Getting out your holy water?
I was just listening to the Mark Levin show on Sirius Patriot 144, and he said something that many of the 'talk radio mafia' have been talking about for ages -- (as close to verbatim as my brain allows): 'The government is compelling citizens to purchase a product [healthcare insurance]. It is the first time in American history that the federal government has compelled it's citizens to purchase a product'.
I think that is something to think about. We are not 'compeled' to be on or purchase our Provincial health care insurance plans - if we do not produce a plan # in a certain number of time (3 months last time I checked), we will get sent a bill. We are not threatened with jail time or fines (as far as I know) for not purchasing or signing onto our provincial plans. We are just told if we use the service but do not have a plan #, we have to pay the bill for the SERVICE that was provided. However, in the US now (or when this part actually goes into effect), if the citizens do not have some sort of insurance plan, they will be fined. That is even without necessarily using a service. Is that right? Should they be able to do that?
When I moved to BC, I ended up having to go to a doctor before my new BC health care number was assigned to me, and I was told I had 3 months to give it to them. When I moved back to Alberta, I reinstated my old number right away but I was not threatened. Now, when there was a problem with my premium and I did not pay for a few months (they did not remove my ex right away so I did not pay $66, I paid $33), I got a rather threatening letter stating I had to appear in court in 30 days if the matter was not resolved before then - but it got sorted out. And I had chosen to sign onto the agreement, and in their eyes I did not pay for my portion so they were not compeling me to HAVE the insurance, they were compeling me to pay what I owed after I CHOSE to sign on. And, it is not the Canadian federal govt who is sending me the letters, it is the province. So, is it right in the US that the federal govt can now fine a person for not purchasing a health care plan? Is that supposed to be allowed under their constitution??
In my opinion, the people who oppose this plan are not 'haters' or penny-pinchers - they recognize that the federal govt should not be allowed to do this, and if they are, what's next? When and where do they stop?
Mark Levin also brought up car insurance. He said something like 'And don't try to tell me that the govt compels you to have car insurance, because the govt does not COMPEL you to buy a car. If you CHOOSE to buy a car, then you have the responsibility that goes along with that such as paying for insurance and registration. Healthcare insurance is being COMPELED now by the fed govt. For every citizen in the United States. Is that right?
We are not compeled to buy homes, cars, or even compeled to pay for healthcare. It's still my choice if I go to the doc, my choice to have treatment for cancer or not, my choice to ask for pain medication for a debilitating disease - same as in the US. So if the fed govt cannot COMPEL you to see a doctor, why is it that suddenly they can COMPEL you to purchase insurance (a product).
There is also a lot of talk about how many democrats have been saying in their speeches and interviews that 'healthcare is a RIGHT'. The constitution does not say that anywhere - so if they are wanting to change it and make it a 'right', they need 2/3 of the Yea votes first {that is - 2/3 of the senate AND 2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the States before they can amend the constitution - Article 5), and THEN maybe they can go ahead with their healthcare bill AFTER that?? So why is this slipping through the cracks with the healthcare bill going through first, a bill that COMPELS citizens of the United States to purchase a product? How is that even possible? THAT is what a lot of people are angry about. It's not necessarily the idea of reform, or the way they want to reform things - its HOW THIS IS HAPPENING. It's HOW the govt has been able to pull this off, to the applause of millions of people?
Like in Star Wars Episode 3 (that Mike Church likes to play clips of on his radio program)... Palpatine/The Emporer takes the stand and shouts that they are creating The First Galactic Empire,,,, and meanwhile Senator Amidala (luke and leia's mommy) states:
This Is How Liberty Dies... With Thunderous Applause
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Frustrating Really...
.... I was kicked out of a public forum last November after being a member for about 5 years. I was kicked out for totally ridiculous reasons (seriously, I am not fibbing and hiding that I was a tyrant or anything lol).I will admit to doing something totally irrational AFTER I got banned, but hey, I figured I had nothing to lose lol. I got kicked out, so I retaliated. Big whoop.But I also admit I still go to read the forum from time to time because I met a lot of people in there and liked talking to them, so I check to see what they have been up to. Today I am torn - not sure if I am glad I am banned, or if I wish I was still a member. They have been discussing the US Health Care bill for example, but as usually happens, references to the Canadian system pop up from time to time and there are only a couple left in that forum and they don't often get entangled in political discussions.... so I do wish I could pop in there just once and post something lol. But anyway, since it is a totally public forum and anyone can read the posts without signing in, and they can be found with google search, etc, I know I am able to copy/paste some of the remarks here. I will get this off my chest one way or another, it's just too bad the authors won't see it!
Anyway two particular segments caught my eye (and this guy used to read my blog so who knows, maybe he will stumble across this one day lol)....
1- I agree personal responsibility has gone down the tube but you saying health care is so personal is specifically the very reason I would argue for a government run health care. Health care deals with peoples lives. Would you really want to put your life in the hands of companies who are looking to make a profit? Or would you rather put it in the hands of government, the entity whos job it is to protect the life of its citizens. There are many people in the U.S. who got screwed by giving their life into the hands of profiting insurance companies.
My response would be "Would you rather put it in the hands of bureaucrats sitting behind a desk with a total amount of money they are allowed to spend this year, and deciding what services (surgeries, etc) will be done, by whom, how many in each region, and how many to carry-over to next year PURELY BASED ON dollar amount?". Because that's what happens up here! If it's not classed an emergency (ie heart attack), you could very well find yourself bumped to the next year because the alotted number of spots for glaucoma surgery, etc is already filled up. Someone else decides that. So why is it any better to have your life in the hands of a government body compared to an insurance company. One is making money, one is 'not', but they are both making decisions about YOU that are based on MONEY. One could also argue that because an insurance company relies on profits, they would not want all the BAD PRESS that could come from letting a whole bunch of people die just to save a few bucks. They could be totally out of business and lose all their precious profits in no time - so.... what does the govt lose? Votes? The next govt (up here) carries on the same system with little changes unless it's chopping even more services. So really, why is one better than the other? It seems to me they both suck! It's other people making a decision about your body, your life, your health and you are a sitting duck. Sorry - neither option sounds that great to me! Last time I checked, this was my body!
2 - As for your brother and not being my responsibility, you're right, his health shouldn't be my responsibility. But when you look at the larger picture, his irresponsibility to get insurance can cost me dearly. If he ever has to go to the ER and he cannot pay the bill, the bill will go to the government and it will jack up my taxes. It is in my economic interest he have insurance. Thats actually one of the main reasons economists target as to how government is losing so much money without a public option. guess where all the people without insurance go? Yep, the ER and then they pass all the bills onto us.
Okay well why up here do we have massive long lineups at ERs as well? It costs more to pay for a patient who shows up at urgent care or ER instead of going to a walkin or their family doc up here as well. It also uses up money that is supposed to be allotted to the Emergency Funds (for REAL emergencies ie heart attacks as previously mentioned). But SO many people do not even have family doctors, because the govt decides how many of them we are allowed to have in each region as well and how many patients they can cap at, patients have no choice but to show up at ER to get checked out. Or they try to go to walkin and find out that so many others are already there, walkin is officially closed (not accepting more patients) only 10 mins into it's 2-4 hour opening time. No that doesn't happen every day, but I see it all too often here in town. So people end up at ER instead. That costs us more too.
AND there is also the added bonus that because we can all go to the doc, walkin, or ER for any ailment whatsoever and never receive a bill (providing we have registered with our provincial care, that is), people will sit at ER to have a mild cough or a sliver checked out. THAT costs you me and every other tax payer (and our future tax payers who are just children today) more money than it's worth. So I'm sorry, but having a govt option does not magically dismiss the costs to the taxpayer for someone showing up without insurance - it in fact invites even more people to it, and with funding cuts left and right due in part to the rising cost of health care, fewer people have a family doc and no choice but to utilize the more expensive ER services.
I stood up against the wall of my city's ER a few years ago, while in EXCRUCIATING PAIN, and had to wait while everyone else in there looked perfectly fine. No one was bleeding, coughing, looking like death, etc. Meanwhile I had to keep going to throw up in the bathroom because the pain was just so intense my body could not handle it. The people in there were staring at me like I was bringing the plague to them or something -- I managed to get triaged and get in 2 more people later so my wait was not THAT long (seemed like forever but might have been 15-20 mins), but I could not help but wonder why those other people were in there. Emergency is supposed to be for emergencies, is it not? Sick kids I understand because they are too little to explain what they feel like and it's best to get them checked fast - but adults? So I started paying more attention that day and realized a heck of a lot of these people do not have a doctor to turn to, and the rest don't care what place they go to because they don't think they are paying for it. Either way - it's a bad scene.
So please explain to me again why it's 'better' to have govt run these options? Insurance companies can be a royal pain in the butt, however in the US the competition is stale because people cannot take their insurance from workplace to workplace, or from state to state. If you have a pre-existing condition that is currently covered by your insurance because you had it for ages before getting sick, but then you move to a new job or another state, you lose it and cannot get new insurance based on your condition. THAT is wrong and that sucks. But those things could have been reformed without adding all this other muckety muck to the bill, could it not? Why not try that for a few years and see how it pans out?
There is not going to be an easy answer but I guess I am tired of so many being blind to what is going on, and frustrated with some Americans thinking everything up here is rosy and those who are complaining are just grumpy old farts who just want to stir the pot. I also get frustrated with comments like this by the same author as quoted above: Take your pick, though just because theres a government run health care doesn't exclude the private industry. If you have money, just go to the private industry. [pssst WHAT private industry? In canada there is very very very little choice in private care for basic health, and in the US - watch out, because it has been recorded MULTIPLE times with video and audio, of various democrats saying they are 'hopeful that this will KILL private insurance'. Go look it up - you WILL find it easily. So if you have money - where are you going to go next? The Caymen Islands I guess].
It frustrates me because he seems to be forgetting that we pay higher taxes (not just on income, but on gas, products, services, etc) so even if we live close to the US border and could drive there for care instead, we don't have the money left over to pay full cost private care. It has been widely reported lately that on avg, Canadian families in the Middle Income bracket pay about 45% of their income in various taxes (don't forget taxes embedded in our products prices due to taxes on industry, transportation of goods, etc). So we are supposed to pay all that, then use what 55% we have left on food, shelter, clothing, and private health care? It's a double-edged sword up here, just like the US says about it's system.
Anyway two particular segments caught my eye (and this guy used to read my blog so who knows, maybe he will stumble across this one day lol)....
1- I agree personal responsibility has gone down the tube but you saying health care is so personal is specifically the very reason I would argue for a government run health care. Health care deals with peoples lives. Would you really want to put your life in the hands of companies who are looking to make a profit? Or would you rather put it in the hands of government, the entity whos job it is to protect the life of its citizens. There are many people in the U.S. who got screwed by giving their life into the hands of profiting insurance companies.
My response would be "Would you rather put it in the hands of bureaucrats sitting behind a desk with a total amount of money they are allowed to spend this year, and deciding what services (surgeries, etc) will be done, by whom, how many in each region, and how many to carry-over to next year PURELY BASED ON dollar amount?". Because that's what happens up here! If it's not classed an emergency (ie heart attack), you could very well find yourself bumped to the next year because the alotted number of spots for glaucoma surgery, etc is already filled up. Someone else decides that. So why is it any better to have your life in the hands of a government body compared to an insurance company. One is making money, one is 'not', but they are both making decisions about YOU that are based on MONEY. One could also argue that because an insurance company relies on profits, they would not want all the BAD PRESS that could come from letting a whole bunch of people die just to save a few bucks. They could be totally out of business and lose all their precious profits in no time - so.... what does the govt lose? Votes? The next govt (up here) carries on the same system with little changes unless it's chopping even more services. So really, why is one better than the other? It seems to me they both suck! It's other people making a decision about your body, your life, your health and you are a sitting duck. Sorry - neither option sounds that great to me! Last time I checked, this was my body!
2 - As for your brother and not being my responsibility, you're right, his health shouldn't be my responsibility. But when you look at the larger picture, his irresponsibility to get insurance can cost me dearly. If he ever has to go to the ER and he cannot pay the bill, the bill will go to the government and it will jack up my taxes. It is in my economic interest he have insurance. Thats actually one of the main reasons economists target as to how government is losing so much money without a public option. guess where all the people without insurance go? Yep, the ER and then they pass all the bills onto us.
Okay well why up here do we have massive long lineups at ERs as well? It costs more to pay for a patient who shows up at urgent care or ER instead of going to a walkin or their family doc up here as well. It also uses up money that is supposed to be allotted to the Emergency Funds (for REAL emergencies ie heart attacks as previously mentioned). But SO many people do not even have family doctors, because the govt decides how many of them we are allowed to have in each region as well and how many patients they can cap at, patients have no choice but to show up at ER to get checked out. Or they try to go to walkin and find out that so many others are already there, walkin is officially closed (not accepting more patients) only 10 mins into it's 2-4 hour opening time. No that doesn't happen every day, but I see it all too often here in town. So people end up at ER instead. That costs us more too.
AND there is also the added bonus that because we can all go to the doc, walkin, or ER for any ailment whatsoever and never receive a bill (providing we have registered with our provincial care, that is), people will sit at ER to have a mild cough or a sliver checked out. THAT costs you me and every other tax payer (and our future tax payers who are just children today) more money than it's worth. So I'm sorry, but having a govt option does not magically dismiss the costs to the taxpayer for someone showing up without insurance - it in fact invites even more people to it, and with funding cuts left and right due in part to the rising cost of health care, fewer people have a family doc and no choice but to utilize the more expensive ER services.
I stood up against the wall of my city's ER a few years ago, while in EXCRUCIATING PAIN, and had to wait while everyone else in there looked perfectly fine. No one was bleeding, coughing, looking like death, etc. Meanwhile I had to keep going to throw up in the bathroom because the pain was just so intense my body could not handle it. The people in there were staring at me like I was bringing the plague to them or something -- I managed to get triaged and get in 2 more people later so my wait was not THAT long (seemed like forever but might have been 15-20 mins), but I could not help but wonder why those other people were in there. Emergency is supposed to be for emergencies, is it not? Sick kids I understand because they are too little to explain what they feel like and it's best to get them checked fast - but adults? So I started paying more attention that day and realized a heck of a lot of these people do not have a doctor to turn to, and the rest don't care what place they go to because they don't think they are paying for it. Either way - it's a bad scene.
