Sometimes, There's Nothing So Expensive As "Free"
Stossel writes in reason that there's no such thing as free health care -- "The costly truth about Canada's health care system." An excerpt detailing some of the unseen, unanticipated costs. And yes, I think we need to make provisions for people like Deidre's 19-or-20-year-old son, who has some pre-existing condition which keeps him from being able to get health care. But revamp our system to become Canada? It's literally the deadliest, and therefore, the most costly option:
President Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there's no free lunch.In England, health care is "free"--as long as you don't mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.
Staph infection anybody?
In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours."We can't send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."
More than a million and a half Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, 20/20 videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.
Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."
"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.
It's true that America's partly profit-driven, partly bureaucratic system is expensive, and sometimes wasteful, but the pursuit of profit reduces waste and costs and gives the world the improvements in medicine that ease pain and save lives.
"[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," Dr. Gratzer says.
"Literally we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement."
Canada and England don't pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we'd get 2009-level care--forever. Government monopolies don't innovate. Profit seekers do.
More on Canadian wait times here, from the CBC:
"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.
A commenter over at reason writes:
BTW, the hernia surgeon used to do the procedure in his office within 2 weeks of diagnosis on Saturdays at a cost of $1,200. Then the Chretien government threatened to pull funding out of any province that didn't ban such practices. So, not only did I wait 18 months, but the Canadian Taxpayer wound up footing a bill from Vic General for $3,500, being their chargeout for day surgery. (Actually, even at 18 months, I was lucky. A new surgeon happened to join the practice of the original surgeon and had to start filling his allotted OR times. If I hadn't been willing to change surgeons, the stats are that I would have waited another year.)
As for the cost of this behemoth, and the effects, Lawrence A. Hunter writes at NRO:
One thing we learned from the Medicare experience is that the original estimates of radical new government programs are vastly understated because of government's inability to control program costs and the impossibility of imposing price controls (by whatever name) on an entire economy-wide industry. But price controls and spending caps it will be, just as it would have been with HillaryCare, followed by health-care rationing, just as it has been with Medicare. And although these bureaucratic machinations will harm people, they won't appreciably hold down costs.At its inception in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion a year. At that time, the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives projected "conservatively" that the program would cost approximately $12 billion a year by 1990. In 1990, the cost of Medicare was actually $107 billion -- nine times greater than the Ways and Means estimate.
One might argue that no matter the price tag, it would be worth it to achieve universal health-care coverage. But will Obama & Co. actually achieve this Holy Grail? Not even close. According to the CBO, even assuming Congress enacts an individual health-care mandate (i.e., a requirement that everybody in the United States obtain insurance), somewhere between a fourth and a third of the uninsured still would not have coverage.
I don't believe in a perfect system that serves all equally...and having insurance companies - who are in the business of MAKING MONEY does not sound great to me either.
I myself not only have a family doctor, I was treated for Hodgkins Lymphoma immediately. I went to an ER with what I thought was bronchitis...waited 3 hours for a chest x-ray and was immediately admitted into observation. Less than 1 week later I had surgery to biopsy the mass in my chest, had 3 CT scans and 1 gallium scan. The week after that I began chemo therapy. Right after chemo I had radiation therapy. That sounds nothing like the article above!! I have more stories...including my step-mother who was sent to the ER by the nurse of her family doctor (over the phone...she listened to the symptoms and sent her there). The ER admitted her right away. She was there for 2 weeks receiving treatment. My sister (a nurse in the US) confirmed that she was getting the exact same treatment as she would get in the US.
I could go on...my broken nose treated in the ER in 15-20 minutes(X-Rays included), CT scans, Gallium scans, regular x-rays...the worst issue I ever had with the Canadian medical system was when I had 1.5 inches of wood splinter imbedded in my leg. I had to go to an ER to have it removed and stitched up. I found that to be a bit of a waste - an ER is for real emergencies!
BTW - Norwood, Ontario has a population of about 4,000 people. I doubt there are a lot of family doctors that live there. My guess is that their "lottery" is held for people to have the service of 1 doctor in town while the rest probably have to go to the next town or into the city. Lazy people will just sit around and complain and then not get medical attention until it's too late.
I don't know why Amy keeps adding dental information when talking about Canadas health care system. There is no free dental care in Canada. You pay for it (or insurance) out of your pocket. I have a mouth that is worth more than most peoples car to show for it!
karen at July 3, 2009 6:41 AM
I don't know why Amy keeps adding dental information when talking about Canadas health care system.
Stossel writes in reason that .....
Amy didn't write that -- she was quoting from the article, and it was referring to England.
Karen,
You don't indicate where you live in Canada, but it sounds like you got lucky. Reforming the US system to get rid of waste and bloat is a good idea. I'd rather have the ability to complain to a government health insurer overseer board than have the government being the insurer and no one to complain too.
Jim P. at July 3, 2009 1:09 PM
Why not?
Pseudonym at July 3, 2009 6:50 PM
Yes Jim, I can see that she is quoting a passage from another source and that passage is about England. What I don't understand is why the lead-in to both the article and paragraph is about Canada and yet the very first quote she uses (presumably to backup the lead-in) is about England.
For example, she asks the question "But revamp our system to become Canada? " and then quotes a source that discusses Englands dental system to back up her thesis?? It does not make sense.
And as for me being "lucky"...??? Perhaps news stories pull out examples of unlucky people to "prove a theory" while ignoring other data? There is a ton of conflicting data when comparing the 2 types of medical systems and no consensus can be met. Canadians have a longer life span and lower infant mortality rate than Americans but seem to have a higher incidence of death by heart attack. The reasons for all of this are inconclusive. And in 200 the WHO ranked Canada 30th and USA 37th out of 191 studies nations. All together I think what the data implies is this:
Both systems are not perfect and in the end they are both pretty close in efficiency. It's only politics that make the difference!!
Karen at July 3, 2009 6:54 PM
On Super Bowl Sunday my wife decided that a brisk walk down to the lake would be in order. Halfway down I slipped on the ice and broke my tib & fib. We got to the emerge at around 6:30 P.M. A 20 minute drive got me home at 10:00 P.M. with a cast on and an appointment for another in 4 weeks.
The waiting time to see my Doc is 24 Hrs if I don't have an immediate problem.
Heart attack I was admitted to ICU in less than an hour from emergency. Second one straight from ambulance to ICU.
In between, I had a tumor removed from behind my spine. Start to finish 8 days.
I really have heard some horror stories too, but you know Amy,if you have a good plan and work it right the system usually works.
Dax at July 3, 2009 10:47 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/03/sometimes_there.html#comment-1656952">comment from DaxKaiser HMO, which I have, is mostly pretty good. I had a doctor who denied me a test I knew I needed (based on a pile of studies I read), so I switched doctors and got it.
That said, an epidemiologist friend of mine taught me a term, "iatrogenic" illness -- that's doctor caused illness. Sometimes, too much care is a bad thing. My current doctor seems to go in for testing that's prudent but not excessive, and we discuss it and I can debate it with her, and she will answer me same day by e-mail.
Amy Alkon
at July 3, 2009 11:30 PM
Leave a comment