trying to keep a sense of healthcare humor this week

This was humerous, but I am wondering why conservative Americans are so fearful of a universal health care system?
I recently experienced the American medical system when my daughter had to be hospitalized while on vacation in Florida (Praise God we had travel insurance!!!!) and am appalled, to say the least, by how it functions. The standard of care was no better than ours in Canada and in fact, care for our daughter was unnecessarily delayed because the American medical industry is about making money on one side and avoiding lawsuits on the other. What a tragedy and how shameful that a nation such as yours has made a business out of people’s health!
Videos like this are nothing but fear mongering propaganda from those who stand to loose – namely insurance companies and ! Seriously, there are good reasons Canadians like myself, the British, French and Italians all vehemently defend their universal health care systems!

Karen, I don’t know much about what Obama is is proposing but it doesn’t sound like it would mirror our system or others like ours if small business’s are going to be required to provide coverage for employees. It sounds like it just shifting the expense from one pocket to another but maintaining the status quo in how the system fundamentally operates.
To answer you questions, our tax system is based on income brackets: at the bottom end of the bracket it is 15% and at the top end (120,000+) it is capped at 29%. The first 10,000 of earnings are tax. From what I understand that is pretty comparable to yours? About 10% of the Canadian GDP goes toward health care, with 17% of that going toward administrative costs. We receive 100% medical coverage for 100% of our citizens and permanent residents. What is not covered are prescriptions, dental care, eye exams for those over 18, and alternative medicine like chiropractic and homeophathy.
(It should also be noted that while a portion of my taxes go towards the public school system, as a home-schooler I receive $1000 per child per year to purchase curriculum of my choosing. All families receive $1200 per year per child under 5 to go towards child care or to allow a parent to stay home, plus depending on your annual income another percentage in family allowance, so I get on average $6000 per year back just because I have kids! This is cash in my pocket, not a deductible. But I digress…)
It is my understanding that the average premium for health insurance for an American family is between 10 to 12,000 annually. I used to pay $500 per year for extended medical services like the ones I listed above. Also our travel insurance, for two weeks coverage was $50 for the whole family and we had 100% of the $12,000 bill paid and what we paid out of pocket was refunded.)
The only “service” otherwise provided in our health care system that a Canadian has the option of paying out of pocket for is an abortion. There is so much I could say about this situation, but suffice it to say our abortion rate is no higher than the American rate because a woman can get one here for free. There are a few reasons for this I won’t get into now, but suffice it to say it makes me very angry that my tax dollars fund abortions.
On that note, I agree with you that it makes no sense to deny the right to life for an unborn baby while making access to health care a “right”. BUT I think BOTH ought to be rights esteemed by any healthy society. Just as, while we choose to home-school and take primary responsibility for our children’s education, there is a place for public education, ensuring all children receive one. And just as we don’t want child welfare telling us how to parent, there is a place for them to protect children from abuse. Making sacrifices for the health and welfare of the community as a whole does not automatically translate into a socialistic ideal any more than having a judicial system makes for a socialistic society. I think the statement you quoted could just as easily be applied to capitalism. Right now, the US is experiencing the worst of capitalism. I think you need elements of both systems. Ultimately we need Christ.
I’ll be honest, I think to oppose reforming your health care system is uncaring. Obama’s solutions may be problematic, but he is pointing out a very real problem that needs to be addressed and changed.
We did visit the ER. With two kids. A couple major differences upon entering: we saw a reception clerk and than another clerk who took our insurance information. Then we waited 30 minutes before seeing a triage nurse. From there we waited over an hour to see a Dr. (This was after having two ER Dr.’s at another hospital and the pediatrician we saw for a second opinion refuse to treat our daughter for liability reasons – despite the fact that we have NO history of suing anyone and offering to sign liability wavers.)
The other difference we noted, aside from the filthiness of the waiting room at what is one of the top ten children’s hospitals in the US, was that it was crowded. You noted this problem.
When we visit the ER here we see a triage nurse first and then an admitting clerk. From there, depending on the severity of your case you may get a bed right away or have to wait. The longest I’ve personally had to wait was 3 hours and that was for something that realistically I should have just waiting until morning to see my Dr. about.
I live in a smaller city, so often Dr.’s will phone the Children’s Hospital for advice and then act on it. There is no fear of being sued for malpractice and needlessly sending patients there for fear colleagues will testify against them.
Crowding in ER’s is not a huge problem here. On weekends and holidays it can get pretty busy but there are a few things that help prevent that. One is that because we don’t have to pay to see a family Dr. those who have one can see their Dr. If they don’t have a regular physician, most communities have walk-in clinics and after hours clinics so one doesn’t have to go to the ER. In my province we have a 24 hour nurse-line, so I can call a nurse to find out what I should do and if a visit to the ER is warranted. Our local ER has a fast track service where patients are redirected to another area of the hospital for care. They handle less urgent cases keeping the ER free for more urgent ones.
Another difference we noted was that because of the risk of being sued, Drs. treat based on the worst case scenario rather than what they are actually observing in a patient, meaning patients are subjected to far more costly and invasive procedures than is necessary. In my daughters case it was recommended that the abscessed lymph node she was hospitalized for be surgically drained and requiring an additional 2 to 3 days in hospital. We chose to take her home to Canada once she was in stable condition and refused the surgery. Upon arriving home, she saw an ENT in the ER who gave us 3 choices: surgically draining while 1. anesthetized OR 2. sedated OR he could freeze the area locally and drain it right there in the ER and we could be on our way in less that an hour. The first two options would require us waiting an hour or two for and OR plus and additional 2 to 3 hours in recovery before going home. We were given NO choices in Miami and why did the surgery require and additional 3 days of hospitalization? My only guess is profit for the hospital on one side and liability on the other.
Because of the nature of health care here we are healthier which eases the demand on hospitals – especially when it comes to the elderly and children.
Here is a good overview comparing the Canadian and American systems:
http://www.bspcn.com/2009/06/27/debunking-canadian-health-care-myths/
In all, there are some major differences in Canadian and American ideologies that make a discussion of this sort difficult. American culture is a culture of fear. The government tells you to fear terrorists and conservatives tell you to fear the government. Both sides peddle A LOT of propaganda inciting fear among their people. Much like the video you posted.
Here, we don’t worry about mind control, most people are concerned about the fiscal bottom line and maintaining freedom of speech. The federal budget and how the money will be spent determines how a person votes here, not political ideologies, religion, etc…

