In his book, America Alone, Merk Steyn offers the following quip about Canada’s system of socialized medicine:
They’re now pioneering the ultimate expression of government health care: the ten-month waiting list for the maternity ward.
He goes on to tell the story of a woman who was forced to have her baby in Alberta because there were no maternity beds available where she lives in British Columbia. Well, it appears that the wondrous Canadian health care system has now perfected its ten-month strategy.
It turns out that the rare identical quadruplets recently born in Montana were delivered in the U.S. because the Canadian health care system had (you guessed it) no available maternity beds. The AP describes what the parents had to go through in order to find a hospital bed:
The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity.
This is like being forced to drive from Boston to Philadelphia to find a hospital bed! Are there really people out there who actually believe it would be a good idea for the U.S. to emulate such a system?
Comments 22
David, I’m getting worried about you. Do you actually have any experience of the Canadian, French and UK healthcare systems you belittle, with mostly single anecdotes and out of date data? And do you really believe all the right wing rhetoric pouring from the far right such as Mark Steyn, whose book America alone is the most absurd, thinly veiled racist tome, having us believe Europe will be overrun by militant Islamists in a generation?
On the matter to hand, just pick up ‘liberal’ papers such as Businessweek.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070621_716260.htm
In this piece you’ll find:
‘One of the most repeated truisms about the U.S. health-care system is that, for all its other problems, American patients at least don’t have to endure the long waits for medical care that are considered endemic under single-payer systems such as those in Canada and Britain. But as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations…”
In other words: you need to get out more.
Posted 18 Aug 2007 at 2:11 pm ¶Don’t you ever wonder why you constantly need to insert irrelevant, off-topic BS about Steyn, Lott, et al? Here’s a hint: your position is without substance. The cure for that involves taking the time to do the reading.
As to the BusinessWeek piece, your quote mining might pass muster with the morons at Daily Kos and other such sites, but no one with a clue is going to let you get away with that crap.
If you can extract your head from sphincter of lefty agitprop for a few minutes, you might want to read this and this, by people with some actual knowledge of both health care and Canada.
These two articles are just the tip of the iceberg, Marc. If you’re willing to do your homework, you’ll discover overwhelming evidence that Canada’s system stinks.
Posted 18 Aug 2007 at 8:08 pm ¶from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php
Waiting Times For Care? Try Looking At The U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It’s Time To Debunk The Myths
[***]
“There’s been a lot of clamor lately about delays in care in some other countries. But if you want to see some really unsightly waiting times, look at U.S. medical facilities,” said Deborah Burger, RN, president of the 75,000-member CNA/NNOC.
While the problem has been largely overlooked by the major media, it was quietly exposed by the chief medical officer of Aetna, Inc. late in Aetna’s Investor Conference 2007 in March.
In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that “the (U.S.) healthcare system is not timely.” He cited “recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable,” Brennan said.
Brennan also recalled that he had formerly spent much of his time as an administrator and head of a physicians’ organization trying “to find appointments for people with doctors.”
While Brennan’s comments went unreported by the media, his data matches several studies and a report in a June 22 Business Week article which opened by citing the case of a New York woman who had to fight for a timely second exam following suspicious results from a first mammogram and then still had to wait a full month.
The article also noted a University of California San Francisco research report last year that documented average waits of 38.2 days to get an appointment with a dermatologist to examine a possibly cancerous mole.
A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada’s latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.
[***]
In support of your argument, you cite two anecdotal articles written by people who are “employed” at think tanks funded by (among others) Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly Endowment, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Roe Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation (Gatzberg - MI) and ChevronTexaco, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Pfizer, PhRMA, and the Lilly Endowment (Pipes - PRI).
Not persuasive.
Posted 19 Aug 2007 at 4:37 pm ¶And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.
Morris, I can’t believe you question my sources and then quote these hacks. The leadership of PNHP and CNA/NNOC are notorious single-payer zealots. In fact, the CNA/NNOC endorsed Michael Moore’s absurd schlockumentary.
