| If there is one thing the right likes to do, its that they want to speak for those who live in countries with universal healthcare. Don't get me wrong, a former social worker of mine lived in Canada, and her mother died from cancer in Toronto due to inefficiences of the healthcare system, however, my aunt, who worked at and was treated at a private-for-profit hospital in Toms River also died from cancer, due to doctors misreading an x-ray and general incompetence of physicians. This type of stuff is unfortunate, but it happens everywhere.
Not to mention that LIFE EXPECTANCY IS LONGER IN CANADA THAN IN THE USA. Also consider that Canada's mortality rate from HIV is only a quarter that of the United States, and that's adjusted for population (Canada has roughly 1/10 of the people of the United States, so 22,000 US HIV Deaths divided by 10 is 2,200, which is more than Canada's mere 500 HIV deaths per annum.
An actual Canadian, Sara Robinson, had this to say about wait time issues
it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.
You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system...In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.
And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.
Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.
Although I think the Canadian healthcare system has some problems, it is my position that wait times are caused by many independent variables
In 1991, the Ontario Medical Association agreed to become a province-wide closed shop, making the OMA union a monopoly. Critics argue that this measure has restricted the supply of doctors to guarantee its members' incomes
Keep in mind that closed-shop unions were made harder to incorporate by Taft-Hartley. I am against closed shops for these types of unions.
And its not just Canada I wish to discuss! Here's a fun idea, go to yahoo or google and type in "germany healthcare wait times". Not only did I not see any article referencing long wait times, it even lead to an article about wait times in, you guessed it, the U.S.A.
And in France, doctors are paid only roughly $70,000 per year. But that is good, because they can still live comfortably, not to mention that universal healthcare means that society becomes less litigious, thus lower malpractice fees, according to Sara Robinson, referenced above.
And consider that even on a conservative website, like the American Thinker, you will find that people will speak the truth about the costs of healthcare in countries with universal healthcare (hint: it's lower than in the United States).
I also would like to speak from personal experience here. I have a legitimate disability and will be getting SSI soon. I am on Medicaid, a program that is underfunded and ASSUMES that just because you have $2,001 in your bank account, that you are rich enough to afford healthcare on the open market. I also have third party insurance with my dad's workplace. At any rate, in late 2009, I was having tooth problems and went to one of the few doctors that take Medicaid (did I mention that if you are on Medicaid, it simulates a doctor shortage that is much worse than Canada's), and they refused to take me because I had third party insurance (even though social services stated that I could indeed have Medicaid with third party insurance. I tried calling Jersey Shore Medical Center, but they had a wait time of 5 years or more for the dental school there (my Canadian friend reports a wait of three months for her son in Alberta). I finally am having it done at UMDNJ in Newark, but it is a LONG ride from the Jersey Shore. Did I also mention that Medicaid seizes your assets after death to pay it back, what other healthcare system does that; they don't even do that in Canada, the right's favourite whipping boy.
At any rate, a lot of these problems could be dealt with if there was a TRUE SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. I feel like when people support for profit healthcare, it is a slap in the face to people with disabilities. Sarah Palin does not speak for us, and while Trig will have a trust fund long after Ms. Palin chokes on some aerial shot wolfmeat, what economic legacy will be left to children of modest means. Her opposition to any form of universal healthcare, her belief in tax cuts without strings (which means that people work harder and longer for less pay, thus shoving people with disabilities out of the job market), her support of deficit spending for military might (at the expense of social programs), and laissez-faire pro-management at-will labour policies which insures that those who don't "seem right" get fired without cause and with no legal recourse, makes her and Repubs NOT A FRIEND TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. Neither are most Dems for that matter. Conservatism is an ableist philosophy, and whenever I see a bunch of tea partiers howling for the status quo, it makes me feel unsafe and promotes an air of discrimination and disempowerment.
In conclusion, please do not use Senator Lautenberg's struggle to erase the many positives of universal healthcare. I've been to Canada many times, people aren't dying on the street, and in talking to many people, they have family doctors, and nobody wants the HMO run system. Just go ahead, righties and teabaggers as well as Obama loving-liberals, I am daring you to go into other countries and blather on about how your healthcare system is superior and nobody ever dies and how you know what's best for them. You claim to think that "lefties" think they know what's best for the world, but you are erasing the many positive experiences that people in other nations have had with their healthcare systems, because for every Shona Holmes, who by the way, was exposed as a fraud, there are many more people like Maureen Moffatt, who shall have the last word here:
"I have seen American politicians speak about our system. Just because something doesn't work perfectly in other countries should not be used as support for the status quo in the U.S." |
.gif)
