazed at Canadians stupidity. Canada is a capitalist country. We all know communism does not work. Yet Canadians have been going along with this rediculous stupid idiotic plan of trying to make a communist system work. CENTRAL PLANNING WITH NO COMPETITION ALLOWED.
If we had the guts to call it a communist plan perhaps it would clear our heads and our leaders would have the guts to allow competition.
In Canada:
I can wipe out my life savings buying scratch n' win tickets, impoverishing my family in the process.
I can go out and spend ten thousand dollars in vodka, and drink my life into oblivion.
Hell, I can buy a million dollars worth of Snickers bars and eat only the peanuts, throwing the rest away.
But if I try to buy my dying relative a new hip so she can spend her last dying days enjoying her family rather than lanuishing prone,
I'm a law breaker. An immoral elitist.
Posted by: biff at April 19, 2007 1:54 AMmy wife is a surgical nurse.....it is so bad at the hospital she works at, the surgeons actually have to compete with each other for OR time(in reality, they argue in the hallways with each other) 20% of surgeries are cancelled daily(talk about ruining a family's day).....the unspoken death toll must be staggering, yet not a word is mentioned in the MSM....the ultimate insanity is that my wife is on a waiting list for surgery, and that surgeries have been cancelled because of her illness.....it is totally mind-boggling that the dipper/moonbat/librano crowd will not allow progressive health care pros to provide their services on the side.....I guarantee you more people die from the surgery wait list, than from AIDS in this country, yet we give raises to the incompetent hospital bureaucrats.....
Posted by: kingstonlad at April 19, 2007 6:47 AMHealth
New open-access medical journal to be launched
TORONTO -- A new Canadian open-access medical journal is about to be born.
Open Medicine, to be officially launched Wednesday, was conceived in the bitter aftermath of the February 2006 firing of the editor and deputy editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. (ctv) ...-
Open Medicine
Vol 1, No 1 (2007)
Table of Contents
Editorial
Why Open Medicine?
James Maskalyk, for the Editors of Open Medicine ...-
http://www.openmedicine.ca/
I graduated from nursing in the '60s. PSI was the private insururer at the time--and we had hallway medicine even then.
The whole system is broken in Canada. Like our politicians the system has become an industry with no thought for the patient. The system looks after it's own and to hell with the purpose they were created for.
It is not private healthcare that is the danger to competent healthcare in Canada--it is the people at the top. There is no accountability here--no matter the system we choose, without accountability there will never be timely healthcare, no matter the system.
We get spin and lies from our politicians and the 'leaders' of healthcare--but nothing concrete. We are so far behind the rest of the world in competence and reliability that no matter the bandaid we apply nothing will change it. The rot is from the top down. But not to worry, Mulroney's immigrants will fix it all.
Just like infrastructure across Canada, it is too rotten to be fixed. Our X-ray machines are dangerous. We still use medieval torture-like diagnostic tests. We wait 8 hours in Emerg because there are no doctors. Yet the 'leaders' of healthcare get raises and perks.
The healthcare 'system' is rotten to the core--it needs major surgery but all we get is smoke and mirrors.
right on george, could not have said it better myself....the top dude at our local hospital makes over 400k, + perks, yet they could not schedule a gangbang in a whorehouse on dollar day with a sack full of loonies
Posted by: kingstonlad at April 19, 2007 8:06 AMThe double standard and hypocrasy are evident in the fact that we have 'two tier' medicine and private clinics in the abortion industry that are supported with 'health care' dollars.
Kill a baby, but don't get rid of the cancer. OPEN YOUR EYES CANADA!!
this whole damn abortion debate...as an atheist libertarian, I do believe in the right of any individual to do whatever they please to their own body.....but I do have a serious problem funding the murder of unborn humans....in cases of incest, rape, high school kids, etc, I can see a medical need....but the middle class, middle aged woman, going in for her fourth abortion, she should have to pay.....where does it say in the CHA, that the taxpayer should foot the bill for a procedure that is required because 1. the woman was to lazy to use other birth control, or 2. her and her husband would rather raise pets than children?
Posted by: kingstonlad at April 19, 2007 8:17 AMI totally agree with Nell Thompson,(post 1:39 am) it's time for Canadians to call the beast in the healing trade by its true name COMMUNISM.
Even an a moron can understand that when Trade Unions are involved in a state run monopoly combined with the notion that any personal financial responsibility should be removed, rationing by state bureaucracy is the deadly result.
Until some form of financial competition is developed into the system Canadians will die in increasing numbers, unless of course they can afford to go to the US or India or China on their own nickel for immediate care.
Talk about a one tier system eh?
