« And Now For Something Completely Different | Main | Happy 4th! »
July 03, 2007
Waiting Times
Richard Eskow says all that needs to be said:
Waiting times in the countries [Cato types] cite are sometimes acceptable and sometimes excessive. Waiting lists can be a form of rationing, but it’s far more humane than denial of treatment through systematic exclusion from most of the health system (which is what lack of coverage means). And while the authors observe that some people on waiting lists are in chronic pain, they fail to note that few if any universal coverage advocates believe that is anything other than a flaw that needs to be corrected.[...]
And let’s not forget that a study by the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine (warning: pdf) estimates that at least 18,000 people die each year from inadequate health coverage. That’s the the equivalent of thirty World Trade Center bombings in the years since 9/11.
It's fascinating how much more concerned conservative types are with a Canadian who had to wait 3 months for a hip replacement than with the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they lack access to quality medical care.
July 3, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"while the authors observe that some people on waiting lists are in chronic pain, they fail to note that few if any universal coverage advocates believe that is anything other than a flaw that needs to be corrected."
Call me when it's corrected.
Posted by: ostap | Jul 3, 2007 4:36:41 PM
Another thing that should be pointed out is that the idea that there are no waiting periods in the U.S. is horseshit. I had to wait two years for a medically necessary procedure. My insurance denied me and the fuckers didn't finally approve the surgery until I hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 3, 2007 4:37:01 PM
It's fascinating how much more concerned conservative types are with a Canadian who had to wait 3 months for a hip replacement than with the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they lack access to quality medical care.
It's fascinating how much more concerned liberal types are with the 18,000 Americans who die each year from a lack of health insurance than with the 435,000 who die from tobacco, the 400,000 who die from bad diet and physical inactivity, the 85,000 who die from alcohol consumption, the 17,000 who die from illicit use of drugs, and the hundreds of thousands of others who die from other causes.
When I see liberal types devote a proportional amount of attention to drug use, smoking, poor diet, etc., as they devote to complaining about the health care system, that's when I'll believe their concerns about people dying are sincere.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 4:41:05 PM
Through a former HMO of mine (one generally considered quite good) I had to wait about a month to get an MRI to rule out a brain tumor. With my current dental insurance, I have to schedule routine exams and cleanings 3 or more months in advance. Maybe the wait times are longer in Canada or Britain--I don't know. But the comparable wait time in the US isn't 0.
Posted by: Elm | Jul 3, 2007 4:45:17 PM
Uh, Jason, are you really prepared to argue that liberals haven't spent the last few decades making war on Big Tobacco? You know about the smoking bans in place in most major cities? The lawsuits? The cigarette taxes?
This may be the single least supportable position I've ever heard.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 3, 2007 4:48:47 PM
Waiting lists can be a form of rationing, but it’s far more humane than denial of treatment through systematic exclusion from most of the health system (which is what lack of coverage means).
No, that's not what "lack of coverage" means. Many people "lack coverage" either because they choose not to enroll in government health programs for which they are eligible (e.g., Medicaid), or because they choose not to purchase "coverage" even though they can afford it, or for other reasons that have nothing to do with "systematic exclusion." Furthermore, involunary "lack of coverage" is typically a temporary condition with a median period of five or six months.
And the claim that "waiting lists ...are far more humane" needs to be supported with evidence of the effect of waiting lists and insurance coverage on actual access to health care services. Simply asserting that waiting lists are more humane without any supporting evidence is worthless.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 4:52:20 PM
Yes, the argument that "waiting lists" are different from "scheduling lists" is absurd. Many, many procedures--my mamogram? my colonoscopy? dental appointments? check-ups? routinely have "scheduling delays" that are quite striking. If I have to reschedule my annual dental visit I must wait six months to get in to see my dentist. Is that not a "delay in treatment?" If I need to change the date of my annual mammogram I am quite likely not to get seen for four months. And yet those don't count as "delays" because its not transparently clear that eveyrone in front of me is "on the same list." Because there is no "list" as such. But the delay remains the same.
aimai
And JasonR. No one died and made you arbiter of what is and is not "supporting evidence" or, indeed, evidence or argument of any kind. You are simply a very excitable, agressive, and thoughtless person with a lot of time on your hands. I'd advise you to go out and find something else to do with all that time because you are merely serving as a rather pathetic annoyance here. Of course, that might be your goal. In which case, have at it.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 3, 2007 5:00:29 PM
Uh, Jason, are you really prepared to argue that liberals haven't spent the last few decades making war on Big Tobacco?
No, I'm arguing that given the fact that tobacco kills 24 times as many Americans as the lack of health insurance, the amount of attention liberals devote to "universal health care" is out of all proportion to any benefit it is likely to produce in terms of reduced mortality. Even illicit drug use kills almost as many people as the absence of health insurance, yet liberals pay virtually no attention to that problem, just ritualized denunciations of the "War on Drugs."
You know about the smoking bans in place in most major cities? The lawsuits? The cigarette taxes?
What about them? Too little, too late. Tobacco still kills 24 times as many people as the absence of health insurance. Where are the demands from liberals for huge new government initiatives to combat tobacco use?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 5:01:33 PM
People in the US still wait for different things even if they can pay, even if they aren't trying to see one particular doctor. There are a certain number of situations that are going to occur in any healthcare system just because human beings are fallible. What's frustrating is that when a tragedy occurs in a country that has socialized healthcare it's automatically counted as endemic to that system, the natural outgrowth of socializing healthcare. Here in the US, it's just a tragedy.
But the reality is exactly opposite. Countries with socialized healthcare have as their stated goal the provision of all needed care to every citizen - and usually every visitor as well - within their borders. They might not be good at it, or may make decisions which result in the lack of a particular technology or procedure, or which require people to wait or even forego certain treatments and procedures. But the system is designed, as well as they can do it, to provide healthcare to everyone.
In the US, however, that 18,000 people die every year because they lack access to healthcare means that our system is functioning exactly the way it's supposed to. People who don't have insurance or the ability to self-pay at 4 times the rate insurance companies pay don't deserve health care. They're supposed to die, because keeping them alive means the rest of us money lose money we shouldn't have to spend.
What I'd like to do, however, is challenge the readers of this blog to take a look at the rate health insurance and health care are increasing in cost, and compare that to their salaries. Is your salary increasing each year at the same rate? If so, you're already behind, because everything else gets more expensive too. Or if your salary is not increasing at a higher rate - with no end in sight - then you face the very real possibility of reaching a point in your life where you cannot afford the care you need.