So please explain to me again why it's 'better' to have govt run these options? Insurance companies can be a royal pain in the butt, however in the US the competition is stale because people cannot take their insurance from workplace to workplace, or from state to state. If you have a pre-existing condition that is currently covered by your insurance because you had it for ages before getting sick, but then you move to a new job or another state, you lose it and cannot get new insurance based on your condition. THAT is wrong and that sucks. But those things could have been reformed without adding all this other muckety muck to the bill, could it not? Why not try that for a few years and see how it pans out?
There is not going to be an easy answer but I guess I am tired of so many being blind to what is going on, and frustrated with some Americans thinking everything up here is rosy and those who are complaining are just grumpy old farts who just want to stir the pot. I also get frustrated with comments like this by the same author as quoted above: Take your pick, though just because theres a government run health care doesn't exclude the private industry. If you have money, just go to the private industry. [pssst WHAT private industry? In canada there is very very very little choice in private care for basic health, and in the US - watch out, because it has been recorded MULTIPLE times with video and audio, of various democrats saying they are 'hopeful that this will KILL private insurance'. Go look it up - you WILL find it easily. So if you have money - where are you going to go next? The Caymen Islands I guess].
It frustrates me because he seems to be forgetting that we pay higher taxes (not just on income, but on gas, products, services, etc) so even if we live close to the US border and could drive there for care instead, we don't have the money left over to pay full cost private care. It has been widely reported lately that on avg, Canadian families in the Middle Income bracket pay about 45% of their income in various taxes (don't forget taxes embedded in our products prices due to taxes on industry, transportation of goods, etc). So we are supposed to pay all that, then use what 55% we have left on food, shelter, clothing, and private health care? It's a double-edged sword up here, just like the US says about it's system.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tough Decisions
The US healthcare debate seems to have sparked even more debates in countries that have socialized medicine - such as England(Britain) and Canada. The debate has been there for eons, but it seems louder and stronger now. It's a pretty tough mess to sort out. This morning the Drudge report listed an article about a hospital is Staffordshire, England that is under investigation for the possible unnecessary deaths of between 400 and 1200 patients between 2005 and 2008. But what interested me most was reading through the comments (so far there are over 10 pages of reader comments). People are split, and it's tough to make future decisions based on what citizens want when it is so divided. What is the best course of action? All I can think is 'socialized medicine will only work as long as there are dollars to support it'. What happens when money is running low, if something happens where tons of people are out of work and businesses are closing? Where will the tax dollars come from to support these socialized systems? The whole thing could come crashing down, that's what concerns me. And if there is nothing in place to back it up (ie a proper two tier system where people could choose to get private insurance for basic health care).... well... then what??? I heard on several radio and tv broadcasts recently that within 5 years, 20% of Britains adults will have never worked a single day of their lives to date. Twenty Percent! That is a heck of a lot of people receiving aid, getting health care, getting their homes and food paid for - who have never put a pence of money into the tax system to help support it. Yikes.
Something else I have been thinking about --- I have heard several politicians in the US claiming that every year, 45,000 people die in the US because they do not have health care. I cannot find a good stat on that but will put it in here if I find it. I don't know if that truly means they died BECAUSE they don't have health care, or if they happened to die AND they don't have health care. I don't know what they died from (car accident, terminal disease, etc) so I don't know how to judge if they died BECAUSE of lack of health care or if that is just a twisted statistic. But what I do know is that a heck of a lot of people die each year who DO have health care. Should we then twist the statistic to say 'Look! Over 2 million people die each year in the US because they HAVE health care'? Seriously, think about it.
The Centers for Disease Control website updated it's death stats on Dec 31, 2009 and you can find it HERE. But here is a quick rundown of some stats they reported:
In a quick comparison, Stats Canada lists our deaths at 242,863 for the last fiscal year (July 1 to June 30 2008/09). Keeping in mind that Canada has about 10% of the population of the United States, it puts our death rate at almost an identical % of population (242, 626). Our top killers are heart disease and cancer as well. Shouldn't we have a BETTER death rate if we have socialized medicine? Afterall, all of our citizens can get health care at any time from any place (scratch that, you have to go through the channels, can't just show up at a specialist's office, but I digress)... So the US people that are throwing around this '45,000 people a year die because they do not have life insurance' figure must not really look around at other countries to check out their mortality rates and causes either. THAT is what drives me crazy.
At the end of the day, even Canada's socialized health care system does not improve on the mortality rate. We have 10% of the population, and 10% of their mortality rate. So let's just drop that 45,000 statistic, it does not accomplish ANYTHING. Over 2 million people die each year in the US who DO have health insurance.... so um.... what should be done about THAT statistic?
Eh?! Perhaps that is something Larry King could have asked Bill Maher last week. Maher is the latest person I heard use the 45,000 stat.
Something else I have been thinking about --- I have heard several politicians in the US claiming that every year, 45,000 people die in the US because they do not have health care. I cannot find a good stat on that but will put it in here if I find it. I don't know if that truly means they died BECAUSE they don't have health care, or if they happened to die AND they don't have health care. I don't know what they died from (car accident, terminal disease, etc) so I don't know how to judge if they died BECAUSE of lack of health care or if that is just a twisted statistic. But what I do know is that a heck of a lot of people die each year who DO have health care. Should we then twist the statistic to say 'Look! Over 2 million people die each year in the US because they HAVE health care'? Seriously, think about it.
The Centers for Disease Control website updated it's death stats on Dec 31, 2009 and you can find it HERE. But here is a quick rundown of some stats they reported:
- Number of deaths: 2,426,264
- Death rate: 810.4 deaths per 100,000 population
- Life expectancy: 77.7years
- Infant Mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1,000 live births
- Heart disease: 631,636
- Cancer: 559,888
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
- Diabetes: 72,449
- Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
- Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
- Septicemia: 34,234
In a quick comparison, Stats Canada lists our deaths at 242,863 for the last fiscal year (July 1 to June 30 2008/09). Keeping in mind that Canada has about 10% of the population of the United States, it puts our death rate at almost an identical % of population (242, 626). Our top killers are heart disease and cancer as well. Shouldn't we have a BETTER death rate if we have socialized medicine? Afterall, all of our citizens can get health care at any time from any place (scratch that, you have to go through the channels, can't just show up at a specialist's office, but I digress)... So the US people that are throwing around this '45,000 people a year die because they do not have life insurance' figure must not really look around at other countries to check out their mortality rates and causes either. THAT is what drives me crazy.
At the end of the day, even Canada's socialized health care system does not improve on the mortality rate. We have 10% of the population, and 10% of their mortality rate. So let's just drop that 45,000 statistic, it does not accomplish ANYTHING. Over 2 million people die each year in the US who DO have health insurance.... so um.... what should be done about THAT statistic?
Eh?! Perhaps that is something Larry King could have asked Bill Maher last week. Maher is the latest person I heard use the 45,000 stat.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Medical Musings Update 2
Just for interest, the mammogram/health care bill seems Clear As Mud, doesn't it?
1 - From the Washington Post : "As a health reform bill endorsed by President Obama marches toward its first Senate floor vote on Saturday, his opponents stepped up efforts to define the legislation as big-government ambition run amok that will interfere with intimate medical decisions and threaten the pocketbooks of average taxpayers.....Meanwhile, the surprise recommendation this week by a quasi-government panel that women should have fewer mammograms injected a volatile issue into the health debate....Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way.....But White House officials dismissed that as overheated rhetoric and expressed little concern that the issue would resonate with Democratic lawmakers or average Americans.....""Many of the opponents of health reform stopped relying on truth, facts and reasoned argument a long time ago," said Dan Pfeiffer, White House deputy communications director. " November 21, 2009
2 - Then I heard on Robin Mead this morning that perhaps that isn't quite so true due to a section of the bill and I did some checking on CNN.com but all I could find at short notice was this article "I want my mammogram". One excerpt says "Sebelius says the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." [Sebelius is the Health and Human Services Secretary]. November 19
3 - So I googled "mammogram + health care bill" and found a number of people talking about Section 2708 of the Senate Health Care Bill. One such blog is here. Excerpt: "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for— (1) items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;".......
Now read the USPSTF recommendation for mammograms: "The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation."
Well isn't that just clear as mud??? Since Mammograms have been recommended at Grade C, what does that mean from the bill? I have yet to find anything that says insurers will cover Grade C, just Grades A and B.
But beyond that, why is the Health and Human Services Director saying that the Task Force does not set federal policy or determine what is covered, but the Section 2078 lists rules for insurers BASED ON recommendations of the Task Force? Sure maybe they don't 'set policy' themselves - but isn't that walking a very fine line? They don't set policy, but their recommendations are put into the policy. What the heck is the difference? To me it's just mincing words - careful wording that isn't exactly a bold-faced lie but it might as well be because at the end of the day, what the Task Force says, goes.
You can see a full list of recommendations and statements from the Task Force HERE and I suggest to watch for an update on the cervical cancer screenings in the near future. Currently it sits at Grade A (which I believe is where mammograms sat before last week), but new reports suggest the grading will change if the Task Force decides to do that.
But I thought they did not determine what gets covered? Oh that's right, it's the politicians who are determining that they will write policies on what the Task Forces determines. Clear as Mud.
What was stated in the Washington Post at the top of this entry? Oh yeah - ".Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way."
Sheesh those crazy conservatives have no idea what they are talking about eh?
1 - From the Washington Post : "As a health reform bill endorsed by President Obama marches toward its first Senate floor vote on Saturday, his opponents stepped up efforts to define the legislation as big-government ambition run amok that will interfere with intimate medical decisions and threaten the pocketbooks of average taxpayers.....Meanwhile, the surprise recommendation this week by a quasi-government panel that women should have fewer mammograms injected a volatile issue into the health debate....Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way.....But White House officials dismissed that as overheated rhetoric and expressed little concern that the issue would resonate with Democratic lawmakers or average Americans.....""Many of the opponents of health reform stopped relying on truth, facts and reasoned argument a long time ago," said Dan Pfeiffer, White House deputy communications director. " November 21, 2009
2 - Then I heard on Robin Mead this morning that perhaps that isn't quite so true due to a section of the bill and I did some checking on CNN.com but all I could find at short notice was this article "I want my mammogram". One excerpt says "Sebelius says the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." [Sebelius is the Health and Human Services Secretary]. November 19
3 - So I googled "mammogram + health care bill" and found a number of people talking about Section 2708 of the Senate Health Care Bill. One such blog is here. Excerpt: "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for— (1) items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;".......
Now read the USPSTF recommendation for mammograms: "The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation."
Well isn't that just clear as mud??? Since Mammograms have been recommended at Grade C, what does that mean from the bill? I have yet to find anything that says insurers will cover Grade C, just Grades A and B.
But beyond that, why is the Health and Human Services Director saying that the Task Force does not set federal policy or determine what is covered, but the Section 2078 lists rules for insurers BASED ON recommendations of the Task Force? Sure maybe they don't 'set policy' themselves - but isn't that walking a very fine line? They don't set policy, but their recommendations are put into the policy. What the heck is the difference? To me it's just mincing words - careful wording that isn't exactly a bold-faced lie but it might as well be because at the end of the day, what the Task Force says, goes.
You can see a full list of recommendations and statements from the Task Force HERE and I suggest to watch for an update on the cervical cancer screenings in the near future. Currently it sits at Grade A (which I believe is where mammograms sat before last week), but new reports suggest the grading will change if the Task Force decides to do that.
But I thought they did not determine what gets covered? Oh that's right, it's the politicians who are determining that they will write policies on what the Task Forces determines. Clear as Mud.
What was stated in the Washington Post at the top of this entry? Oh yeah - ".Conservatives on radio and television have seized on the controversial recommendation as an example of the big-government medical care that will follow if Obama gets his way."
Sheesh those crazy conservatives have no idea what they are talking about eh?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Borrowing a blog post
More stories of the wonders of Canada's Health Care system, where it IS rationed and the proof is all around you. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Little Girl Caught In The Middle Of Health Care Politics from Unambiguously Ambidextrous
Little Girl Caught In The Middle Of Health Care Politics from Unambiguously Ambidextrous
Monday, July 27, 2009
Advertising for a Family Doc in Local Newspaper
Recently I read a US article talking about how some politicians in Washington DC met with Canadian reps and asked supposedly 'tough questions' about our healthcare system up here. Apparently they were intrigued with how it works, seeing as a similar system may be forced into place there in the near future. One of the 'tough questions' I read was "Is it true that no one in Canada can get a family doctor?". The answer was "No, that is not true".
What the hell kind of question was that?? Of course it's not true that NO ONE can get a family doc! But the followup question should have been "How many Canadians do not have a family doctor?" and an analysis of how many of those WANT one, but cannot FIND one. But of course, those questions were not asked - at least not according to the articles I read.
So here I am reading Friday's local paper when I come across something in the Letters to the Editor section... an elderly resident who's family doc retired is asking for help. He cannot find a replacement doc and needs to have a regular health professional to ensure his ongoing health. So he is advertising in the paper . This is what we deal with here on a regular basis. No in-town regular docs have been listed as taking new patients for at least 4 years. I have spoken about this regularly on my blog. I know what doc is retiring and have known for over 3 months that he was leaving, even though he is at least 20 years before retirement age and has thousands of patients. I really feel for him - making this decision must not have been easy after how many years he put into his education and his patients. He was my family doc from 1998-2001 when I moved out of province and I grew up with his siblings. His father was a doctor as well, until his death a few years ago. So this must not have been an easy decision... and now his patients are in limbo unless they luck out by writing to the Medicine Hat News and advertise for a doc. I hope someone has contacted that man by now, but I can guarantee you that there are still hundreds if not thousands of other residents who have been without family docs for years now. My mom is one of them.
