And the Gurneys Continue to Stack Up in Canada...

As we celebrate our long Independence Day weekend, I thought about the increased number of accidents and ER incidents typically predicated by usual holiday activities, and how life would be different if we, in the US, were subject to a socialized, government-run health care system.

The ObamaCare Health Care Reform Plan has long been compared to the government-run Canadian Socialized Health Care Program. There are some facts that we, as Americans, may not know.

Before we get into the down and dirty, I'll start with a true story as told to me by my friend, Mark. This incident occurred four years ago:

Mark's American aunt married a Canadian. They maintained two residences, one in Florida and the other in Toronto, Ontario. Mark's aunt was diagnosed with cancer while in Florida. They decided to have her tests performed there, but move to their Toronto home for treatment, as they qualified for Canada's socialized health care.

So off they went to Toronto. They took the required steps of first seeing a 'Primary Care Physician" to obtain the required prescription to see a Specialist. Even though they had the test results from Florida in hand, they had to satisfy Canadian law. Yes, LAW. The wait to see the specialist was 5 weeks...a wait time regarded by Canadian health care to be one on the 'short' side.

Mark's aunt died three days before her scheduled appointment with the specialist.

We don't have 5 week wait times in the US. In an emergency situation, a simple call to your doctor's office can get you seen the same day. In a US hospital ER, those more serious injuries are seen more quickly than those less seriously injured -- not necessarily so in the socialized medicine world.

I recently went to hear a Canadian-educated MD speak about both sides of the health care issue. He used to practice in Canada, but since moved to the US for many reasons. Let's just get right down to it.

Facts about the Canadian Health Care system:

1. Single payer system - government

2. Comprehensiveness

3. Universal

4. Portability - you can use it wherever you are in Canada

5. Accessibility - "reasonable access"

What is covered:

1. ALL hospitals are publically funded (by taxes, and are government-run)

2. Physician costs (are not set by doctors, but are determined by removed, non-medical parties)

What is not covered:

1. Prescription drugs - 10% of health care costs (CURRENTLY A CO-PAY IN MOST US HEALTH CARE PLANS)

2. Medical equipment - wheelchairs, etc. (CURRENTLY PAID FOR IN US BY MEDICARE)

3. Allied health providers - physical therapy, podiatrist, chiropractor, independent living help, etc. (CURRENTLY COVERED OR A CO-PAY IN MOST US HEALTH PLANS)

Common Fallacies:

1. The number of US uninsured has not changed since the 1970's. The population has grown, but the percentage is still between 16-17%.

2. There are actually more insured Americans than ever, but currently 14M legal Americans are without insurance, not by choice.

Points of interest and concern:

• Costs for pharmaceutical drugs have doubled, and represent 10% of current US health care costs.

• US government currently pays 45%* of medical costs.

• Canadian government currently pays 70%* of medical costs.

Participating in the Canadian health care plan requires a primary care physician, but there is a shortage of doctors in Canada due to restrictions because:

• Canadian government decides where doctor will practice, depending on their specialty.

• Government imposes ratio. When it's reached, it's capped.

• Government imposes restrictions on hospitals, based on funding. No funding, no care, and the hospital will close.

• Government rationing of ER and all other departments -- gurneys stack up in hospital hallways if there are not enough (funded) beds in the hospital.

• CAT Scan, PET Scan, radio therapy, etc., requires first seeing a primary care physician, then inside specialist 8-16 week wait. Then 4-8 week wait for tests. Total wait time can be 6-12 months for the scan.

• The doctor/patient relationship is key to well being, but has been disrupted by the Canadian health care plan.

• Significant caps on fees.

Socialized health care is dictated by the system (budget), and not the needs of the patient.

Once a highly regarded and respected position, Canadian doctors are now regarded as government employees, and no longer garner the respect doctors in other countries enjoy. There has been a significant reduction in Canadian medical school enrollment, creating a shortage of doctors. The 'best and brightest' no longer are attracted to this career choice, so the 'lesser qualified' are gaining entry to medical schools -- and graduating. The end result is lower quality of care.

There's even more decline in Canada:

• Crippling diseases still exist in Canada -- and they shouldn't.

• There are no longer research or drug companies in Canada, and only two manufacturers of vaccines in the world (one in the US).

