Sunday, November 11, 2007

What Hillarycare Would Mean to Americans

One of the things I really like about wintering on the Gulf coast of Florida is the number of Canadian and British friends I have been able to make. For some reason they seem often to enjoy Florida and both ballroom dancing and bridge, and through those activities I have met several couples from both countries. Although my sample size is not very large, it hits me hard that both a Canadian man I know and a British woman I also know have had nightmarish experiences with their respective Canadian and British socialized health-care systems.

The man had a high PSA reading, which often signifies prostate cancer, and must be followed up immediately by a biopsy. Time is critical in diagnosing and treating this horrendous disease. The man had to wait several months before he could have the biopsy; fortunately it was negative, but what he doesn’t know, and I didn’t want to tell him, was that the Canadian doctors were using a biopsy procedure that is outdated and often misses the tumor. I know this because I am a survivor of prostate cancer and know more about it than I care to. See the highlighted section in the article below that deals with prostate cancer survival rates.

The British woman suffered a stroke while vacationing here in Florida and was treated by local doctors in a local hospital. They saved her life and her future quality of life with a rapid and appropriate response followed by a regimen of physical therapy. This happened in the fall of 2006, after which she returned to Great Britain where she found no services available to monitor her condition or her therapy. She and her husband returned this fall, and she told me that she is absolutely convinced that, if the stroke had occurred in England, she would be dead.

"A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work"

By DAVID GRATZER, IBD Editorials, July 26, 2007

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. As a Canadian, I had soaked up the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people.

My health care prejudices crumbled on the way to a medical school class. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute.

Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli faces the media in Montreal in June 2005, after he got Canada's Supreme Court to strike down a Quebec law banning private insurance for services covered under Medicare — a decision the rocked the country's universal health care system.

I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic — with a three-year wait list; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

Government researchers now note that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12% of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment.

These problems are not unique to Canada — they characterize all government-run health care systems.

Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled — 48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren't available. And so on.

Single-payer systems — confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting lists and substandard treatment — are starting to crack, however. Canadian newspapers are filled with stories of people frustrated by long delays for care. Many Canadians, determined to get the care they need, have begun looking not to lotteries — but to markets.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health care scene. In the 1990s, he organized a private Quebec practice — patients called him, he made house calls and then he directly billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal, and so was private insurance.

Eventually, Chaoulli took on the government in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Representing an elderly Montrealer who had waited almost a year for a hip replacement, Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. A majority of the court agreed that Quebec's charter did implicitly recognize such a right.

The monumental ruling, which shocked the government, opened the way to more private medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against private insurance holds in the rest of Canada for now, at least two people outside Quebec, armed with Chaoulli's case as precedent, are taking their demand for private insurance to court.

Consider, too, Rick Baker. He isn't a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He's a medical broker — one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canada's government care. Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests and specialist consultations, privately and quickly.

Baker describes a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy.

Dissatisfied with the opinion — he had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which aren't usually seen in the disorder — he requested an MRI.

The government told him that the wait would be 4 1/2 months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours — and who, after the test revealed a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks. Some services that Baker brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law, but governments are loath to stop him.

Other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week.

Canadian doctors, long silent on the health care system's problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association.

Day has become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center and challenging the government to shut him down.

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80% of government-funded diagnostic testing.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain's Labour Party — which originally created the National Health Service — now openly favors privatization. Sweden's government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of its total health services.

Since the fall of communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany.

Yet even as Stockholm and Saskatoon are percolating with the ideas of Adam Smith, a growing number of prominent Americans are arguing that socialized health care still provides better results for less money.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moore's new documentary, "Sicko," celebrates the virtues of Canada's socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health insurance.

One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values.

It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.
Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors aren't academic — homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50%; the European rate is just 35%.

Esophageal carcinoma: 12% in the U.S., 6% in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England — a striking variation.

Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: health care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of what Americans pay. Again, the picture isn't quite as clear as he suggests. Because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn't unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take America's high spending on research and development. M.D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada does.

That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren't always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses spiraling up, it will be easy for some to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that like-minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off and promote: expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or covering all children in Medicaid.

But such initiatives would push the U.S. further down the path to a government-run system and make things much, much worse. True, government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs — but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment.

America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home — in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.

