Misleading WHO Health Care Report - Part I

According to the WHO the United States is ranked 24th in the world in life expectancy. People in the U.S. live to be an average of 70 years old while people in Japan (ranked 1st) live to be an average of 74.5 years old.  

So according to this statistic one could come to the conclusion that the United States has inferior health care. But that conclusion would be wrong.  

While quality of health care plays some role in life expectancy, there are many, many other factors that play into this statistic as well. For life expectancy rates to mean anything at all in relation to health care one would have to control for things such as homicide rates, accident rates, diet, exercise, genetics, smoking rates, etc.  

When these rates are controlled for the United States is at or near the top of the heap.  

Americans are far more mobile than the rest of the world. We are far more likely to own a care and use it than any other country. Thus higher auto fatality rates.  

Also, because of our wealth Americans find all kinds of dangerous ways to spend their time from mountain climbing, to skiing, to eating junk food on a daily basis.  

All of these things are important issues in and of themselves, but they have little to do with the quality of the health care system in America.

The Inferior Massachusetts Health Care Plan

Some people may reject analysis of socialized medicine in Europe or Canada based on the idea that "we can do it better in America".  But the state of Massachusetts is proving this line of thinking to be incorrect.  Massachusetts adopted a government run universal health care plan in 2006 and in only three years has created a myriad of problems.  

State spending on health care has increased 42 percent in Massachusetts since 2006 which is 33 percent above the national average.  According to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average average (9% in 2009).  

Taxes have gone up to pay for the plan, but they aren't enough.  The plan is racking up a significant deficit and the Massachusetts government is discussing cuts in reimbursing doctors and further rationing of care to make up the deficit.  

The Boston Globe reports the average wait is now 63 days to see a family doctor and 50 days to see a specialist.  

The number of uninsured has come down, but not dramatically.  Cato estimates over 200,000 are still uninsured.  

The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks Massachusetts last of all 50 states for business friendly health care policies.  

Government medicine hasn't worked in other countries around the world and it's proving to be equally unsuccessful in the United States as well.  

Canada's Inferior Heath Care System - Part III

John Stossel, who works for ABC (specifically 20/20) and has been writing and reporting on government waste for years, has written an insightful article about the problems of socialized medicine, specifically in Canada.  Here is a snippet:

"People line up for care, some of them die. That's what happens," says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of "The Cure". He liked Canada's government health care until he started treating patients.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can't get heart-attack victims into the ICU.

In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours.

"We can't send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."

More than a million and a half Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, "20/20" videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.

Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

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.