posted on August 28, 2007 10:28:22 PM new
Yep....just more of what American's will also face, down the road, SHOULD they support the liberals 'socialized medicine' programs. Where just like in canada and the UK, Germany and France THEIR politicians are making life decisions for their citizens. All decisions made on how to SAVE MONEY....NOT on what is in the patients best interests. tsk tsk tsk
Got to save that money.
Support gov. health care and you'll be supporting politicians making YOUR health care decisions on ALL levels FOR YOU and deciding just how much YOUR LIFE is worth to them.
Nope....nope....nope. Don't vote socialists who support these programs into office it may well KILL you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donations 27 Aug. 11:27:50
Printable text version | Mail this to a friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 27, 2007
British Doctors Protest Heart Stent Plan
By MARIA CHENG
AP Medical Writer
LONDON (AP) - British heart doctors are trying to defeat a proposal to end government coverage of drug-coated heart stents, tiny metal-mesh tubes that prop open clogged arteries.
The proposal was made by Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which has the lead role in deciding what the country's health system pays for.
Tuesday is the deadline for members of the public to submit their comments on the recommendation. Next week, the organization will meet to review the proposal alongside input from the public.
Any new restrictions would further batter the troubled drug-coated heart stents, which have come under increasing attack in the last year. The stents are commonly used in angioplasties, one of the world's most common medical procedures. More than 1 million such procedures are performed in the United States every year.
Through an artery in the leg, doctors snake a tube to blockages that are clogging vessels. A tiny balloon is inflated, and a mesh scaffold called a stent is left behind to prop the artery open.
If the British proposal is adopted, patients would either get a plain, metal stent or be forced to pay for the drug-coated device themselves. Drug-lined stents typically cost about US$2,300 (euro1,685), compared to the approximately US$700 (euro510) for the bare metal versions. That could even lead some people to choose alternatives to angioplasties, like surgeries or medication.
When drug-coated stents were first introduced in 2003, they became the fastest-selling medical device in recent history. The tiny tubes that leak drugs to prevent tissue regrowth, were heralded by doctors as a revolutionary way of keeping patients' arteries open. Nearly 6 million people worldwide now have the drug-lined versions.
But last year, major worries were raised about the safety of drug-eluting stents. Several studies showed that patients receiving the stents were more likely to develop potentially fatal blood clots months and even years after their surgeries.
"This is a pretty drastic step," said Dr. Gabriel Steg, a cardiologist at Bichat Hospital in Paris and spokesman for the European Society of Cardiology.
"We are seeing the pendulum swing too far the other way," Steg said. "Withdrawing drug-eluting stents altogether is probably not a good idea," he said, explaining that the tiny tubes can still be useful for certain patients.
Steg also worried that the British guidance would send the wrong message to patients who already have had drug-coated stents implanted. "We do not want to say that this is a dangerous device," he said. "We still need to see more data on drug-eluting stents before we can have the final word."
The British Cardiovascular Society said that it was "surprised, disappointed and very concerned" by the guidance. The British Cardiovascular Intervention Society was also troubled by the guidance, calling it "fundamentally flawed." Without drug-coated stents, the society said that some patients would be forced to live with untreatable chest pains.
Since the stent worries arose, sales of drug-coated stents have plummeted. The U.S. market is expected to shrink by US$1 billion. And Johnson & Johnson, a major stent-maker, recently cut 5,000 jobs in response to declining sales.
Some doctors argue that the drug-oozing stents have advantages that cannot be matched by bare-metal stents. Patients given bare-metal stents have an increased risk of developing another blockage after the formation of scar tissue, said Dr. Timothy Gardner, medical director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care Health Services in Delaware.
"This is not good news for patients," Gardner said. "You would be penalizing patients so they would not benefit from the latest technologies we have to help them."
In the U.S., a special meeting was held by the Food and Drug Administration last December looking into the safety of drug-coated stents. Officials did not restrict the use of drug-coated stents, but stressed they should only be used for specific purposes. Many angioplasties in the U.S. use the devices for circumstances beyond those for which they were approved.
