Can this be done sanely at all? Has it been done anywhere at all, or is this another Utopian dream?

Socialized heath care blows big time…..no doubt about it.

It seems like they’ve gotten some pretty strong conclusions but don’t want to state them outright lest it be misinterpreted. The “unmet needs” assessments are particularly interesting. My initial assumptions were that, all other things equal, long wait hurdles are better than cost hurdles; and mean vs. median satisfaction is being skewed in the direction of the wealthy. I’ll have to dig into the original report to see.

Here are some more more people who had stellar experiences with the Canadian system:

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario’s government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He’s challenging Ontario’s government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a “Birmingham” hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was “too old” to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He’s heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.

[snip]

In the wake of the 2005 ruling, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have tried unsuccessfully to fix the long wait times by introducing selective benchmarks and guarantees along with large increases in funding. The benchmarks and the guarantees aren’t ambitious: four to eight weeks for radiation therapy; 16 to 26 weeks for cataract surgery; 26 weeks for hip and knee replacements and lower-urgency cardiac bypass surgery.

Canada’s system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

I’ve been to the US Post Office.

I’ve been to the Social Security Office.

I’ve been to the DMV.

None of those places are operated by, or staffed by, the types of people that I want in charge of my health care.

Pathetic…

The same adjustment can be made for life expectancy when adjusted by higher death rates for accidents and homicides.

Other factors include: self-reported health status, index of overall health, a depression index, a pain indicato, and final health status. With all corrections, the authors found the two countries comparable with factoring in adjustments.

INRE five main cancer areas, the US is superior because of both more availability of equipment per capita/population, and early detection/treatment.

INRE the waiting time:

The authors also examine wait times, which are often cited as a problem in Canada. Though comparative information is limited, available data indicate much longer waits in Canada than in the U.S. to consult a specialist and to have non-emergency surgery like knee re-placements. The authors can also draw some inferences from a question about unmet medical needs. While the incidence of unmet needs is slightly lower in Canada (11 percent, vs. 14 percent in the U.S.), it is interesting to note that waiting time is cited as the reason by over half of Canadians who report unmet needs. By contrast, cost is cited as the reason by over half of Americans. The importance of long waits in Canada was recently highlighted by the Chaoulli case in Quebec which successfully challenged the government ban on private provision of medical services covered by the Canadian system. Private services are expected to alleviate shortage of facilities under the system and reduce wait times. Cases are being brought in other provinces.

Note they try to correct the wait times with private care options.

When it comes to customer satisfaction with service and quality, the US wins.

How about equitable health redistribution and overall performance? Nope… no go. Still the US. The higher income gradient to care/quality is even more prominent in Canada. That’s really funny since most the affluent still cross the border to US care. So that’s just based on who stays within the Canadian system.

Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.

The authors conclude that while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system would deliver better health out-comes and distribute health resources more fairly than a multi-payer system with a large private component, their study does not provide support for this view. They suggest that further comparisons of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems would be useful, for example to explore whether the higher expenditures in the U.S. yield benefits that are worth their cost

But the Guardian ran an article last year about Australia’s plan. Because of waiting times for surgery (tho shorter than Britain’s), and despite paying in, 44% of the population still has private insurance. In fact, Australian government charges a surcharge of 1% annually if you *don’t* carry additional private insurance on your taxes.

Medicare also offers a rebate if you choose to have procedures done privately, rather than join a public hospital waiting list for elective surgery. The decision to go private for a knee operation in Australia hinges on whether you can afford to pay half the bill, rather than the entire bill you’d have to pay in the United Kingdom if you opted for private surgery without insurance.

INRE their lifetime health care plan, if you acquire it late, or move there when you’re older, you really get raked over the coals. So you’d better be a high income earner if you move there after 40 years of age. Otherwise, the system “punishes” the elderly… of which they consider over 31 in the financial sense. But they do give immigrants a break as long as they sign up within the first year of their (assuming) legal entry.

In 2000 the government introduced a lifetime health cover, or LHC, to encourage people to go private younger. Anyone signing up under the age of 31 need only pay the regular insurance premium, while older people pay an extra 2% on their premium for each year over 30 they are – up to a maximum of 70% extra. This means a 40-year-old signing up for the first time will pay 20% more each year than someone of the same age who signed up before they were 31.

The good news is that if you’re a new migrant, regardless of your age, the extra charge will not apply if you sign up for private healthcare within one year of arriving.

Particularly if you are a high-income earner, it’s worth calling insurers to work out if taking out private insurance could save you money. Depending on your earnings, the Medicare levy surcharge could cost you more than an annual health premium, so you may be better off with private hospital cover. In addition, the government provides a 30% rebate on premiums, increasing for those over 65. If you have frequent health costs it may also be cost-effective, so make time in your first year to look into your options. That is, if you can drag yourself away from the beach.