Btw. . . we’ve been blessed to both have fabulous health insurance and no health insurance.

The important thing to remember is that health insurance is NOT the same thing as quality health care. We had great health care when we paid out of pocket. We’ve had great health care when we had our fab insurance. And, we’ve also had lousy care.

We didn’t go without CARE when we haven’t had insurance. . . Certainly did think twice before going in to see the doctor, that’s for sure.

When people get all up in arms about people who don’t have health insurance, they make the illogical leap to these same people having no health CARE. And that’s just not the case.

Here’s the bottom line: should a person’s health be a commodity and patients made consumers?
There are people, no matter how frugal who cannot afford huge insurance fees and are not blessed with employers who pay a portion of those fees. They are left with the option of paying out of pocket for services, with minimal and marginalized care (I understand they cannot be refused care, but $$$ determines quality).
Socioeconomic position should not be the determining factor in who gets QUALITY care any more than race should determine where one goes to school. Not all poor people are poor because of laziness and lack of frugality.
When we were in the ER in Miami, it was disheartening to see a 15 YO boy in no pain, with what may have been a twisted ankle get wheeled right in to see a DR. without waiting while there was a crowded waiting room full of very sick babies, many continually vomiting. Oh, no they aren’t being “denied” care but $$$ and level of insurance sure talks louder than actual NEED for care. And as Christians you are OK with that kind of situation? Would you really look the mothers of those babies in the face and say “you should budget better and work harder” then maybe you can be treated better by the medical system? I’m not comfortable with that.

A few issues are brought up here. One is medical malpractice. Yes, doctors do “unnecessary” tests because of fear of lawsuits. Because there is no cap on awards or “loser pay” it is really a system that encourages lawsuits whenever there is a bad outcome, regardless of whether the doctor did the right thing or not. (Familial experience many times with this.) The lawsuits will often forgo the people directly responsible for the error because they don’t have “deep pockets” and will go for those perceived to have the money.

Second: my father has been in medicine a very long time and has noted at many of his medical meetings the number of Canadian doctors who are ready to come to the US because of frustration with the way things work in Canada. If we go to socialized medicine here, then the trickle down effect of loss of doctors will compound the problem. Why would you want to go to medical school and come out $100,000 in debt just to be paid such a little amount that you can barely pay back that debt? That is a normal occurrence even now. That is also why so few doctors go into family practice and instead go for the higher paid specialties. When I hear about a lawyer intern being paid $3000 a week as compared with a medical resident being paid maybe $30,000 a year, (20 years ago, my husband made $18,000 a year for about 110 hours per week) it makes sense that someone would be more willing to go to law school than medical school.