Other countries have been closely monitoring the use of drug-lined stents, but none have made recommendations similar to Britain's.
Britain's health advisory body said that comments from doctors and the public could still influence their ultimate guidance.
"There is always the possibility that the recommendations could change," said Lucy Betterton, a NICE spokeswoman. "We respond to reasoned arguments and will be looking to the feedback we've had on the draft recommendations."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 28, 2007 10:29 PM ]
posted on August 28, 2007 11:51:55 PM new
"There is always the possibility that the recommendations could change," said Lucy Betterton, a NICE spokeswoman. "We respond to reasoned arguments and will be looking to the feedback we've had on the draft recommendations."
You're right, that doesn't sound like the government we have NOW. But that could change and even if we get universal health care it's a lie that politicians and the government will determine who gets what medical care....but I'm sure you could never understand that.
posted on August 29, 2007 08:10:01 AM new
AND why do you prefer the system we have now....????....NOW the insurance companies determine your medical care NOT doctors.
posted on August 29, 2007 08:36:27 AM new
You beat me to it, Mingo. Insurance companies tell doctors how to treat patients all the time now---based on MONEY--including how long they can be hospitalized, what kinds of medications they can take, what tests they can have---the list goes on and on.
posted on August 29, 2007 08:36:54 AM new
Monday, July 02, 2007
A glossary of health-care reform
from - Star Tribune
To understand the proposals, know the terms. Bear in mind that it's easy to be misled.
John M. Schwarz
Published: July 02, 2007
Michael Moore's film "Sicko" has spurred debate about the U.S. health system and about publicly funded, universal health insurance. Some clarification is in order to better serve this debate.
The most-abused label in health-reform dialogue is "socialism." It's commonly used as an accusation regarding universal coverage and single-payer or other systems that involve publicly funded patient care. Most uses of the label misrepresent the system components being addressed.
The biggest problem stems from ignorance about what socialism is. Socialism is an economic model in which the means of production -- land, labor and capital -- are in the hands of the government, publicly owned and run with workers employed by the state. It includes public financing and the provision of goods and services to all.
"Universal coverage" is a concept that holds merely that all people should have health insurance. As a concept and practice, it does not address an economic model; it can be used with different arrangements of private and public funding and production. It can be used in a socialist system, but is not itself socialist. It can also be used in a market-based patient funding system, but isn't itself a market-based mechanism.
"Single-payer" is an economic model for financing patient expenses. England's system includes single-payer -- with the exception of some private financing -- along with government-run service delivery. That's socialism. Single-payer can also be part of a system in which medical services are delivered mainly by private providers and entities. That describes the Canadian system, which does not involve government-run medicine, merely publicly financed patient care. The production of services rests as much in private hands as it does in the United States.
Yet, single-payer proposals are repeatedly called "socialist" even when that label is not appropriate. The major single-payer proposals, both nationally and on the state level, are based on the Canadian model. Public funding of patient care? Yes. Government-run medicine? No. The plans do not include government production of medical services, the necessary element of a socialist model, beyond what currently occurs.
Claims that American single-payer proposals are socialist often refer to the public financing of patient care. Public financing does not necessitate government production of the goods and services delivered. If that were the case, all publicly financed goods and services would be labeled socialist, including the police, firefighters, the military, schools, higher education, parks, libraries and, in some places, even trash collection and snowplowing.
The misuse of the label stems not merely from ignorance, but also from ideological commitments and from the desire to serve private interests -- namely, those of health insurers. Politicians are notorious for misusing the socialism label, and recent Republican presidential debates provide numerous examples, notably from Rudy Giuliani. He either doesn't know what socialism is and what single-payer and universal coverage are, or he's deliberately distorting. Probably it's some combination thereof.
