Canada's Inferior Health Care System - Part II

People from countries that have government run health care come to the United States by the masses every year to receive medical treatment they can’t get anywhere else.   Just yesterday (Friday, June 26, 2009) there was a story in the Canadian Press about a critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton, Ontario who was transferred to a hospital in Buffalo, New York after she was turned away for treatment at a local facility.

 Why was the girl turned away for treatment?  1) The local facility didn’t have enough beds.  2) Canada does not have the capacity to deal with the demand for neo-natal intensive care for premature births. 

In other words, it’s called rationing.  And this is what rationing produced – inferior care and a government official who decides whether your specific situation is worthy of receiving care or not.

If America also decides to head down this road of a single-payer system the questions become obvious.  Where will these people from all over world go?  More specifically, where will Americans go?  Unfortunately, the answer is equally as obvious.  We’ll all be out of luck.  Hope and pray it’s not you or your family who is in desperate need of that care.  

Canada's Inferior Health Care System - Part I

In Canada, the government decided one way to control costs of the government health care system was to cut the amount of money doctors and nurses could make.   This has lead to an inevitable 21% decrease in the number of doctors and nurses and even more dramatic rationing of care.

The incidence of colon cancer in Canada is 25% higher than in the U. S.  This is due to the long waits in Canada to see specialists and the difficulty and oftentimes inability to get colonoscopies. 

On top of this, the death rate to colon cancer is 25% higher than the colon cancer death rate in the U.S.  In Canada the government has controlled health care costs by denying access to the two most effective colon cancer drugs.  Americans have access to these drugs. 

Americans are much healthier than Canadians in the vital diseases.  Americans have a 6% lower death rate from heart disease and a 16% lower death rate from cancer. 

 

Obamacare Is Very, Very Expensive - Part I

President Obama has largely taken a hands off approach to health care reform.  Instead he has given the Democratic House and Senate tremendous latitude in shaping their own bills.  

I presume he is doing this for a couple of reasons.  1) He is sheltered from political fallout if a poorly imagined bill is floated to the public.  He can simply say "that's not my bill".  2) The House and Senate will likely produce multiple bills and he will then choose the one he likes the most at the end of the process.

Currently, there are no less that eight health care reform bills being worked on in both the House and Congress.  This makes having a genuine health care debate difficult since each plan is radically different than the others.  But as details of each plan emerge I'll break down the cost of each one as best I can. 

1) The Kennedy Bill - This was the first bill floated to the public.  Prior to its release Obama hinted that this was his favorite of the bunch.  This plan does include the public insurance option and the CBO estimates this plan will cost upwards of $1 trillion and still leave 36 million people uninsured through 2017. Obama quickly retreated from this bill after such a negative reaction from the public. 

2) Senate Finance Committee Bill - The CBO estimates this plan will cost upwards of $1.6 trillion. A private consulting group Health Systems Innovations Network estimates the cost of this bill to be upwards of $4 trillion. Congressional Democrats are now "rethinking" this bill as well.

3) After months of work, House Democrats released an 852-page bill which would establish a public plan, require that everyone carry insurance, and require employers to provide coverage or pay a fee of 8 percent of bankroll. The Democrats won't even allow the CBO to score the cost of this program (it's cost would dwarf the other plans).

Obamacare is being "marketed" as a way to control health care costs through increased competition.  But as the above numbers indicate the controlling of costs is nowhere to be found.  These numbers are reckless and fiscally irresponsible.

As additional health care bills are floated to the public, I'll analyze the cost of these as well.    

Public Plan Is Trojan-Horse For Nationalized Health Care

The most troubling part of the current health care debate is the dishonesty of President Obama and the Democratic Party.

During his June 23, 2009 press conference President Obama said this when asked whether his public plan health insurance option would drive private health providers out of business: 

"Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say the marketplace provides the best quality health care - that they are offering a good deal then why is it that the government - that they say can't run anything - suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical." 

While his delivery is smooth the content of his rhetoric is a lie. The entire purpose of the public plan is to eliminate competition and serve as a "first step" or a "bridge" to socialized medicine. It is also logical. If the government can provide a product for a lower cost and not face any negative consequences even if they lose a massive amount of money of course private industry is going to go out of business. There is nothing "competitive" about this at all. 

If one doesn't want to take my word for it, then listen to both the creators of the plan and those who are pushing it the hardest. 

The architect and creator of the public plan strategy is far left political writer and thinker Jacob Hacker. He has been peddling this plan in a variety of different forms since 2001. By his own admission this strategy is simply the first step towards a single-payer system. 

Speaking to the Tides Foundation (a far left nonprofit) on July 21, 2008 Mr. Hacker said: “Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan horse for single-payer,’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there.’ I’m telling you, we’re going to get there.” His basic point was that the elimination of competition from the private sector was an obvious byproduct of the public plan. 

In addition to Mr. Hacker, several current sitting Congressmen and Cabinet members have made similar statements. Representative Jan Schakowsky a Democrat from Illinois said the following on April 18 of this year during a speech: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company and he said to me, 'A public option would not let private insurance compete. A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.' My single payer friends, he was right! The man was right! . . . This is not a principled fight. This is a strategy for getting there and I believe we will!"

Continuing, Senator Russ Feingold a Democrat from Wisconsin said the following during an interview with the liberal media group Democracy Now! on May 5, 2009: "I do support single-payer health care. . . I would love to see it and I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single payer system." 

Even more, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said this in 2007 about her strategy for "closing the gap" towards a single-payer plan: "What we need is a national agenda and a commitment to universal health care. . . I mean I'm all for a single-payer system eventually. I think what we have to do though is work with what we've got to close the gap." 

Finally, Barrack Obama in 2003 during a speech stated in very specific, clear, and strong words that he was a proponent of a single-payer, universal healthcare system for America. He went on to say that “we may not get there immediately” but went on to suggest that they would be successful over time in this issue. 

I don't care if President Obama or any other Democrat for that matter is an advocate for nationalized health care. If that is what you want then debate it on its merits and let the American people decide. But instead, the Democratic Party has cloaked the health care debate in dishonesty as a "strategy" to get what they want. Shame on the Democratic Party and shame on President Obama. 

Time To Derail The Obamacare Express

Tomorrow night America will be treated to a one hour health care infomercial that will have the look and feel of a genuine news story thanks to ABC (which is now in competition with NBC for which major news network can provide more favorable coverage to the President).

On the eve of such an important event I am compelled to join those across the country who have had enough of the out of control spending and are drawing a metaphorical line in the sand in opposition to Obamacare. 

This is the one economic issue that the GOP (and all fiscally conscious Americans) can not afford to lose. Creating a massive new entitlement program (on top of Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid and equal to 1/6 of the economy) in healthcare would be the fatal decision that sends this country over the cliff to the European welfare state. 

This is the time and this is the issue around which to get involved. On my end, I'll be blogging almost daily about this issue for purpose of both educating people and providing suggestions on how to get involved.  If you find following me on Facebook or this blog is a hassle, drop me your email address and I'll send my posts directly to your inbox.