Posted 19 Aug 2007 at 5:03 pm ¶Brennan is no hack.
The Commonwealth Fund data is some of the best there is on a matter where very little empirical analysis exsists. The reason, however, is not because of Canada’s reporting to the media (I don’t get my health stats from the media, and I really don’t know wtf you are talking about here). In America there is no systemized, nationwide collection of data on wait times however countries with national health systems are typically required by legislatrive fiat to track and publish data on wait times.
So what exactly are you talking about? Did you happen to see who I selectively cited? (1) Brennan (Aetna CEO); (2) discussion of Commonwealth Fund study; (3) discussion of UCSF study. All three = same conclusion. I don’t care about whatever CNA, etc. are quoted as saying because my argument does not rely on them. Bash them all you want, but if you would mind actually addressing this claim:
“In his talk, Troy Brennan conceded that ‘the (U.S.) healthcare system is not timely.’ He cited ‘recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement… that people are waiting an average of about 70 days to try to see a provider. And in many circumstances people initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month, which is intolerable,’ Brennan said.” [note: this is the assertion that undermines your argument and that you must address . . . k?]
As for my critique of your sources: (1) the plural of anecdote is not data, and they offer little by way of the latter = they are on their face not persuasive and contain little empirical substance (just the generally vague thesis - canadian health care sucks); and (2) they get paid by those with direct financial interests in these issues. They are simply not independent analysts no matter how much they may belive what they say.
But not to digress . . .
Please actually respond to this: Brennan (not a single payer zealot) + data = wait times in US not as good as everyone thinks. Address the argument, using crazy stuff like logic and facts to make a conclusion, please?
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 1:06 pm ¶Morris, the title of your source (in the previous comment) was “Waiting Times for Care? Try Looking At The U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It’s Time To Debunk The Myths.” But the only doctors and nurses quoted were from left-wing advocacy groups (PNHP and CNA/NNOC). It’s ridiculous to suddenly claim that your argument doesn’t depend on their assertions.
As to Brennan, his stats (according to the article) come from something called “the Institution of Healthcare Improvement.” I’ve never heard of that organization. Got a link to this mysterious outfit?
Also, your Medical News article provides no links to the Commonwealth Fund study or the UCSF study. It merely references a BusinessWeek article, which itself fails to provide links to the studies. If you expect me respond to those studies, you’ll have to provide links.
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 3:06 pm ¶Ah fercrissakes:
I cited the article/title because it was the only place where I could find Brennan quoted. Are you that much an ideologue that the minute you see an ideological opponent mentioned you lose reading comprehension and logical reasoning? Do you typically halt analysis at the title?
Commonwealth Fund (start here and there is further linked analysis): http://www.commonwealthfund.org/snapshotscharts/snapshotscharts_show.htm?doc_id=409110
UCSF Study: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0190962206009492
[If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter.]
Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. [I’d like this too].
Brennan - much more respected and accomplished than the authors you cite with such approval. He has no motive to lie about the matter either. I too would like to see the data, but I suspect it may be proprietary.
Did you even read the Business Article? What of the claims of Brennan more broadly - which you have refused to address on their face?
Just given his position and his interests against such an admission (as insco ceo), I find his view very persuasive even without seeing his data. However, luckily we do have other studies which - tho’ not as thorough as Canada’s datasets - all serve to support Brennan’s assertions about the reality of waiting times here.
Address his conclusions and those of the Business Week article first if you would. Do you think they are lying? If so show me some data (and not just someone else unsubstantiated opinions). Then tie in to the broader context - yes Canada does have some waiting lists, but so do we . . . in fact . . . we have some bad waits (and this is before we even begin to try to account for the uninsured’s affect on access numbers).
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶How about the point that there is no primary source for year by year wait times in the US, unlike other countries?
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 4:10 pm ¶The absence of data is, by definition, meaningless. In my 20 plus years in health care, the only evidence I have ever seen of excessive wait times has been in the ER, and that’s a direct result of government meddling.