Don't worry, though, I'm sure that's years away, so you'll run out of money about the time your medical costs really go up. When that happens, I hope you have the strength of character to die quietly and with dignity, the way you should.
'Cause this country ain't got room for people who can't pay their own way.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 5:03:40 PM
I can only speak from personal experience. When I had to have an MRI done to assist my doctor in diagostics, I had to wait 6 weeks for the next available non emergency MRI. I have health insurance. Waiting is definitely a part of the American system from my experience. I also had to wait to find a specialist by the way.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 3, 2007 5:03:44 PM
the amount of attention liberals devote to "universal health care" is out of all proportion to any benefit it is likely to produce in terms of reduced mortality.
Right. You know, the problem is with the one who perceives things to be this way, not with the way it is.
It's fun to be liberal. We always get blamed whenever a city bans smoking, and now we're getting accused of not caring enough about tobacco.
And, JasonR, your characterization of the way liberals approach the War on Drugs is completely out of touch with reality. I don't know if you read my recent post on the subject, but what you say couldn't be further from the truth.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 5:07:36 PM
Stephen,
Patient A dies from heart disease in Canada while he's on the waiting list for bypass surgery (or perhaps on the waiting list just to see a cardiologist for evaluation). Patient B dies from heart disease in the United States while he's uninsured.
Exactly how is the waiting list a "far more humane" form of rationing?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 5:16:31 PM
Patient B dies from heart disease in the United States while he's uninsured.
Actually, you ding dong, Patient B in America is likely insured but isn't given treatment because her HMO determines that it's experimental, unnecessary, or the HMO withdraws its coverage because of a preexisting condition like, say, a yeast infection.
Ezra, you already know this, but I think Moore made the right decision by focusing not on the uninsured but on the insured and how they're getting screwed. So long as health care is run for profit, almost all of us lose.
And Jason: stop trying to blow smoke up our ass. To which politicians do tobacco companies give most of their money? Which President (hint: the current one) radically reduced the among big tobacco had to pay out when it lost a big lawsuit?
Posted by: Karl Steel | Jul 3, 2007 5:27:59 PM
No, I'm arguing that given the fact that tobacco kills 24 times as many Americans as the lack of health insurance, the amount of attention liberals devote to "universal health care" is out of all proportion to any benefit it is likely to produce in terms of reduced mortality.
I can choose not to smoke. I can't choose not to get hit by a car.
PS. Perhaps if we had better health care less people would die of Tobacco, Alcohol, drugs,etc.
Posted by: Phil | Jul 3, 2007 5:29:35 PM
No, I'm arguing that given the fact that tobacco kills 24 times as many Americans as the lack of health insurance, the amount of attention liberals devote to "universal health care" is out of all proportion to any benefit it is likely to produce in terms of reduced mortality.
Reasons that it doesn't necessarily follow that liberals (or anyone else) should focus more on promoting health than on promoting universal health care have already been pointed out to you in another thread, Jason. One is that mortality isn't the only relevant issue, as you know. There are various other reasons, including the difficulty and costs of achieving different goals and the current political situation, that it makes sense to focus on universal health care more than stopping smoking, for example. Unless, possibly, you have a tobacco program you think would be far better than what's currently being done that you think is realistic.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 5:39:20 PM
I can choose not to smoke. I can't choose not to get hit by a car.
You can't choose not to be the child or parent of a smoker. You can't choose not to pay the taxes that fund health care for poor and elderly smokers.
If our social responsibility to prevent premature death is reduced to the extent that the death results from chosen behavior, that implies a reduced responsibility not only to provide health insurance for those who lack it by choice, but a reduced responsibility to fund health insurance for choice-related illness in general.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 5:41:05 PM
Jason, that last point is utterly incoherent. Try writing it over again in shorter, declarative sentences.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 3, 2007 5:46:19 PM
The reason mortality rates were brought up was an apples to apples comparison. When looking at the harms caused by wait lists and the like in countries with national health care, we have to look at the price we pay for our own system, including the 18,000 deaths each year from lack of coverage.
But no one is saying that the 18,000 annual deaths is the only reason why we care about national health care, or even the primary reason. Sure, if 18,000 deaths were the ONLY harm caused by our current health care system, then you could argue that it doesn't justify a massive legislative campaign. But of course, that's not even close to being the case.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 3, 2007 5:47:38 PM
sanpete,
Reasons that it doesn't necessarily follow that liberals (or anyone else) should focus more on promoting health than on promoting universal health care have already been pointed out to you in another thread, Jason. One is that mortality isn't the only relevant issue, as you know.
Ezra's claim was about mortality specifically, so this observation is completely irrelevant.
There are various other reasons, including the difficulty and costs of achieving different goals and the current political situation, that it makes sense to focus on universal health care more than stopping smoking, for example.
What difficulty and costs? What political situation? Show me the cost-benefit analysis by which you have concluded that a dollar spent on expanding health insurance will do more to improve health or reduce mortality than a dollar spent on cutting tobacco use, or cutting physical inactivity, or cutting consumption of unhealthy foods, or cutting alcohol consumption, or cutting any of the other behaviors that cause far more deaths than the absence of health insurance. Of course, you have no such analysis. Which is why you have no point.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 5:50:13 PM
Exactly how is the waiting list a "far more humane" form of rationing?
It's uncomfortable to think about, but in your fantasy scenario the person in Canada is going to be far more comfortable than the person in the USA.
Here's the central fact: No healthcare system is perfect. The question before us is whether we can do better. That something bad happens in another country shouldn't disqualify that country's approach entirely; if bad things happen less often in that country than in this one, then we should take a good look at how they do things.
And then we should see how we can improve on their system.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 5:51:28 PM
But no one is saying that the 18,000 annual deaths is the only reason why we care about national health care, or even the primary reason. Sure, if 18,000 deaths were the ONLY harm caused by our current health care system, then you could argue that it doesn't justify a massive legislative campaign. But of course, that's not even close to being the case.
So what are the other reasons? Let's examine them.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 5:52:35 PM
Show me the cost-benefit analysis by which you have concluded that a dollar spent on expanding health insurance will do more to improve health or reduce mortality than a dollar spent on cutting tobacco use, or cutting physical inactivity, or cutting consumption of unhealthy foods, or cutting alcohol consumption, or cutting any of the other behaviors that cause far more deaths than the absence of health insurance.