Editorial Note: You can expect to see many more articles about Hillary Clinton if she gets the Democratic nomination. I will do everything in my power to stop her from imposing this nightmare on America.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 11:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As usual, you deliberately distort what Sen. Clinton has proposed. Her plan requres that every American have PRIVATE health insurance and proposes federal subsidies for those unable to afford the cost. You have, once again, set up a straw man and destroyed it.

At 11:41 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Which plan? When the consequences of her various requirements are pointed out, supposedly changes are made in her proposals. She has made it very clear what she wants to do - a single payer plan. She may introduce it in limited fashion, but that is where she wants to take us.

At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary supporters: please don’t get discouraged. PLEASE. She is getting attacked from all sides because people deep down know she is our only hope for America and they’re trying to ruin it for everybody. Hillary is the ONLY candidate with these 4 attributes: honor, patriotism, loyalty, and kindness. I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes.

At 1:29 PM, Blogger George, Group Admin said...

Somehow in your limited foreign medical care experience you seem to be on the top of the story about fear and worry and hate for just one person.

I find it hard to believe and based upon my own personal experience of being treated in a foreign hopsital while living in a foreign country that has government provided medical care for four years and being treated by physicians in their private practice under the same system it was always exceptional care with the best of services and facilities. You are so wrong to judge if you have not lived under another medical system.


At 1:41 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

I do not believe that the above comment is truthful; I believe it is a plant by a Clinton supporter.

At 5:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't want anything that Hillary Clinton has to offer. She's a Socialist and it's as plain and simple as that.

At 8:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a single payer plan, Medicare has been quite effective, and it insures those most likely to need medical care, the elderly.

At 9:40 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Medicare has bankrupted the system by driving up costs 1000's of percent. When there is unlimited demand, this always happens. We do not need to add to these problems.

At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's pure BS. There's no evidence that Medicare has driven costs up at all, let alone thousands of percent.

A good part of our medical cost problem is caused by the high cost of prescription drugs. The prescription bill that prevents Medicare from negotiating bulk prices for drugs compounds the problem.

At 7:32 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Not only has Medicare raised the overall costs of medical care, it introduced the nasty little practice of utilization review, wherein someone looks over the doctors' shoulders to determine whether their treatment is "cost-effective" andshould be modified or discontinued.

At 3:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post your queries related to Hip Replacement at,

Toll Free
UK: 0-808-234-6343
US / Canada: 1-800-730-6373

At 5:30 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

The above comment is priceless. It was posted by someone from a joint replacement center in India - probably aimed at Brits and Canadians who cannot get such a service in their own countries.

At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brits and Canadians can get the service after a lengthy wait, but it may also have been aimed at Americans without insurance who can't afford the procedure at all.

At 1:53 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Well, Bud, this can be said about anything. Life is unfair, and some people are worthless shirkers. What is important is the best situation for most people, and this includes the availability of doctors and the continuing development and research into medical advances. American medicine is unparalleled in these regards.

At 6:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of those without health insurance are not worthless shirkers, but working people who are unlucky, uneducated, under employed, or some combination of all 3. The number now stands at about 45 million or 15% of the population and rising. At what point does it become a national disgrace that we pump billions into a worthless war in Iraq while significant numbers of our citizens suffer at home?

At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hip Resurfacing In India – Dr Vijay C Bose – Low Cost Hip Resurfacing – Knee surgery – Total Hip Replacement

Hip Resurfacing:

You are forty years old, great job, good friends and life is a smooth journey. One awful morning you wake up with a throbbing pain in the hip joint. You pop in a pain killer bought at the pharmacy and feel better. A few months later more frequent pain and sever enough to reduce movement at the hip joint. A visit to the orthopedic surgeon and series of medical test follows. Day to day activities become very difficult. You hear the inevitable news that you have osteoarthritis of the hip joint. The only treatment that will relieve your pain is replacement of the hip joint…
This is the relentless jargon of patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the hip. The conventional hip replacement involves cutting the head of femur (thigh bone) and replacing it with a metal ball. The diseased acetabulum is replaced with a high density polyethylene cup. The life of conventional Total Hip Replacement is about 10 to fifteen years. A superior alternative to this is the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. The first procedure in India was performed at Apollo Specialty Hospital Chennai. In this procedure only the diseased part of the head of femur is removed and a metal cap made of cobalt and chromium is fitted on it. The acetabular side is also fitted with a metal cup. Due to the metal on metal interface the joint does not wear out easily. Moreover the resurfacing prosthesis has near normal anatomy to the hip joint. Hence patients can get back to all kinds of physical activities without the fear of dislocation.


Post a Comment

<< Home