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 4:55 pm ¶Commonwealth Fund (start here and there is further linked analysis):
Oh, THAT Commonwealth Fund study. It’s based on patient reported data, Morris. That is to say, it’s pretty much worthless. The study itself (in the “Limitations” section) admits as much:
“Patient-reported data are subject to potential recall bias. Patient expectations for care may be influenced by cultural factors that differ from country to country.”
As anyone actually working in health care will tell you, the subjective views of patients regarding their care are often wildly at odds with the facts. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced after the bill (for the deductible and/or co-pay) arrives.
Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 9:00 pm ¶‘The absence of data is, by definition, meaningless. In my 20 plus years in health care, the only evidence I have ever seen of excessive wait times has been in the ER, and that’s a direct result of government meddling.’
David, with respect you would dismiss out of hand such a post from your opposition. Without year by year data you cannot compare your country with countries that gather very comprehensive data, not just on wait times but on measures such as the performance of surgeons in certain hospitals.
But if you want to admit point cases, anecdotes and personal experience you will find a huge volume on the net of Americans with waiting time problems. Eg:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wait25jul25,1,104564.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2007/07/mark-kleiman-ho.html
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 7:35 am ¶Morris, if you had a comment deleted, it probably got inavertantly zapped with the spam.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 11:50 am ¶Without year by year data you cannot compare your country with countries that gather very comprehensive data.
Isn’t that precisely what you’ve been doing, Marc? You want me to accept that we have wait times comparable to those of countries like Canada. But there really aren’t any credible data to support that position.
I reject the Commonwealth Fund study because it is based on subjective data provided by patients. I know, from experience, that even the most sincere patients “misremember” key facts about their care.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 12:05 pm ¶‘You want me to accept that we have wait times comparable to those of countries like Canada. But there really aren’t any credible data to support that position.’
No - not even that. I’m asking you to accept that without knowing the US position, you cannot know if another country is worse. At best, you just don’t know, if you choose to discount all the evidence that suggests the US fares a lot worse than you think.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 3:06 pm ¶Ah, but I do know the US position. I’ve been in the thick of it for decades. It simply isn’t plausible that the hospitals and medical communities in which I have worked are outliers.
In reality, my work life has been spent in the garden-variety institutions where general trends tend to reveal themselves.
I know you don’t wish to accept this, but I really do know what I’m talking about.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 3:16 pm ¶Sorry, no one can possibly accept this. Would you make a major policy decision without data? There’s an old adage - you can’t manage what you can’t measure, or as Mark Kleiman, the prof at UCLA who was stalled repeatedly by his insurance company says: ‘But only in wingnut health-policy fantasyland is not measuring a problem the same as not having a problem.’
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 4:09 pm ¶You obviously can’t accept anything that isn’t fed to you by the lefty agitprop machine. But, believe it or not, there are many people out there with open minds who can think for themselves.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶The abbreviated version of my lost post was exactly Marc’s:
Ever hear of logic, Dave? Your argument relies on a premise that has no basis in empirical measured fact.
And no, what you have seen while in the think of it doesn’t count. It is damn ridiculous to even have to explain this to someone who loves to challenge the flaws in actual data.
Premise = US and Canada have different systems.
Premise = US has shorter wait times than Canada.
Conclusion = our system better or if we go to a more nationalized system our wait times will go up.
To make such an argument without even having evidence that your premise is true IS BY ITSELF intellectual hackery. I don’t even know how to explain to someone who does not understand this just exactly how flawed this reasoning is.
LOGICAL TRUTH: The strength of this conclusion is limited by the strength of this premise.
Now what if your untested assumption/premise is actually false, and the opposite is true? Well your conclusion is refuted. All the data I have seen, converges on one conclusion: less wait for elective surgery in the US, but otherwise we are no better and worse on many other procedures (see the UCSF cancer study for crissake).
What data do you have? Your assertion that, “you REALLY know what you are talking about”? Is that your evidence? You ought to be embarassed.
Well . . . even though I like actual data, I’ll go with Brennan if I have to go with someone in the thick of its view (especially since it matches the info that is out there). Since you seem to think policy should be based on personal anecdotal opinion v. objectively measurable facts, I’ll go with his.