No, you show us. You're the one making the claim that telling people to be healthy will make them so.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 5:52:59 PM
No, I'm arguing that given the fact that tobacco kills 24 times as many Americans as the lack of health insurance, the amount of attention liberals devote to "universal health care" is out of all proportion to any benefit it is likely to produce in terms of reduced mortality.
Wow. JasonR is really trying hard with his 'look over there!' act. Nice attempt to hijack the thread, though.
Another thing that should be pointed out is that the idea that there are no waiting periods in the U.S. is horseshit.
Oh yeah. Let's just say that I've never known an NHS practice stipulate a two month wait to get a first appointment with a general practitioner. But heh, there are clinics in the US that will see you this afternoon if you pay all the cost up front.
Furthermore, involunary "lack of coverage" is typically a temporary condition with a median period of five or six months.
Gosh, it's so useful that we can schedule our medical needs, isn't it? For example: my wife's sister had to cancel one of her pre-natal scans because her husband changed jobs, his new insurance didn't kick in for a few months, and the state wouldn't provide.
So when the median period of five or six months falls, say, during a pregnancy, people are presumably supposed to find one of the supposedly abundant cheap or free clinics that JasonR continues to pretend exist. Or suck it up, which is really what he's saying.
You know what's good about universal coverage? It's that you don't have to play amateur doctor and make decisions on whether you need to see a doctor and risk having your record marked with something that's often more costly than a criminal offense. You go and see a doctor. And doctors, surprisingly enough, are fairly good at telling people to address potential long-term health threats like smoking and obesity.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 3, 2007 5:54:48 PM
Warning: Conservative health-care propaganda ahead.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2692/41643
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1611
Posted by: mijnheer | Jul 3, 2007 5:59:35 PM
Stephen,
No, you show us. You're the one making the claim that telling people to be healthy will make them so.
But you're the one making the claim that the lack of health insurance is a bigger problem and deserves more attention and resources than smoking, poor diet, alcohol consumption, etc. Even though the latter cause far, far, far more deaths. So it's up to you to show why all the attention on health insurance is justified.
For example, if you're claiming that we've already done just about as much as we can do to get people to quit smoking and drinking, and that any further investment of resources would produce little or no benefit in those areas, then you need to substantiate that assertion with evidence. Remember, tobacco alone kills 24 times as many people as a lack of health insurance, so even just a very small reduction in the rate of smoking would save as many lives as "universal health care."
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 6:10:13 PM
Ezra's claim was about mortality specifically, so this observation is completely irrelevant.
What I said is directly relevant to your claim that I quoted, no matter what Ezra's claim was. If you want to revise or clarify your claim so that it's about Ezra's claim, then maybe my observation will not be directly relevant.
Of course, you have no such analysis. Which is why you have no point.
I'm sure that if someone said that to you, you would immediately see that it doesn't follow. We've been over this ground already, in any case. I do think we should focus more on promoting health than we do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't focus primarily on universal coverage right now.
I notice you don't volunteer a better anti-tobacco campaign we should be focussing on instead of universal health care. There may not be a much better campaign that's practical, you know. That matters.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 6:16:37 PM
JasonR,
Points for creativity in weaseling, I suppose, but:
1. I actually haven't claimed that a lack of health insurance is a bigger problem than the others you mention. You don't know what efforts I make to combat those other problems - not that I'm claiming to be some sort of hero activist. I'm not. All you're doing, however, is engaging in the classic distraction technique. "Why are you talking about health care when people don't have clean drinking water?" "More people die from car accidents than from a lack of health care. Why don't you care about car accident victims, huh? HHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH?"
I understand that Nedra Pickler has made a successful journalism career out of doing exactly that type of thing, but to most people it's just irritating.
2. I don't claim we've done all we can in educating people about healthy lifestyles. What I have done and will do again is suggest that we don't need to choose either health insurance or a program that promotes healthy lifestyles. That's your personal invention, a false dichotomy that simply doesn't exist in the real world. And no amount of "but we have to choose how our money is spent and one dollar spent for one thing is one dollar less for another" BS changes that. If both are important, then we can work on both of them.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 6:19:28 PM
sanpete,
What I said is directly relevant to your claim that I quoted
No it isn't. The statement of mine you quoted was a direct response to Ezra's claim about mortality. It had nothing to do with whatever unidentified "other issues" you were alluding to.
I do think we should focus more on promoting health than we do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't focus primarily on universal coverage right now.
Why should we focus primarily on universal coverage right now? Tobacco, for example, kills 24 times as many people as the lack of "coverage." Poor diet and lack of exercise, 20 times as many. Alcohol consumption, over 4 times as many. So why shouldn't we focus primarily on any or all of those instead?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 6:24:03 PM
Ok Jason, I'll bite:
"Why shouldn't we [focus primarily on tobacco, poor diet, and lack of excercise...]"
You focus on those things. I'll wait while you do that. No, actually, I won't wait. I do some other stuff. Laundry. Check. Picking up the kids from camp. Check. Fighting for universal health care so people I know, and myself, can be assured of health care treatment when we need it instead of when our insurance companies decide to pay for it. Check. Oh. don't worry about it. I can do all that while you are trying to tackle tobacco smoking and obesity. I'll probably get as much done without your help as I would with your help. And meanwhile you are making yourself useful. Run along now.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 3, 2007 6:31:22 PM
Why should we focus primarily on universal coverage right now? Tobacco, for example, kills 24 times as many people as the lack of "coverage." Poor diet and lack of exercise, 20 times as many. Alcohol consumption, over 4 times as many. So why shouldn't we focus primarily on any or all of those instead?
Why can't we do both? I mean, why can't we focus on poor health habits and ensuring that all citizens have access to affordable health care?
Posted by: d0n camillo | Jul 3, 2007 6:33:12 PM
Stephen,
I actually haven't claimed that a lack of health insurance is a bigger problem than the others you mention.
Then why do you go on and on about health insurance so much, and say almost nothing about the social problems that cause a vastly greater amount of premature death?
All you're doing, however, is engaging in the classic distraction technique. "Why are you talking about health care when people don't have clean drinking water?"
