
I've been reading David's perspectives on the on-going US debate when it comes to the absolute deplorable state of health care in the US. It's deplorable for the 45 million Americans with no health care coverage and those whose health insurance is far from adequate when it comes to the level of health care they could expect.
My question to David and to all other reasonable Americans is why are there not massive protests in the streets? Why have this hijacked system of for profit health care continued for so long? It's deplorable that big business continues to line the pockets of share holders at the
blatant expense of those who cannot afford the expenses of health care premiums. I have said in the past it is a moral issue of
immense proportions!
My American friends and family, examine the
immensity of the injustice and the fundamental immoral nature of this system. Where is your rage? Where are the protests that in a great democracy can be the catalyst of change for the good of all?

A Harvard Medical School study dated from May of 2006 that looked at the health care of more than 3000 Canadians and 5000 Americans was the first-ever health survey carried out jointly by Canada and the US official statistics agencies.
Here are a few paragraphs about the study which was printed in the American Journal of Health in July 2006:
“Canadians had better access to most types of medical care (with the single exception of pap smears). Canadians were 7% more likely to have a regular doctor and 19% less likely to have an unmet health need. U.S. respondents were almost twice as likely to go without a needed medicine due to cost (9.9% of U.S. respondents couldn’t afford medicine vs. 5.1% in Canada). After taking into account income, age, sex, race and immigrant status, Canadians were 33% more likely to have a regular doctor and 27% less likely to have an unmet health need. For each of these measures, the average Canadian did about as well as insured U.S. residents. Race and income disparities, although present in both countries, were larger in the U.S. Nonwhites were more likely than whites to have an unmet health need in the U.S. (18.6% vs. 11.1%); while in Canada they were not (10.8% vs. 10.2%). Notably, both white and non-white Canadians had fewer unmet health needs than white U.S. residents. After taking into account income, age, sex, race and immigrant status, poor U.S. residents (making less than $20,000 per year) were 2.6 times less likely to have a regular doctor than the affluent ( those making $70,000 or more). In Canada, the poor were only 1.7 times less likely.”
But this next paragraph is even more important, because it deals with that great bugaboo that those opposed to single payer like to bring up about the Canadian system – waiting times:
“Lead author Dr. Karen Lasser, primary care doctor at Cambridge Health Alliance and Instructor of Medicine at Harvard commented, ‘Most of what we hear about the Canadian health care system is negative; in particular, the long waiting times for medical procedures. But we found that waiting times affect few patients, only 3.5% of Canadians vs. 0.7% of people in the U.S. No one ever talks about the fact that low-income and minority patients fare better in Canada. Based on our findings, if I had to choose between the two systems for my patients, I would choose the Canadian system hands down.’ ”
Here the study’s other author, another American doctor:
“These findings raise serious questions about what we’re getting forthe $2.1 trillion we’re spending on health care this year,” said Dr.David Himmelstein, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard andco-author of the study. “We pay almost twice what Canada does for care,more than $6,000 for every American, yet Canadians are healthier, and live two to three years longer.”
there are three important myth-busters this report contains: 1) Under the Canadian system, people were more likely to have a regular doctor than Americans, and to have fair fewer unmet health care needs 2) About 2. 8 percent of Canadians have to wait longer than Americans to receive certain kinds of health care. That means of every 1000 people, 28 more Canadians have to wait longer. Not exactly the huge lines portrayed by certain American lobbyists, is it? 3) The author of the study, an American doctor, when asked which system she would choose for her patients, took the Canadian system “hands down.”
There is also the fact that the Canadian system costs a lot less for all this great care.
And that’s just one study. I found several others that stated the same observations. They can be easily found via Google.
What I have learned from David is that facts don’t matter in Washington, nor with the mainstream media inside the pockets of big business. It’s all about spin.
This evening I read a brief article and pasted it into this post below. It starts off as a tongue in cheek poke at the New Democratic Party leader who paid a visit to the US in support of universal health care and to clarify many of the misrepresentations and the overt distortions concerning how the Canadian health care system is being presented to the US public. This article however supports some of the earlier statements presented by David in his posts on this subject. It also clarifies the fact that you will not find Canadians filing for bankruptcy, selling their homes and farms and dying from treatable diseases because they cannot afford medical treatment. We may have some waiting lists for some procedures and there may even be those who do fall between the cracks but all Canadians still have access to the most fundamental aspects of life saving medical health care. Yes there may be doctor shortages resulting in 4 million Canadians not having their own family doctor (due in part to the huge numbers of Canadian trained doctors being lured to the US by huge incomes and those that may be tired by the
bureaucratic nature of government run health care), yet health care is not denied as walk-in-clinics take up the slack in most cases. Yes, we Canadians pay slightly higher taxes than our American neighbours, and we do so generally speaking happily so knowing that we are indeed our "brother's keeper."
U.S. health care battle turns into a debate on 'socialism'
Updated Thu. Jun. 11 2009 5:00 PM ET
Paul Workman, CTV News Washington Bureau ChiefThere was a bit of snickering around the office when we heard that Jack Layton was making a trip to Washington and would meet with "top administration officials." That was the week Obama was in the Middle East and all the "top officials" were away!
Oh the cynicism.