It's time for health-reform dialogue to move beyond ideological rhetoric -- something that also occurs on the left. Commentators from all walks, including the media, are guilty of misrepresenting what single-payer and universal coverage are. Ideology and commitments to particular kinds of economic models in a belief in the superiority of one system across space and time get us nowhere. The question isn't capitalism or socialism, public sector or private sector. It is: What elements of a health system best serve the needs, interests and preferences of the public? Dismissing universal coverage and single-payer with a demonizing label merely stifles debate on an issue of fundamental importance.
John M. Schwarz is director of United Health System, a health policy nonprofit think tank in St. Paul.
posted on August 29, 2007 10:47:55 AM new
One reason is that POLITICIANS are deciding who gets what RATIONED CARE.
Secondly....point out just ONE gov. run 'entitlement' program that is run successfully by our government. NONE...there are NONE. They are FULL of fraud, mismanagement/etc. And we are now not even able to PAY for the entitlement programs we DO already have. Sure, let's add another one so we can be SURE and bankrupt our Nation. It's the liberal way.
I cannot believe that ANY American is willing to hand over all the decision making abilities concerning their OWN health problems to ANY government. That they can see NOW the problems with other socialized nations and how they're RATIONING their health care...and then say 'that would be okay with me'. LOL
One would have to be NUTS to give the gov. that control over their LIVES. And that's NOT even taking into account the TRILLIONS of dollars it would cost them in TAXES.
Sell your own souls/health....don't sell MINE.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 29, 2007 10:49 AM ]
posted on August 29, 2007 12:00:00 PM new
What????
No liberal can point out even ONE gov. run entitlement program that is run successfully, is fully funded, and has no fraud from the 'takers' they so support?????
posted on August 29, 2007 03:42:14 PM new
He added to the problem by signing the medicare drug bill.
===========
"Insurance companies tell doctors how to treat patients all the time now---based on MONEY--including how long they can be hospitalized, what kinds of medications they can take, what tests they can have---the list goes on and on."
BIG difference is that if one is not pleased with their private ins company and the decisions they make....we can change companies. Doesn't happen under say canada's socialized medicine program where it's ILLEGAL to purchase private ins. If they WANT better care, care more quickly they have to fully pay for it themselves.
Sure, some do buy private and their gov. is NOW looking the other way...but it's still illegal to do. They say because if all aren't paying into the one program and get outside ins...then their system won't function as it was intended. And it won't. That's why so many are fighting against private ins. there.
============
Medicare/Medicaid/etc. can't pay for the baby boomer's that are retiring now. LOL So, yea lets add MORE socialistic entitlement programs that we can't afford either.
No way. As mentioned with Medicare, for those who don't/can't afford to pay for the supplemental ins. benefits that will pay what medicare won't....many doctors won't see those patients unless they pay cash. AND their benefits are regulated similar to socialized national health care is. But it's for those who CAN'T afford anything better. While socialized medical health care would be for ALL.
The benefits for medicare are VERY limited. Not so with private insurance.....you pay for what you want.
posted on August 29, 2007 11:46:06 PM new
Just can't address the health care mess in the US without brining in Canada as if THAT has anything to do with what we could or should do
Only the incredibly stupid don't believe that INSURANCE companies determine patient care.
Only incredibly stupid people believe the "government" will make health care decisions.
IF government doesn't function properly...why hasn't 6 years of god bushit fixed the problems ??????
posted on August 30, 2007 02:54:23 AM new
I mention them ALL at different times.
Just because you haven't noticed that FACT doesn't mean I haven't posted most all of the nations that have a FAILING socialized national medical program. LOL
You miss a lot. Just like you twist a lot. It's YOUR illness, sybil....nothing more. Seek help.
posted on August 30, 2007 07:02:35 AM newI mention them ALL at different times.
Lindak, I don't see anyone advocating Canada's system as the one the US should copy as the countries are very different when it comes to demographics and the same system wouldn't work for the US.
It's silly to keep knocking systems you have never experienced health care under and seem to have very little true knowledge of, except for googled negative reports that you relish on to feed your loathing for other places in this world.
