Sickness and Health

[magedragonfire]

Socialized public health care has been available in Canada for as long as I can remember; it's been around, nationally, since 1966. I'd definitely never want to have to pay to be seen at a hospital in an emergency, or even for a routine doctor's checkup. Last night, however, I watched Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, a diatribe against the privatized health care system in the USA. During the course of the film, he presents a number of rather dire charges against medical insurance companies, physicians, and hospitals in the country, and extolls the virtues of public health systems, much like the one we have here in Canada.

Although I realize the film is certainly biased in favour of public health, I can't quite figure out how much of it is hyperbole and how much is truth. It seems so alien to think of doctors, of all people, refusing sick patients treatment on the basis of their ability to pay – would that not violate the Hippocratic Oath, somehow?

And yet, so many people in the documentary have disturbing stories to tell about their treatment, and I've heard numerous other terrible things from friends who live in the States. One of them, a diabetic like myself, is unemployed and can barely afford to pay for the doctor visits and insulin that he needs to survive. Between having no insurance (and he wouldn't even qualify for most plans, nor would I if I moved there) and the inflated costs of drugs, it is a sorry situation, and one I can't even imagine living in.

But even though Moore praises our Medicare, as do the Canadians he interviews, many people here still complain about the system. Surgery wait lists are long, there aren't enough doctors or treatment beds in hospitals, and the quality of care is declining. Still, what would we face if we switched to a privatized system? It's possible that the complaints we have now could seem trivial in such a future. It's an issue that needs much consideration before any changes are put in place.

Comments

[palmer-kun.livejournal.com]

The main difference between single-payer systems (here) and multiple-payer systems (the US) comes down to administrative overhead.

Roughly 2% of the health care budget in Canada is actually spent on running the health care benefit system. The other 98% actually goes towards doctor and surgeon fees, medication costs and hospital operating expenses.

In the US, up to THIRTY percent of the money goes towards administration.

Factors behind this include that health care in the US is a for-profit enterprise, and so some of the money has to go to profits, as well as things like advertising budgets.

But a major factor is simple inefficiency. When you have multiple HMOs, each with their own rules, guidelines and, most of all, paperwork to fill out, things start grinding down. Many doctors have gone to the point where they'll only take patients from one HMO - just to keep down the variety of paperwork.

Interestingly enough, Medicaid and Medicare, the govt-run medical benefits in the US, come out as a single-payer system (like Canada) and only have about a 2% overhead... like Canada.

Yet even when presented with this evidence, the US still insists that private, competitive health care is "more efficient and less wasteful"

Just google "single payer health care" and you'll find a lot of reading. Like the fact that if the US as a whole went to single-payer, everyone who is currently uninsured could be completely covered, everyone with partial coverage could be completely covered, and everyone who is currently paying could pay 20% less (this means the poor still not paying anything), and despite this, the health care industry would make BIGGER PROFITS.

As for surgery waiting lists, it's a supply and demand thing, really.
The main reason we have lists and the US doesn't? Because the US has a LOT less people actually GETTING surgery, per capita. There are a lot of Canadians who are on the list for surgery who, in the US, could never afford it and thus wouldn't be on the list in the first place.

[magedragonfire.livejournal.com]

Hmm. So if there is evidence that they're going about things completely wrongo, and they could be making even more profit and be helping people more than they are... Why aren't they doing something about it? Are they really content to keep their heads in the sand for no reason?

Of course, reducing the number of HMOs would put some CEOs and their profits out of the game, so that could never happen, hmm? Sure, they could be replanted somewhere within the new system, but they'd be afraid that they wouldn't be making the same amount of money as they were previously. Greedy pigs.

And yeah, the surgery wait lists, that's easy to see. Doesn't mean people complain about it any less.

[palmer-kun.livejournal.com]

It's a belief-dogma thing. "Free market is best" and "Private enterprise is most efficient." They keep saying that, and will actively ignore any evidence to the contrary. You see this behaviour from big business all the time, it's hardly news.

And you're dead on with point #2. There would be more profit overall, but it would involve some of those companies going out of business, and most of all, having to SHARE that profit.

HMOs have an INCREDIBLE racket going on right now, and they want to keep the status quo for as long as possible. You know, just like the recording industry. Not because it's the best it could be, but because it's a sure thing, and going single-payer doesn't guarantee they'll win.

If things start turning towards single-payer, the lobbyists will be whispering in ears and greasing palms like there's no tomorrow, and next thing you know, a "Protection of Traditional Health Care" bill will hit the table, filled with all kinds of "evils of socialism" propaganda.

People should stop bitching about waiting lists. Would they rather not be eligible for the surgery at all?

And you KNOW waiting lists will be at the forefront of the propaganda and various ads against the change.

But that's the real problem. The people with money control politics, and the people with money have the most to lose from the change. They already HAVE coverage, and no waiting lists because only they can afford procedures.

[magedragonfire.livejournal.com]

..."Traditional Health Care"? Ho boy.

There's plenty of palm greasing as is, though - according to the movie, politicians high up in the chain of command were getting 'donations' of 200K to 600K to push through some bill that the drug companies wanted. Bush got top dollar, of course, at 800K.

I don't bitch about waitlists! But of course, I'm not scheduled for anything. XD My dad was just in for a surgery, though, and he only had to wait a month and a bit for it - wasn't anything rushful, neither, just something to do with his knee.

Maybe people with money control the politicians, but they can't control politics at it's core - that's what we're supposed to have the vote for, isn't it? But of course, no one will rise up against the healthcare issue if it comes to it, because they'll be distracted by all the other shiny flak that'll get in the way as voting day approaches. Agree on one issue, disagree on a dozen others, and no one wins who'll do any good.

[palmer-kun.livejournal.com]

The people vote for their representatives.

The reps then vote on the bills. They are under no obligation to vote according to the wishes of the people.

Plus people are stupid. A little smoke blowing rhetoric can sway half the nation and make them ignore important shit.

Remember the debacle that was "morals based voting"?

The last election was pretty much decided on the question of abortion... even though nothing has been done about it since then.

Unfortunately, the core of politics IS the politicians. For the ultimate proof that the vote of the people is meaningless... just look at the David Emerson debacle. Elected as a Liberal, and then promptly became a Conservative.

Yep. Those votes had all the power.