It's not a "distraction" at all. I am pointing out that your priorities are massively misplaced. Misplaced by orders of magnitude.
What I have done and will do again is suggest that we don't need to choose either health insurance or a program that promotes healthy lifestyles.
We need to choose how to spend every next dollar. You haven't offered any serious reason to think we'd get more out of that next dollar in terms of better health and reduced mortality by spending it on health insurance rather than on programs and policies specifically designed to reduce smoking, improve diet, reduce alcohol consumption, etc.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 6:33:22 PM
Old age kills more people than any other condition and yet I have never heard Ezra use his "big media" status to advocate additional research funds for nano-technologies that will eliminate aging.
Ezra is, therefore, a hack.
Posted by: Elm | Jul 3, 2007 6:34:03 PM
JasonR wrote: "Then why do you go on and on about health insurance so much, and say almost nothing about the social problems that cause a vastly greater amount of premature death?"
Because you're doing such a great job on your blog?
Posted by: SteveH | Jul 3, 2007 6:38:48 PM
But you're the one making the claim that the lack of health insurance is a bigger problem and deserves more attention and resources than smoking, poor diet, alcohol consumption, etc.
Logical fallacy: false dichotomy. But again, your attempts to hijack the thread are trolltastic.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 3, 2007 6:40:33 PM
Old age kills more people than any other condition and yet I have never heard Ezra use his "big media" status to advocate additional research funds for nano-technologies that will eliminate aging.
Thank you, elm, for pointing this out.
Stupid Ezra.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 6:42:15 PM
JasonR,
You know what kills more people than tobacco? War. War kills more people than tobacco. Why don't you focus on war instead of tobacco or oveating, JasonR? Huh?
You know what else kills more people than tobacco? Dirty drinking water. Why don't you care about the billion people on the planet that don't have clean drinking water, JasonR?
We could save far more lives by focusing on stopping war and cleaning up people's drinking water, JasonR. Your priorities are screwed up, man. Just completely screwed up, from both moral and cost-benefit perspectives.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 3, 2007 6:51:23 PM
Stephen,
You know what kills more people than tobacco? War. War kills more people than tobacco. Why don't you focus on war instead of tobacco or oveating, JasonR? Huh?
Er, the comparison is between the number of Americans killed annually by the lack of health insurance (18,000), and the number killed by other causes (such as tobacco - 435,000)
How many Americans has war killed this year, Stephen? Huh?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 6:57:34 PM
Don Camillo of the Po valley?
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 3, 2007 7:10:02 PM
This conversation is stupid. Seriously, you are arguing things that have no connnection other than JasonR throwing things into the mix to see what sticks. It only works if you let him work you.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 3, 2007 7:10:12 PM
Jason, again, my point is directly relevant to what you actually said and haven't revised and, more to the point now, it remains directly relevant to what you're saying now, where you continue to argue from the greater morality due to tobacco to the claim we should focus more on tobacco. It remains directly relevant that mortality isn't the only issue in determining what we should focus on. You keep doing this. If you wish to restrict your point only to a context in which only mortality matters, that of course moves us right out of the real world.
Why should we focus primarily on universal coverage right now? Tobacco, for example, kills 24 times as many people as the lack of "coverage." Poor diet and lack of exercise, 20 times as many. Alcohol consumption, over 4 times as many. So why shouldn't we focus primarily on any or all of those instead?
Some of this I've already replied to here, and even more in a previous thread. I'm reluctant to keep repeating things. Rather than explaining the general principles again, if you'll outline what anti-tobacco program you have in mind, as an example, I think we might cover some new ground, or the same ground in a more particular way.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 7:22:11 PM
One point that seems to get lost in all this is that waiting list are *NOT* a feature of every universal largely publicly financed health care system. France, Belgium, Japan all come to mind as systems which have wait times comparable to the U.S.
I agree that if the choice is waiting lists or the U.S. system, I'll take the waiting lists. But that does not actually seem to be the choice.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Jul 3, 2007 7:29:17 PM
Those 18,000 people every year only died because they didn't value their lives enough to spend millions of dollars on cancer treatment or what have you.
Their deaths just goes to show the free market works -- it's always right!
Posted by: Greg Wankiw | Jul 3, 2007 7:29:21 PM
Jason, again, my point is directly relevant to what you
sanpete, again, no, your point is not relevant at all. The statement of mine you quoted was a direct response to Ezra's statement about mortality, not whatever unidentified "other issues" you were alluding to.
Some of this I've already replied to here, and even more in a previous thread.
Ah yes, the old "already replied to" bit again. A favorite of yours.
Why should we focus primarily on universal coverage right now, sanpete?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 7:29:38 PM
And what's more, the Holocaust killed 300 times as many people as die each year from lack of coverage --
-- but I don't see Ezra advocating spending money on time travel research in order to prevent the Holocaust retroactively.
Which just goes to show Ezra is a hypocrite who hates capitalism.
Posted by: Greg Wankiw | Jul 3, 2007 7:35:12 PM
I don't see Ezra advocating spending money on time travel research in order to prevent the Holocaust retroactively.
Ezra is an anti-Semite !!!
Posted by: Farty Peretz | Jul 3, 2007 7:36:11 PM
Gar Lipow,
France, Belgium, Japan all come to mind as systems which have wait times comparable to the U.S.
In 2003, a commission established by the French govenment to evaluate its health care system concluded that the system is overburdened, wasteful and in urgent need of overhaul. Its annual budget deficit as of 2004 was projected to be 11 billion euros. Projected to increase to 66 billion euros by 2020. In U.S. terms (adjusting for population size and currency), the corresponding annual deficit figures would be about $70 billion and $415 billion.
The closest thing we have to the French health care system in the U.S. is Medicare. Medicare is already a fiscal train wreck in progress. The latest Medicare trustees report projects that Medicare will be bankrupt in little more than a decade. Extending a Medicare-like system to the entire U.S. population is probably impossible as a matter of politics, and would be grossly irresponsible as a matter of budget policy even if it were politically feasible.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 7:46:56 PM
The closest thing we have to the French health care system in the U.S. is Medicare.
And the closest thing that JasonR has for his apple pies is oranges. Yet again, he shows a keen ignorance of a foreign country's healthcare service other than the stats his paymasters feed him.