Or . . . is Aetna’s CEO just lefty agitprop?
Please address this on factual terms, Dave.
Explain without ad hominums or non sequitors (or deletions) or obfuscation how your how you defend your logic and conclusion. This will logically require you to show that your “evidence” is better than Brennan’s or the actual data that is out there. Since you have offered nothing in support of your position, just trying to dismiss (without any support) others does not carry the burden.
Dave, I am challenging your intellectual competency.
No one has to “win” or “lose.” You just have to address this criticism in a intellectually valid manner - using logically sound analytical reasoning.
I predict you can not and will not even address the issues raised, and I doubt you’ll even post this. But if you have any ounce of honor, you will, and I’ll apologize.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 6:32 pm ¶Sigh … Morris, you make me tired.
Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 7:52 pm ¶The argument on the left that Health Care in the US is not up the par with the rest of the world is clearly fabricated. All we have to do is draw on our own personal experiences to find the truth. When I call my doctor I am seen the same day if I’m sick. If tests are needed like a CT Scan, I was able to walk in with out an appointment and get the tests done the same day. My father recently passed away from cancer. He had no money and no insurance because he was retired but not old enough to receive Medicare. AT NO TIME was he never denied treatment at the hospital or by the Oncologist. His treatment was always given as needed. When he was no longer able to fight, Hospice took over his care and he was made comfortable even though he had no money. The system works, the only thing it needs is more competition to drive down the cost.
Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:55 pm ¶From a Canadian perspective, so-called “universality”, which in practice here is a government-run, single-payer health monopoly, is not sustainable, and has lead to increases in taxes plus additional government premiums, resulting in less coverage and more waiting times. Politicians make our healthcare decisions on our behalf, as they (the government) are the only legal payer for medical services: they decide (ration) where the funding goes, or doesn’t go. If your cancer is deemed politically-incorrect, that is, unworthy of coverage, “universality” is meaningless - and yet, concurrently we are banned from buying private insurance to cover what the state, through ignorance or negligence, fails to provide! We have no consumer choice in healthcare! Many Canadians are forced to travel to the States for cancer therapies that Canada simply dismisses as experimental, others, (as one Supreme court challenge, Quebec’s 2005 Chaoulli ruling found) just die on waiting lists. The point is our system has no competition; it has no incentive, no reason to do more than it has to, other than the minimum to maintain its enertia and protect itself. The patient is viewed and treated as a liability to the health system, in that because hospitals are given finite budgets by the government, one patient more means automatically another gets less. Don’t insultingly treat the fact, as some pro-Michael Moore types do, that Canadians escaping for their lives to the States for treatment that their own so-called “universal” health system can’t provide for them at home, is just “anecdotal” and unworthy of mention in your new socialist healthcare plans. Don’t look with envy at what 40 years worth of socialized medicine has done to Canada’s healthcare system. No one deserves that.
Posted 27 Aug 2007 at 9:58 am ¶The hospital in my community is in a code purple this means the stretchers in the ER and on all the hospital units are full. Even the medical and surgical wards have people laying on stretchers in the hallway hoping they may get a bed before discharge. Anyone suggesting that no problems exists in Canada has never been sick here, has never fought to get in the hospital and been denied treatment and hospital care here, because of the bed shortage. People are being denied necessary care and hospitalisations, because the hospital cannot accommodate patients and this includes those who have serious illnesses.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 8:48 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
[…] What Canadians? For what kinds of procedures? Bill Steigerwald : Uh-oh, Canada - Townhall.com Health Care BS - Canada?s Ten-Month Waiting List for Maternity Beds Canadians visit US to get care http://www.windsorstar.com/Canadians…443/story.html Canadians […]
[…] What Canadians? For what kinds of procedures? Bill Steigerwald : Uh-oh, Canada - Townhall.com Health Care BS - Canada?s Ten-Month Waiting List for Maternity Beds Canadians visit US to get care Canadians face 16-week wait for surgery: Report Canadians flocking […]
Post a Comment