Because universal healthcare is “so wonderful”

Posted by: ST on June 30, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Fox News reports on how the private healthcare business is seeing a boom in Canada:

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada — a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

Click here latest details on LIVESHOTS: Canada: Private Clinic Controversy

“Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn’t live my life the way I wanted to,” says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.

But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.

“No question, it was worth the money,” said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.

Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.

“I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that’s beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice,” says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.

A choice? Shame on Dr. Boulay for suggesting such a thing. He should know that “choice” is only important when it comes to a woman’s “right” to decide whether or not to termininate her unborn baby.

But I digress.

Much has been written about the serious problems with socialized healthcare in Canada, as well as the major care issues in the UK – both places touted by leftist liar Michael Moore and other deceptive liberals in an effort to fool the American public on the so-called “benefits” of a public healthcare system. A click on that Liberty Page link will show you links galore about the long waits and substandard care received in some of the same countries singled out as “shining examples” of what the US healthcare system would look like “if only we would give it a chance.”

Yes, let’s have a debate on the US healthcare system, but dammit, can we for once get some honesty out of the Congressional left on this issue instead of scare tactics?

I’ll be the first to admit that there are issues with our healthcare system, but that doesn’t socialized, government-run healthcare is the answer. What is? Physician and Senator Tom Coburn just might have the answer with the Patients’ Choice Act, which you can read about here. The short version of the plan can be read here.

Oh, and BTW – a reminder: The Democrats big issue is wanting “everyone” covered under a healthcare plan, whether it’s private or public. But under their own trillion dollar plan millions of Americans would not be covered, according to a preliminary report from the CBO released earlier this month:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

And that doesn’t even take into account whether or not those “newbies” who obtain healthcare coverage once (if) these changes take effect would actually have quality coverage and healthcare as a result. The big issue for the left is “let’s get everyone covered” while not paying near as much attention to the bigger issue, which is the quality and cost of healthcare. They seem to think that adding the public option will magically take care of quality and cost issues – they’re either being willfully ignorant or really don’t know they’re wrong. I’m not sure which is worse.

Hmmm. Can we call the pro-socialized healthcare crowd “treasonous deniers” of reality yet? :-?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

5 Responses to “Because universal healthcare is “so wonderful””

Comments

  1. Great White Rat says:

    Very much related: a brilliant op-ed by George Newman in today’s WSJ: Parsing the Health Reform Arguments. He dismantles all the arguments for state-run health care one by one. Example:

    - “Decisions will still be made by doctors and patients and the system won’t be politicized.”

    Fat chance. Funding conflicts between mental health and gynecology will be based on which pressure group offers the richer bribe or appears more politically correct. The closing (or opening) of a hospital will be based not on need but which subcommittee chairman’s district the hospital is in. Imagine the centralization of all medical research in the country in the brand new Robert Byrd Medical Center in Morgantown, W.Va. You get the idea.

    It’s invaluable for rebutting the leftist talking points on health care.

  2. Mary Vaughn says:

    I have many hard-working friends who are in desperate need for some sort of medical care. I don’t think waiting to see a doctor would be nearly as big of a problem as not being able to see one at all.

  3. Walter Dann says:

    The people out there who are ill and have no insurance will be very grateful to see a doctor, any doctor, no matter how long it takes.

  4. Carlos says:

    And I’m sure you’d both (Mary and Walter) agree that, well, it was just tough luck that so-and-so died of his/her cancer before he/she could get in to see the doctor and then wait four more months for an MRI.

    For crying out loud, people, you get what you pay for! If you want exclusion from astronomically expensive tests, I’m sure there’s an insurance company out there that will write such a policy real cheap, but don’t expect it to work real well if you get some disastrous disease that mimics about ten others. Just hope you hang on long enough to sue the “incompetent” doctor because, obviously, it would be his fault he couldn’t find it in time.

    I love how medicine is headed back to leeches. Except now they’re the patients, not the “cures”.