I had CA Blue Shield when I was in California with the film editors union. But the very nature of non-profit is just that… they must at least break even. Unlike the government, they can’t operate below profit because they don’t have what they consider a bottomless pit of income from taxpayers.

INRE your “not exactly” comment, specifically:

I have received a considerable amount of money from all of these, save Medicaid, and have been employed by the latter two. I’ve also been denied payment for valuable services rendered by all of them.

You have to understand you made these comments (other than noting you were employed by two) as the recipient of the insurer’s payment for services… whether govt or private… and not from the viewpoint of the insurer themselves.

As the private insurer, offering the services for a premium, you must either make a profit (if you are private sector business), or break even as a non-profit. If you don’t break even as a non-profit, you are depending upon grant funds to make up your loss… which again comes from either government grants (i.e. the taxpayer) or private sector donations. On the latter, you will remember that Obama is clamping down on the benefits of charity.

As far as the other countries you mention, and at the moment excluding Australia. All but Norway have tax rates that are 45% to 56% of annual earnings. I will also add that all but Germany offer higher annual earning potential the the average US earning potential (as of 1991). Our earning capcity is not going up, but down, as the higher wage jobs for blue collar workers bolt the country for friendly business tax environments. The earning capacity plays a great part in determining comparable standards of living. For example.

I might also point out the sheer demands of the US population in numbers, as you are comparing them with smaller populations that are placing demands on the system. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

There is no way that Obama’care is not going to impact the quality and service of medical care in the US. One need only look at the VA… which does offer stellar service once you get to the front of the line. However the red tape and administrative costs are also inefficient. Magnify these problems just serving our veterans and family by the entire population…. legal and illegals. It is a steady drain.

I will say that the health care system does need reform, but that’s a blanket statement. The trick is, what is the reform? Attacking the reasons for the costs is certainly in line, and you can’t do that without addressing the litigiation/E&O that drives up costs immeasurably. But it’s unlikely that Congress – a body comprised of mostly lawyers – are going to leave their trial lawyer friends out in the cold.

Another is the cost of drugs, which I agree needs to be dealt with. But not to the point where the R&D suffers. It’s a fine balance for reform. And as far as I can see, Congress isn’t even close to the “line” with their proposals. They will take an already burdened system, burden it more, and lessen the quality.

Research and pipeline drugs will virtually cease under this plan – we see daily how the lack of incentive amongst government bureaucracy lowers the quality of service presented to the public. In not one country that nationalized healthcare exists has the quality of that care measured up to what is currently offered in the United States – it bankrupts in more ways than one. The small business owner will continute to be crushed under the burden of enormous expenses in the form of higher taxes.

As far as the recipient of this miracle program is concerned, to quote an article written by John Stossel:

“One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what’s available.

That’s why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

“People line up for care; some of them die. That’s what happens,” Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure, told “20/20″. Gratzer thought the Canadian system was great until he started treating patients. “The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting. … You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! You just gotta wait six months.”

So Frank Salvato stated when WC and I interviewed Mr. Salvato last Friday, May 15th.

Rarely mentioned fact: Moslems object to insurance of any kind. They consider it gambling.

Illegals and Moslems will get free coverage. Watch for it. Also watch for a greatly uptick in these two groups having even more children, the latter by multiple wives. It’s demographic jihad!

You say “not exactly” to one of Mata’s points and then you go on to type multiple paragraphs that don’t refute, or even address her point.

Perhaps that’s because Mata’s point about profits for insurance companies and the governments’ view of tax dollars as free flowing and never ending is a valid one.

Honestly, I’m wondering just how many future Americans will want to go to all the trouble and sacrifice of getting their undergraduate degree, then attending and completing medical school, then having to intern for quite some time with all the inherent long hours. Take on all of the debt from student loans, face the threat of excessive litigation because the U.S. has had no meangful tort reform in a quarter century, et al.?

The earnings potential and liberties to choose the favored customized procedures for their specific patients will not be as plentiful for America’s future M.D.’s. Hence, I’m of the opinion that the U.S. will not have as many quality homegrown doctors in our future and will probably be forced to depend on an increasing number of doctors from other countries to fill the void if we decide to go the route of socialized medicine. Taken in its’ entirety, this will surely result in poorer overall medical quality in our future.

And, lest we forget, the United States is home to some 304,000,000 people whereas a nationalized healthcare country like Canada has only the population of California – some 38,000,000 or so. This huge disparity in population will make it far more difficult to efficiently and successfully administer such a demanding process.