This is, again, what I have been trying to portray to my neighbours south of the border - things are NOT perfect up here. I have friends in Ontario who have had problems for years, including having to wait 12 months to see an allergy specialist in Toronto for an INFANT. A little boy who needed to be tested for asthma when he was less than a year old, but he did not get his test for a YEAR. He could have died in that time if he had an attack. That is what also goes on up here, behind the rosey exterior of 'free' care. Everything 'free' comes at a price in one way or another and people need to realize that.
Here is the text from the article in case the link gets archived:
Doc's retirement shocks patients
I am 76 years old and in reasonably good health. I stay away from doctors as much as possible. Over my many years, the odd broken bone drove me to see a doctor. Otherwise, I leave them alone to tend to folks who need it. I make one appointment every October to get my prescription renewed for blood pressure pills. That's it.
Recently I had a problem that needed medical advice. I called my doctor's office for an appointment and much to my amazement, the receptionist told me my skilled, personable, young doctor for the past 10 years had retired as of July 1. Wow, you could have knocked me over with a feather! There was, to my knowledge, no notice given to the hundreds of patients I'm sure he treated. My first thought was for him. Did he suffer from some serious illness? I hope not; folks like him are hard to find.
I asked the receptionist if my file was referred to another doctor. "No," was the cold, professional answer. She said, "You are on your own. Try phoning." I guess she meant start with the A's and end with the Z's. I did say, tongue in cheek, I feel like a sack of garbage dropped by the side of the road. She did not reply.
I was told by someone who should know (a pharmacist) that no Medicine Hat doctors are accepting new patients. I am well aware that many folks use the walk-in clinics or the hospital emergency facility. However, having had a family doctor all my life, I would prefer, if possible, to have a doctor you can get to know and rely on.
I am writing this letter for two reasons: First, I feel that Medicine Hat residents should be aware that we have lost a valued doctor. You should not find out when you try to make an appointment. Second, I appeal to any physician that could squeeze in another patient to have his or her receptionist please contact me.
Gordon DePottie
Medicine Hat
__________________________
It's difficult to find good info on how many Canadians are without a family doc, and how many of those are trying (as opposed to those who don't have one by choice), but there are some articles around.
- one stating that over 3 million Canadians in 2004 did not have a doc, 1 million of those had searched (pdf) - 2004
- another article from 2004 that says 5 million Canadians do not have a family doc
- 2008 article stating over 4 million without care
- 2009 article stating 5 million
So as you can see, it's quite difficult and then you have to sort through who is actually trying to find a doc, and who isn't (keeping in mind that one day those people WILL need a doc and probably won't be able to find one). Canada's population is a lot smaller than the US so anyone reading this who is unaware, these numbers are around 10% of Canadians without a fam doc. Maybe it's 5% who are looking, but the other 5% still won't be able to get one if they try eventually so it's all the same to me!
What the hell kind of question was that?? Of course it's not true that NO ONE can get a family doc! But the followup question should have been "How many Canadians do not have a family doctor?" and an analysis of how many of those WANT one, but cannot FIND one. But of course, those questions were not asked - at least not according to the articles I read.
So here I am reading Friday's local paper when I come across something in the Letters to the Editor section... an elderly resident who's family doc retired is asking for help. He cannot find a replacement doc and needs to have a regular health professional to ensure his ongoing health. So he is advertising in the paper . This is what we deal with here on a regular basis. No in-town regular docs have been listed as taking new patients for at least 4 years. I have spoken about this regularly on my blog. I know what doc is retiring and have known for over 3 months that he was leaving, even though he is at least 20 years before retirement age and has thousands of patients. I really feel for him - making this decision must not have been easy after how many years he put into his education and his patients. He was my family doc from 1998-2001 when I moved out of province and I grew up with his siblings. His father was a doctor as well, until his death a few years ago. So this must not have been an easy decision... and now his patients are in limbo unless they luck out by writing to the Medicine Hat News and advertise for a doc. I hope someone has contacted that man by now, but I can guarantee you that there are still hundreds if not thousands of other residents who have been without family docs for years now. My mom is one of them.
This is, again, what I have been trying to portray to my neighbours south of the border - things are NOT perfect up here. I have friends in Ontario who have had problems for years, including having to wait 12 months to see an allergy specialist in Toronto for an INFANT. A little boy who needed to be tested for asthma when he was less than a year old, but he did not get his test for a YEAR. He could have died in that time if he had an attack. That is what also goes on up here, behind the rosey exterior of 'free' care. Everything 'free' comes at a price in one way or another and people need to realize that.
Here is the text from the article in case the link gets archived:
Doc's retirement shocks patients
I am 76 years old and in reasonably good health. I stay away from doctors as much as possible. Over my many years, the odd broken bone drove me to see a doctor. Otherwise, I leave them alone to tend to folks who need it. I make one appointment every October to get my prescription renewed for blood pressure pills. That's it.
Recently I had a problem that needed medical advice. I called my doctor's office for an appointment and much to my amazement, the receptionist told me my skilled, personable, young doctor for the past 10 years had retired as of July 1. Wow, you could have knocked me over with a feather! There was, to my knowledge, no notice given to the hundreds of patients I'm sure he treated. My first thought was for him. Did he suffer from some serious illness? I hope not; folks like him are hard to find.
I asked the receptionist if my file was referred to another doctor. "No," was the cold, professional answer. She said, "You are on your own. Try phoning." I guess she meant start with the A's and end with the Z's. I did say, tongue in cheek, I feel like a sack of garbage dropped by the side of the road. She did not reply.
I was told by someone who should know (a pharmacist) that no Medicine Hat doctors are accepting new patients. I am well aware that many folks use the walk-in clinics or the hospital emergency facility. However, having had a family doctor all my life, I would prefer, if possible, to have a doctor you can get to know and rely on.
I am writing this letter for two reasons: First, I feel that Medicine Hat residents should be aware that we have lost a valued doctor. You should not find out when you try to make an appointment. Second, I appeal to any physician that could squeeze in another patient to have his or her receptionist please contact me.
Gordon DePottie
Medicine Hat
__________________________
It's difficult to find good info on how many Canadians are without a family doc, and how many of those are trying (as opposed to those who don't have one by choice), but there are some articles around.
- one stating that over 3 million Canadians in 2004 did not have a doc, 1 million of those had searched (pdf) - 2004
- another article from 2004 that says 5 million Canadians do not have a family doc
- 2008 article stating over 4 million without care
- 2009 article stating 5 million
So as you can see, it's quite difficult and then you have to sort through who is actually trying to find a doc, and who isn't (keeping in mind that one day those people WILL need a doc and probably won't be able to find one). Canada's population is a lot smaller than the US so anyone reading this who is unaware, these numbers are around 10% of Canadians without a fam doc. Maybe it's 5% who are looking, but the other 5% still won't be able to get one if they try eventually so it's all the same to me!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Pelosi on Health Care
I just watched some clips of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talking with CNN's John King about the health care bill. Among saying that this WILL pass, Nancy had some rather interesting moments. John King asked Pelosi what will happen with Illegal Immigrants. He sited that currently, hospitals take in thousands of illegal immigrants every year (that's thousands PER hospital, not overall) and he asked what will happen once the bill is passed when these people show up at US hospitals. Pelosi said 'illegal immigrants will not be covered by the public option' (that's as close to verbatim as I can recall). King wanted more explanation, explaining that one hospital he spoke to does 6000 births a year and 70% of them are 'undocumented' people. Once Nancy beat around the bush muttering nonsense for a minute, she said that the health care reform bill will give people access to 'affordable insurance options' and that this would diminish the number of people showing up at hospitals 'like that' (illegals, uninsured). I think she was saying that's how the illegal immigrants will have to go - paying for it, not getting it free.
Okay so while I don't necessarily disagree with that, because I know that illegal immigrants have been a drain on many systems including health care, financial support, food banks, etc - I had a big problem with how Pelosi was speaking about the issue. She didn't really go into any detail at all, just stumbled over her words and half the time didn't even make sense. My wondering is - how are illegal immigrants supposed to get private care if they don't have documentation? They can't use the public option she is pushing for, and they probably won't be able to get private insurance if they can't provide proper documents to the insurer - so where does that leave the possible 10 million + illegals in the US? Where does that leave the hospitals and clinics? If they are bound by law to treat anyone who walks through those doors, how will this factor in once the new health care bill gets passed? The hospital is not supposed to turn them away, but the govt (taxpayers) are not going to cover them in the public option, and they won't have private insurance.
Now what? Isn't that a rather huge hole in the plan or am I missing something here? What are hospitals supposed to do when illegals show up needing medical attention? Where is that money going to come from now to cover their care and how is that going to affect LEGAL citizens who need care? It's already a huge drain on the system and I do think something needs to be done, but it's very confusing to hear Pelosi's 'answer'. King had a very valid question, but did not receive much in return from the person who is pushing this bill HARD in the House and says IT WILL PASS.
**I was trying to find a good copy of the vid but came across someone else wondering about this same interview, with a diff spin on it, and has the segment written verbatim in the TEXT**
Okay so while I don't necessarily disagree with that, because I know that illegal immigrants have been a drain on many systems including health care, financial support, food banks, etc - I had a big problem with how Pelosi was speaking about the issue. She didn't really go into any detail at all, just stumbled over her words and half the time didn't even make sense. My wondering is - how are illegal immigrants supposed to get private care if they don't have documentation? They can't use the public option she is pushing for, and they probably won't be able to get private insurance if they can't provide proper documents to the insurer - so where does that leave the possible 10 million + illegals in the US? Where does that leave the hospitals and clinics? If they are bound by law to treat anyone who walks through those doors, how will this factor in once the new health care bill gets passed? The hospital is not supposed to turn them away, but the govt (taxpayers) are not going to cover them in the public option, and they won't have private insurance.
Now what? Isn't that a rather huge hole in the plan or am I missing something here? What are hospitals supposed to do when illegals show up needing medical attention? Where is that money going to come from now to cover their care and how is that going to affect LEGAL citizens who need care? It's already a huge drain on the system and I do think something needs to be done, but it's very confusing to hear Pelosi's 'answer'. King had a very valid question, but did not receive much in return from the person who is pushing this bill HARD in the House and says IT WILL PASS.
**I was trying to find a good copy of the vid but came across someone else wondering about this same interview, with a diff spin on it, and has the segment written verbatim in the TEXT**
Another Random Thought...
... last week I came across an article in a small Texas newspaper (sorry, I can't find the link), where the author was doing a mini-interview with relatives in Claresholm, Alberta to ask them about our health care plan. One thing really stood out to me - basically it was talking about how our 'Universal' system was doing just fine but now that they took away the premiums we had to pay, they are cutting programs left and right. There were references to wondering what the PC Alberta govt is up to, etc etc.
It bothered me because #1 - Albertans had to pay premiums for all these years, on top of any money collected via various taxes. So guess what? It was NOT technically a universal system. If you did NOT pay your premiums, you got a nice big fat bill in the mail for any basic medical services you required. Case point: my former coworker fainted on the hospital grounds after attening a prenatal class. She was taken via ambulance to the other side of the hospital, she had an xray done on her arm, and was treated and released. A couple of months later, she discovered the hard way that her ex husband was not paying her health care insurance premiums because she got a $250 bill in the mail for the xray. He also wasn't paying her EXTENDED health care premiums so she got a $300 ambulance bill, and other assorted charges from her emergency room visit. THAT is NOT 'universal health care'. Alberta did not have that - but people keep saying we did and it's really annoying.
But guess what? We DO have universal health care for basic health NOW - and it SUCKS, doesn't it? So all of these people who complain about what the govt is doing right now, but keep calling what we had before 'universal', need to think about what they are saying. NOW it is universal - before it was not. There have been people doing organized protests all around Alberta, one here in my city this past week. They do NOT like it - they don't like the cuts, the transfers of some things to 'extended' health, etc. But this is what universal is really like, so why are they whining?
For many many years I have heard various people in Alberta complain that because we are such a rich province, we should have free health care. Talking about using royalites from the oil companies to pay for it, etc etc. Well what good does that do when taking royalities scared away some companies, and now with uncertainty in the future do to 'other reasons', only 25% of Western Canada's rigs and wells have been up and running this year.
I think it was totally mental for the AB govt to cut the premiums and then turn around and say it doesn't have enough money to support certain things like glaucoma surgery --- but I am not the one crying out for free health care either. This is just for 'those people'. What's great about free? Haven't they heard the saying 'You Get What You Paid For'?? You pay taxes, sure, but how much of it actually goes to Health Care? Taxes are spread so thinly across a multitude of programs, and the red tape and bureacracy that goes with it, not enough gets to where it 'should' be going. We have a saying at work that goes 'Every dollar in funding we receive has been spent 40 times before it reaches us'.
Now health care is under the wire. May I also point out that Alberta definitely hasn't had a 'universal' system for eons because we have to pay extended health care if we want to be covered for Eye, Dental, Ambulance, etc... now Casts fall into that category, chiropractors, physio has been in that category for years, and so on. How is that universal? But people keep calling it that for some reason.
Anyway NOW we are getting a little taste of what a Universal System is REALLY like and it's crap. Can you imagine how awful it would be if eye and dental were on there too? At least when I call my dentist or eye doctor now, I can get an appt within a couple of days (or that afternoon!), but good luck getting in with a medical doc.
Can you believe my son is 16 months old and my family doctor has never laid eyes on him?? So many appts have been cancelled, rebooked for when I can't take time off work, or I found out a replacement was filling in, I have given up seeing him at all. He is a super nice doc and I really liked him, but I can't get in so what's the point? My MIL has him as well and she is very ill right now, but has to see him at walk-ins instead of making appts because he is booked over a month in advance all the time. How is that a good thing? And that has nothing to do with the cuts - it's been like this for many years. The premium cuts only just happened in January of this year.
So anyway I just wanted to ramble on about this. People are complaining about what the govt has done, but not seeming to realize that this IS what a universal system is like (for our basic care at least) - but then they turn around and tell Americans that our system was great without really giving the REAL details: Prior to Jan 09, Albertans were paying around $200 a month for their health care plans, if they did extended as well. The cost of my family's plan was $88 a month for basic, and $140 a month for extended (but the workplace chose to pay half, so our portion is $67 a month). It still wasn't perfect, but if you think about it, either the basic premiums we paid were not enough, or the tax money was being mishandled while divvying it out among the mutlitudes of social programs (or both). Alberta DID NOT HAVE universal care, and still doesn't fully, but we are getting a taste of it now and don't like it --- so shouldn't we be passing this info on to our American neighbours while their president is trying to push something similar onto them??