But, again, nice attempt at hijacking the thread, troll.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 3, 2007 7:51:43 PM
Alright, Jason, the point of diminishing returns is past again.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 9:07:44 PM
Here's an article from a Canadian newspaper on wait times in Canada for radiation treatment for cancer: Vow Broken On Cancer Wait Times
Oncologists recommend a maximum wait time of two weeks, but the Canadian government set itself a goal of four weeks. Dr. Tom Pickles, president of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists, asked the government why it set a wait time goal that was twice the recommended maximum, but he says he never got a satisfactory answer and was just told that it was a "done deal."
But it gets worse, because most hospitals aren't even meeting the government's goal of a wait no longer than four weeks.
The article cites a study that found that delayed radiation therapy is associated with an increased risk of recurrence of breast, head and neck cancers.
I wonder how many Canadians are dying every year from cancer because of waiting lists for radiation treatment.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 10:28:05 PM
And Jason, considering that I am someone who COULD NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE for over three years no matter HOW MUCH I wanted to pay for it because the damned health insurance companies in the US refused to cover someone who didn't "have a record in the system" because of my moving back to the US from many years abroad:
You know bloody zero about what you are talking about. May you be in the exact same situation I was in ten years down the road, with three children with chronic illnesses and absolutely no way to get health insurance for them. The US system stinks to high heaven. And yes, I HAVE experienced both the Japanese and the U.K. health systems as well. So kindly shut your gob until you have similar experience.
Posted by: grumpy realist | Jul 3, 2007 10:31:43 PM
>In 2003, a commission established by the French govenment to evaluate its health care system concluded that the system is overburdened, wasteful and in urgent need of overhaul. Its annual budget deficit as of 2004 was projected to be 11 billion euros.
The French spend a lower percent of their GDP on healthcare than we do. A LOT lower. I note you are not rebutting the point about wait times: the French health system provides better health care than we do. And whatever is wrong with it, it seems that it cost less than ours too.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Jul 3, 2007 10:58:52 PM
grumpy,
Anecdotes are worthless as evidence of general patterns in large populations.
Would you prefer to be in Canada, and die while you're on a waiting list for radiation treatment or heart surgery?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 11:01:37 PM
Gar Lipow,
The French spend a lower percent of their GDP on healthcare than we do. A LOT lower.
Yes, and probably in part as a result of that lower spending, their health care system is overburdened, wasteful, in urgent need of an overhaul and chronically in deficit--according to a report commissioned by the French government itself. And by the way, French people also face substantial health care costs not covered by the public insurance fund. To cover these costs, they must buy private insurance (if they can afford it) or pay out-of-pocket. There's no free lunch. There's no magic bullet.
I note you are not rebutting the point about wait times: the French health system provides better health care than we do.
Er, I have no idea how you think your point about wait times (if true) implies that the French health care system provides better health care than we do. Obviously, the quality of health care depends on many other factors in addition to the length of wait for services.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 11:09:37 PM
But you're the one making the claim that the lack of health insurance is a bigger problem and deserves more attention and resources than smoking, poor diet, alcohol consumption, etc.
I've only seen you claim that Ezra made this comment, Jason. I haven't seen him make it himself.
Got a cite? Or are you simply lying in your increasing ridiculous attempt to handwave away actual debate?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jul 3, 2007 11:15:04 PM
Romans,
Er, look at the name of the person to whom the post of mine you quoted from is addressed. Hint: it's not "Ezra."
Did you really not notice that, or are you just lying in a ridiculous attempt handwave away actual debate?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 11:23:10 PM
Fine. In that case, provide the cite of Stephen making that claim. Or admit you lied.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jul 3, 2007 11:27:33 PM
Romans,
As I said, both Stephen and Ezra go on and on about the problem of inadequate health insurance. I can't remember even a single post from Ezra, or a single comment from Stephen, about the problem of tobacco, despite the fact that tobacco kills 24 times as many people as inadequate health care. No proposals from them for reducing the rate of smoking. No demands for presidential candidates to come up with "Tobacco Reform" plans. No comparisons of U.S. anti-smoking policies with those of other countries. Nothing. And tobacco is just one of the preventable causes of death that kills far more Americans than inadequate health insurance.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 3, 2007 11:37:29 PM
Sheesh. Anybody got anything to say here that's NOT a response to JasonR? I'd say he did a very nice job indeed of hijacking the thread.
Posted by: Ted | Jul 4, 2007 12:12:22 AM
Yes, and probably in part as a result of that lower spending, their health care system is overburdened, wasteful, in urgent need of an overhaul and chronically in deficit--according to a report commissioned by the French government itself. And by the way, French people also face substantial health care costs not covered by the public insurance fund. To cover these costs, they must buy private insurance (if they can afford it) or pay out-of-pocket. There's no free lunch. There's no magic bullet.
Jason, you absolute twat.
1.) The French system is designed to be a public/private hybrid.
2.) The French GDP expenditure on healthcare - you know, where it's about half per capita of the United States - includes their private care costs.
3.) The healthcare system you describe as "overburdened" has far more doctors per capita than the United States, and far more nurses, and offers far more bedrest time, with no significant waits. If the French system is "overburdened," what does that make the American system?
Posted by: mightygodking | Jul 4, 2007 12:36:10 AM
Ted, according to Ezra, Eskow already said everything that needed to be said ....
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 4, 2007 12:39:06 AM
As I said, both Stephen and Ezra go on and on about the problem of inadequate health insurance.
You are wrong, or lying, again.
What you actually said was, and I quote:
"But you're the one making the claim that the lack of health insurance is a bigger problem and deserves more attention and resources than smoking, poor diet, alcohol consumption, etc."
Where's the cite of Stephen (or Ezra) making that claim, Jason?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jul 4, 2007 1:24:13 AM
Anecdotes are worthless as evidence of general patterns in large populations.
He says, after linking to lots of anecdotes. As ever, the double-standard rules.
Get your own fucking blog already. Or see if Cato will set you up with one.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 4, 2007 2:13:47 AM
Y'know, it's pretty sad when a person's glad to have been hit with additional work the afternoon before a holiday... today, I think goofing around online would have been worse for my [insured, but high-deductible] blood pressure.
As someone who did in fact lose a parent to smoking, and who also, during the week of diagnosis, spent hours poring over Medicaid & Social Security disability enrollment forms, I find the but-but-smoking's-worse strawman a joke. For many--too many-- those issues are impossible to disentangle, and universal healthcare is linked to a more robust public-health system. Along the same lines, don't even get me started on the flu-pandemic sessions the feds were doing last year, which ultimately boiled down to "you're on your own," because we have virtually no infrastructure through which to distribute vaccines or allocate care.