In fact Layton's visit to Washington was far more legitimate than others who have come here in this spring of economic discontent. His mission was to meddle directly in American domestic affairs, and defend Canada's medicare system. And as head of the party that gave Canadians their first taste of universal health care six decades ago, he had more than a passing interest in doing so.
The Americans are once again going through the agonizing process of trying to reform their obviously broken health care system, and the Canadian experience may well play a role.
When Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing 15 years ago, he failed spectacularly, beaten back by the insurance industry and its allies in the Republican Party. Now Barack Obama has taken up the challenge. In fact he's made it a keystone of his presidency, and that's a risky thing to do.
Every president going back to at least Lyndon B. Johnson has tried to reform health care, and the system has become more fragmented, more wasteful; more expensive. Medical services consume nearly one-fifth of the American economy, and threaten the government's long-term solvency. A recent story on the front page of the Washington Post began with a dire conclusion: "Nowhere else in the world is so much money spent with such poor results." It's that bad.
Enter "Canada's Socialist," as one of the more popular American websites called Layton. Then again, he probably knows more about the American system than most politicians south of the border.
Anyway, in came Layton wagging his finger and offering a history lesson on the struggle to win medicare in Canada.
"Americans should know that when the battle begins here in earnest once again, it'll get dirty. It'll get nasty."
He's right, because it's already getting dirty. All you have to do is turn on your television in this country, and there's Canadian health care being smeared by an American group that equates socialized medicine with something close to communism. The group is called "Conservatives for Patients Rights," and one of their commercials features a former head of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day, warning ominously that "patients are dying, as they wait for care in Canada."
The TV commercials are aimed at Americans, but quite naturally Canadians like Jack Layton are incensed and defensive. "The forces of the vested interests are gathering against change," he says, "and they're sowing the seeds of fear with myths and lies about Canadian health care."
High costs for insured and uninsured
It's a huge and vital issue in America, where 46 million people have no health insurance at all. None. Nothing. Forty-six million! But there's another statistic I find even more frightening. Of all personal bankruptcies in the United States, at least 60 per cent are related to the payment of medical bills. In other words, a lot of middle class families are going broke paying for their sick mother, or husband or child.
Okay, you say, that could never happen to people with health insurance. Not true. A lot of families lose their coverage in the course of an illness and end up facing bills averaging about $25,000, according to a recent study. What Canadian family has that kind of money to pay for hospital costs? Not mine.
I know a woman who's been diagnosed with terminal kidney cancer. She recently started taking a powerful but very expensive drug. The treatment costs $7,700 a month--that's right--and at some point her insurance may run out. She's desperately selling her jewelry and other possessions, to ease the burden on her family and to gain a last chance of survival. As I recently wrote to a friend, the health care system is hounding her to death.
I have a more personal example. I got to Washington a few months ago and needed to get a prescription filled for a blood pressure medication. I could buy a six-month supply of the same pills in Delhi (Ontario) for about $25. A two-month supply in America cost $196.41. Exactly the same pills, exactly the same dose.
There are problems with the Canadian system and maybe Layton is too much of a cheerleader to see the flaws. What about the long wait for elective surgery? The long wait time for an MRI? Or the 4.5 million Canadians who can't find a family doctor? All right, it's not perfect, admits Layton, but there is universal coverage, and not a single person in Canada will lose his house or her farm paying off medical bills.
THE PARALLEL PLAN
So what's Obama going to do?
He's certainly not going to take the Canadian model and apply it to his own country. That would be political suicide. It would provoke a civil war with the private medical and insurance industries, and leave him as defeated as Clinton was back in the 90s.
What he may do is set up a parallel government insurance scheme that would ensure universal coverage to all Americans, and create a level of competition that has never been seen in American health care. Republicans are already screaming that it would result in a "federal government takeover of our health care system." Socialists at the gate.
Today, on his way to town hall meeting in Wisconsin, Obama was met by demonstrators who held up signs saying "NObama" and "No to Socialism."
Obama told his audience that this is not a socialist plan. The government won't force change upon people who are pleased with the plan they already have with their employer.
"When you hear people saying socialized medicine, understand, I don't know anybody in Washington who is proposing that," he said.
Layton, the socialist, defends Canadian Medicare with a health story of his own: Double knee surgery last Easter, that was done quickly, efficiently, and says Layton, "my credit card stayed in my wallet." By the way, Macleans.ca headlined his visit to Washington as "Jack Saves America."
Humble he wasn't, as he compared the United States of today, with Canada of 60 years ago, when public health care first emerged as an election issue in Saskatchewan, and gradually became a right, not a privilege across the entire country. More than a right, it has become a sacred part of Canadian life. Imagine the political party that ever wanted to privatize health care in Canada. Loser.com.
"Sixty years ago Canadian families were on their own to pay doctor and hospital bills," says Layton. "Some sold their farms, or re-mortgaged their homes, and still others went without care...and even died because they didn't have the money.
Sound familiar?"
It does sound very familiar to Americans who look fondly at our health care system and think it's free. I get asked about that all the time.
Of course it's not free (we pay it through our taxes), but it seems to work better than a system that leaves tens of millions of deprived Americans with no coverage at all, and countless numbers of families struggling to pay their medical bills.
I heard a story last week of (an American) colleague who died of colon cancer, who had no insurance and couldn't pay for the check up which might have detected the disease earlier, and perhaps saved his life.
He couldn't afford it, said his wife.
Sad.