Category Archives: Heath Care

NYT: “‘We The People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World”

Score another point for my native land, Canada. A recent NYT article cites a study soon to be published in The New York University Law Review where its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

From the article:

The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Canada has long been in the shadow of its big American brother and has long deserved its moment in the sun. I’m glad the country is finally getting it. As someone who has experienced life in a number of cities across both Canada and the U.S. over the past 15 years, there are a number of benefits to Canada that you simply can’t find in the U.S., and they should be recognized. In a lot of ways, Canada has done well.

This doesn’t mean, however, that Canadians should start gloating while America is down. I’ve always viewed the two countries as partners in a global economy. Canada does the heavy lifting in some areas, America does it in others. Much of what America has wouldn’t exist without Canada, and vice versa.

I see this time as one where Canada and America can enjoy a new, more respective partnership where both countries gain from each others’ experience. Canada needs to loosen the government grip in a lot of areas, whereas America needs to tighten it. For instance:

Banking: Canadian banks should be adopting some American policies around small business and return lending decisions back to bank managers. They should be more incentivized through a free market, like American banks are, to give second chances to the poor, the struggling, and entrepreneurs in their community. The Canadian financial system fails miserably in this area which causes it to both lose talent to the U.S. and stifle growth. Of course on the other hand, the U.S. financial sector could learn a thing or two from Canada about lending reserves and regulatory partnerships between government and the banking industry.

Health care: both countries both need to adopt more of the other country’s style of health care into their system, and stop worrying about “looking” like the other country. It’s not about appearances, it’s about people and their health. America’s got a great system in a lot of ways (ex: 3x more MRI’s per capita), Canada in other ways. The “best” system is found between the two.

Gun control: I’m a firm believer that a sane, law-abiding person should have the right to own a firearm, and defend themselves with one. I have yet to see the argument, however, as to why I need a bazooka or a 30-round automatic rifle to do so. The only arguments I’ve really heard on this point are “slippery slope” arguments, but I think it’s an illegitimate one. Canada, on the one hand, needs to loosen up and not give criminals more freedom than law-abiding citizens when it comes to firearms. America, on the other hand, needs to really look at why someone needs to walk down an Arizona sidewalk with an AR-15.

Education: This goes into another rant, but suffice it to say that America was supposed to have an education system second to none. It doesn’t. In fact, overall it’s probably 30 or 40th down the list where Canada’s is 7th or 8th (consider PISA Math and Science scores). If you watch documentaries like “The Cartel” and “Waiting for Superman” you see why this is true, and more importantly, why this has happened. Two words: Teacher’s Unions.

Canadian public schools, by and large, are excellent. PISA math and science scores are just one metric, but let’s look at another metric which doesn’t seemed to get measured, which is safety – especially in more impoverished areas. I’d like to find a study that shows how many Canadian vs. American schools have metal detectors in them.

I’m sure Canada’s standing in terms of education can be attributed in part to the taxes it collects. I also think it has to do with Canada’s relationship with the teacher’s unions, and the power that the unions are allowed to wield in the interest of their members vs. the kids.

Bottom line for me is this:
1) I’m glad Canada is continuing to get its moment in the sun, as I’ve said before. It’s a great place to live, work, and invest, and many Americans would benefit by learning (or better yet, experiencing) how things are truly done up north.
2) I’ve always appreciated America – and always will – for the degree to which it grants freedom. Unlike any other country (including Canada), America puts the highest degree of faith in individuals and their ability to choose. It grants people the most freedom by granting them the most responsibility, and with that, grants people from all countries the greatest opportunity to make the most of their lives compared to any other country in the world. This is why I have been proud to call it “home” in many respects.
3) Where America has screwed up, I believe, is in assuming that everyone was deserving of that freedom. Let’s face fact – there’s people who don’t deserve it because they deliberately cause harm to others, and there’s people who don’t deserve it because they deliberately cause harm to themselves (like with Stated Income Declared Value Mortgages).

Education of the masses is what makes the difference here. Freedom only leads to great things when its powered by an enlightened and progressive mind, not an ignorant and regressive one. In that respect, I think both Canada and the U.S. need to get better on educating each other regarding the strengths of both our systems if either country has any hope of competing with other countries over the next 20 years.

America: A Little “Dull” Might Do You Some Good

Reading today how guys like Romney get criticized for being “dull”. One comentator made the point that he could use a “groping scandal” to spice things up a bit.

I’m not a Romney supporter, per se. I’m also very pro-American and support it in any way I can. I say this to put in context the criticism I’m about to levy because in light of these comments against Romney, I think America could use a little “dull”.

By that, I mean America should not try to go for the extremes all the time. For instance, I’m not a fan of ObamaCare in the least, and believe it was a squandered opportunity to do something right in the healthcare area for once. Nevertheless, I am far from believing it will throw America over the cliff of socialism once fully put in place.