Posted by: latts | Jul 4, 2007 2:38:15 AM
It's fascinating how much more concerned conservative types are with the 3,000 Americans who died six years ago in terrorist attacks than with the 435,000 who die from tobacco, the 400,000 who die from bad diet and physical inactivity, the 85,000 who die from alcohol consumption, the 17,000 who die from illicit use of drugs, and the hundreds of thousands of others who die from other causes each year.
When I see conservative types devote a proportional amount of attention to drug use, smoking, poor diet, etc., as they devote to the War on Terror, that's when I'll believe their concerns about people dying are sincere.
Posted by: ajay | Jul 4, 2007 5:03:25 AM
"It's fascinating how much more concerned conservative types are with a Canadian who had to wait 3 months for a hip replacement than with the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they lack access to quality medical care."
How many Canadians die each year because they lack access to quality medical care?
No, I don't know either, but it is the important number to be discussing here, isn't it? Who thinks that it is more or less than 1,800 (given the population difference)?
Posted by: Tim Worstall | Jul 4, 2007 6:41:19 AM
JasonR--
Your comments about tobacco are silly. This is Ezra's blog. He likes writing about health care delivery systems. He doesn't write about every issue in health care or human health. That doesn't mean he thinks they aren't important. There are a lot of issues outside of health care that are important too, and Ezra doesn't write about those either-- because that's not the focus of this blog.
So stop saying the "universal coverage is an obsession" because this blog (the health care posts) is about health care delivery systems, and who gets coverage under a given is a key piece of that.
If you don't like the focus on health care delivery, then go somewhere else. You're wasting enough of everyone's time here.
Posted by: Rufus | Jul 4, 2007 6:48:18 AM
Rufus,
To call jasonR's comments silly is to misunderstand their very unsilly goal? to render serious discussion of serious issues moot. JasonR's comments, while illuminating in the sense of shining a light on the subterranean depths of the conservative mind and the conservative death-care caucus--are perfectly designed for what they do which is to derail substantive discussion in favor of Jasonian namecalling, handwaving, hysterics and general antipathy to other posters.
Posted by: aimai | Jul 4, 2007 9:06:51 AM
One thing about Ezra's board you can definitely count on - you can tune in just about anytime and see one or two idiot trolls getting kicked in the balls pretty hard.
Posted by: Chowchowchow | Jul 4, 2007 9:11:35 AM
The thread is somewhere between funny and sad, with JasonR finally going completely off his rocker and accusing liberals of being totally unconcerned with tobacco use, our suburban lifestyle, the processed ersatz-food industry, and substance abuse.
Most notorious union-busting company in the US? Admittedly now a tough choice between Coors and Waltons, but no doubt at all about the rightwingedness of both. And both are merchants of alcohol, driving too much and eating gargantuan bags of oversalted grease dripped on corn byproducts.
Most notorious stonewall of the legislative process? The tobacco industry, their rightwing friends, and the substantial underclass of suburban and rural poor who wear flags on their jackets, fly flags on their cars, hoist their cigarettes high, and consider every year of life after 50 to be an unexpected bonus.
Nice try, Jason, but convincing us that the liberal jogger, the picky eater who pays extra to eat organic and live near transit, the person who always insisted that the smokers go outside at least, the people who made bottled water more popular than beer- convincing us that these are the people who want us to smoke and drink will be a tough sell.
I feel a very mild curiousity about how Jason can have failed to notice who is who in American society. I note that Jason now appears to be in a post-ictal stage of his verbal epileptic fit, and presume my curiousity will have subsided before he returns to the keyboard.
Well, Jason, I'm sure any liberal would be glad to give you an earful about any of the topics you've mentioned. But all of that is business-as-usual in the good ol' USA, and liberals in government always face a solid phalanx of rightwing interests who insist that driving everywhere is actually good for you, that beer companies perform a public service when they finance anti-drug ads, and that nobody has ever actually proved that smoking kills you.
Meanwhile, the failure of the healthcare industry to deal with the carnage resulting from "free enterprise" (actually heavily subsidized monopolies protected by government regulations they help write) has become a crisis that we need to deal with if we don't want to become the next failed state.
Not to worry, Jason- I'm pretty sure that under any system you would be eligible to be seen immediately by a mental health specialist.
In the meantime, I'd suggest a little fresh air, maybe a trip to the park to meet some of your fellow Americans. We're really not so bad, even if we do tend to eat, drink, and smoke too much on the 4th of July.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 4, 2007 9:16:41 AM
> To call jasonR's comments silly is to
> misunderstand their very unsilly goal? to
> render serious discussion of serious issues moot.
If you watch the comments over at Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly blog carefully over a period of a year you will see lines of argument on certain political topics brought out, tested against some good liberal thinkers (Scotian comes to mind), sometimes refined, sometimes discarded - and then 3 months or so later (or as needed) the best of those arguments are apparently included in Karl Rove's daily talking points fax because they suddenly pop out of the mouths of dozens of Radical Right politicians, talking heads, and fellow travellers within days.
I am starting to think that is what is going on here with the "JasonR" nym: counterarguments and emotional attacks are being tested and refined for use in the 2009-2010 time period when President Hillary Obama starts working on health care.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jul 4, 2007 10:23:04 AM
How many Canadians die each year because they lack access to quality medical care?
No, I don't know either, but it is the important number to be discussing here, isn't it? Who thinks that it is more or less than 1,800 (given the population difference)?
Tim, given that Canada has universal free health care, the answer is "zero". Isn't it?
Posted by: ajay | Jul 4, 2007 10:46:10 AM
Cranky- while I don't believe there is any coordination of these things- I do think these sorts of approaches- such as you see by Jason are common right wing tools. That is bring in strawman arguments. But frankly I don't blame the right for this. I blame the left for playing a long. Ov er and over again one can say- they are strawman arguments or one can simply say to focus like Jason- you are an idiot. And move with talking to others. But let's be honest- what's more fun to human nature? Agreeing like minded people or arguing with the crazy drunk uncle?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 4, 2007 11:59:56 AM
by the way- jason truly is whacked in the head- get him talking about his fantasies about torture
Posted by: akaison | Jul 4, 2007 12:00:38 PM
"It's fascinating how much more concerned conservative types are with a Canadian who had to wait 3 months for a hip replacement than with the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they lack access to quality medical care."
