Win a $100 Gift Certificate for Asics Shoes
Fit After Thirty
Jul
23
Throwing Baby Out With Bath Water Bad Idea


Recently, I have been researching the content of the proposed universal healthcare bill, and the possible benefits and/or negative ramifications it would have on the health of Americans. A couple things stand out in my research. A provision in the bill states that members of Congress would be exempt from having to participate personally, in a government-run healthcare system. In other words, they get to continue receiving private healthcare. If the government plan would be an improvement in what we have, why wouldn’t Congress members want to be on it?

Also, why are people in countries with free healthcare, currently coming to the United States in droves for their medical treatment, under our private system? If the public healthcare systems in European countries are so good, why do virtually all of the diplomats and VIPs in those countries, come to America for their major healthcare treatments and procedures?

The answer to all of these questions is because the quality of the U.S. private healthcare system is far superior to universal healthcare in other countries. Evidence of this can be seen inĀ these cancer survival rates in the private U.S. system vs. the free/public systems of Canada and Europe.

Obviously, improvements can and probably should be made to the current system, which seems to protect insurance companies to the detriment of patients, at times. But if people think insurance companies put up financial limits and barriers to which treatments they can get, consider that the government would have to implement even more procedure and treatment limitations, in order to make it affordable. What does that mean for you and me? Here are some examples of treatment scenarios that frustrate Canadians, and cause many of them to cross the border into the U.S. to get treatment:

If you want an elective knee surgery in a timely manner, you may wait years. You may not get it paid for at all, if the government doesn’t deem it necessary.

If you want a quick diagnosis for symptoms you are having, you may not get to see a doctor for several months.

If you are considered too old, or your disease too terminal, you may be told that it’s not worth the cost to treat you.

Perhaps there is a reason that the U.S. system is “six times more expensive” than the nationalized plans of other industrialized nations. Because quality products generally cost more.

3 Comments
 
T.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:04 am
 

*Rich* people come to America for healthcare. Our health care system is fine if you have the money to pay for premium services. But if you’re a regular Joe who receives health care through her employer, it’s a horrible system, and millions of people have no coverage at all.

Having lived in a country with universal healthcare for some time (albeit not Canada), I can tell you the system was fantastic. I don’t think you’ve ever had to deal with the prospect of not having health insurance; otherwise you would understand why reform is necessary.

AnonyMiss
July 24th, 2009 at 9:12 am
 

I cringe every time an article by fatsuzy shows up on my reader. She consistiently presents over-simplified and often factually suspicious (or at least statistically misconstriued) information. Like a bored housewife or a fox news watcher.

Other countries apply a quality of living quotent to cancer treatments, meaning that while yes, you may live 6 months longer with this $2,000,000 tratement, it’s too expensive for your government and won’t susbtantially improve or elongate your life.

The only people recieving good health care in America are the people who can afford it. And THAT fact is not true in other countries. Period.

fatsuzy
July 31st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
 

You have something against housewives, AnonyMiss? Actually, you are wrong on both counts. I am not a housewife, nor am I getting my information from Fox. I get most of my news from the BBC and NPR because American television media seems to be in place to fuel one side or the other of the political fence, and is quite biased in one direction of the other, almost at all times. Fox leans right and CNN leans left.

The research on the health matters for this particular article, however, came from the National Center for Policy Analysis, as well as interviews with several doctors who treat Canadian patients traveling from north of the border to get treatment.

Your last line gives me the impression that you think I believe there should be NO healthcare option available for the indigent in America. That is not the case. I just do not believe that the health system as a whole, needs to be hurt in the process of making it happen. I believe the current bills, as written, would do just that.

Leave a Reply