Butler Eagle Online ::Butler County's great daily newspaper:: Editorial

Bookmark our site!


Site last updated: Friday, November 20, 2009

NEWS

SPORTS

BUSINESS

ARTS/ENTERTAINMENT

OBITUARIES

EDITORIAL

FOCUS

Published: November 5, 2009

Save

Don't copy Canada's system

I am trying to understand why I should want government-operated health care similar to the Canadian system.
There are people in Canada who have developed a business of brokering health care in the United States for their Canadian clients who cannot obtain the necessary care in Canada.
Why do I want a plan like that if it does not provide the care I need?
Dr. Robert McDivitt, a Butler County native and graduate of Yale Medical School, has written more than 150 articles on breast cancer. He estimates that a woman in Canada who develops breast cancer has a chance of survival that is 50 percent less than a woman in the United States.
Why do I want those odds for the women in our country?
They tell me our system is broken and should be replaced. If this is true, why do people travel from all over the world to receive care here?
If the health care system that members of Congress are proposing is so much better than the current system, why are they exempting themselves from coverage under the proposed plan?
Why are people so naïve to think Congress can run a health care system more efficiently and less expensively than the private sector?
When has our government ever done anything better and cheaper than private companies?
Nothing in this world is perfect, including our current health care system. But to think that the government can operate a plan more efficiently and more economically is ludicrous.