My opinion is that the US should model a system that works best for all of its citizens and that means also modifying it as times change, just as other countries with good health care have done. Each system will always have some faults but there are reasons why some rate higher than others.
posted on August 30, 2007 12:23:58 PM new
Kiara, can you answer this for me. Since Canada has a national health care program, can an individual purchase their own health care program if they do not like the program offered by the government?
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 30, 2007 06:14:32 PM new
There she goes again. NOT knowing what I do know about other nations national health care programs.....kiara pretends that she does.
She's a 'know all' about everything **I** know....according to her.
Few think they know what others know. But of course, kiara, in her own confusion THINKS she does.
And she questions WHY I say she is DELUSIONAL. It's because she IS.
posted on August 30, 2007 06:56:17 PM new
I'd trust kiara's facts over Linda's facts anyday.
Linda you claim you know much about everything when in fact you really don't. The thread about HIV proves that very much. You can not even interpret what is actually written on a page. You spew mistruths as so-called facts and you actually believe yourself.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on August 30, 2007 07:30:14 PM new
All eyes on how the CA gov run health care program turns out?
August 29, 2007
Schwarzenegger Tries to Save Health Plan
By LAURA KURTZMAN
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The prognosis for universal health care in California is grim this year, and experts say a failure could set back similar efforts nationwide for years to come.
Unions, doctors and other powerful interests are arrayed against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's $12 billion-a-year plan to make medical insurance mandatory. He has threatened to veto the Democrats' less ambitious alternative and take his plan to the ballot instead.
A showdown could come as early as Thursday, when the Democrats plan to put Schwarzenegger's proposal to a vote in the state Assembly. The aim is to show how little support it has.
With the campaign for the White House under way, what happens in the nation's most populous state could have especially wide repercussions.
"If we fail, it will have the effect of a wet blanket on health reform nationally," said Robert Ross, president of the California Endowment, a foundation devoted to health care. "I think the presidential candidates will all look with a very watchful eye at what happens in California."
Following the lead of Massachusetts - [my comment = under Gov. Romney the Mormon roadsmith loves to bash as often as she can], which passed universal health care last year http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-07-04-health-insurance-usat_x.htm, Schwarzenegger announced his own plan last January to provide everyone in California with insurance. As many as 6.7 million people in California, or 18.5 percent of the population, are uninsured.
The Republican governor's plan would impose new fees on doctors, hospitals and employers. The uninsured would be required to buy coverage, though the poorest would be subsidized.
The governor says his plan is fair because it would spread the burden. But doctors are fighting him, as are unions, because they say it asks too much of the working poor. Hospitals, most of which would get more funding, have stayed on the sidelines.
The governor's own party has offered him no help. GOP leaders skewered the tax increases, making it highly unlikely the plan will receive the bipartisan support it needs to pass. A two-thirds vote is required.
The Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, crafted an alternative written in such a way that it needs only a simple majority. It would require employers to spend at least 7.5 percent of payroll on health care, or pay that amount into a state-run pool. That is almost double what the governor has proposed, and he has warned he will veto it.
"The governor and the Legislature are inches apart, but neither side wants to give that final inch," said Larry Levitt, a vice president with the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Success in California could be crucial to Democrat John Edwards' presidential hopes. The former North Carolina senator's plan for nationwide health care is a compromise between Schwarzenegger's and the Democrats'.
"What the experience in California shows is it's very hard to do," Levitt said.
With his background in fitness, Schwarzenegger has taken to health care with gusto. The former bodybuilder and Hollywood action hero has held summits and town hall meetings across the state, telling people they must take responsibility for their health and make sure they have insurance.
But support for his ideas has slipped as the debate has bogged down. In December, the nonpartisan Field Poll found it was favored by 52 percent of voters. By August, that had fallen to 33 percent; that is about equal to the number who said they supported a single-payer system run by the government.
Depending on when lawmakers decide to adjourn, there may be less than two weeks before the legislative session ends.