The Law and Costs:

• Private insurance is ILLEGAL in Canada -- Doctors are fined, jailed and will lose their license to practice in Canada. Patients are fined and jailed.

• Care is not free, and has no known value (you're not writing the check).

• The less doctors do for you, the more money is left in the 'pot' for them to continue to work before reaching the cap.

• Cost shift from medical care to disability -

10.1% Canadian GDP (gross domestic product)

16% US GDP

Disability and unemployment costs are not figured into GDP.

• Canadian government charges values to keep budget balanced, meaning if one month has high costs, the available funding will be reduced the following month in order to keep the budget balanced.

Question:

If this system doesn't work for 33 million Canadian citizens, who would think it would be viable for 307 million US citizens?

*Suggestion to fix US Health Care: Eliminate the 3rd Party

US bureaucracy/administration/regulatory micromanagement is responsible for 1/3 of our medical costs. If we cut the micromanagement of our current system, our costs would be in line with those of the Canadian socialized health care plan -- and we would still enjoy high quality of care.

Oh, and the doctor who provided this information has been asked to return to Canada to practice. He has less than zero motivation to do so. He enjoys freedom to practice in the US, to get paid his self-determined fees, to live a high quality of life, to enjoy respect of patients and peers, and to be grateful for the privilege of living and working in the United States.

Happy Independence Day!

OC

House Vote to Repeal ObamaCare Passes 245-189

The new Republican majority in the House of Representativs voted today on a bill promising the complete repeal of ObamaCare. The bill passed with a unanimous Republican vote along with the support of three House Democrats, proving that the demand to repeal ObamaCare is a real, bipartisan fight that will lead ot a serious debate in the Senate.

The way it's written, ObamaCare is a job-killing, micro-managing law that threatens to skyrocket insurance costs, bankrupt the federal government, and take away patient's choices. It was rammed through Congress last year by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi without garnering a single Republican vote. In December 2010, a Virginia federal judge ruled the ObamaCare mandate on all Americans to purchase health insurance to be unconstitutional.

Source: FreedomWorks

Contact: FreedomWorks Jackie Bodnar 202.942.7652 jbodnar@freedomworks.org

OC

http://classic.cnbc.com/id/41162327

Repeal ObamaCare Today

As a nation, we are very concerned about the cost and availability of healthcare, which, when we think about it, really starts with the each of us....and the individual choices we make during our daily lives. We may think they're small --- for instance, what we have for lunch may not be as earth-shattering as finding the money for our kids tuition -- yet the truth is, many poor decisions may add up to make one costly health disaster.

I'm all about freedom....if you want health care, you should have it. And yes, it should be affordable to everyone. That said, I do not believe that socialized medicine is the answer. ObamaCare, as it's currently written, is NOT a viable, sustainable plan, and would prove itself a disaster on all levels if put into practice.

If you are pro-ObamaCare, please don't judge me too quickly...I'm on your side, too.

Below is the letter I sent to my representatives with my thoughts. As you can see, it's nothing fancy, and only took about 8 minutes to compose....not a lot of time in the big picture, as I've spent more time choosing which shoes to wear.

The vote is today.

I urge you to put your fingers to the keyboard and/or call your representatives...NOW! They're in the process of voting today.

********************

Repeal ObamaCare

We've been offered a poorly written, under-researched and outrageously expensive plan which will prove to be a failure of epic proportion if signed into law.

The cornerstone to ANY viable health plan is self-education. Let's face it...the public has become lazy and irresponsible for their own health over the last 50 years, expecting a "magic bullet" to fix all of their problems -- from obesity to GERD to Type II Diabetes, which are all largely preventable conditions. It's an unrealistic expectation, and has already proven itself ineffective and expensive in terms of money AND human lives. It is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year from the use of prescription drugs -- that's 270 a day. NO ONE has died as a result of eating organic fruits and vegetables, getting proper rest and drinking pure water.

People have learned to rely on a medical model of pharmaceuticals, which only treat symptoms and do not offer the body nutritional support to heal itself (which it's designed to do).