___
Just adding in a little tidbit for an example. My friends are here from South Carolina right now and we were randomly talking about our kids and allergies. I mentioned my daughter's strange allergies and my friend's husband asked if she has been to an allergist. I laughed - it's a year wait for people that have anaphalactic reactions --- how long would I have to wait with my daughter just getting a rash from bandaids? Anyway he said they have allergists all over the place - I said we have to drive 3 hours to get to Calgary and those appts can take a year. He was shocked. I wasn't. THIS is what can happen with a small across-the-board premium and tax-based system, and now it will only be worse with a purely tax-based system. And before you get any ideas - the population of their city is LESS than the small city I live in right now. They have allergy centers right there in the city with several docs in each. But nah - Alberta folk have to travel to Calgary and Edmonton for testing.
It bothered me because #1 - Albertans had to pay premiums for all these years, on top of any money collected via various taxes. So guess what? It was NOT technically a universal system. If you did NOT pay your premiums, you got a nice big fat bill in the mail for any basic medical services you required. Case point: my former coworker fainted on the hospital grounds after attening a prenatal class. She was taken via ambulance to the other side of the hospital, she had an xray done on her arm, and was treated and released. A couple of months later, she discovered the hard way that her ex husband was not paying her health care insurance premiums because she got a $250 bill in the mail for the xray. He also wasn't paying her EXTENDED health care premiums so she got a $300 ambulance bill, and other assorted charges from her emergency room visit. THAT is NOT 'universal health care'. Alberta did not have that - but people keep saying we did and it's really annoying.
But guess what? We DO have universal health care for basic health NOW - and it SUCKS, doesn't it? So all of these people who complain about what the govt is doing right now, but keep calling what we had before 'universal', need to think about what they are saying. NOW it is universal - before it was not. There have been people doing organized protests all around Alberta, one here in my city this past week. They do NOT like it - they don't like the cuts, the transfers of some things to 'extended' health, etc. But this is what universal is really like, so why are they whining?
For many many years I have heard various people in Alberta complain that because we are such a rich province, we should have free health care. Talking about using royalites from the oil companies to pay for it, etc etc. Well what good does that do when taking royalities scared away some companies, and now with uncertainty in the future do to 'other reasons', only 25% of Western Canada's rigs and wells have been up and running this year.
I think it was totally mental for the AB govt to cut the premiums and then turn around and say it doesn't have enough money to support certain things like glaucoma surgery --- but I am not the one crying out for free health care either. This is just for 'those people'. What's great about free? Haven't they heard the saying 'You Get What You Paid For'?? You pay taxes, sure, but how much of it actually goes to Health Care? Taxes are spread so thinly across a multitude of programs, and the red tape and bureacracy that goes with it, not enough gets to where it 'should' be going. We have a saying at work that goes 'Every dollar in funding we receive has been spent 40 times before it reaches us'.
Now health care is under the wire. May I also point out that Alberta definitely hasn't had a 'universal' system for eons because we have to pay extended health care if we want to be covered for Eye, Dental, Ambulance, etc... now Casts fall into that category, chiropractors, physio has been in that category for years, and so on. How is that universal? But people keep calling it that for some reason.
Anyway NOW we are getting a little taste of what a Universal System is REALLY like and it's crap. Can you imagine how awful it would be if eye and dental were on there too? At least when I call my dentist or eye doctor now, I can get an appt within a couple of days (or that afternoon!), but good luck getting in with a medical doc.
Can you believe my son is 16 months old and my family doctor has never laid eyes on him?? So many appts have been cancelled, rebooked for when I can't take time off work, or I found out a replacement was filling in, I have given up seeing him at all. He is a super nice doc and I really liked him, but I can't get in so what's the point? My MIL has him as well and she is very ill right now, but has to see him at walk-ins instead of making appts because he is booked over a month in advance all the time. How is that a good thing? And that has nothing to do with the cuts - it's been like this for many years. The premium cuts only just happened in January of this year.
So anyway I just wanted to ramble on about this. People are complaining about what the govt has done, but not seeming to realize that this IS what a universal system is like (for our basic care at least) - but then they turn around and tell Americans that our system was great without really giving the REAL details: Prior to Jan 09, Albertans were paying around $200 a month for their health care plans, if they did extended as well. The cost of my family's plan was $88 a month for basic, and $140 a month for extended (but the workplace chose to pay half, so our portion is $67 a month). It still wasn't perfect, but if you think about it, either the basic premiums we paid were not enough, or the tax money was being mishandled while divvying it out among the mutlitudes of social programs (or both). Alberta DID NOT HAVE universal care, and still doesn't fully, but we are getting a taste of it now and don't like it --- so shouldn't we be passing this info on to our American neighbours while their president is trying to push something similar onto them??
___
Just adding in a little tidbit for an example. My friends are here from South Carolina right now and we were randomly talking about our kids and allergies. I mentioned my daughter's strange allergies and my friend's husband asked if she has been to an allergist. I laughed - it's a year wait for people that have anaphalactic reactions --- how long would I have to wait with my daughter just getting a rash from bandaids? Anyway he said they have allergists all over the place - I said we have to drive 3 hours to get to Calgary and those appts can take a year. He was shocked. I wasn't. THIS is what can happen with a small across-the-board premium and tax-based system, and now it will only be worse with a purely tax-based system. And before you get any ideas - the population of their city is LESS than the small city I live in right now. They have allergy centers right there in the city with several docs in each. But nah - Alberta folk have to travel to Calgary and Edmonton for testing.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
More Health Care fun times
Okay, so while Pres Obama is trying to talk people in the US into his brand of health care reform, I have a fun little story about the wonderful public system in Alberta. First of all, I will say that I have had very few problems myself, but I have only ever needed emergency care. I believe this province puts a great deal of money into Emergency and while that is good... the same level of care is not reflected in other areas.
In February of this year, my boss' husband suffered a heart attack. Really, he was on the verge of multiple attacks and things were grim. He was rushed to hospital and received surgery involving angioplasties. All done, and home again, then back to work. However, he is still experiencing chest pains and it was found that at least one of the arteries worked on is still 60% blocked. It is my understanding that he needs a bypass or at least another attempt at an angioplasty.... but guess what? One week ago he was told he cannot get the surgery until/unless he has another heart attack!
Wow. So his prize for surviving another heart attack will be surgery (if he survives - I pray that he will). What happened to preventative care?? Only a few months ago he was in hospital with doctors, nurses and surgeons all over him helping him out. But now they can only stand by and wait for another attack? While knowing it's only a matter of time? Why not do the surgery NOW? If cost is the province's concern, wouldn't it actually cost LESS to do it now instead of involving all levels of emergency care too? Or are they waiting to see if he will die instead and then it will be FREE for them? I honestly have no idea what the hell they are doing. This man has paid his premiums and taxes for 33 years of working for the city, and now he is sitting there with a ticking time bomb in his chest. His specialist knows he needs the surgery and wants him to have it, but basically said his hands are tied and this is 'just the way it is'. Wow. I have been speechless about this for a week and have only been able to stomach writing it out today.
Why does this happen, do you think? And if it's an issue of cost (which it must be because I can guarantee you that the operating room is not booked 24 hours a day, every day!!), imagine what those missing health care premiums could have done by now. Last time I checked, it does not cost a million dollars to do heart surgery - so please explain to me why premiums were cut? One month alone would have brought the province over 44 million dollars. ONE month. It's been 6 months of no premiums now. You do the math, and then explain to all these patients around Alberta who are waiting for major surgery why they can't have it. It makes absolutely no sense at all. I never used to listen to what I thought of as 'Conspiracy Theories' but this is one I can't help but believe now ---- They take away the premiums because if it's free, you can't complain.
Could that not be true here? Sure my boss' husband has been paying all these years, but he hasn't for the last 6 months. He can't say 'I PAY MY health care! I want this surgery!'... because he does NOT pay now. None of us do. You can stand up and yell and scream that you need this surgery before you die, but you don't pay for it. It's free, so you are totally completely at the mercy of the system now. That is revolting and disgusting. I have been trying to hard to warn some of my US friends that Canada's system is not all it's cracked up to be - but they refuse to listen. It concerns me. We have 10% of the US population and can't make this work right for everyone.
I saw an I-Report on CNN recently where an american woman talked of her time living in France and how she wasn't working but got very sick and got excellent care and it was totally free. Yes. That is awesome, of course it is -- but CNN failed to add in that doctors in France make a small fraction of what they make in the US (the report I saw said an average of $55,000US/year). It failed to announce that France has been in a deficit for it's health care program since 1984 (another report I read online). It failed to announce that 'patient satisfaction' polls have been slowly starting to droop over the last few years. It did not report the income tax differences between France and the US to pay for the program. Etc Etc. There is good and bad about every system, but this is being peddled in the US as the answer to all problems and it just plain isn't. It is not wonderful for everyone. It is not perfect. And there IS rationing. It should not be a triage system from one end to the other - if you need a surgery you should be able to get it. If your heart is ready to explode and you could die, you should be able to get it fixed BEFORE having a heart attack. What the hell is the point of going for tests and checkups if you might find out about a problem, but not be able to get it worked on for a year?
I have friends that work at the hospital and I hear often about how there are entire days many times a month where no one is in the OR at all. No one. No surgeries, unless an emergency comes in. So why are people waiting 1-2 years? What the hell is up with that? Oh yeah - it's because the province can only approve a certain number of surgeries every month/year because of funding. If my boss' husband had the choice - he could pay the hospital directly and get in there, get it done, and be out.... Who does it hurt if the OR is empty anyway? It would also shorten waiting lists if some people could choose to pay directly for their care. It is not about the rich getting treatment before the poor - it would shorten the waiting list for EVERYONE. If my boss' husband paid for his surgery and got out of there, and 5 other people did the same, would everyone else on the list not get bumped up?? Of course they would - maybe they would wait 3 months instead of 6, or 6 months instead of a year. But we do not have that option in Canada. Why not? I do not understand. And I do not believe a system is working if a man needs a heart bypass and cannot get it until his ticker collapses on him one more time... if he dies I think his wife should sue because they KNOW he needs this and have told him, but the province will not approve the operation.
In February of this year, my boss' husband suffered a heart attack. Really, he was on the verge of multiple attacks and things were grim. He was rushed to hospital and received surgery involving angioplasties. All done, and home again, then back to work. However, he is still experiencing chest pains and it was found that at least one of the arteries worked on is still 60% blocked. It is my understanding that he needs a bypass or at least another attempt at an angioplasty.... but guess what? One week ago he was told he cannot get the surgery until/unless he has another heart attack!
Wow. So his prize for surviving another heart attack will be surgery (if he survives - I pray that he will). What happened to preventative care?? Only a few months ago he was in hospital with doctors, nurses and surgeons all over him helping him out. But now they can only stand by and wait for another attack? While knowing it's only a matter of time? Why not do the surgery NOW? If cost is the province's concern, wouldn't it actually cost LESS to do it now instead of involving all levels of emergency care too? Or are they waiting to see if he will die instead and then it will be FREE for them? I honestly have no idea what the hell they are doing. This man has paid his premiums and taxes for 33 years of working for the city, and now he is sitting there with a ticking time bomb in his chest. His specialist knows he needs the surgery and wants him to have it, but basically said his hands are tied and this is 'just the way it is'. Wow. I have been speechless about this for a week and have only been able to stomach writing it out today.
Why does this happen, do you think? And if it's an issue of cost (which it must be because I can guarantee you that the operating room is not booked 24 hours a day, every day!!), imagine what those missing health care premiums could have done by now. Last time I checked, it does not cost a million dollars to do heart surgery - so please explain to me why premiums were cut? One month alone would have brought the province over 44 million dollars. ONE month. It's been 6 months of no premiums now. You do the math, and then explain to all these patients around Alberta who are waiting for major surgery why they can't have it. It makes absolutely no sense at all. I never used to listen to what I thought of as 'Conspiracy Theories' but this is one I can't help but believe now ---- They take away the premiums because if it's free, you can't complain.
Could that not be true here? Sure my boss' husband has been paying all these years, but he hasn't for the last 6 months. He can't say 'I PAY MY health care! I want this surgery!'... because he does NOT pay now. None of us do. You can stand up and yell and scream that you need this surgery before you die, but you don't pay for it. It's free, so you are totally completely at the mercy of the system now. That is revolting and disgusting. I have been trying to hard to warn some of my US friends that Canada's system is not all it's cracked up to be - but they refuse to listen. It concerns me. We have 10% of the US population and can't make this work right for everyone.
I saw an I-Report on CNN recently where an american woman talked of her time living in France and how she wasn't working but got very sick and got excellent care and it was totally free. Yes. That is awesome, of course it is -- but CNN failed to add in that doctors in France make a small fraction of what they make in the US (the report I saw said an average of $55,000US/year). It failed to announce that France has been in a deficit for it's health care program since 1984 (another report I read online). It failed to announce that 'patient satisfaction' polls have been slowly starting to droop over the last few years. It did not report the income tax differences between France and the US to pay for the program. Etc Etc. There is good and bad about every system, but this is being peddled in the US as the answer to all problems and it just plain isn't. It is not wonderful for everyone. It is not perfect. And there IS rationing. It should not be a triage system from one end to the other - if you need a surgery you should be able to get it. If your heart is ready to explode and you could die, you should be able to get it fixed BEFORE having a heart attack. What the hell is the point of going for tests and checkups if you might find out about a problem, but not be able to get it worked on for a year?