While the governor and Democratic leaders insist they want a deal on health care, one lawmaker has concluded that failure might be the best option.
"I hope that none of these ill-conceived, quickly thrown together plans will pass this year," said state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Santa Monica Democrat who chairs the Senate Health Committee and advocates a single-payer system. "Because really, that is not good for California."
==================
posted on August 30, 2007 11:09:48 PM newSince Canada has a national health care program, can an individual purchase their own health care program if they do not like the program offered by the government?
Logansdad, most get everything required with the medical service plan in each province but provinces vary according to coverage. Some provincial plans don't cover dental care but do cover required dental surgery if it is done in a hospital. Services that are not medically required such as cosmetic surgery are not covered - except for things like a facial abnormality that is a medical need.
Here we can apply for Pharmacare to purchase prescriptions based on net income and can also purchase extended health coverage from insurance companies for travel, dental care or for a chiropractor, massage therapist or naturopath, or for special medical equipment and home nursing, etc
The health system in Canada is better explained in Wikipedia:
Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the provinces and territories provide all residents with health insurance cards, which entitle the bearer to receive free medical care for almost all procedures. Health institutions are either private and non-profit (such as university hospitals) or provincially run (such as Quebec's CLSC system). Most all doctors are in private practice as entrepreneurs, as of 2002 they have been allowed to incorporate, and they bill the medicare system for their fees.
The system is known as a "public system" due to its public financing, but is not a nationalized system such as the UK's NHS; most services are provided by private enterprises, such as clinics or doctors who are paid a fee-per-visit.
Canadians have free choice of doctors and can change doctors at any time they wish.
The Health Care System in Canada is a universal access system, but some items or services are not covered, with inconsistency province to province, e.g., drug coverage, optometry, physical therapy. While often called a socialized-public system it is in fact merely publicly funded.
Most services are provided by private enterprises, and doctors are not on a government salary, but operate as independent businesses.
posted on August 30, 2007 11:18:03 PM newThere she goes again. NOT knowing what I do know about other nations national health care programs.....kiara pretends that she does.
Sorry, lindak. I must have missed reading about your personal health care experience in Canada and how they screwed you over so you bash it forever afterwards with never a good thing to say about it. Perhaps you can relate it again for those of us who weren't here when you told about it before?
As for myself, I speak from personal experience and admit I do not know everything, nor do I pretend to.
posted on August 30, 2007 11:30:29 PM new
I know it's just too hard for kiara to grasp...but one does NOT need to live in canada to understand what THEIR OWN leaders and those in their OWN healthcare community say. LOL
But of course, kiara knows more than ANY of them. She always does.
============
CMA head says Canada's health-care system in crisis, needs change
Wed Aug 22, 7:47 PM
By Camille Bains
VANCOUVER (CP) - The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says the country's public health-care system is headed for crisis, but a greater role for private health care could be the right prescription.
Dr. Brian Day said in his inaugural speech to Canada's medical establishment Wednesday that contracting out health services isn't new and has helped slash wait lists.
"Let's be clear: Canadians should have the right to private medical insurance when timely access is not available in the public system," he said to applause from about 270 delegates at the annual convention.
Day, a Vancouver orthopedic surgeon, said the Supreme Court of Canada has already made a decision favouring such a move.
The Chaouilli case, named after the Quebec doctor who initiated it, struck down Quebec's ban on private insurance in 1995, saying it contradicted the provincial charter of rights.
Day said injured workers in some provinces are treated in private facilities, saving workers' compensation boards millions of dollars in wages and keeping people off long wait lists.
Day, who opened Canada's first private surgery clinic in 1995, has often been criticized for his pro-privatization views that some say could pave the way for a for-profit system much like in the United States.
"No one I know wants to adopt a so-called American-style health system," he told delegates at the association that represents 65,000 doctors across Canada.
He said the private-versus-public debate is largely irrelevant and counterproductive but that new ideas and concepts are bound to face opposition and skepticism.