Only in Cuba, North Korea and Canada.
Pity.
Whoa. Due diligence from you loony flying monkeys?
Heh.
Posted by: Recovering Minion at April 19, 2007 9:46 AMMy son waited almost 6 months for a simple diagnosis--------lymphomia cancer. Consquently, was then required to have the full chemo and radiation treatment. Early diagnosis would have meant radiation only without the terrible chemo with side complications that almost killed him [Bleo-lung].
Not only is there waiting lists for treatment, there are equally long list for diagnosis! Socialist medicine can only be rated as "POOR".
Everyone knows that "Doctors Offices" are private delivery services right? They bill either OHIP or our personal insurance plans, and then pay their expenses. The difference is called "profit".
Our problem in Canada has nothing to do with a single-payer system. There was an article the other day that reviewed I believe it was 20+ studies and came up with following assessment which I copied into a separate docuement:
- - - - -
Health care just as good, half as much as in U.S., report says
Ex-CMAJ editors feature study in new web journal
James Gordon, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Canada's health system is as good or better than that of the United States and is delivered at half the cost, new research suggests.
A review in the inaugural issue of online medical journal Open Medicine, which was launched yesterday by a group of doctors who left the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year over an editorial dispute, examined the results of 38 major studies that compared health outcomes of patients in the two countries.
It found that while the United States spent an average of $7,129 U.S. per person on health care in 2006, compared with $2,956 U.S. per person in Canada, more studies favoured the latter country in terms of morbidity and mortality. They covered a wide range of diseases and conditions, including cancer and coronary artery disease.
One of the lead authors of the meta-analysis said while critics advocate moving toward a U.S. model of private insurance, two-tier medicine and for-profit providers to improve delivery of care here, the evidence suggests it would be a bad move.
"There are issues in our health care system, but a lot of the people that are really pushing it to make it sound more dramatic than what it is have the potential to actually gain a lot financially (from for-profit care)," said McMaster University professor Dr. P.J. Devereaux.
"So part of it is to give people a reality check that, in fact, we actually have very good health outcomes in Canada," he added.
"On the whole, they are equal to -- and in many situations are better than -- the Americans' despite the fact that we're spending less than half the amount of money they're spending."
Dr. Devereaux said the results are by no means a suggestion that Canadians can become complacent about care, pointing out well-publicized shortfalls, such as long wait times, continue to plague our system.
However, he argued the solutions lie in finding efficiencies within the not-for-profit, publicly funded system.
"Often times, what's simply being pushed in Canada is saying (with) an American-type approach ... we'll get rapid access to care," he said. "Well, once again, no one wants rapid access to inferior care. We can easily drop our wait times in Canada -- it's just a matter of investing in it."
Of the 38 studies included in the analysis, 10 were considered to be of the highest quality because they enrolled broad populations and included extensive statistical adjustments. Results of five of those favoured Canada, two favoured the United States and three showed equivalent or mixed results.
Of the 28 remaining studies that did not meet one of the criteria, nine favoured Canada, three favoured the United States and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results.
The only specific medical condition in which medical results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease. Canadian patients fared better in those cases.
When all the studies were combined, the 17 doctors and researchers involved in the meta-analysis found Canadians had a five-per-cent lower death rate than people in the United States.
Because of the extreme variability of results from study-to-study, the researchers urged caution when interpreting that finding. Still, Dr. Devereaux suggested it would be striking if future research proved it to be true.
"That should be very encouraging for Canadians," he said. "In Canada, we have about 110,000 people who die in our hospitals every year. When you talk about a five-per-cent difference, you're talking about in the range of 6,000 deaths in the hospital per year."
That's more than the number of deaths that occur from things like some forms of cancer and motor-vehicle collisions, he pointed out.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
- - - - -
Bottom Line: Canada's biggest problem is not single payer (Universal Healthcare) versus a private system (where everyone needs private insurance), it is the supply side cartel run by our doctors that limits graduates so that instead of physicians competing for our business, we all need to compete for their time! Mandate increases in the Med School graduation rates by 25% - 35% and let that new oversupply of doctors compete for us as clients, and suddenly all the problems we currently blame on government go away.
I should add, that it doesn't matter what the payment source is, if we have a fixed pool of doctors, we're still going to get EXACTLY the same amount of treatment as we get now. The only difference, is that waiting lines at public paid clinics will be longer, and those in private paid clinic will be shorter.
In addition for those who like to bandy about partisan terms like "socialist" and "communist", let's not forget that universal healthcare operates under the exact same principle as Workers Comp, EI, Income Taxes, etc. It is in effect one giant public insurance policy. Perhaps that's the reason they're called as such: "Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan".