I’m a big believer in gun rights. Personally, I don’t like guns but I believe wholeheartedly in my right to own one and use one to defend myself or those I care about. However, Americanism dictates that I should have the “right” to brandish a fully-automatic M16 with an extended clip in public. Having a handgun in my glove compartment or beside my bed should some crackhead decide my place is the one he’s going to wrongly decide to burglarize one day is one thing – being able to dump 60 rounds into him in 5 seconds is another.

I support gay rights, however I do not think that allowing two gay men or women to get married is going to turn the entire country into a homosexual cesspool.

One of the things I love about America turns out to be one of the things which I think takes it so far over the edge sometimes to the point of lunacy, and that is its almost need to take everything to the extreme.

Again, I’m not saying this as a Romney supporter but if “dull” happens to mean a balanced, rational approach to the social, national security, and economic threats that we’re facing, then perhaps dull is what I want and exactly what I need.

After all, it seems to be working pretty well for Canada.

“Pop Drops”: Occupiers & Illegals Dump Parents off at Hospitals Before They Go On Vacation

Reading about the “permanent patient” illegal immigration problem and how it relates to hospitals today.

Illegals don’t deserve anything beyond emergency care. Chances are, the countries they illegally came from likely offer “free” care (or something close to it) and yet Americans are being stuck with the burden.

Liberals can squeal the human argument on this all they want to – the fact is these people shouldn’t be here in the first place, and this “pop drop” mentality that the hospitals talk about show just how entitled these people feel that people other than themselves should pay for their burden. This, btw, is why I include Occupiers in this group – after all, aren’t these people “occupying” a hospital without right to do so? It’s simple math: with more beds and resources going to people who don’t deserve them, less are available for people who do – either that, or costs go up.

Notice, too, how Liberal cling-to “political correctness” is preventing this problem from being addressed properly.

Baby Joseph Story Exposes Fox’s Deliberate Spin

I just watched the “exclusive” Fox News had with Baby Joseph’s father, talking about his child’s case.

The Fox version:
Baby Joseph required a tracheotomy, a Canadian hospital (and system) refused because he was terminal, so a St. Louis charity “rescued” the child and got him the procedure he needs in the U.S.. Fox asked the Canadian hospital for comment, but they refused.

Here’s what Fox didn’t say:
1) The child didn’t need to be “rescued”. The hospital accepted all requests for the child to be released to the parents.
2) The reason the doctors refused the tracheotomy wasn’t because they wanted the child to die. The doctors had legitimate and serious concerns over whether the child could survive the surgery and survive the risk of pneumonia.
3) The child is breathing off a ventilator. Also, I haven’t seen one picture or clip since the surgery where his eyes are open or he’s responsive. According to his doctors, his brain function was diminishing which was another reason why they didn’t want to do the surgery.

There’s more here:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201103150011?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d82fe2e6eef8c12,0

Fox is against a Canadian-style health care system. Its system deserves its criticisms, but overall, the Canadian system works. I don’t believe people should be wiped out financially due to illness, or that primary care or preventative care should be denied. I have direct experience on both sides of the border and I can honestly say that the ignorance and misconception regarding one system vs. the other lies mostly with the U.S., and this story only feeds that misconception. It should not be used as an example of Canadian vs. U.S. care because it isn’t one. Rather, it is an example of what lobbyists and news agencies will do to spin news to fit their own agenda.

Now, let’s see how MSNBC and the others cover it.

****UPDATE****
His father is saying that the child is breathing on his own without a ventilator. However, you also see in the pictures that the child’s breathing looks terribly labored and again, he hasn’t opened his eyes once. The child’s father also said that the Canadian hospital accepted the child back for treatment (again, at no cost to the family). The father’s only issue seems to by why the Canadian doctors wouldn’t operate when the U.S. doctors were willing to.

ObamaCare Will Reduce The Deficit Says The CBO? Not Exactly…

I hear a number of (D) Supporters talking about the miraculous deficit reductions that ObamaCare will bring, using phrases like “will reduce” instead of “may reduce” when it comes to the deficit and including CBO estimates as fact, and at will.

What they conveniently don’t include are the caveats that the CBO includes with those numbers, and of course quotes from the CBO that actually say deficits could increase under the current plan.

For example:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=524 (link)

ObamaCare supporters will conveniently include statements like this from the CBO:

We estimate that the combined effect of enacting those two pieces of legislation would be to reduce federal budget deficits during that following decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect that is in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Yet they will conveniently exclude statements like this that occur immediately after:

That calculation is very uncertain, and the imprecision of the estimate is intended to reflect that uncertainty.

I encourage you all to read the rest of the letter from the CBO Director. Overall, it talks about savings as much as cost increases, and I think you’ll find that it has a general tone by and large that there are too many variables to consider and therefore at the end of the day, they really don’t know, or can’t say what will ultimately occur.