Most medical school educations do not include nutritional education, but do include pharmaceutical training -- diseases are given names so that they can be more easily identified with a pharmaceutical drug (think "Geranimals" matching system). Therefore, it makes sense that allopaths do what they are trained to do --- prescribe drugs, which are limited to treating symptoms, but not provide vital nutrition to the body so that it may heal itself.

Allopaths/Medical doctors have a vital role in saving lives....that's what they are trained to do. But they are not well trained in optimizing daily lifestyle choices, unless they have gone off on their own and taken additional natural health related courses of education.

There is room for both schools of training -- allopathic and naturopathic -- we need both, and we really need to be looking at what is best for our people on every count, not just industry revenues. Aside from pharmaceutical and insurance, there are others.....

The food industry has offered up many processed foods which are void of valuable nutrition, yet are loaded with toxic food additives which have shown to cause reactions in the brain to 'want' these toxic foods more, much like causing an addictive response --- and we wonder why obesity is one of our top 3 national health problems -- which is COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE.

Aside from herbicides and pesticides, chemical companies have created very expensive GE and GMO seeds, which produce crops void of valuable nutrition, but high in toxic chemicals which create more health problems.

Question: If food is void of nutrition, why are we eating?

Another question: Why spend trillions on a health care plan when the top three and most costly diseases are PREVENTABLE? It just seems to be punishing those who live balanced, healthy, optimized lives for those who opt for fast/junk food, soda and sedentary lifestyle.

My Plan (off the top of my head):

• Nutrition education programs will be written, executed and mandated in school curricula.

• Parents will be required to participate in nutritional education program.

• Food industry will be required to clearly label all products containing any and all chemical food additives.

• Food manufacturers will be bonused for providing organic and whole foods to their product line.

• Food manufacturers will be assessed a fee by the insurance industry for producing fast foods, and those with chemical food additives. If these manufacturers produce products which make people sick, they need to 'pay the piper'.

• That said, those manufacturers will pass along the extra charges to their customers. Again, if these are the people who are driving up medical costs across the board, they need to be held accountable for their decisions.

• Industrial farms which use chemical herbicides and pesticides will be assessed a charge, as it has been proven that people become sick from these toxic chemicals in their food source.

• Factory farms (meat, poultry) and farmed fish companies will all be assessed charges for using chemical feeds and injecting foods with antibiotics/hormones and any other substance.

The bottom line here is responsibility and accountability. It's imperative to the sustainability of our nation and it's people to revisit the health care revision plan.

Respectfully, and in the very best of health,

Kristin Mills, ND, CNHP

New Poll Confirms IBD's '09 Finding Of Doctor Exodus Under ObamaCare

Four in nine doctors responding to an IBD/TIPP poll sent out in August 2009 said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed what has become known as ObamaCare. That means as many as 360,000 physicians have plans to be doing something other than treating the growing number of patients in this country.

The doctors also told us — 67% to 22%, with 11% not responding — that they expected fewer students to apply for medical school in the future if the plan became law.

Given these views, it's no surprise that 71% were doubtful that the government would be able to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans with better care at lower costs, which ObamaCare supporters have promised.

source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556398/201012091905/New-Poll-Confirms-IBDs-09-Finding-Of-Doctor-Exodus-Under-ObamaCare.htm

OC's Note: There's been much talk about Health Care Reform --- and the news still isn't as good as it could be. The results of this poll are disturbing and disappointing. We can do better than this.

.

US Health Care Reform to Tax all Home Sales and Savings Income

Effective 2013, a 3.8% tax will be imposed on income from home sales, rental income and other sources. These monies will go directly to drug companies, cancer clinics, vaccine manufacturers and other "sick care" industry giants who prey on Medicare funding to line their pockets.

Here's more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029849_health_care_reform_taxes.html

Seven Empty Promises About ObamaCare

Note: LNH presents nonpartisan, educational information regarding any issues considered "political".

The president is still struggling to to sell his plan.

by Peter Suderman

September 9, 2010

Just weeks before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)—a.k.a ObamaCare—passed, President Barack Obama urged congressional Democrats to make a final push for the bill, and asked them to schedule a vote as quickly as they could. “From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform,” he said.

