Things missing from the health care debate

[Louis of PA]

He is an economics professor at George Mason University. This from a Walter Williams column on March 4th, 2009:

"Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system.


"Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks.

"Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country.

"I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada."

[Louis of PA]

But Louis, dumping on Federal employees is the same shortsightedness shown by Sean Hannity. In fact, Feds have run the Social Security & Medicare programs quite efficiently for many years; their impending collapse is due to the meddling of our Congressmen over the last 40 years, & their use of extravagant increases to garner votes, not the failure of the workers who make the system run.

Neal, my opposition is not to Federal workers per se. I oppose the increasing size, power and grasping nature of our government.

We pay for a Deparment of Education, populated by between 5,000 and 10,000 people. What do they do?

As for Social Security & Medicare, these may well be "efficiently run" as you say, but how can we determine that? Who audits them?

They are unregulated monopolies. I don't like any kind of monopoly, especially one that's not regulated.

1. Federal employees: We in private industry pay for their salaries, benefits and all overhead.

They pay nothing towards our salaries, benefits and overhead.

2. In the private sector, when we screw up, we lose money and sometimes go bust.

3. In Federal agencies, when they screw up, a. we'll rarely learn of it, and, b. they'll be bailed out by additional subsidies from taxpayers or by juggling budgets from other accounts.

The engineers I know in private companies are professional and competent. Let's say that they are comparable to Federal employees in that regard.

But that's beside the point. If their management screws up, the company profits suffer, maybe people get laid off. the CEO gets canned.

The management of all government agencies is for all intents and purposes controlled by politicians. And politicians always act for political reasons, as witness the debacle with the staged GM "bankruptcy".

That will always be the curse of Federal programs; there is no escaping it. It's been that way since the early 1800s when politicians meddled in canal building, the early steamboats, followed by the building of railroads - in every case, the heavy hand of government distorted free markets and made things inefficient... and, of course, costly.

I've observed government in action for too many years to believe they deserve monopoly power over anything, nor should they run anything that can be run by private businesses in competition.

As George Washington observed, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

[tiriaq]

I have only received treatment in one Toronto hospital on one occasion. I signed no such waiver.
Here is the timeline for treatment I received:
May 20, 2008. Thought I might be having a heart attack, delivered myself to a little local hospital ER about 2:00 pm. I live in a very rural area. Evaluation started right away. First 3 EKGs were normal, first enzyme was unremarkable. Four hours later the enzyme was going through the roof. EKGs remained normal until 24 May. I was admitted, placed on a monitor, anticoagulents were started. My condition was stable, no continuing symptoms. On the 24th I was transported to a regional hospital for an angiogram. My heart was functionning well, 70% left ventricle ejection fraction, but my coronary arteries were a mess, multiple blockages, CABG surgery was recommended. Returned to my local hospital. A routine procedure to locate a surgical window began. This was a Friday. There was a possibility to use either of two different facilities, first window open was at Toronto General. I was transported there on the 28th, had a quadruple bypass on the 29th. Because I was stable, my surgery did not procede on an emergency basis, otherwise I would have been put on a helicopter and rushed to the city. My surgery was delayed for several hours (no stress sitting and waiting, none at all) because a donor heart had been found and a waiting patient received the transplant, which took priority. The leader of the surgical team that did my procedure is a professor of cardiac surgery, head of the heart transplant program. I was discharged on the 3rd of June. Saw my GP for followup shortly after, the surgeon 6 weeks later, a specialist to plan rehab. 8 weeks post surgery, started a supervised rehab. program at the local clinic which continues on a weekly basis. I have lost 60 pounds, my levels of strength, stamina and general fitness are higher than they have been in years. Weekend before last I shot a 12 match Service Rifle program, which included three rundowns, came third of 24 shooters. Positive results. The quality of care I received throughout was superb.
The chief of staff at the local hospital reports that they have never lost a patient because of a wait for cardiac surgery. Waits for elective surgeries, hips, knees, can be a problem.
At any rate that is my recent experience with the Canadian health care system. I doubt that I would have received better care anywhere. Direct out of pocket costs were insignificant. I have already posted my tax information.
My wife is a 4 year cancer survivor. She is also very satisfied with the treatment she has received. Her surgery and chemotherapy procedures required five 2600 mile round trip commutes because of where we lived at the time. Her health care paid for the travel as well as for a course of treatment with a very new, expensive drug, along with all other medical costs. I paid for my plane tickets to accompany her, the airline extended the compassionate travel rate, which was very kind of them. We both have public and employment related supplemental coverage.
The Canadian system is not perfect. There are endemic problems. It does generally work quite well. In my experience it has worked very well indeed. It is expensive to maintain. Can it be sustained in the long term? As the economy shrinks, and the number of users who have not contributed through taxes increases, that is a real question.