I appreciate the debate on ObamaCare, or anything for that matter, but please, let’s strive for the whole truth here and quit worrying about political points for our side.

Dr. Donald Benwick’s Comments re: “Redistributing Wealth” – Much Ado About Nothing?

I’ve been reading about Obama’s newly appointed Medicare and Medicaid administrator, Dr. Donald Berwick, and his comments about how a health care system must “redistribute wealth”. I know the phrase is an emotionally charged one with fears of socialism and even communism running rampant on the far right, but are his comments really what the Limbaugh’s and Levin’s of the country are making them out to be?

His quote from July 1, 2008 that is causing all the fuss:

“You could have had a monstrous insurance industry of claims and rules and paper-pushing instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance,” said Berwick in the video recording of the speech that CNSNews.com provided to Gibbs. “You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker. And that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must—must–redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”

Isn’t insurance, by definition, a redistribution of wealth? Is not some upcoming car accident or illness that I may happen to have subsidized by others? Isn’t my AAA membership a redistribution of wealth in the same fashion?

My objection to the redistribution of wealth occurs when it is nothing short of stealing. I don’t consider my AAA membership to be stealing, nor do I take my health care insurance premiums as “robbery”, therefore I wasn’t offended by Berwick’s comments. Am I missing something?

One Of The Times I (Still) Really Like Glenn Greenwald

He writes what I believe is a fair, REALISTIC, and substantiated assessment of Obama’s handling of the health care reform issue here and the reality of how what is SAID by politicians and what is actually done quite differ. No “Obama the savior” rah rah hype here.

Ann Coulter Still Doesn’t Understand What Health Care Is: It ISN’T Insurance

In her March 17, 2010 post titled “My Health Plan“, Ann Coulter lays out what seems to be a very simple alternative to ObamaCare. Being a free market advocate, she makes some good points about how the free market would address a lot of the reforms that are needed. As a capitalist, on many of these points I would agree.

Where I disagree (both with her and many on the right) is when they try to talk about the “free market” when it comes to pre-existing conditions. Their statements are inaccurate and their comparisons are indirect. They hardly support the free market position and in my opinion, they make it a ridiculous one. For one, they never seem to use free market examples to support their points.

An example: Coulter states that “…in a free market, the government wouldn’t need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding ‘pre-existing conditions’”, saying that “…an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with ‘pre-existing conditions’.” Her justification? “Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance.”
That makes no sense. For one, people can wait now to buy insurance and that hardly helps us. For another, by her same logic, everyone would wait until a fire before paying their taxes that support their local fire department, or wait until a car accident before they bought accident insurance, or wait until someone was dead before they bought life insurance. Ridiculous? Sure, but this is their argument – one that has no basis in either common sense or reality.

Coulter’s argument seems to be philosophical, talking of a free market where the government is not allowed to force us to buy anything, but this makes the assumption that the public is both responsible and consistent enough to do the right thing when both history and reality have shown us that it isn’t, even when it’s to its own benefit. This is probably why we are forced to get accident insurance when we’re NOT in the middle of a car crash, fire insurance when we’re not on the middle of a fire, and life insurance when – well, when we’re not dead. Not only does this protect everyone against the ignorance and neglect of the stupid (those who are a penny wise and a pound foolish with my property and safety), but it also helps to ensure that costs stay down by incentivizing us to insure ourselves at the least expensive time.

I think this system has worked pretty well. How do I know? Well, I pay $100 a month for over $2m in liability coverage. That’s a pretty good ratio. I also pay less than $500 a year in taxes to make sure over $10m in fire-fighting assets will come to my house in case of a fire in order to fight it. That seems pretty good, too.

Now maybe the free market can provide me with more liability coverage or a better fire fighting team, but that’s another issue. The fact remains that the only way I can have those protections that I have now, have them for so cheap, and most importantly, have them from day one is because participation was mandatory.

Health Care Summit Comments

Is it extremely annoying to see how much politicians love to hear themselves talk. 39 minutes and now we’re FINALLY getting into the details of the proposed plans.

Update: Got my hopes up there for a second.
Update II: YAWN. Nice stack of papers, ya loser.
Update III: about to slit wrists, turning off.

More Televised Debate Between Dems and Repubs – Bring It On!

Politico.com reported today that the White House announces televised health meet. That is GREAT news! Hopefully the Republicans will have smartened up after the last “Q&A” and 1) will not underestimate Obama’s oratory skills this time, and 2) as a result be better prepared to call him out on his dodges from before. (Note: I happily take some “dodge” accusations back now that Obama has agreed to televise a health care debate. He’s showing some cahones ((again)) and deserves credit for this.)

I believe (hope?) this will raise the game of both the Republicans and Democrats, and give everyday people the opportunity to hear directly on the issues from both sides so that they can form an educated opinion. That requires an honest discussion between the two parties, however, which up until now has been a stretch.