The bill passed, but the case didn’t take. Since Obama signed the bill into law, its unpopularity has, according to Pollster.com’s multi-poll aggregate, held steady, with roughly 48 percent of the public opposed. Liberal health care activists trying to sell the law and help its supporters in Congress have been forced to backtrack on their messaging—and in some cases, have found that their best strategy is to avoid mentioning the law at all. Now, the Obama administration and its allies are launching a multimillion dollar ad campaign intended to sell the public on the law’s virtues.

The president and his administration, it seems, are still doing everything they can to make the case for reform. The problemn is that so much of that case isn’t likely to pay off. Here are seven empty promises made about ObamaCare:

1. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
In June of 2009, President Obama gave a press conference where he explained his frequent promise that those who like their health care plans can keep their health care plans. “What I’m saying is, the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform,” he said. So in order to ensure health plan continuity, the law included a “grandfathering” provision that allows employers and insurers to continue offering plans that already exist without subjecting them to new rules and regulations. But the requirements that plans must meet in order to keep their grandfathered status are particularly strict. And in a draft document laying out grandfathering rules, the administration admitted that “after some period of time, most plans will relinquish their grandfathered status.” Meanwhile, the new law may also force more than 3 million seniors to switch their Medicare drug plans, regardless of whether they like them or not.

2. It will put Medicare on better fiscal footing.
In August 2010, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services released areport claiming that the PPACA would “extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 12 years.” Later, Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, told ABC News that her view is “supported” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It’s not. Instead, the CBO said that “to describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings.” This view is backed up by Medicare’s top actuary as well, who has written that “in practice the improved (Medicare hospital insurance) financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund.”

3. It will cost around $900 billion.
In September 2009, Obama told a joint session of Congress that his health care plan would cost “around $900 billion over ten years.” The CBO’s final cost estimate for the law came in at about $950 billion—close enough to the president’s figure for government work, perhaps—but a report from the CBO later estimated that the law will actually require about $115 billion in additional discretionary spending, putting the official price tag well over $1 trillion.

4. It won’t cut Medicare benefits.
At a 2009 AARP panel, President Obama brushed away the idea that his health care plan might cut Medicare benefits, telling the audience that “nobody’s talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” But according to the head of the Congressional Budget Office, thanks to $130 billion in planned cuts to companies that offer Medicare Advantage plans, the health care law will “reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.” Roughly 25 percent of Medicare recipients use Medicare Advantage plans. One can argue about whether or not the government should be reducing Medicare benefits, but it’s simply not true that no one in the program will lose the benefits they currently have.

5. It will be paid for “mostly” by shifting around money that we’re already spending.
One of the least popular aspects of the PPACA was its sky high cost. The president tried to combat this by saying that, although the bill would cost “about $100 billion per year,” most of that money would “come from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care.” Actually, the majority of the money from the bill’s official scored cost comes from new taxes. According to the CBO, “the two pieces of legislation [that make up the health care law] were estimated to increase mandatory outlays by $401 billion and raise revenues by $525 billion.”

6. It will give consumers more access and greater choice.
Organizing for America, the successor to Obama’s campaign organization, claims that the new health care law will result in “more choices...for millions of Americans.” But early signs indicate that, as a result of the law, patients and consumers will have fewer options for doctors and health insurance. Most experts, for example, expect that the health care overhaul will result in a serious doctor shortage, particularly amongst primary care phsyicians, meaning many individuals will have to wait longer for care, and may not get to see the doctor they want to see. Meanwhile, insurers in some states are already cutting back on insurance options.

7. It will bring down the price of insurance.
Just a few days before the final law passed, Obama said that “my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions." And health care affordability was so crucial to the president’s argument that the word made it into the title of the bill: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. So will health care costs come down? Not likely. The CBO predicted that the law will cause average health insurance premium prices to rise by 10-13 percent in the individual market. And a recent survey indicates that most businesses expect insurance prices to rise as a result of the PPACA. Perhaps Obama meant that the law would “bend the cost curve” and reduce the growing cost of health care? Even if he did, it wouldn’t matter; that’s not likely either. In June of 2009, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned Congress that its proposals would bend the curve in the wrong direction. And in a May 2010 presentation at the Institute of Medicine, Elmendorf declared that in the CBO’s judgment, “the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish [the] pressure” of rising health costs.

Peter Suderman is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/09/seven-empty-promises-about

OC