Another anecdote: My husband used to deliver babies, but the malpractice insurance cost overran the reimbursement. It was as if he was paying to deliver the baby. He was getting less per nine months of care per delivery than a lay midwife had been twelve years earlier. Needless to say, their practice dropped deliveries though he would have liked to continue. That reduced the choice for local patients. This was government reimbursements – socialized medicine. And how does the proposed care plan to save money? Reduce reimbursements to doctors and hospitals.

My husband spent four years in the military with what should be the best in socialized medicine. He hated it. It is terribly inefficient and the system works very slowly. A good day had a doctor seeing 15 patients a day from 9-12 and then 1-4. There was no incentive to work any harder when they were paid the same amount no matter what. When he had found a medicine that worked for a patient, the formulary would change and he would have to have the patient back several more times to get the new drug adjusted to work, just to have the formulary change again. He had patients who had to wait for six months for a necessary procedure because there weren’t enough doctors in the military doing the procedure. In the meantime, these patients had to suffer. I think that is called rationing.

Back to government reimbursements. Medicare and Medicaid people are having a harder time finding doctors. Why? The reimbursements are so low that they cost the office money to see. There are some practices that will not accept any Medicare and Medicaid, and there are some that limit the number so that their practice can be profitable. Without profit, they cannot pay their employees, the malpractice fees, the professional fees, the electricity, the rent, the EMR company, the equipment company and all the rest of the costs of running a business.

It is quite frankly scary to think that lawyers are going to be in charge of medicine and to know that there are very few of the lawmakers listening to doctors as they make these new laws. It is bad enough for my husband to have to talk to a person with a high school degree at best at the insurance companyt trying to tell them that the test or procedure is necessary, but there will be many more people like this making medical decisions with no training. It may take awhile for the disasters to show up, but it will be unrecoverable when they do. The only thing I can do is remind myself that God is in charge of all things and that he will sustain us through it all.

Keebler, thanks for that perspective.

I had forgotten about the frustrations we experienced when my husband was in the army and we had to take the healthcare available to us.

When I was expecting our second child, we were stationed at a post in Germany where I had two choice…to either fly by helicopter to a military base 4 hours away when the time came or to deliver in the German hospital in our small town with the local doctor. I opted for the local doctor and was pleased with our experience. A couple months after the delivery, I experienced hemorrhaging and went into the post clinic several times, being told nothing was wrong with me by these young doctors who had little to no experience with gyn issues. Finally, I happened to be in the clinic on a day when one of the local German doctors was there and she immediately ordered blood work which showed that I was severely anemic and she sent me immediately to the doctor who had delivered me. He put me in the hospital and did a D and C, which solved the whole problem.

I remember feeling like these military doctors were so used to seeing women for all sorts of simple things that when it came to something that could have been life threatening, they blew it off. That was my experience with government-run medicine.

Karen, it’s sort of odd to see such a heated debate on this, but Melanie is right about a system being a good fit for the culture. President Obama can’t make you accept something you don’t want and that does not suit the American mindset.

The National Health Service was created in 1945. The British people had endured so much and given so much during WW 2 that the post-war government wanted to reward its people with a renovated and renewed nation. We were bombed out, still living on rations, families torn apart by evacuation and bereavement on a massive scale. Even today, people will talk of how that generation deserves a return on its sacrifice. The local General Practitioner is a small businessman who runs his practice on behalf of the government. So it’s not the communistic bogeyman that some would have you believe. But it works for us because it’s ours. The British are very patriotic about the NHS.

It’s not as good as it was, and every now and again there will be a debate about how to reform the NHS. Everyone will have a good old British moan about what’s wrong with it: can’t get the drugs/treatment we want without a wait; old hospitals; not enough nurses;snooty doctors,;too much spent on the obese/smokers/malingerers; mixed wards; elderly not getting good care; long waits at Accident and Emergency. This will go on for half and hour or so, and then someone will pipe up with,”Well, we’ve got our problems, but at least it’s not like America.” “Ooh, yes, at least here you can get treated without showing your credit card.” Everyone’s got story about some relative who was asked for their money before anyone would help them. But we can’t really have a proper grasp of your system if we are not part of the culture.

This may be of interest, regarding an American ad campaign featuring Canadian Shona Holmes claiming she would have died if not for the treatment she received in the US:
http://www.straight.com/article-244124/shona-holmes-joins-great-american-healthcare-debate