I have friends that work at the hospital and I hear often about how there are entire days many times a month where no one is in the OR at all. No one. No surgeries, unless an emergency comes in. So why are people waiting 1-2 years? What the hell is up with that? Oh yeah - it's because the province can only approve a certain number of surgeries every month/year because of funding. If my boss' husband had the choice - he could pay the hospital directly and get in there, get it done, and be out.... Who does it hurt if the OR is empty anyway? It would also shorten waiting lists if some people could choose to pay directly for their care. It is not about the rich getting treatment before the poor - it would shorten the waiting list for EVERYONE. If my boss' husband paid for his surgery and got out of there, and 5 other people did the same, would everyone else on the list not get bumped up?? Of course they would - maybe they would wait 3 months instead of 6, or 6 months instead of a year. But we do not have that option in Canada. Why not? I do not understand. And I do not believe a system is working if a man needs a heart bypass and cannot get it until his ticker collapses on him one more time... if he dies I think his wife should sue because they KNOW he needs this and have told him, but the province will not approve the operation.
Friday, May 15, 2009
More Surprises for Alberta Health Care?
It should NOT be a surprise. It should just bewilder you. I ask - WHY did the province cut premiums? Think of it this way, if 2 million Albertans were paying $44 a month for their health care premiums, that would be putting $88 MILLION dollars into our system every single month. Heck, if only 1 million Albertans were actually paying up, that would still be 44 million a MONTH to use. But instead, we find leaked documents talking of the closure of more and more services. We should be SCREAMING about this!!!!!!!!!
Medicine Hat News article Friday May 15 2009
""A leaked Alberta Health Services document recommending downgrades and closures of a number of health facilities in the former David Thompson health region put rural centres in southern Alberta on edge Thursday.""
""The Medical Staff Newsletter, dated March 31, 2009, outlined a proposal for 10 central Alberta hospitals be downgraded to “urgent care centres” and another five health facilities to be closed.""
""Hanna’s mayor, Mary Collins, learned through the media that her hospital is listed as one of the facilities recommended to be downgraded....That news follows a visit last week from an AHS representative who announced use of their dialysis machine would be discontinued May 25. Patients have been told they will have to travel an hour to and from Drumheller.""...""“All we know is it’s going and they are going to send our patients via taxi from Hanna to Drumheller if they have no one to drive them.”""
""Hospitals in Rimbey, Ponoka, Lacombe, Innisfail, Castor, Coronation, Consort, Sundre and Three Hills were also recommended to become urgent care centres. Health centres in Trochu and Castor were marked for closure. Long-term care centres in Bentley, Trochu and Breton were marked for closure.""
""The FOM also claims it has reason to believe AHS will be announcing significant budget cuts in July.""
____________
It should be noted that AHS has not approved these measures, but it has not said they won't approve any of them either. Why are we just sitting here saying nothing? Would $44-88 MILLION dollars a month in premiums have helped save these centers? I want to know why it was cut, and then followed by severe cuts to health care services. So far my questions have gone unanswered but perhaps if more people join in and phone, email, mail their concerns and outrage, things will change. It's worth a shot, don't you think? I live in a city but I grew up in Rural areas and can only imagine what it will be like for them. The premiums should not have been cut if Alberta was not in good standing for supporting it's current health care services.
But you know why they did it? So we can't complain. How can you complain about something if you get it for free anyway? I truly believe that is why they did this and it is very upsetting. This should not be happening in the so-called Conservative province of Alberta.
Medicine Hat News article Friday May 15 2009
""A leaked Alberta Health Services document recommending downgrades and closures of a number of health facilities in the former David Thompson health region put rural centres in southern Alberta on edge Thursday.""
""The Medical Staff Newsletter, dated March 31, 2009, outlined a proposal for 10 central Alberta hospitals be downgraded to “urgent care centres” and another five health facilities to be closed.""
""Hanna’s mayor, Mary Collins, learned through the media that her hospital is listed as one of the facilities recommended to be downgraded....That news follows a visit last week from an AHS representative who announced use of their dialysis machine would be discontinued May 25. Patients have been told they will have to travel an hour to and from Drumheller.""...""“All we know is it’s going and they are going to send our patients via taxi from Hanna to Drumheller if they have no one to drive them.”""
""Hospitals in Rimbey, Ponoka, Lacombe, Innisfail, Castor, Coronation, Consort, Sundre and Three Hills were also recommended to become urgent care centres. Health centres in Trochu and Castor were marked for closure. Long-term care centres in Bentley, Trochu and Breton were marked for closure.""
""The FOM also claims it has reason to believe AHS will be announcing significant budget cuts in July.""
____________
It should be noted that AHS has not approved these measures, but it has not said they won't approve any of them either. Why are we just sitting here saying nothing? Would $44-88 MILLION dollars a month in premiums have helped save these centers? I want to know why it was cut, and then followed by severe cuts to health care services. So far my questions have gone unanswered but perhaps if more people join in and phone, email, mail their concerns and outrage, things will change. It's worth a shot, don't you think? I live in a city but I grew up in Rural areas and can only imagine what it will be like for them. The premiums should not have been cut if Alberta was not in good standing for supporting it's current health care services.
But you know why they did it? So we can't complain. How can you complain about something if you get it for free anyway? I truly believe that is why they did this and it is very upsetting. This should not be happening in the so-called Conservative province of Alberta.
Monday, May 11, 2009
GE - A Corporate Sponsor
Andrew Wilkow's first Op-Ed (with Nick Rizzuto - his producer). Wilkow has a 3 hour show daily on Sirius Patriot 144/XM 166. I have been tuned in since last summer, and have heard him discuss this before. Now it is in print in the Washington Times.
ARTICLE LINK
Excerpts:
""For all of the carping liberals did for eight years about corporate cronyism in George W. Bush's White House, they seem to turn a blind eye to the same behavior in President Obama's. With plans in place for a major overhaul in the health-care industry, General Electric is positioning itself to become a major beneficiary of these health care reforms. ""
""To this end, GE has appointed Mr. Obama's former nominee for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, to the board of advisers for Healthymagination, an initiative launched by General Electric in partnership along with Intel, which will invest $6 billion over the next six years on "health care innovation that will help deliver better care to more people at lower cost." ""
""In 2008, Mr. Daschle wrote the book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" in which he explains his radical solutions to the problems in American health care. In the book, Mr. Daschle calls for a British-style Federal Council on health care. ""
""Under the cloak of corporate responsibility, General Electric seeks to benefit to the tune of billions from the passage of Mr. Obama's health care reform. On its corporate Web site, Healthymagination admits it will use every tool at its disposal to achieve its goals, including NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC which offers nearly uncritical coverage of Mr. Obama and his policies. ""
""Healthymagination states its target dates for the completion of its various initiatives as 2015, well into a second Obama term. This means GE will have a deep financial interest in Mr. Obama's re-election; a fact that will no doubt be reflected in its media divisions. It will certainly be interesting to see if the left-wing watchdogs howl, or if they will conclude this is an acceptable level of collusion between the White House and a multinational conglomerate. ""
ARTICLE LINK
Excerpts:
""For all of the carping liberals did for eight years about corporate cronyism in George W. Bush's White House, they seem to turn a blind eye to the same behavior in President Obama's. With plans in place for a major overhaul in the health-care industry, General Electric is positioning itself to become a major beneficiary of these health care reforms. ""
""To this end, GE has appointed Mr. Obama's former nominee for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, to the board of advisers for Healthymagination, an initiative launched by General Electric in partnership along with Intel, which will invest $6 billion over the next six years on "health care innovation that will help deliver better care to more people at lower cost." ""
""In 2008, Mr. Daschle wrote the book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" in which he explains his radical solutions to the problems in American health care. In the book, Mr. Daschle calls for a British-style Federal Council on health care. ""
""Under the cloak of corporate responsibility, General Electric seeks to benefit to the tune of billions from the passage of Mr. Obama's health care reform. On its corporate Web site, Healthymagination admits it will use every tool at its disposal to achieve its goals, including NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC which offers nearly uncritical coverage of Mr. Obama and his policies. ""
""Healthymagination states its target dates for the completion of its various initiatives as 2015, well into a second Obama term. This means GE will have a deep financial interest in Mr. Obama's re-election; a fact that will no doubt be reflected in its media divisions. It will certainly be interesting to see if the left-wing watchdogs howl, or if they will conclude this is an acceptable level of collusion between the White House and a multinational conglomerate. ""
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Health Care?
Health Care revisited.... I have heard a lot of people discussing whether Canada's social health care system practises 'rationing' or not. I've heard some say it's a triage system (should it be???), etc etc. And now I have an example for you - my mother has paid into healthcare for about 40 years, through taxes, premiums, and extended health care payments (Alberta Blue Cross). My dad, who passed away in 1996, paid in for 30 years. Right now, my mom needs help. She has a sore on her leg caused by a biopsy about 3 years ago and it keeps getting infected and causing painful rashes up the back of her leg, and has become some form of dermatisits. They have tried various treatments and things went belly up when her family doctor quit his practise, sending her into the 'walkin clinic' and ER system. She is forever told "you should be seeing your family doctor about this", when there are none taking patients on so she is in limboland. Finally last week, an ER doc decided to start IV medication to combat the painful infection. Only problem is - the province will not approve my mom 'taking up a room' during the course of her treatment, so she was literally sent home with a big bag full of syringes of antibiotic and saline solutions. She has to have someone else, as in UNTRAINED people, pushing these into her IV line 3-4 times a day. Her friend offered to stay with her a few days and do it, and now her friend has her own life to attend to so mom has been coming to my house. I have never put IV medication in someone before, I don't know what to watch for with air bubbles, line problems, etc - but we have NO choice at all. The doctor actually said to mom "There is no point you being in a room and a nurse coming in 3 times a day to give you the medication". No point?? What is the point then? There is a needle stuck into my mom's vein 24 hours a day, vials of medication to push air out of then attach to an air lock on her IV line, and push in during a specified amount of time (3 vials each time, 3 times a day). I'm so sorry that it's not 'monetarily feasible' to put my mom in hospital while this is going on. I'm sorry that the province thinks it is more frugal to have completely untrained people work the IV line.
It's not that bad, I did it yesterday and will do it again today,, mom happened to find a retired nurse in her building to do the late night one so one trained person was found... but seriously, this is RIDICULOUS. She is almost 64, has never been in hospital in her life other than to give birth to my brother and I, and yet she is being sent home to administer her own IV medication. The next step involves a saline bag which we will literally have to hold in the air, instead of hanging on those special racks in the hospital. Yes I know a lot of people have to do medication like this at home, but that is usually long term home care (whether done by themselves or a home care nursing staff). This is for a week. What's wrong with putting a woman in the hospital who has been paying into the system for 40 years? Shouldn't she be treated like a paying customer instead of a freebie? It's aggravating. She is a very nervous person and is not happy with doing this, but has no choice.
Now comes my rationing theory --- when I was pregnant last year, I was kept overnight for observation due to complications. I received wonderful care, doctors checking on me, nurses coming in every hour to see me, etc. All because they cared about the little life inside me that was struggling. Two days later I had an emergency Csection at 33 weeks and a team of 9-12 people to make sure baby and I were okay. It was fantastic care, I was very pleased with all of it.
So why doesn't my mom receive that same special treatment? Is her health not as important as a new baby? Is her 64 year old body not as important at a 34 yr old or a fetus? All I got in my IV for my overnight stay was a saline IV (no meds) because I was a bit dehydrated. They had a bed ready for me immediately... but my mom gets sent home with a bag full of meds and vials and syringes, and literally ONE sheet of typed paper explaining how to do the IV (which was crap, made little sense to me, and I had to follow mom's verbal instructions instead). Why isn't she receiving top notch treatment in the same city, same province, same hospital? That's where the rationing theory comes into play - people that are older or sicker may not receive the same level of care as a younger person who has more to offer to the future of the world. Am I saying the theory is true? No - I can't say that. But it is highly suspect.
Canada's wonderful social care program - look after your own health at home and get your neighbour to help you, but make sure you pay your taxes to fund the very program that put you there. Mom said if she had the choice, she would pay to have her own hospital room and use her extended health insurance to buffer it. But - we DON'T have that choice. And people south of our border need to be aware of these circumstances because it might be happening to them soon too. The hospitals pick and choose who to keep in because they only have a certain amount of money for nursing staff, cleaning staff, food staff, etc and if they deem it too expensive to look after you on the social system, they will send you home with an IV kit to knock on your neighbour's doors for help too.
It's not that bad, I did it yesterday and will do it again today,, mom happened to find a retired nurse in her building to do the late night one so one trained person was found... but seriously, this is RIDICULOUS. She is almost 64, has never been in hospital in her life other than to give birth to my brother and I, and yet she is being sent home to administer her own IV medication. The next step involves a saline bag which we will literally have to hold in the air, instead of hanging on those special racks in the hospital. Yes I know a lot of people have to do medication like this at home, but that is usually long term home care (whether done by themselves or a home care nursing staff). This is for a week. What's wrong with putting a woman in the hospital who has been paying into the system for 40 years? Shouldn't she be treated like a paying customer instead of a freebie? It's aggravating. She is a very nervous person and is not happy with doing this, but has no choice.
Now comes my rationing theory --- when I was pregnant last year, I was kept overnight for observation due to complications. I received wonderful care, doctors checking on me, nurses coming in every hour to see me, etc. All because they cared about the little life inside me that was struggling. Two days later I had an emergency Csection at 33 weeks and a team of 9-12 people to make sure baby and I were okay. It was fantastic care, I was very pleased with all of it.
So why doesn't my mom receive that same special treatment? Is her health not as important as a new baby? Is her 64 year old body not as important at a 34 yr old or a fetus? All I got in my IV for my overnight stay was a saline IV (no meds) because I was a bit dehydrated. They had a bed ready for me immediately... but my mom gets sent home with a bag full of meds and vials and syringes, and literally ONE sheet of typed paper explaining how to do the IV (which was crap, made little sense to me, and I had to follow mom's verbal instructions instead). Why isn't she receiving top notch treatment in the same city, same province, same hospital? That's where the rationing theory comes into play - people that are older or sicker may not receive the same level of care as a younger person who has more to offer to the future of the world. Am I saying the theory is true? No - I can't say that. But it is highly suspect.
