Looking for research on socialist healthcare (vanity)

I don't know of any particular thread off hand but maybe neverdem can help you.

Horror story after horror story here:

http://socglory.blogspot.com/

"Healthcare should be freely available to all, regardless of cost"

The statement itself is an absurdity. How can it be free if there is a cost involved?

What is meant is:

"Healthcare should be freely available to all, regardless of one's ability to pay"

Your wife would be smart to ask that the question be rephrased so as to make sense.

The Independent Women's Forum has various articles about several issues--healthcare is one of them.

For instance, I found a thread which said that the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that "Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare", and has made it legal again to seek private health insurance in Canada. Is that true?

I could be wrong here and I am too lazy to search, but I believe it was the highest court in Quebec that made the ruling and the ruling only applies to Quebec and not all of Canada.

Here is a quick question to ask. Following the recent bombings in London, which has universal health care, some of the injured were flown to Duke University Medical Center in Durham North Carolina. Why, if the socialized health care in London is so wonderful did they need to fly Londoners to the United States for treatment?

here is a link to an editorial in the British Medical Journal about the case from the June 18th issue...I think the court case was around that time.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1408

Quebec David Spurgeon

A surprise ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down a Quebec prohibition on private health insurance in that province has raised fears that a two tier health care system will arise to replace the whole country’s universal publicly funded system. Until now, Canadians have not been allowed to buy health insurance to cover services provided by the publicly funded system, even though there are long waits for some of these services. The decision of the court is likely to result in residents of other provinces also challenging the ban.

The court judgment was given in a case brought by Jacques Chaouilli, a Quebec doctor whose patient, George Zeliotis, had waited nearly a year for hip replacement surgery. Dr Chaouilli and Mr Zeliotis argued that Quebec’s ban on buying private insurance for services already covered by the public system yet not readily accessible violated both Quebec’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court agreed: "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

The ruling is being interpreted in different ways by different interest groups. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation claimed the ruling signals "the end of medicare as we know it" (Toronto Star 2005 Jun 10: A26). But international affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson of the Toronto Globe and Mail pronounced "the sacred trust—or sacred cow—of public only medicine is finished" (Toronto Globe and Mail 2005 Jun 10: 1)

But champions of the present universal system are insisting that it will survive. Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "We’re not going to have a two tier healthcare system in this country. What we want to do is to strengthen the public healthcare system." Mr Martin and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh say that $C41bn (£18bn; €27bn; $33bn) in additional financing to the healthcare system over the next 10 years will solve the waiting list problem (BMJ 2004;329:704).

Federal officials, trying to quell widespread public anxiety about the fate of their most popular social programme, have characterised the court’s narrow, four-three decision as "a wake-up call" to end the long waiting times for treatment that caused it.

The controversy brings to head long standing complaints that Canada’s healthcare system is underfunded and staggering under escalating costs, staff shortages, and increasing demands for services.

Albert Schumacher, president of the Canadian Medical Association, which has long urged governments to consider allowing some provision of private services, said, "The feds are trying to take some first steps in this, but look, we’re far behind getting to a solution. This [decision] is going to crank up the speed of the treadmill significantly."

The present situation in Canadian health care is complicated by the fact that some private services are already available. If, for example, a Quebec citizen does not want to wait many months to get publicly paid cataract surgery, private services can be obtained—at a cost. He or she can also find private clinics that will provide magnetic resonance imaging, for example, where equipment in the public system is in short supply.

Alberta already provides some private services and has been considering adding more. The public system guarantees access only to "approved" medical and hospital services, which differ in availability from province to province. This results from a time in the 1960s when the national system was set up and when "healthcare services" meant predominantly those provided by doctors and hospitals, although other services have been added since.

Canada’s constitution provides a "notwithstanding" clause that allows provinces to override a ruling of the Supreme Court, but the Quebec government says that it will not invoke this clause, asking instead that the Supreme Court delay the effect of its ruling. Jean Charest, Quebec’s premier, says that his government eventually will comply with the ruling and that it can do so without undermining the public healthcare system. "We are going to look at all the details of the ruling, but we are certainly going to do what we have to do to preserve the healthcare system in which we believe."

Related Article

Canada's federal and provincial governments reach agreement over healthcare spending
David Spurgeon
BMJ 2004 329: 704. [Extract] [Full Text]

Here is a list of links about national health care:

Socialized medicine on life support
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430110/posts

Heritage Foundation on the myths of health care in Canada
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276859/posts

David Asman's experience in London when his wife had a stroke
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006785

Health care myths
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441002/posts

Universal health care sucks

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/162/9/1348

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_762.html

http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/43436/la_id/1.htm

http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Media_Release/pdf/2005/no_more_wait.pdf

The Canadian Health Care system info can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Canada%29

It's a quick and dirty summary. Note that it's gone far beyond coverage in cases of catastrophic or chronic disease to cover everything short of prescription drugs, eyeglasses and dental. (BTW - if you'e over 65 those ARE covered)

check the archives on the American Spectator website - I know I have recently read some excellent articles on the folly of socialized medicine. www.spectator.org

Here's your research:

Note how many people come from socialist healthcare nations to the United States when they have a serious illness.
Note how many people leave the United States to go to socialist healthcare nations when they have a serious illness.

In those numbers you will find the harsh truth regarding what an utter, unmitigated failure socialized medicine truly is.

Now, to put it in stark, human terms: When I was initially diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the identified tumor was the size of a walnut. When it was removed only weeks later, it had grown to the size of a baseball. Had I been subject to socialized medicine, I would not have been treated for months.

In effect, I am alive now only because this great nation does not have socialized medicine!

Mark Steyn had a fantastic column on Canadian health care around a year ago. It's an account of his wife, who had been stuck in Canada when he was out of the country, who had a misscarrage in the waiting room of the hospital.