Hip replacement surgeries are not emergency surgeries and the wait times are basically a non issue. I'm Canadian and a few years back by father had his hip replaced. This was something he knew was coming. He had regular visits with his family doctor and at the appropriate time (as his hip degenerated) his doctor sent him to a specialist. He was then put on a wait list for hip replacement surgery. This was approximately 6 months before the operation. Although he was on a wait list he received the operation when he needed it. In the case of more serious operations such as bypass surgeries even though you may be on a wait list, if your condition worsens you will get emergency surgery if you need it.
Posted by: Mc J | Jul 4, 2007 12:40:55 PM
> Cranky- while I don't believe there is
> any coordination of these things- I do
> think these sorts of approaches- such as
> you see by Jason are common right wing tools.
It isn't a huge effort - probably 4-8 writers who rotate in and out from the self-styled "thinktanks" and 1-2 web programmers in an office somewhere off K Street. But given that the Radical Right's funders have purchased entire magazines, newspaper chains, research foundations, and TV networks to use as propaganda tools I don't have much trouble thinking that they are spending $1-$2 million/year to poison the liberal blogsphere. And as I indicated Kevin Drum's blog, TPMCafe, and a few other sites are actually good places to sharpen Radical Right arguments and then infuse them with just enough gotcha emotion to make them effective.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jul 4, 2007 12:48:21 PM
Referring to an article on wait-times in Canada for tumour treatment, Jason R. writes: "But it gets worse, because most hospitals aren't even meeting the government's goal of a wait no longer than four weeks."
Not so. The article says that most hospitals (just over half) ARE meeting the goal, with wait-times varying considerably according to the disease.
Posted by: mijnheer | Jul 4, 2007 12:52:02 PM
"It's fascinating how much more concerned conservative types are with a Canadian who had to wait 3 months for a hip replacement than with the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they lack access to quality medical care."
Hip replacement surgeries are not emergency surgeries and the wait times are basically a non issue. I'm Canadian and a few years back by father had his hip replaced. This was something he knew was coming. He had regular visits with his family doctor and at the appropriate time (as his hip degenerated) his doctor sent him to a specialist. He was then put on a wait list for hip replacement surgery. This was approximately 6 months before the operation. Although he was on a wait list he received the operation when he needed it. In the case of more serious operations such as bypass surgeries even though you may be on a wait list, if your condition worsens you will get emergency surgery if you need it.
Posted by: Mc J | Jul 4, 2007 12:55:45 PM
I agree with cranky on this in part. I find that there is a very short step between the nutty things kevin's posters or jasonr or any other serious troll says and things that pop out of the mouths of the guys I know who watch o'reilly (but think he's a blowhard) or who watch glenn beck or read the boston herald. There is incredible message discipline on the right and actually, to my mind, by the time you hear it from the guy in the street its been in and out of the mouths of higher ups for some time. Its kind of like what they say about food in fancy restaurants. The fancier the restaurant? the more people have touched your food. The more bizarre and contrived and right wing the political argument? the more think tankers and propagandists have massaged it. Whether Jason is a self employed tool or a leading edge thinker and early adopter of incoherent and inhumane political thinking we can't tell. But I do agree that we will see his "arguments" (such as they are) repeated ad nauseum in the future. Hope we all have healthy private insurance to combat the vomiting.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 4, 2007 12:56:09 PM
Apologies - don't know how I managed to post that comment twice - I thought I only posted once.
Posted by: Mc J | Jul 4, 2007 1:00:35 PM
I still don't think its coordinated. I think it is more this is how it works. Fore the most part, what the right does in the US is fairly simple - it taps into the fear factor in the brain. If you read Jason's posts they really aren't just red herrings- they are what he fears. We all of course have fears, but the question is what is more probable than not, and for the right wingers (again i speak of only America) probability of fear being an actual risk is taking out of the equation. Efficacy etc are taking out of the equation. Hence, you get Jason posting about how he wants the pardon or commutation just in case (and yes its a strained argument) a President has to pardon someone who had to torture people to protect us from terrorism. What kind of mind thinks up shit like that other than one that is so deeply gripped in fear of the unknown that this is how they think. I have friends who are right leaning- and nearly everything they argue to me is based more on fear of what might happen rather than what is happening. We know that quantitative and qualitatively our healthcare system isn't working as is, and yet they are so afraid of real change they propose the same old, same old repackaged through their fears. I don't see any of that requiring coordinated effort- it just requires an active imagination based on emotions.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 4, 2007 2:09:03 PM
Incidentally- I find nothing more instructive about people's fears than 9/11. We are more likely to die of multiple other things before anything approaching what happened in 9/11 and yet the right used this symbolism really well so that people were afraid for a long time. WHy? because they are working on the basic emotional- as oft has been called- lizzard part of our brains.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 4, 2007 2:11:28 PM
In view of recent events in the U.K., I'm surprised no one has brought up the connection between universal healthcare and terrorism.
Posted by: mijnheer | Jul 4, 2007 2:20:02 PM
Cranky,
Great theory on JasonR! I was wondering how he could produce so much output in a day and your theory might be why. That or he's a college kid on summer break.
While I may be more sympathetic to his point of view, I must admit that the pure volume of his posting is somewhat annoying.
Akaison - I would submit that tapping in the fear is a strategy of both the left and the right. As someone from the right I often think this is a prime strategy of the left. Though I do agree the right does this as well. Heck, even we libertarians are prone to this with our fear of gov't. There's an interesting post on this subject on Kling's blog.
Posted by: DM | Jul 4, 2007 2:20:37 PM
As someone from the right I often think this is a prime strategy of the left.
I wish to welcome you back from your extended trip abroad. Did you feel bad about having been out of the United States and unable to follow the 2004 election?
Modern conservatism is, at its base, nothing but an ideology based in the fear of emasculation. Always has been, always will be. People who say otherwise aren't lying-- they're simply ignorant. Vendors of conservative ideology are almost consistently upfront about selling fear in order to demonstrate to people how they need the protection of conservatism.