Canada's wonderful social care program - look after your own health at home and get your neighbour to help you, but make sure you pay your taxes to fund the very program that put you there. Mom said if she had the choice, she would pay to have her own hospital room and use her extended health insurance to buffer it. But - we DON'T have that choice. And people south of our border need to be aware of these circumstances because it might be happening to them soon too. The hospitals pick and choose who to keep in because they only have a certain amount of money for nursing staff, cleaning staff, food staff, etc and if they deem it too expensive to look after you on the social system, they will send you home with an IV kit to knock on your neighbour's doors for help too.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Update on Local Health Care issues
I just picked up my local newspaper and our Regional Hospital is not going ahead with previous plans to expand. Excerpts:
""Health Minister Ron Liepert confirmed Wednesday that Medicine Hat Regional Hospital will not be expanding as planned.
...The $280 million previously set aside for the project remains, but it could be closer to 5 years, rather than three, before the government may be in a position to flow the funding forward...
"I've got to tell you that just because something was proposed several years ago, it doesn't necessarily mean that we're bound to that in the future", he [Liepert] said. "I'm not going to be known 20 years down the road as the guy that just simply built hospitals..."
The comments were devastating to former Palliser Health Region board chair Carol Secondiak, who spent years fighting for the project. "It's been planned and planned and planned to death. But when times were good, we got nothing. Now it's bad and we still get nothing..."
Secondiak said a lot of money has been spent planning and reviewing the project, which the government previously listed as a priority. It is unclear how the status changed.
Mayor Norm Boucher says with the decrease in construction costs, now is the time to move forward... And with the growth of our community - not to mention Brooks mothers who now have to come to Medicine Hat to deliver their babies [I recently blogged about the closure of the Brooks Maternity ward], an increase in facility space is becoming more pressing.
Liepert also confirmed Wednesday the Bow Island Hospital remains under review to determine what services should be available in the future....Secondiak called it "the beginning of the end for small hospitals""
___
""Health Minister Ron Liepert confirmed Wednesday that Medicine Hat Regional Hospital will not be expanding as planned.
...The $280 million previously set aside for the project remains, but it could be closer to 5 years, rather than three, before the government may be in a position to flow the funding forward...
"I've got to tell you that just because something was proposed several years ago, it doesn't necessarily mean that we're bound to that in the future", he [Liepert] said. "I'm not going to be known 20 years down the road as the guy that just simply built hospitals..."
The comments were devastating to former Palliser Health Region board chair Carol Secondiak, who spent years fighting for the project. "It's been planned and planned and planned to death. But when times were good, we got nothing. Now it's bad and we still get nothing..."
Secondiak said a lot of money has been spent planning and reviewing the project, which the government previously listed as a priority. It is unclear how the status changed.
Mayor Norm Boucher says with the decrease in construction costs, now is the time to move forward... And with the growth of our community - not to mention Brooks mothers who now have to come to Medicine Hat to deliver their babies [I recently blogged about the closure of the Brooks Maternity ward], an increase in facility space is becoming more pressing.
Liepert also confirmed Wednesday the Bow Island Hospital remains under review to determine what services should be available in the future....Secondiak called it "the beginning of the end for small hospitals""
___
More Healthcare Cuts, are you surprised?
I saw this link via another news story posted by Calgary Rants (see blog listing).
Alberta to cut Chiropractor Care from Alberta Health Care plan
Here are some highlights from the article including other cuts. This is what I said was going to happen while everyone was cheering about the removal of the Premium fees in January, so I don't want to hear anyone that supported it complaining now. All you had to do was use your head and know that a free system is not sustainable. It's just NOT:
Albertans will no longer be able to claim chiropractic care as of this summer after the government delisted chiropractor services from its provincial health plan.
Alberta Health and Wellness is also pinching back on money for capital projects, spending $386 million less than last year to upgrade hospitals and continue construction already started.
The new health superboard is deferring several projects that were in its three-year plan, including one to expand the pediatric emergency room at the Stollery Children’s Hospital and a long-term care facility in Fort McMurray.
Several other large projects, including a much-anticipated $250-million hospital in Grande Prairie and an $88-million health centre in Sherwood Park, are being reviewed to see if they need to be chiseled back.
...health maintained its top spot for government spending, taking 40 per cent of the entire Alberta budget.
___________
Note the last line, 40% of the province's budget is spent on health care. How are all the other programs supposed to be funded when that 40% has already had to put a big dent in our tax dollars? Cigarette and Alcohol taxes are going up to try to compensate some of the loss, but will that help? For how long? What happens when all the naughty drinkers and smokers finally pack it in and stop? Where on earth will we get money to fund 'our' projects? That's pretty scary. I don't want Alberta to get worse and worse with health care. Transferring more things to the extended health coverage makes those premiums increase instead (like Blue Cross going up by leaps and bounds this year and next, which I previously posted about). Meanwhile, Albertans are facing higher unemployment, still going through a higher standard of living for rent, food, gas, etc... and will have to pay more and more for health care as well when we are supposed to have this wonderful Universal system. Are we going to be raked across the coals one day like Quebec is over the death of Natasha Richardson? If her accident happened here, STARS air ambulance might have whisked her away and she might still be alive, who knows. But that is a privately funded program, which Quebec does not have to my knowledge.
If our taxes increase, our health care goes up and more things are cut and sent over to extended health insurance, and our employment goes down, how are people here going to fare? It really is getting scary.
Another little note, last year my boyfriend got over a thousand dollars back from income tax, this year he only got $400 even though he paid more into pension and earned only a small amount more than last year... Last year I got over $1500 back but this year will be lucky to score $200. Where are our tax dollars even going? What is it doing for us, really? Too many programs to fund, taking up too much money, and here we are still going into a deficit instead of a surplus. It's revolting, really. I don't want my money taken if I am not going to get it back somewhere along the line. I could use that money for my own household, thanks. I think I'm going to need it.
___
Alberta to cut Chiropractor Care from Alberta Health Care plan
Here are some highlights from the article including other cuts. This is what I said was going to happen while everyone was cheering about the removal of the Premium fees in January, so I don't want to hear anyone that supported it complaining now. All you had to do was use your head and know that a free system is not sustainable. It's just NOT:
Albertans will no longer be able to claim chiropractic care as of this summer after the government delisted chiropractor services from its provincial health plan.
Alberta Health and Wellness is also pinching back on money for capital projects, spending $386 million less than last year to upgrade hospitals and continue construction already started.
The new health superboard is deferring several projects that were in its three-year plan, including one to expand the pediatric emergency room at the Stollery Children’s Hospital and a long-term care facility in Fort McMurray.
Several other large projects, including a much-anticipated $250-million hospital in Grande Prairie and an $88-million health centre in Sherwood Park, are being reviewed to see if they need to be chiseled back.
...health maintained its top spot for government spending, taking 40 per cent of the entire Alberta budget.
___________
Note the last line, 40% of the province's budget is spent on health care. How are all the other programs supposed to be funded when that 40% has already had to put a big dent in our tax dollars? Cigarette and Alcohol taxes are going up to try to compensate some of the loss, but will that help? For how long? What happens when all the naughty drinkers and smokers finally pack it in and stop? Where on earth will we get money to fund 'our' projects? That's pretty scary. I don't want Alberta to get worse and worse with health care. Transferring more things to the extended health coverage makes those premiums increase instead (like Blue Cross going up by leaps and bounds this year and next, which I previously posted about). Meanwhile, Albertans are facing higher unemployment, still going through a higher standard of living for rent, food, gas, etc... and will have to pay more and more for health care as well when we are supposed to have this wonderful Universal system. Are we going to be raked across the coals one day like Quebec is over the death of Natasha Richardson? If her accident happened here, STARS air ambulance might have whisked her away and she might still be alive, who knows. But that is a privately funded program, which Quebec does not have to my knowledge.
If our taxes increase, our health care goes up and more things are cut and sent over to extended health insurance, and our employment goes down, how are people here going to fare? It really is getting scary.
Another little note, last year my boyfriend got over a thousand dollars back from income tax, this year he only got $400 even though he paid more into pension and earned only a small amount more than last year... Last year I got over $1500 back but this year will be lucky to score $200. Where are our tax dollars even going? What is it doing for us, really? Too many programs to fund, taking up too much money, and here we are still going into a deficit instead of a surplus. It's revolting, really. I don't want my money taken if I am not going to get it back somewhere along the line. I could use that money for my own household, thanks. I think I'm going to need it.
___
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
More Alberta Health Services Closing
Here we go again - more services around Alberta are closing down, less than 2 months after the AHCI premium was ended. Surely if they ended the premium payments, that meant Alberta was doing awesome and didn't need the extra cash? Then what's with all the closures? Get ready for more, that's all I can say.
Banff closing Maternity Services due to nursing shortage
Brooks closing Maternity Services (note: I cannot find a link to this story on CFCN yet but that is where I watched the clip tonight, saying Brooks mothers have to go to Calgary or Medicine Hat now. This is also due to nursing shortages).
Oh and remember when I complained that my extended health insurance magically increased right before the Alberta Health premiums ended? Now it's happening with Blue Cross too. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. Hmm AHCI was $44/person and $88/family and now Blue Cross is increasing by $20ish/person and $41/family. Interesting. But don't let it stop there, it is also going to rise to over $60/person and $118/family next year. Sure they say it hasn't gone up since 1993, but it's still highly suspect all of this is going on around the axeing of basic premiums. And seeing as my extended health care increased in price but DECREASED in what it gives for benefits, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same from Blue Cross.
Again I say, if you were one of the people thrilled about getting free basic health care, shame on you! You HAD to know it would come out in different sectors instead. And might I remind you that low income families, seniors, and people receiving disability like AISH already got it for free (or reduced) so the only people getting it free now are the ones who should be able to afford paying 40 bucks a month. Shame Shame Shame. And shame on our supposedly conservative *coughBScough* premier for allowing this to happen. Things are going to deteriorate steadily and that is so disheartening. I do not want my children to grow up in a province where their care is not in tip top form, but what choice do I have? Moving to another province won't even solve that - check border towns to see how many BC and Sask residents come here instead. It's very sad and I feel trapped due to others' ridiculous idealogical utopian dreams that are not realistic in any way, shape or form.
Banff closing Maternity Services due to nursing shortage
Brooks closing Maternity Services (note: I cannot find a link to this story on CFCN yet but that is where I watched the clip tonight, saying Brooks mothers have to go to Calgary or Medicine Hat now. This is also due to nursing shortages).
Oh and remember when I complained that my extended health insurance magically increased right before the Alberta Health premiums ended? Now it's happening with Blue Cross too. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. Hmm AHCI was $44/person and $88/family and now Blue Cross is increasing by $20ish/person and $41/family. Interesting. But don't let it stop there, it is also going to rise to over $60/person and $118/family next year. Sure they say it hasn't gone up since 1993, but it's still highly suspect all of this is going on around the axeing of basic premiums. And seeing as my extended health care increased in price but DECREASED in what it gives for benefits, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same from Blue Cross.
Again I say, if you were one of the people thrilled about getting free basic health care, shame on you! You HAD to know it would come out in different sectors instead. And might I remind you that low income families, seniors, and people receiving disability like AISH already got it for free (or reduced) so the only people getting it free now are the ones who should be able to afford paying 40 bucks a month. Shame Shame Shame. And shame on our supposedly conservative *coughBScough* premier for allowing this to happen. Things are going to deteriorate steadily and that is so disheartening. I do not want my children to grow up in a province where their care is not in tip top form, but what choice do I have? Moving to another province won't even solve that - check border towns to see how many BC and Sask residents come here instead. It's very sad and I feel trapped due to others' ridiculous idealogical utopian dreams that are not realistic in any way, shape or form.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Healthcare Reforms?
Okay, so I was just reading an article about Obama's plans to send money to community health centers, in part to offer more services to those who are in need, and also in part to reduce the number of people using Emergency Rooms as their 'clinic'... one particular line jumped right out at me: """That helps relieve the burden on emergency rooms across the country, which have become primary care clinics for too many who lack coverage -- often at taxpayer expense."""
Ummm... HELLO... the money given to the community centers IS tax payer's money. So how is it any different at all from them going to an ER and using tax payers' money?? Seriously... WHAT?
It goes on to say it could create 5500 jobs... okay BUT the money is from TAXPAYERS not from PRODUCING ANYTHING... so.... tell me if I'm wrong, but does that not mean those people will only ever be paid by the govt (AKA TAX PAYERS MONEY)? How is that stimulating the economy, to constantly transfer money to these health centers when people don't have to pay for it directly? This just boggles my brain, that people cannot see what is plainly and clearly right in front of their faces. Your tax dollars are going to pay for the center, the staff, the supplies, the equipment, the cleaning, the sterilizing, and treatments, the prescriptions, etc while the people attending the center are not paying it back through patient fees. But it was so hilarious to read that they want to move people out of going to the ERs for care because it is at the tax payers' expense... it's at their expense to send them to clinics too. HELLO??????? Anyone out there????
Ummm... HELLO... the money given to the community centers IS tax payer's money. So how is it any different at all from them going to an ER and using tax payers' money?? Seriously... WHAT?
It goes on to say it could create 5500 jobs... okay BUT the money is from TAXPAYERS not from PRODUCING ANYTHING... so.... tell me if I'm wrong, but does that not mean those people will only ever be paid by the govt (AKA TAX PAYERS MONEY)? How is that stimulating the economy, to constantly transfer money to these health centers when people don't have to pay for it directly? This just boggles my brain, that people cannot see what is plainly and clearly right in front of their faces. Your tax dollars are going to pay for the center, the staff, the supplies, the equipment, the cleaning, the sterilizing, and treatments, the prescriptions, etc while the people attending the center are not paying it back through patient fees. But it was so hilarious to read that they want to move people out of going to the ERs for care because it is at the tax payers' expense... it's at their expense to send them to clinics too. HELLO??????? Anyone out there????