[RayP.]

I don't believe we'll get health care on a national level,the money just isn't there to pay for it and I think Obama knew that all along,he promised everybody every thing during his campaign just to get elected,his excuse will be that "I tried,but it was not my fault that it was not doable,no one could have done it at the present time,might take 3 or 4 more years to get the countrry in shape for it to happen finance wise",and I think we know what he's getting at,"give me another term and I'll get her done".politicians never work for anything except the next election.

RayP.

[Louis of PA]

I don't believe we'll get health care on a national level,the money just isn't there to pay for it .

Taxpayer-funded health care is the Holy Grail of the Socialists; if they can't get it all, they'll settle for something partial that gets the government nose under the tent like they did a year or so ago with SCHIP health insurance for school kids.

Once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of the critter will follow over the next several years. They are very patient, very persistent.

To understand their strategy, search the internet for "Fabian Socialists". That will explain where social security, minimum wage laws and progressive taxes came from.

The time to resist is now. I've already contacted my reps asking them to oppose any further government intrusion into health care.

Louis of PA

[Neal Myers]

Asking my Congressional representatives to stop the march to Socialism is like trying to teach a cat to sing: It's a waste of your time, & it annoys the cat.

Every Democrat member of Congress in Maryland voted to prohibit the Federal government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare & Medicaid recipicients, despite the fact that Veterans Affairs has negotiated a 25% discount for drugs used by our veterans. Instead, they gave us the huge Medicare Part D program that gives free drugs to the indigent, while cost billions from taxpayers & earning huge profits for health care companies.

These idiots have their own agenda, which does not include improving the health care system of this country.

[Sunray]

"...Canadian experience..." Canadian health care costs so much due to the 'civil service' unions demanding skilled wages for unskilled work. The guy who sweeps the floor gets 50 grand per annum to do it plus 100% benefits. And an indexed pension plan.
The shortage of doctors is caused by them heading Stateside after having most of their education paid for by taxpayers with no restrictions.

[Louis of PA]

Government control means creation of a monopoly.

Monopolies tell you what you will get, how much you will get, what you will pay for it, and where you can get it.

I don't like OPEC and I don't like government to provide anything that can be provided by private enterprise.

I believe one problem in the U.S. is that some insurance companies try, successfully, to create near-monopoly power, by donating to corrupt legislators to write laws to shield those companies from real competition.

The example I give here is one I've posted before; to me it reeks of what I just described, to keep true competition from existing. The state law shows the kind of insanity that occurs when politicians and money are involved.

Once government controls anything, what happens to free choices to get what we want?

As for regulation, we see how much good that did with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, big contributors to the congressional chairmen who were supposed to oversee them.

from the New York Post:

State Slaps Dr. Do-Good
Author: Webby Category: NYC News Published: March 04 2009
NY Post

Dr. John Muney's unlimited office care for uninsured patients got the thumbsdown from the state. The state is trying to shut down a New York City doctor's ambitious plan to treat uninsured patients for around $1,000 a year.

Dr. John Muney offers his patients everything from mammograms to mole removal at his AMG Medical Group clinics, which operate in all five boroughs.

“I'm trying to help uninsured people here,” he said.

His patients agree to pay $79 a month for a year in return for unlimited office visits with a $10 co-pay.

But his plan landed him in the crosshairs of the state Insurance Department, which ordered him to drop his fixed-rate plan - which it claims is equivalent to an insurance policy.

Muney insists it is not insurance because it doesn't cover anything that he can't do in his offices, like complicated surgery. He points out his offices do not operate 24/7 so they can't function like emergency rooms.

“I'm not doing an insurance business,” he said. “I'm just providing my services at my place during certain hours.”

He says he can afford to charge such a small amount because he doesn't have to process mountains of paperwork and spend hours on billing.

“If they leave me alone, I can serve thousands of patients,” he said.

The state believes his plan runs afoul of the law because it promises to cover unplanned procedures - like treating a sudden ear infection - under a fixed rate. That's something only a licensed insurance company can do.

“The law is strict on how insurance is defined,” said an Insurance Department spokesman.

A possible solution that Muney's lawyer crafted would force patients to pay more than $10 for unplanned procedures.

They are waiting to see if the state will accept the compromise. Still, Muney is unhappy because, he said, “I really don't want to charge more. They're forcing me.”

One of his patients, Matthew Robinson, 52, was furious to learn the state was interfering with the plan.

“The whole point is, he [Muney] found a way of paying his rent, paying his workers, and getting to see patients for the price,” said Robinson.

“How can the state dictate you've got to charge more?”