Lastly, don't forget who gains by switching systems: 1) Deep-pocketed Insurance Companies, 2) Deep-pockted Doctors (especially the specialists). The insurance companies in particular who currently get zero profit from what is becoming the single largest industry in Canada, as well those in the United States who very much want to protect their existing turf.
Rant off.....Matthew. ;-)
Posted by: Matthew Baldwin at April 19, 2007 10:11 AMIt is a sad state of health care in this country. The politicians know exactly what to do, they have people study this stuff constantly. There is no question about this, an open system in health care is optimal. The trouble is that socialists will scare old men and women to death that they will not be taken care of. The nurses unions are your basic “grass roots” socialist organization and they have the control. That is how they can extort their pay. If they loose the monopoly, who are they going to rip off?
Administration is altogether another story, the paperweights will look after themselves first, what do you think, they should look after the sick or something?
Right Matthew. It's the same reason that Canadians scream about 18 month waiting lists for dental care...
Oh... wait....
Posted by: Kate at April 19, 2007 10:29 AMThe US system is by no means a panacea. There are a gazillion HMO's and coverage plans and it is VERY inefficient to run. Having said that, we all know that the Canadian system is a disaster.
There are many other other systems used in the world that combine public and private care. Canada, with its established centralized system of administration, is a prime candidate to opening up to some private care so that we can still maintain order and not fall into the chaos that exists in the US, while still allowing the motivation of profit to deliver fast and effective care.
This, unfortunately, will not happen in Canada anytime soon because progressives scream "two-tier health care" before any sensible discussion can place. The lunacy of that statement is the fact that two-tiered care is alive and well. Most Canadians live within 90 miles of the states and, if they have the resources, they can access private US care. I did.
I had trouble racing (non-competitively, I might add) at middle distances (half-marathons) for a few years due to a wonky knee. Physio and whatnot made running bearable but I couldn't train hard. I was training for a full marathon over the winter of '05/'06 and my knee had major meltdown after a session in December '05. I waited 3 months to see a sports doc. I then waited 3 months to get an MRI. I then waited 4 more months to see a surgeon in November '06 who indicated I had messed up cartilage. By that time I had had to put my golf clubs away in early summer as I couldn't walk a course. I was unable to go on hikes with my kids. Getting around was painful. I just about crapped my drawers when the surgeon said he'd do my knee in June or July of 2007. What really P'd me off was the surgeon's comment that I "wouldn't be running any marathons this year".
So I called a clinic in N Dak the second week of November and my surgery the last week of November. My knee is still weak after a full year of doing nothing, but I'm probably up to 20 miles per week.
Posted by: shaku_bert at April 19, 2007 10:58 AMKate,
Perhaps the reason we don't wait for dental care is because dentists aren't dramatically restricting the number of graduates?
Seriously, regardless of who is paying, we will never have enough service providers COMPETING for our dollars (regardless of funding scheme) as long when we have a supply-side cartel in full control.
Agree or disagree?
Matthew. ???
No system is perfect.
There are problems in the legislation of Canada's Health act that could be fixed and I'm convinced from experience that allowing for profit clinics is part of the solution. Whoever said that doing this would result in collapse of universal health care is just full of crap. The idea of licensed clinics that take only paying customers is No more a universal fix than a cause of universal failure.
I'd bet that having such clinics, especially for diagnostic services would allow an overall higher standard of care. And better care is what is needed.
Thanks for reminding us Matthew...remember who paid billions to University of Toronto Med school so that they would graduate fewer doctors?
Bob Rae
We are still having Rae Days in La La'tario.
To OMMAG,
I'm not arguing with the following free market principle: "If you have demand you want to ensure the system we're using has the flexibility to increase supply quickly and responsively at reasonable prices."
The problem with introducing more private clinics without having a mechanism to dramatically increase the number of doctors, is that you still you end up with the same fixed numbers of doctors delivering services through two separate channels.
I know in Ontario when they introduced the private imaging clinics, the first thing they did is hire a huge portion of the trained staff from the existing public clinics leading to dramatic labour shortages there.
In short, if you want better service and more service, the key change is to dramatically increase the number of doctors practicing.
Otherwise, you could go to a Ebay format within Canada for all services, and you still won't have enough trained professionals to do all the work (which is the reason for the supply-side cartel in the first place).
Matthew.