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Enticement and Manipulation of Facts
On a little trip around the web, I have found so many people speaking of the Glorious Speech by the president last night. Everyone talking about a positive outlook, hope for America, amazed by the charisma of the new Prez, and so on. But that's not quite what I got out of it, as I had to turn it off after Pelosi's continual gymnastics. It was very distracting. I noted many general comments (such as assuring the people that America will come through this [recession]) - general because there was nothing to say that THESE plans are going to do it. If you say something general like that, it could mean 'sure, one day America is bound to come out of this, but I don't know if it will be 5 years or 20 or 50 years'. But people I have talked to took it to mean HE will bring them through this asap. That is not what the president said. I also heard some interesting twisting of words, such as the 'every 30 seconds, someone goes bankrupt because of health care costs' remark that stirred the audience to their feet. I tried to find info on that direct statement of 'facts' this morning and what I discovered was a anything from a clever manipulation of words to the realization that the figure would mean over 1 million bankruptcies because of health care costs each year, when the TOTAL number of filings was 1 million (or less). Perhaps many of those people cited medical costs as ONE of the reasons for filing, but his speech directly said ""And for that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds. ""
Does it 'cause' or 'contribute'? Those are two very different words. That is why I suggest that this is a clever manipulation of words designed to entice people into supporting a nationalized/universal health care program. If you make people who are not struggling, or not struggling 'too badly' feel guilty that others are going bankrupt 'because of' medical costs, they will be more willing to have their tax dollars diverted. But this is where the deception comes in. Even sites that are supportive of the 'every 30 seconds' rhetoric leave little clues about the misrepresentation of facts. 'Facts' such as ""Health care costs contribute to an estimated 25 percent of housing problems."" for example (taken from the provided link). Does that factor in people who bought a house that was outside of their means? Is it really a health care issue if the family bought a home that they could not actually afford, and therefore if they purchased within their means, they may actually have been able to afford the medical treatments? Or ""Health costs are a factor in half of personal bankruptcies. Since 2000, an estimated 5 million families have filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems."" - I have also seen stats that say anything from 5% to 17% cited medical costs as a factor, but let's go with 'half'. That also does not take into account what their lifestyle was before the medical costs became an issue. What if they had a boat, new car, new house, new furniture, making payments on all of the above and then whammo, they were hit with a huge medical bill? What if they were already stretched to the hilt with paying for luxuries? Does that change your mind about their ensuing medical costs? It also does not take into account that often times, SEVERAL reasons for the bankruptcy are listed - gambling debt, job loss, lack of insurance (which is NOT always because a family can't afford it, there are also people who simply don't get it because they don't think they will need it, and then eat their words later). That is why the president's words were misleading and don't tell me he didn't know that!!!
I have had people tell me this morning that many do not have insurance because they can't afford it. Granted, some of the costs are ridiculous in my opinion! Atrocious amounts to pay each month (like a married friend with no children who pays over $300/month), but people also need to take into account WHY the premiums might be rising. Is it because of greedy insurance companies alone, or is it also because there ARE a large number of people who get their treatments for free or never pay their bill to the hospital/medical professional, and then the rising costs are spread throughout the system to those who ARE paying? It always makes me think of the signs in stores that say Shoplifting Hurts Everyone - Prices Will Rise to Compensate for Loss. When I was a teen, I didn't understand that, but as I have gotten old and crusty, I see that a business cannot run on losses all the time and therefore the prices rise in response to the loss. So you have to really think about the wording of reports you read and speeches you hear. Look up the information for YOURSELF. If you still agree after doing your own investigating, that is of course your Right. But if you blindly follow another's words, that is dangerous business.
Think about the complaints about GW Bush over the past several years. People called him arrogant, said he was a liar, said he twisted words to trick people into believing his plans would work, spent the country into oblivion, the Iraq War, etc - and he left office with a 20% or so 'approval rate'. But those same people are now excusing Obama for his own 'lies' (no earmarks), twisted words (every 30 seconds), excessive spending (Stimulus), sending troops to Afghanistan instead and have his approval rating ranging between 69 and 59% (noting it has dropped 10% since taking office). It is very frustrating.
I think it's also interesting to look at the Market Reaction. If this was supposed to be an inspiring and hopeful speech, why aren't the markets showing it yet? I think youshould also take some time at the WSJ site and punch in random dates on the DOW chart page because if you look at the stock market while Clinton was in power, it is considerably lower than when GW Bush was in, then it gradually climbs under Bush, and the starts to drop in the last year or so and has now been dropping lower and lower since Obama was inaugerated. Is that Bush's fault? The market LOOKS FORWARD, from my understanding, looking at what is happening right now and what it's effect is going to be in the future. Does it look Back at Bush who is now gone along with the Republican control? I thought it was supposed to look Forward and see the light, see the hope, see the fantastic change that America needs. People invest their money in hopes of making more, getting a good return. If investors see a bright future, why are stocks hitting as low as they were in 1997 and worse? Why was the dow at over 13,000 in May 2008 and now it is barely 7000? It looks FORWARD and it does NOT like what it sees.
Does it 'cause' or 'contribute'? Those are two very different words. That is why I suggest that this is a clever manipulation of words designed to entice people into supporting a nationalized/universal health care program. If you make people who are not struggling, or not struggling 'too badly' feel guilty that others are going bankrupt 'because of' medical costs, they will be more willing to have their tax dollars diverted. But this is where the deception comes in. Even sites that are supportive of the 'every 30 seconds' rhetoric leave little clues about the misrepresentation of facts. 'Facts' such as ""Health care costs contribute to an estimated 25 percent of housing problems."" for example (taken from the provided link). Does that factor in people who bought a house that was outside of their means? Is it really a health care issue if the family bought a home that they could not actually afford, and therefore if they purchased within their means, they may actually have been able to afford the medical treatments? Or ""Health costs are a factor in half of personal bankruptcies. Since 2000, an estimated 5 million families have filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems."" - I have also seen stats that say anything from 5% to 17% cited medical costs as a factor, but let's go with 'half'. That also does not take into account what their lifestyle was before the medical costs became an issue. What if they had a boat, new car, new house, new furniture, making payments on all of the above and then whammo, they were hit with a huge medical bill? What if they were already stretched to the hilt with paying for luxuries? Does that change your mind about their ensuing medical costs? It also does not take into account that often times, SEVERAL reasons for the bankruptcy are listed - gambling debt, job loss, lack of insurance (which is NOT always because a family can't afford it, there are also people who simply don't get it because they don't think they will need it, and then eat their words later). That is why the president's words were misleading and don't tell me he didn't know that!!!
I have had people tell me this morning that many do not have insurance because they can't afford it. Granted, some of the costs are ridiculous in my opinion! Atrocious amounts to pay each month (like a married friend with no children who pays over $300/month), but people also need to take into account WHY the premiums might be rising. Is it because of greedy insurance companies alone, or is it also because there ARE a large number of people who get their treatments for free or never pay their bill to the hospital/medical professional, and then the rising costs are spread throughout the system to those who ARE paying? It always makes me think of the signs in stores that say Shoplifting Hurts Everyone - Prices Will Rise to Compensate for Loss. When I was a teen, I didn't understand that, but as I have gotten old and crusty, I see that a business cannot run on losses all the time and therefore the prices rise in response to the loss. So you have to really think about the wording of reports you read and speeches you hear. Look up the information for YOURSELF. If you still agree after doing your own investigating, that is of course your Right. But if you blindly follow another's words, that is dangerous business.
Think about the complaints about GW Bush over the past several years. People called him arrogant, said he was a liar, said he twisted words to trick people into believing his plans would work, spent the country into oblivion, the Iraq War, etc - and he left office with a 20% or so 'approval rate'. But those same people are now excusing Obama for his own 'lies' (no earmarks), twisted words (every 30 seconds), excessive spending (Stimulus), sending troops to Afghanistan instead and have his approval rating ranging between 69 and 59% (noting it has dropped 10% since taking office). It is very frustrating.
I think it's also interesting to look at the Market Reaction. If this was supposed to be an inspiring and hopeful speech, why aren't the markets showing it yet? I think youshould also take some time at the WSJ site and punch in random dates on the DOW chart page because if you look at the stock market while Clinton was in power, it is considerably lower than when GW Bush was in, then it gradually climbs under Bush, and the starts to drop in the last year or so and has now been dropping lower and lower since Obama was inaugerated. Is that Bush's fault? The market LOOKS FORWARD, from my understanding, looking at what is happening right now and what it's effect is going to be in the future. Does it look Back at Bush who is now gone along with the Republican control? I thought it was supposed to look Forward and see the light, see the hope, see the fantastic change that America needs. People invest their money in hopes of making more, getting a good return. If investors see a bright future, why are stocks hitting as low as they were in 1997 and worse? Why was the dow at over 13,000 in May 2008 and now it is barely 7000? It looks FORWARD and it does NOT like what it sees.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Gee, What A Surprise...
Yeah so I b*tched about how Alberta stopped charging it's residents a premium for basic health care in Jan 2009, because I worried what the sudden stoppage of funding would do. From program cuts to crappier services... and it is happening already.
The Alberta Health Services are talking about a fast-moving axe to the neck of cytology labs in 3 cities, in order to centralize in Calgary and Edmonton. The following appeared in the Medicine Hat News (I do not have a link but I assure you it is an unaltered copy/paste):
Medicine Hat News
Local - Thursday, Thursday, February 19, 2009, p. A3
Concern for jobs with further health service centralization
Chris Brown
TENILLE TELLMAN
ttellman@medicinehatnews.com
Centralizing health service supports does little for community development or quality care for Alberta patients, the provincial Friends of Medicare said Wednesday.
Alberta Health Services (AHS) plans to consolidate gynecological cytology laboratory services for the entire province. Almost 20 providers of laboratory services are listed as having the capability and experience to submit applications to a request for proposal (RFP) issued earlier this month.
At least one local lab is engaged in a proposal and cannot publicly discuss their application.
A memo sent to all AHS lab administrative and medical directors says the consolidation would move ahead as soon after April 1 as possible. Decisions on proposals are supposed to be made on March 20.
A few cytotechnologists are speaking out on the issue through a Facebook group because they want the public to be informed about this move. They also suggest quality control could be compromised if all pap smears were observed at a central lab.
David Eggen, executive director of the Alberta Friends of Medicare (FOM) questions what impact the centralization will have on the timeliness of returning test results to Alberta patients and how many jobs it will take from Alberta communities.
"The economy runs up against best practices for health. This is a common problem and it highlights again the fact that health care is not just a commodity that you can use the same economic principles on as selling pizzas or building things," said Eggen. "It's a human resource that must be developed close to all population centres, you can't just centralize it for the sake of the economy."
AHS should be providing Albertans with a full picture of this initiative and state whether or not other lab testing services will also be centralized, he says. Decisions to move services from communities are being made without public knowledge and the FOM is concerned about this lack of transparency.
The comment was echoed by Alberta Liberal Leader and shadow health minister Dr. David Swann. He says it's hard to support the changes when there is no explanation of who made the decision, why they made it or who will benefit.
It also raises questions whether private labs would end up being more accessible and monitored as closely as public labs to ensure quality.
However, a slight increase of costs is not a bad thing if government is prepared to show there is a real benefit to the patients.
"One could argue that you could put up a little bit of extra cost for transport if you're getting better quality and better affordability otherwise," said Swann. "It's not at all clear that's the case."
Category: News
Uniform subject(s): Health and social services
Length: Medium, 360 words
© 2009 Medicine Hat News. All rights reserved.
Okay so what's next eh? Are the people out there who cheered about not paying the miniscule premium of $44 or $88 a month happy now? I knew that things would be chopped and axed and it is NOT WORTH IT. It is not worth the risk to patients for longer wait times, not to mention relying on slides to be transported 3 to 5 hours away safely and not be compromised, resulting in incorrect analysis. The list goes on for why this is not a good idea. There are over 60,000 people in this city, not to mention all of the outlying small towns and rural area, and each program that gets centralized pushes us back to even longer waiting times. Is that a responsible way for the govt to work on 'our behalf'? But anyone who was thrilled with not paying a premium - this falls on your shoulders too. I did not want this for free because I knew that free meant running out of funding, and cuts to programs. And here we are in February learning of at least one cut, affecting hundreds of thousands of people in and around 3 'smaller' cities. Nice one!
The Alberta Health Services are talking about a fast-moving axe to the neck of cytology labs in 3 cities, in order to centralize in Calgary and Edmonton. The following appeared in the Medicine Hat News (I do not have a link but I assure you it is an unaltered copy/paste):
Medicine Hat News
Local - Thursday, Thursday, February 19, 2009, p. A3
Concern for jobs with further health service centralization
Chris Brown
TENILLE TELLMAN
ttellman@medicinehatnews.com
Centralizing health service supports does little for community development or quality care for Alberta patients, the provincial Friends of Medicare said Wednesday.
Alberta Health Services (AHS) plans to consolidate gynecological cytology laboratory services for the entire province. Almost 20 providers of laboratory services are listed as having the capability and experience to submit applications to a request for proposal (RFP) issued earlier this month.
At least one local lab is engaged in a proposal and cannot publicly discuss their application.
A memo sent to all AHS lab administrative and medical directors says the consolidation would move ahead as soon after April 1 as possible. Decisions on proposals are supposed to be made on March 20.
A few cytotechnologists are speaking out on the issue through a Facebook group because they want the public to be informed about this move. They also suggest quality control could be compromised if all pap smears were observed at a central lab.
David Eggen, executive director of the Alberta Friends of Medicare (FOM) questions what impact the centralization will have on the timeliness of returning test results to Alberta patients and how many jobs it will take from Alberta communities.
"The economy runs up against best practices for health. This is a common problem and it highlights again the fact that health care is not just a commodity that you can use the same economic principles on as selling pizzas or building things," said Eggen. "It's a human resource that must be developed close to all population centres, you can't just centralize it for the sake of the economy."
AHS should be providing Albertans with a full picture of this initiative and state whether or not other lab testing services will also be centralized, he says. Decisions to move services from communities are being made without public knowledge and the FOM is concerned about this lack of transparency.
The comment was echoed by Alberta Liberal Leader and shadow health minister Dr. David Swann. He says it's hard to support the changes when there is no explanation of who made the decision, why they made it or who will benefit.
It also raises questions whether private labs would end up being more accessible and monitored as closely as public labs to ensure quality.
However, a slight increase of costs is not a bad thing if government is prepared to show there is a real benefit to the patients.
"One could argue that you could put up a little bit of extra cost for transport if you're getting better quality and better affordability otherwise," said Swann. "It's not at all clear that's the case."