The status quo must change, Day said, because the declining health of the country's aging population will have a profound social and economic impact on Canada's future.
"Canadians face difficult choices, but we must act. We and our patients remain frustrated by waiting periods that exceed all ethical standards."
But while he advocated more choice in the private sector, Day said the ability to pay should never be a factor for any patient needing health care in Canada.
He called for the modernization of the Canada Health Act, saying it's based on principles developed over 40 years ago and no longer meets the needs of today's population.
"My support for universal health care is unequivocal, but I believe the act must be revised."
Day also said provinces must change the way hospitals are funded because they suck the largest amount of money out of the health-care budget.
The current system of block, or global, funding doesn't reward efficiencies or penalize failure to deliver service to patients, Day said.
"Hospitals must have incentives to reopen operating rooms, increase the number of beds available, hire more staff and treat more patients."
Day is an advocate of the British system of funding hospitals, which compete with each other for public money based on the number of procedures they perform as an incentive to cut that country's wait lists.
He said the market-oriented scheme has some problems but that Canada could adapt what's working in Britain and other countries that have universal health care as part of their health-care system.
"There are those that dismiss these concepts of success and excellence as elitist or undesirable. They support the status quo and dismiss the plight and suffering of patients."
Guy Caron, spokesman for the Council of Canadians, said that while Canada has a problem with wait lists, it's too simplistic to say models from other countries can be applied here.
Caron said Britain and France, which each have a mixed public-private health-care system, have hired more doctors to cut wait lists.
"In the UK and in New Zealand they tried to bring market components to health care and it failed so they are actually reforming the system right now to bring more public (services) into the system."
Day said Canada's shortage of doctors and other health-care professionals is at a crisis point and that medical graduates leave the country every year because they don't have the operating-room time and other resources they need to stay here.
Day also called for the use of technology, such as electronic medical records, in the health-care field to deliver safe, efficient care.
"We are in the information age and medicine needs to catch up," he said. "Sadly, our access to new and valuable technologies is at a point where we rank near the bottom of developed countries. This must change."
Before Day's speech, delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of several motions, with 99 per cent of them calling on provincial and territorial governments to implement strategies that would reduce emergency-room wait times and overcrowding.
Dr. Shelley Ross, a Burnaby, B.C., family doctor, said patients are waiting too long to be assessed and that the use of the acronym DIC, which stands for Died In Chair, indicates people are waiting too long to be assessed.
Many of the motions passed Wednesday urged the federal government to support environmental policies to protect the public's health by implementing various measures.
They include improving the quality of the air people breathe - both inside and outside - ensuring access to adequate and safe drinking water, minimizing the effects of global climate change and banning smoking in vehicles that carry children.
Dr. Brad Fritz of Vancouver said half a million people living on about 600 reserves don't have the same assurances as other Canadians that their drinking water is safe to drink.
Ninety-six per cent of the doctors also voted to pass a motion saying their association will develop a policy to safeguard physicians from fear of reprisal and retaliation when they speak out as advocates for their patients and communities.
And 93 per cent of them favoured a move by their association to let the federal government know that federal wait-list strategies have failed to provide Canadians with timely access to quality medical care.
One doctor called the government's national wait-times strategy a charade and "a slap the face of intelligent Canadians" because it targets areas that are already showing improvement.
Delegates also voted 98 per cent in favour of urging the federal government to promptly address the high cost of generic and off-patent drugs in Canada.
Canadian Press
=============
There are HUNDREDS of similar articles from their OWN county saying they are considering going to private pay as part of the solution to their health care CRISIS.
So one can believe kiara, lol lol , or the canadian health care PROFESSIONALS. But she'll never believe me because I don't live there. ROFLOL
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 30, 2007 11:48 PM ]
VANCOUVER (CP) - The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says the country's public health-care system is headed for crisis, but a greater role for private health care could be the right prescription.
Dr. Brian Day said in his inaugural speech to Canada's medical establishment Wednesday that contracting out health services isn't new and has helped slash wait lists.