A few years ago my wife waited 4 days to get surgery for a severely broken lower leg at the University Hospital in Saskatchewan. Doctors begged for operating room time but were told no to "save" money. I would have taken her to another hospital but the pain would have been unbearable so she laid in bed in agony with a displaced fracture and could not move for almost 4 days. Making matters worse, conscientious but overworked nurses came in to her room the third day to get her "moving" so they got her up and had her walking hobbling around on one leg. When my wife said she could not take the pain because the leg was loose and unstable the nurses were shocked that the she hadn't had the corrective surgery yet. Both Doctor's and Nurses were at wits end with the system and it lack of resources.
Because we lived under Medicare we had no choices so hospital bureaucrats could put this woman through hell to "save" from paying over time for surgery and all the while ignore the cost of keeping her in the hospital for 4 extra days.
This horrible experience is the result of the "compassionate" left's obsession for equality at all costs. As long as everyone has equally shitty services they are happy.
So Matthew you're okay with taking away the right of people to freely choose who they work for.
Posted by: DDT at April 19, 2007 1:13 PMOne problem with the Canadian health system is the fact that few Canadians know anything at all about an "American style" health system except what they are told by the MSM and of course all Canadian politicians. Typically, the Ottawa Citizen shouts "Canada's health system is as good or better than that of the US and is delivered at half the cost, new research suggests". "Suggests" mind you. Not declared, not proven, just suggests. And it is clearly balderdash.
If Canadian health care is delivered at half the cost it is because they only deliver it to half the people. The rest remain ill, crippled with pain or they die unable to access any of this "free" health care. Quelle suprise! As for it being "as good" or "better" (gasp) clearly the writers have no experience of the dreaded AMERICAN STYLE health care. I do, having lived in both countries and I'm here to tell you that the American experience is stunningly ahead of the Canadian experience. That is EXPERIENCE buddy, not yet another study designed to protect the status quo.
I agree, such remarks are anecdotal, but who would you rather believe, someone's actual experience or another study making use of a set of a dubious set of budgets and statistics that undoubtedly bolster the premise stated by said "study"
Matthew asks "who gains by switching systems" As always in his, or the leftist view, it is BIG BAD BUSINESS, be it Doctors or the insurance companies. Let me tell you who gains. THE PATIENT, THATS WHO. What a concept!!!
The leftist view will always support the mediocre but equal position (in theory) and yet government departments such as the WCB go straight to the top of the list for the best of the best. I don't suppose that too many politicians are on any waiting list. If memory serves they just pick up and go the the Mayo Clinic. Now what system does this remind you of? Doesn't the old Soviet Union come to mind?
To DDT: No, I think people should have the freedom to work for whomever they choose. Doctors have that right now. They can either work in private practice (which is a private business) OR they can go on salary and work for a hospital. My point re: things like imaging clinics is that no matter what methods of service delivery you choose, or who pays, if the doctors limit the number of graduates to the point that demand far exceeds supply, the client is perpetually screwed (which is the whole reason for the supply-side cartel structure).
To KayR: "My leftist view?". I've voted Conservative and Reform my whole life because I believe that people are always more efficient with their money than government is. I'm against equalization, Kyoto, and for tax cuts and debt reduction. I base my views on healthcare on the fact that I worked in the industry in Ontario for 4 years and in that time spent literally hundreds of hours talking to doctors about the current model. In short, unlike you, I'm talking from experience and a ton of research, and not ideology. In short, writing me off as a commie, or liberal, or leftie isn't going to work. My arguments stand and your snide insults say much more about you, than they do about me.
Posted by: Matthew Baldwin at April 19, 2007 3:18 PMI am working on a documentary against socialized medicine in the US and Canada.
Matthew: Then if the doctors limit the supply then the easiest way to free up the system is to unlimit the supply. Recruit from the US and Europe and let the ones who wish to practice work publically or privately. What you're saying is that because we have a limited supply we have to keep the marrket closed. Funny thing is when you open up the market supply adjusts itself.
Posted by: DDT at April 19, 2007 4:19 PMYou're misunderstanding me.
I'm saying: "Regardless of the payer or delivery system we use, UNTIL we force open "supply" (and in my opinion that starts with government mandating of increased Med School grad class sizes with some support from foreign recruiting), it is absolutely impossible to get the healthcare we envision. Additionally, I am saying that with the existing shortage of doctors, going to a split system of healthcare delivery will only exascerbate the current problems as opposed to helping them."
Bottom Line: First fix the doctor shortage THEN once that is fixed then we can begin to explore delivery system alternatives, but to experiment with alternate delivery systems while there is still a doctor shortage will only make things much, much worse.
Posted by: Matthew Baldwin at April 20, 2007 1:16 AMMore people have died from neglegent doctors then from guns LOOK OUT THE AMA IS DANGEROUS SQUAWK SQUAWK
Posted by: spurwing plover at April 20, 2007 10:21 AM