Category: News
Uniform subject(s): Health and social services
Length: Medium, 360 words
© 2009 Medicine Hat News. All rights reserved.
Okay so what's next eh? Are the people out there who cheered about not paying the miniscule premium of $44 or $88 a month happy now? I knew that things would be chopped and axed and it is NOT WORTH IT. It is not worth the risk to patients for longer wait times, not to mention relying on slides to be transported 3 to 5 hours away safely and not be compromised, resulting in incorrect analysis. The list goes on for why this is not a good idea. There are over 60,000 people in this city, not to mention all of the outlying small towns and rural area, and each program that gets centralized pushes us back to even longer waiting times. Is that a responsible way for the govt to work on 'our behalf'? But anyone who was thrilled with not paying a premium - this falls on your shoulders too. I did not want this for free because I knew that free meant running out of funding, and cuts to programs. And here we are in February learning of at least one cut, affecting hundreds of thousands of people in and around 3 'smaller' cities. Nice one!
Monday, February 9, 2009
Mike Church on Healthcare (transcript)
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
[Clip] President Obama: ...fulfill one of the highest responsibilities that we have, to ensure the health and well-being of our nation’s children. It’s a responsibility that’s only grown more urgent as our economic crisis deepens, as healthcare costs have exploded, and millions of working families are unable to afford health insurance. Today in America eight million children are still uninsured. More than 45 million Americans altogether. And it’s hard to overstate the toll this takes on families, the sleepless nights worrying about somebody getting hurt or praying the sick child gets better on her own.
Mike: Listen.
[Clip] Obama: The decisions that no parent should ever have to make.
Mike: Really.
[Clip] Obama: How long to put off that doctor’s appointment, whether to fill that prescription, whether to let a child play outside knowing that all it takes is one accident, one injury...
Mike: All right, that’s it.
[Clip] Obama: ...to send your family...
Mike: Let him finish that sentence there. Let me hear the part about kids aren’t allowed to play outside now because Dad is worried about a hospital bill. Go ahead, play it.
[Clip] Obama: ...to send your family into financial ruin.
Mike: Back it up 10 seconds.
[Clip] Obama: Families joining us to...
Mike: Back it up 10 seconds.
[Clip] Obama: ...getting hurt, or praying – more than 45 million Americans altogether. And it’s hard to overstate the toll this takes on families, the sleepless nights worrying about somebody getting hurt, or praying the sick child gets better on her on. The decisions that no parent should ever have to make, how long to put off that doctor’s appointment, whether to fill that prescription, whether to let a child play outside knowing that all it takes is one accident, one injury, to send your family into financial ruin.
Mike: All right. That’s what I wanted to hear. Do you believe this is coming out of the mouth of the President of the United States of America, insinuating that there are people out there, and that it is so bad – and let me tell you wascally wabbits something at work in the healthcare industry. Why don’t we just find all these doctors that won’t do these doctor’s visits, and let’s just round ‘em up and kill ‘em. I got a better idea. Why don’t we all just – why don’t we just chain them to a pole right in the middle of the school ground? How about that? Hey, it’s your day at the pole, pal. You shiftless, worthless loser. You went to med school, and you think you can charge for a doctor’s visit? Who in the hell do you think you are? Step inside this stockade, sir. And that goes for you, too, Miss Licensed Practical Nurse, practicing nurse. You will stand here, and you will care for these children because you were going to charge them. And you will see them for free. And if they need a prescription, well, then, dammit, you’ll go and pay for it. And you, Mr. Shiftless Evil Despicable Drug Company, you think that you need to pay people to do research and development for new drugs to save people’s lives? Well, your days are over, pal. Nobody gets paid to save a life anymore. We all do it for free.
If I worked in the medical profession, I would be livid over this. I also am livid and take offense at this, at the insinuation that the rest of us out here that aren’t groveling and do what must be done to care for our children, and don’t put off a doctor visit because, you know what Mr. President, I happen to have spoken with Dr. Tom Coburn, I happen to have spoken with Dr. Ron Paul, and I happen to know that they never refuse care. If somebody doesn’t have the 50 bucks for the office visit, don’t worry, bring them in, we want to see your child. This is a lie. This is the kind of demagoguery and fear mongering this guy runs around accusing other people of. And he insinuates that they’re just a bunch, a bunch of heartless, uncompassionate, uncaring people in the medical industry. And if you just turned it over to the government, and if everyone else pays for your kid’s subsistence, well, then, it’ll all be better.
** my note: of course the medical professionals are not going to do these things for free, The govt will pay them - but how much? Will they receive the same type of pay they are receiving now or will they all have to take pay cuts because the money will have to come from the public pot? Do you know how many doctors and nurses have left Canada in order to practice in the United States? I don't know the stats either but the documentary I watched last year suggested as many as 10% left, or perhaps more. They trained here and then got the heck out. Think about how much money is going to be needed for a Universal Health Care program!! All of the people will receive every visit, xray, cast, stitch, mammogram, physical, sore throat check, treatments, etc for free (using everyone's tax money). And the nurses, doctors, specialists, support staff, technicians, etc will be paid with tax money. As well, the institutions themselves will need tax money to keep running - equipment, utilities, cleaning staff, disinfectant, disease control measures, security, repairs, you name it. And the drug companies will need to pay for their staff, buildings, research, support staff, and so on with tax money. WHOA. Where is all that money going to come from?? Honestly, think about it. What about your local pharmacy that makes money to pay it's staff by charging a small fee on prescriptions? If you get them for free, who is going to pay the pharmacist and assistants? Tax payer pot too I guess eh? Tax money already gets used for a zillion different things like paying all govt employees, roads, bridges, police, fire, etc does it not (property taxes, etc locally)? How are you going to pay for even more with universal health care????
I am not saying it is a bad idea, why would it be bad to make sure that people can be cared for without losing their home due to bills? It would be wonderful = but is it REALISTIC? Is it PRACTICAL? Is it even POSSIBLE?? That is what people need to think about. The money isn't from a bottomless pit, especially since the US is already over 10 trillion dollars in debt with more being added. Just think of the crippling cost of paying for universal health care and ask yourself if it is even feasible.
One more thought - what if your specialist has to take a pay cut and loses HIS home instead? Because of seeing you and every other patient for 'free' and having to bill the govt and receive less money, what if he loses what he has built for himself all this time? That is another possibility. If so many others are losing their homes because they cannot afford them or have to sell and move to something smaller, could that not happen to your doctors and nurses now too? The very people we rely on to save our lives having to pack up and move just because you wanted free health care? Hmm... just another something to think about.
[Clip] President Obama: ...fulfill one of the highest responsibilities that we have, to ensure the health and well-being of our nation’s children. It’s a responsibility that’s only grown more urgent as our economic crisis deepens, as healthcare costs have exploded, and millions of working families are unable to afford health insurance. Today in America eight million children are still uninsured. More than 45 million Americans altogether. And it’s hard to overstate the toll this takes on families, the sleepless nights worrying about somebody getting hurt or praying the sick child gets better on her own.
Mike: Listen.
[Clip] Obama: The decisions that no parent should ever have to make.
Mike: Really.
[Clip] Obama: How long to put off that doctor’s appointment, whether to fill that prescription, whether to let a child play outside knowing that all it takes is one accident, one injury...
Mike: All right, that’s it.
[Clip] Obama: ...to send your family...
Mike: Let him finish that sentence there. Let me hear the part about kids aren’t allowed to play outside now because Dad is worried about a hospital bill. Go ahead, play it.
[Clip] Obama: ...to send your family into financial ruin.
Mike: Back it up 10 seconds.
[Clip] Obama: Families joining us to...
Mike: Back it up 10 seconds.
[Clip] Obama: ...getting hurt, or praying – more than 45 million Americans altogether. And it’s hard to overstate the toll this takes on families, the sleepless nights worrying about somebody getting hurt, or praying the sick child gets better on her on. The decisions that no parent should ever have to make, how long to put off that doctor’s appointment, whether to fill that prescription, whether to let a child play outside knowing that all it takes is one accident, one injury, to send your family into financial ruin.
Mike: All right. That’s what I wanted to hear. Do you believe this is coming out of the mouth of the President of the United States of America, insinuating that there are people out there, and that it is so bad – and let me tell you wascally wabbits something at work in the healthcare industry. Why don’t we just find all these doctors that won’t do these doctor’s visits, and let’s just round ‘em up and kill ‘em. I got a better idea. Why don’t we all just – why don’t we just chain them to a pole right in the middle of the school ground? How about that? Hey, it’s your day at the pole, pal. You shiftless, worthless loser. You went to med school, and you think you can charge for a doctor’s visit? Who in the hell do you think you are? Step inside this stockade, sir. And that goes for you, too, Miss Licensed Practical Nurse, practicing nurse. You will stand here, and you will care for these children because you were going to charge them. And you will see them for free. And if they need a prescription, well, then, dammit, you’ll go and pay for it. And you, Mr. Shiftless Evil Despicable Drug Company, you think that you need to pay people to do research and development for new drugs to save people’s lives? Well, your days are over, pal. Nobody gets paid to save a life anymore. We all do it for free.
If I worked in the medical profession, I would be livid over this. I also am livid and take offense at this, at the insinuation that the rest of us out here that aren’t groveling and do what must be done to care for our children, and don’t put off a doctor visit because, you know what Mr. President, I happen to have spoken with Dr. Tom Coburn, I happen to have spoken with Dr. Ron Paul, and I happen to know that they never refuse care. If somebody doesn’t have the 50 bucks for the office visit, don’t worry, bring them in, we want to see your child. This is a lie. This is the kind of demagoguery and fear mongering this guy runs around accusing other people of. And he insinuates that they’re just a bunch, a bunch of heartless, uncompassionate, uncaring people in the medical industry. And if you just turned it over to the government, and if everyone else pays for your kid’s subsistence, well, then, it’ll all be better.
** my note: of course the medical professionals are not going to do these things for free, The govt will pay them - but how much? Will they receive the same type of pay they are receiving now or will they all have to take pay cuts because the money will have to come from the public pot? Do you know how many doctors and nurses have left Canada in order to practice in the United States? I don't know the stats either but the documentary I watched last year suggested as many as 10% left, or perhaps more. They trained here and then got the heck out. Think about how much money is going to be needed for a Universal Health Care program!! All of the people will receive every visit, xray, cast, stitch, mammogram, physical, sore throat check, treatments, etc for free (using everyone's tax money). And the nurses, doctors, specialists, support staff, technicians, etc will be paid with tax money. As well, the institutions themselves will need tax money to keep running - equipment, utilities, cleaning staff, disinfectant, disease control measures, security, repairs, you name it. And the drug companies will need to pay for their staff, buildings, research, support staff, and so on with tax money. WHOA. Where is all that money going to come from?? Honestly, think about it. What about your local pharmacy that makes money to pay it's staff by charging a small fee on prescriptions? If you get them for free, who is going to pay the pharmacist and assistants? Tax payer pot too I guess eh? Tax money already gets used for a zillion different things like paying all govt employees, roads, bridges, police, fire, etc does it not (property taxes, etc locally)? How are you going to pay for even more with universal health care????
I am not saying it is a bad idea, why would it be bad to make sure that people can be cared for without losing their home due to bills? It would be wonderful = but is it REALISTIC? Is it PRACTICAL? Is it even POSSIBLE?? That is what people need to think about. The money isn't from a bottomless pit, especially since the US is already over 10 trillion dollars in debt with more being added. Just think of the crippling cost of paying for universal health care and ask yourself if it is even feasible.
One more thought - what if your specialist has to take a pay cut and loses HIS home instead? Because of seeing you and every other patient for 'free' and having to bill the govt and receive less money, what if he loses what he has built for himself all this time? That is another possibility. If so many others are losing their homes because they cannot afford them or have to sell and move to something smaller, could that not happen to your doctors and nurses now too? The very people we rely on to save our lives having to pack up and move just because you wanted free health care? Hmm... just another something to think about.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Random Thought
One more little blurb/thought about the health care changes - are specialists going to be paid the same amount they are now? Maybe some people think they get 'too much' but I am in awe of surgeons and specialists. They do a job very few can. In fact, there is one in Texas who was the only person able to do a specific surgery on a particular debilitating genetic disorder (that for the life of me, I can never remember the name of). There is a little girl in my city that travels with her family to Texas a few times a year for him to operate on her. Without him, she would have died. He is old and going to retire soon. He had a heart attack and had to shorten his surgeries for others with this or similar conditions from 3 to 1 a day. He is a miracle worker and the family feels he is worth every penny they have to pay (multiple thousands). He is trying to train others to do the same procedures but I have not heard if any have been successful yet... It is an extremely difficult surgery that needs to be done multiple times as the child grows. Will he get the pay that he deserves if national health is involved? I can't imagine what some of these surgeons and specialists have to do every day, they do not deserve to have their pay reduced if the national system cannot keep up with their current wages. I would like to know what's going to happen with that.
The canadian system mostly runs on a fee-per-visit option. I don't know for sure what happens with specialists but there are NO Canadian doctors willing to do that surgery up here (or none able to). Why should they get a fee-per-visit on such a specialized and highly dangerous, difficult, and time-consuming procedure? But that is what happens up here as far as I can find.
I know that Wiki is not the best for examples lol but most of the article has citations to check out, so that's what I look for.
Anyway I am just wondering how these specialists and surgeons are going to keep getting the same pay if things become totally nationalized..... most of the richer docs I know in my town actually come from family money and/or have separate business ventures going on outside the medical field.
The canadian system mostly runs on a fee-per-visit option. I don't know for sure what happens with specialists but there are NO Canadian doctors willing to do that surgery up here (or none able to). Why should they get a fee-per-visit on such a specialized and highly dangerous, difficult, and time-consuming procedure? But that is what happens up here as far as I can find.
I know that Wiki is not the best for examples lol but most of the article has citations to check out, so that's what I look for.
Anyway I am just wondering how these specialists and surgeons are going to keep getting the same pay if things become totally nationalized..... most of the richer docs I know in my town actually come from family money and/or have separate business ventures going on outside the medical field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)