"Let's be clear: Canadians should have the right to private medical insurance when timely access is not available in the public system," he said to applause from about 270 delegates at the annual convention.
Day, a Vancouver orthopedic surgeon, said the Supreme Court of Canada has already made a decision favouring such a move.
posted on August 30, 2007 11:40:01 PM new
Lindak, you fail at reading comprehension and also show your lack of knowledge as well as your ignorance by continuing the same mindless chants.
Who are the ones that think the US should directly copy Canada or the UK?
And why are you so frightened? Don't you think a big country such as the US can modify its own system so it works better for all or do you actually believe that they have to try to copy Canada's even though that system would never work for the US because it's still being changed in Canada as the population changes.
posted on August 31, 2007 12:01:34 AM new
Just what American's don't need.....more bureaucracy like canada's, the uk - which is currently suffering from SEVERE financial problems...not enough money to fund need....etc.
=========================
Is Bureaucracy in Canada’s Health Care System The Root Problem?
January 27th, 2007
Yesterday on the Toronto Star website, an article was published called “The Crowd in the Emergency Room“. In it was some interesting information http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175394 about the stat of the Canadian Healthcare System. If you want to read the full article, click on the link above. Here are some highlights:
The main reason hospital ERs across Canada are overcrowded is not that people use them as walk-in clinics. Numerous studies have shown there are too few hospital beds for patients coming through the ER who desperately need them. So, patients wait in emergency room beds and the whole system gets backed up.
Why are there too few beds?
In Canada, we are not spending our health-care dollars on hospitals, better front-line services, doctors and equipment. Instead, we spend too much money on bureaucracy and the flavour-of-the-moment programs with catchy names, all of which are burgeoning at a scandalous rate.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an organization of 30 industrially developed countries, 25 of which have more physicians per capita than Canada. A 2001 OECD study found that in developed countries, “increasing doctor numbers have been strongly and significantly associated with lower mortality.”
Canada’s health-care problem is rooted in our pattern of spending. The OECD shows we spend almost one percentage point more on health care than all 30 countries on average, or 9.9 per cent of GDP in 2003.
For the extra money we spend, we get very few resources. Canada has fewer hospital beds, physicians, MRIs and CTs than the average OECD country. We do have more nurses, but Marlene Smadu, president of the Canadian Nurses Association, explains that the lack of investment in nursing will result in shortages in the near future.
It has been argued that drug costs account for our higher than average spending. In fact, pharmaceutical spending in 2003 accounted for 16.9 per cent of total health spending in Canada, below the OECD average of 17.7 per cent.
We now have close to 10,000 Canadian-trained physicians in the U.S. The solution is very simple: We need to train more doctors and compete effectively to keep the doctors we train. The bureaucratic solutions to this problem have not managed to address this simple retention problem.
More information can be found at the Canadian Institute of Health Information and specifically here are two reports:
Health Human Resources - Physicians
Health Human Resources - Nurses
posted on August 31, 2007 12:08:16 AM newDon't be upset that each time you praise your health care system, kiara, I point out it problems.
I'm very calm and where do you see me praising the health care system in Canada? I have said that my family has experienced wonderful care (recently above and beyond what any of us ever realized could happen) but I also recognize that it has faults that need to be addressed like any other system anywhere because no system is perfect.
Other than that...you can whine as you usual do every time this subject comes up.
You must hear yourself whining again, Lindak, because I have never whined nor do I intend to start now.
Truthfully, you do have a serious reading comprehension problem no matter the topic. Never have I ever said I represent Canada's health care system as I have only related from my personal experience and don't speak for all, silly.
Now perhaps you can use this opportunity to relate to me your experience with the health care system in Canada and how it has affected your life so negatively that you hate it with such a vengeance.
and even if we get universal health care it's a lie that politicians and the government will determine who gets what medical care....but I'm sure you could never understand that.
as if THAT has anything to do with what we could or should do 