William L. McCarrier Sr.
Butler Township

Back


READER COMMENTS
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to." Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind." Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run. This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted." No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522680235765894.html LeRoy Williams \| Nov 10, 2009 11:43 am \| Request Removal I gave you the directions to look it up. Look up health care polls, or majority of Americans like health care. You'll find articles on both sides. Or do a search for NICE denials and see the horror stories, but realize when NICE denies care there are no other options, unlike our system where you can find another avenue. Or, look up Cancer survival rates, and there you will actually find except for stomach cancer you have a better chance of dying in the UK or Canada. Or, you can go back to an econ 101 text and see what happens when the price of something is reduced (demand goes up). And, look for the AMA 2008 report that shows Medicare, the crowning example of government health care, has higher denial rates than private insurance (there are plenty of articles on this too). This way you can make your own opinion about the issues and not rely on some cherry picked article. I've lived under socialized medicine. Just hope you don't need a specialist for something not immediately life threatening, or a MRI for the same. You will wait weeks. If this mistake passes into law you will soon learn that "there aint no such thing as a free lunch." But, go ahead and believe our government leaders that this won't cost anything, afterall government has such a great track record of being absolutely right about such things as cost.... Chris A. Jones \| Nov 9, 2009 9:46 pm \| Request Removal We've been over this before in other comments. Just do a search for polls on health care. Or do a search for UK NICE. Or look up cancer survival rates comparing Canada, the UK and the US. Or look at the AMA 2008 report that gives information on Medicare. For such wonderful systems that Canada and the UK have they are huge government monstrosities that can't contain costs, and who are now looking for the private option to contain costs. The real difference between systems is whether you are denied care or insurance coverage, and those are not the same. I'll try this again but many liberals don't like reality. The problem with any 3rd party payment system is that people perceive a service or product as "free." From Econ 101 if you decrease the price of an item you increase demand. The problem here is that the costs aren't decreased. So, to control the problem such systems must restrict availability. Hence the long waits (correlation to higher cancer mortality), and the formation of the UK's NICE, which determines who gets what care (such as doling out medicine to those with macular degeneration for only 1 eye each). Add to this physician shortages due to government dictated pay, and less modern medical equipment. Then we hear from leading dems and the president's advisers that there will be rationing of health care, some being ghoulishly blunt like Reich (appropriate last name). I've lived in Europe under their great system. Those who don't pay taxes love it, those who work that I meant think their system is terrible. Go figure, those getting something for nothing like it. And, to top all this off, we can't afford more government largess right now, especially programs that will allow fraud, cronyism, like Medicaid does. Chris A. Jones \| Nov 9, 2009 8:55 am \| Request Removal I agree. Before you know it, we'll all be speaking Canadian! Rick Devore \| Nov 9, 2009 1:28 am \| Request Removal Here is an interesting read about the Canadian and American health care systems. http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/62/4/1239 Chris A. Jones, can you cite sources for the information contained in your post? Canadians and the British are over 92% approval for their health systems. Why did you fail to mention that in your post? Chris A. Jones, are you on Medicare or are planning to be on that type of government-run health insurance? Joseph Fishel \| Nov 6, 2009 4:30 pm \| Request Removal Actually 85% of Americans like their system. And if you think the UK system is so great then look at the survival rates for all types of cancer. Better to be here. Also, look up NICE, the great UK panel that decides who gets what and has denied care for patients. Or listen to Obama's advisers who have stated that some elderly just won't get care. And Medicare is a great example, it's broke, costs far more than ever envisioned, denies claims at a greater rate than private insurance, and doctors are trying to flee from being under it as fast as they can. Yep, Canada and the UK have great systems, less care, longer waits, less equipment and less doctors per capita. The bigger difference is if you are denied claims payment you still have the option to seek care at your own cost. In the UK and Canada their only alternative is to come here because there when denied care you are SOL. Chris A. Jones \| Nov 6, 2009 12:49 pm \| Request Removal yes we think we have the best system money can buy , and its only for those who have the money to buy it , why did Toyota build it's newest factory in Canada , because of the cost of paying for employees healthcare here was to expensive . and if you think goverment can't run things as well as private for profit industrys , then why don't we get rid of our goverment run police departments . and if you need thier services you have to pay the cost when you call . and if you can't pay your on your own . how about the fire department , if you can't pay when your house catches fire then the fire department will just stand by and watch your house burn to the ground . yopu only think your health insurence is good because you've never had to use it for something major . steven neely \| Nov 5, 2009 5:09 pm \| Request Removal Has this letter writer ever heard of Medicare? What does he think Medicare is? Medicare is government-run health insurance. If this letter writer is old enough to be on Medicare, I would hope he would drop his government-subsidized, government-run health insurance immediately since he adamantly opposes that type of system. If he is not on Medicare, I would hope he finds his own private health insurance when he reaches age 65 and not be part of that socialized health insurance system. If he is on Medicare or accepts Medicare one day after writing this letter, will he admit that he is a total hypocrite after authoring this letter? More Canadians, as well as the British, are satisfied with their nationalized health insurance system than Americans are satisfied with our private health insurance system. The right wing in this country has fabricated a number of lies, myths, and inaccuracies about the Canadian and British health insurance systems. Medicare, government-run health insurance, is the most popular government-run program in America. What should that tell you about our system of privatized health care? Does the letter writer even know that Americans do go to other countries for surgeries that are too expensive or unavailable in this country? If our system is so great, why do Americans leave the country for medical procedures? Joseph Fishel \| Nov 5, 2009 4:56 pm \| Request Removal Has this letter writer ever heard of Medicare? What does he think Medicare is? Medicare is government-run health insurance. If this letter writer is old enough to be on Medicare, I would hope he would drop his government-subsidized, government-run health insurance immediately since he adamantly opposes that type of system. If he is not on Medicare, I would hope he finds his own private health insurance when he reaches age 65 and not be part of that socialized health insurance system. If he is on Medicare or accepts Medicare one day after writing this letter, will he admit that he is a total hypocrite after authoring this letter? More Canadians, as well as the British, are satisfied with their nationalized health insurance system than Americans are satisfied with our private health insurance system. The right wing in this country has fabricated a number of lies, myths, and inaccuracies about the Canadian and British health insurance systems. Medicare, government-run health insurance, is the most popular government-run program in America. What should that tell you about our system of privatized health care? Does the letter writer even know that Americans do go to other countries for surgeries that are too expensive or unavailable in this country? If our system is so great, why do Americans leave the country for medical procedures? Joseph Fishel \| Nov 5, 2009 4:56 pm \| Request Removal

READER COMMENTS