She literally read an entire book while waiting, and the hospital staff gave her trouble because she bled all over the floor.

I don't know how to look up Steyn's columns, but there has to be an archive somewhere.

http://el.hct.ac.ae/HSci/Hc/Sys.html

Japan publishes a bit about its universal health care system which is currently successful, although it is hard to see how any Japanese social systems will easily survive the demographic crisis that is rapidly approaching.

The Google search term that I would recommend for finding out more is "site:go.jp health insurance". The relevant Ministry in charge is the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (web page is http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/index.html).

Here is a short summary from the Ministry on its health insurance system:

Health Insurance Bureau

Providing Health Care for All People without Worries

Health Insurance Bureau develops ideas and plans on medical insurance systems including health insurance, national health insurance, seamen's insurance and medical care for the elderly to stabilize the medical insurance system for long time so that all people can access medical care without worries in a full-fledged aging society with fewer children in the future.

Roles of Medical Insurance

When you go to hospitals and clinics for injuries and illness, you can receive necessary medical care for a small fee. This is because of the medical insurance system. Japan practices a universal medical care insurance system in which all citizens subscribe one of medical care insurance systems so that everybody has access to adequate medical care without worries. This is contributing greatly to the stabilization of the people's living and the maintenance of their health.

Types of Medical Insurance

The medical care insurance system in Japan consists of a number of systems. In rough classification, there are 2 types: The National Health Insurance (45.45 million subscribers) which self-employed people, farmers and jobless people subscribe, and employees' health insurance. Employees' health insurance includes the Health Insurance Society (32.58 subscribers) which is mostly subscribed by the employees of large companies, and Government-Managed Health Insurance (37.58 subscribers) which is mainly subscribed by the employees of small to medium size companies.
In addition, we have medical care insurance systems designed for seamen, national public service employees, local public service employees, and teachers and staff employees of private schools. Thus the universal health care insurance system consists of various systems.

Thinking about Medical Care in the Future

Japan's medical care insurance system is at a major turning point now. Forty years have passed since the establishment of the universal health insurance system, and while we are becoming a true aging society with fewer children, the imbalance between the increase of medical expenditure and the economic growth is growing further more. In addition, along with the social change and the change of people's awareness, the requirement to medical care is diversifying.
While in this condition, it is urgent to implement a radical reform of the medical care insurance system to minimize the growth of inflating medical expenditure while allowing all people to receive quality medical care services without worries.
Here are some examples of corrective actions:
To promote the optimal usage of drugs by eliminating the gap between the purchase cost of drugs by hospitals and the health insurance reimbursement on the drug as much as possible.

To realize proper combination of the reimbursement system with fee for service that reimburses each type of medical care, and fixed payment system that reimburses a fixed amount for a service regardless of individual medical practices, and to promote proper division of roles and collaboration between large hospitals and clinics.

To rebuild a mechanism where both the elderly and non-elderly can share the burden of increasing medical expenditure for the elderly with impartiality while efficiently offering necessary medical care for the elderly. We are now working on these issues indicated above.

About Health Expenditure

National health expenditure is increasing every year. In fiscal 1999 it exceeded 30 trillion for the first time, and the ratio to the national income reached 8%. In particular, the medical care cost for the elderly is growing at the rate of about 9% annually as the aging population increases rapidly. In recent years this is the key driver for the increase of medical expenditure. When we compare the medical examination fee per person, the fee for the elderly is 5 times greater than that for the non-elderly. Considering these factors, it is necessary that we continue to promote the improvement and management of lifelong health as well as to offer adequate medical care for the elderly in an efficient manner.

1. As others have said, the court ruling in Canada applies only to Quebec.

2. I have blogged on this question. What I claim there is that after correcting for lifestyle choices (obesity, e.g.) and the extreme efforts to save low-birthrate babies in the U.S., the much-touted lifespan and infant-mortality differences between the U.S. and European nations don't amount to much. In fact, life expectancy contingent on actually getting a particular illness tends to be better in the U.S.

Overall, there can no more be a right to health care than there can be a right to beachfront property. Different nations allocate scarce health-care resources by different criteria. One can allocate them by price, by queueing, by bribery, or some other way, but choices must be made. Each way of making them means different health-care outcomes. The way we make those choices is different and, by many criteria, better than the way they are made elsewhere.

As a final note, a guy at Reason magazine argues that American consumers in a reasonably free market play a huge role in driving medical progress, by signaling via their willingness to pay which health-care innovations have value. If we adopted single-payer we would be stuck with 2005-level health care for the next 100 years.

"Healthcare should be freely available to all, regardless of cost"

Further to my comment above. The word "freely" is also a misnomer. In this case the word intended is 'readily', as in available to all and not the more common use of "free" as in not costing anything.

The instructor has an agenda here that is shallow and transparent.

I would suggest that some dose of logic be sprinkled into the debate.

Can Beach-front property in CA be made freely available to all, regardless of cost? Why not?
The answer is simple: There is a finite supply. Efforts to make such property available to all would necessarily degrade the quality (What do you do with 2.5 ft of beach-front property?)

Anything of finite supply cannot be made freely available to all. To attempt to do so will necessarily degrade the quality. "I can spend 15 minutes on your heart transplant, but then I have to run -- I have a very long patient list today." Some mechanism must be employed in order to control availablity.

The choice is:
1) Rationing by bureaucrats or
2) a market solution in which cost determines level of care.

While neither solution may be perfect, Option #1 does not provide an environment in which smart young people want to become doctors, or where healthcare capacity can afford to grow to meet a perceived need. Option #2, the Market Solution, comes with money to help attract wannabe doctors, and can fund hospital expansions.