And yes, I believe that during one of JasonR's early forays onto the blog when we were discussing minimum wage laws, he revealed that he is a college student. This tends to explain why his statements are always made in terms of teenage-conservative cliches ("oh YEAH? What what if we raised the minimum wage to $100,000,000???") and why his perspective on health insurance comes across as being the perspective of someone who's never been seriously sick or injured.
Posted by: Constantine | Jul 4, 2007 2:36:58 PM
Constantine,
Outside of being witty yet passive/aggressive, I’m not sure why you responded to my post the way you did. I agree that use of fear is a key, underpinning component of conservative marketing strategy… take the “war of terror” as the prime example. But I’d be astonished if you didn’t think that liberals do this as well.
For now, I’ll assume you just wanted to jump down a conservative’s throat and that intellectually, you agree with my point; unless, of course, you’ve been living abroad. :)
Posted by: DM | Jul 4, 2007 2:56:57 PM
DM
I agree. I thought about it, and realized I am overstating my case. My main thrust is that at this point in American history, as in the last few years, it's the right which is centrally focused on denial of facts and reason in favor of fear.
I am not saying that the left hasn't done this in the past or is incapable of it. I meet people who are all the time. My point was in part which fears are given power. Right now the fears given power in the US are the right's fear.
To me, it's just as irrational to say the market will solve all our problems as it is to say the government will. I know you say you are libertarian, and I don't want to go into a big discussion of coercion- but as I like to say "a chain is a chain to me, and I don't much care who is putting it own me other than to know why and to what end." It's a case by case, fact by fact, big picture to big picture analysis.
I simply on whole don't see that kind of analysis on the right. I see a whole lot of denial or throwing red herrings into the mix.
Yes, Jason has said he's a college student, but frankly, I see his sort of comments a lot. To me, he represents a certain lack of maturity about politics that isn't just about experience, but instead about rationalizations.
It's mostly amongst certain types of personalities. There are often certain personality traits involved in the right, and of the left as well. I find that I am atypical of the personality on the left. They each have their own narratives. My main concern is which one is more dangerous given the circumstances. I am trying not to get to deep into this- its the 4th and I got an article due so I will simply say. None of what I am saying here should be construed as simple minded analysis of how the right is all evil or the left is angelic, it is instead an observation about the personalities involved as a general way to understand why folks like JasonR, for example, throw out red herrings, and why folks like us continue to argue with them.
We do so by the way- although 9 out of 10 Americans want the government to fundamentally change healthcare in the US and get involved. If you want to know why the insurance companies are starting to change their tune- it's because they know 8 percent inflationary rates a year isn't sustainable, and they see the same polling data that others are starting to see.
That's why I ask Ezra- who is his audience? He seems to be arguing with folks like Jason who aren't really relevant mostly because we will expend huge amounts of energy trying to convince them not to be quite so afraid of the possible rather than the probable.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 4, 2007 3:10:08 PM
akaison,
good post! There may be some small points to argue, but we both have better things to do today and I think you're spot with most of it.
Posted by: DM | Jul 4, 2007 3:18:53 PM
BTW, when talking about Canadian health care, there's one thing to remember. Canada is really fucking big.
And when I say really fucking big, I really do mean REALLY BIG.
Hospitals outside of urban areas, and there's a lot of them, might cover a small population, over a wide area. So they might deal with maybe a few hip replacements a year..no need for a specialist. It's that distance that creates a lot of cost/wait in the Canadian system.
The private alternative is to not have health care in the rural areas that provides the natural resources for the (world really) economy to thrive. It just wouldn't be profitable.
Not an option.
Posted by: Karmakin | Jul 4, 2007 3:36:09 PM
You should expect that the arguments you see on blogs and those you see elsewhere will be similar, whether they're conservative or liberal. Both sides rely on fears that the other side thinks are unrealistic.
Jason has his share of issues that affect discussions with him, but a lot of the comments about him here are ridiculous. He's actually better at making sense than many of the posters here, and while that fails him in certain conditions, that's hardly unique. It's mainly his persistence that's unusual.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 4, 2007 3:52:15 PM
Gee, hip replacements, I have first hand knowledge about them. I've had two hip replacements (in America). I knew they both were coming years before I had the surgery. When I finally scheduled surgery, the wait was around ... 3 months. I don't think anyone beyond an accident victim needs an on-demand hip replacement. If a 3 month wait for a hip replacement is the largest objection to the Canadian health system, then there are no objections to the Canadian health system.
Posted by: TOLFRP | Jul 4, 2007 7:34:44 PM
Well, 65-75% of Canadians wait longer than 3 months for a hip replacement. 35-50% wait 7 months or longer. How would you have felt if you had to go another 4 months?
Posted by: umbrelladoc | Jul 5, 2007 4:20:48 PM
probably alot better than my friend who had his appendice nearly burst because three hospitals wouldn't admit him b/c he didn't have health insurance. a hip replacement you can survive- burst appendix- not so much. You do the math.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 6, 2007 1:58:16 AM
What is with liberals in their buy now, pay later mentality? do you trust a government incapable of dealing with the woes of an inept social security system to be in charge of your health care? of course health care could be better -- however government controlled universal health care is not the answer. just look at some of the problems those countries w/ socialist health care systems are now having to deal with...
-immense health care deficit
-price controls/rationing
-long wait times for simple procedures
-decrease in the competency of doctors and specialists
of course under this new universal system, it would be unjust to deny treatment to illegal aliens (right liberals)!!! these poor individuals will make full use of a system they do not pay for. the free rider problem doesn't just disappear like the lobster and butter sauce mr. moore so thoroughly enjoys each evening as he tests the limits of the waistband attached to his trousers. our country harbors more than 13 million illegal immigrants (that is a very conservative estimate). do they account for a portion of the 40 million individuals who do not have health care in this country?
my mother recently broke her pelvis in a car accident.
imagine breaking your pelvis and waiting the govt goal of 15 WEEKS for an MRI... that would have been the case if we were living in the UK.
in the US, you can get an MRI at the emergency room the SAME day you walk in. you tell me that isn't worth paying for.
Posted by: JasonRisCORRECT | Jul 10, 2007 2:17:46 AM
akaison, is your friend an illegal alien? i am pretty sure it is illegal for emergency rooms to deny service to individuals for lack of insurance.
that is why emergency room wait times are so long -- people without insurance or people who do not know any better go there for checkups.
Posted by: JOHN DOH | Jul 10, 2007 2:22:17 AM
