It's biased alright, so I couldn't just let it slide. I'm just going to refute some of her points; my main point is NOT that Canada's system is the perfect system for all, but that simply demonizing another system without identifying the problems of our system and proposing real changes to it is silly. Here goes:
bla bla bla….lets get to the meat of the matter:
This happy medium soon crumbled. With health care now effectively "free" -- that is, paid for by other taxpayers -- Canadians began visiting the doctor twice as much. Exploding demand drove up costs. To keep spending under control, the federal government simply reduced how much it sent to provinces to run the system. Provinces in turn cut payments to doctors and covered fewer services and cutting-edge treatments.
I don't know where she got her numbers from, but currently, Canadians do have more office visits per capita according to OECD data, but not by much: 5.7 vs 4.0 in the US. I would say the "exploding demand and cost" of these office visits are more than made up by the fact that the US has about 4000 more hospitalizations per 100k persons, 110 more CT exams and 60 more MRI's per 1k ppl, and so on and so forth. Personally, I think it's silly to talk about healthcare systems in broad strokes like this and compare inane numbers when health demographics between the two countries are not that similar, but if you're gonna play the game, I'll play along.
At first, doctors responded by billing patients directly for amounts greater than the government reimbursements. But in 1984, the federal government outlawed such practices -- thereby banning private delivery of services covered under the Canada Health Act. At this point, the Canadian government effectively controlled health care in the country.
The Canadian experience offers a preview of what Obamacare has in store for the United States.
Saskatchewan was the first province to ratchet up government control over the provision of health services -- much like Massachusetts. Just as Saskatchewan served as the model for Canada's healthcare system, the Massachusetts experiment was the template for Obamacare. And just as Saskatchewan's streets filled with protesters in the early-1960s, streets and city squares across America filled with tea partiers as the passage of Obamacare drew near.
The cornerstone of the Massachusetts plan -- and of Obamacare -- is the individual mandate, which requires all citizens to obtain health insurance. Defenders of the mandate claim that it's the best way to achieve universal coverage without an outright government takeover of the healthcare system. Massachusetts has been able to bring its uninsured rate from 10 percent to below 3 percent.
Of course, most of the Bay State's newly-insured citizens are enrolled in government-run and subsidized plans under Commonwealth Care -- at great cost to state taxpayers.
Who are now subsidizing the same care they always subsidized when these uninsured patients visited the hospital and "self payed".
These plans don't fully cover the cost of their beneficiaries' medical care. Historically, doctors would have charged the privately insured more to make up for the shortfall. But Massachusetts' four largest insurers can't afford to pay providers any more, as they already hemorrhaged $150 million in the first quarter of this year. Ordinarily, they'd pass the increases onto consumers, but Bay State politicians forbade them from raising rates. One provider won on appeal and the others are awaiting decisions. But Governor Deval Patrick says he will appeal this ruling.
Which shows you the silly farce of a "private" system we have where the government controls the "private" market.
As they attempt to deal with this disaster, Massachusetts officials are quickly realizing what Canadian officials learned 30 years ago -- the only way to control costs inside a government-directed health system is to cut doctors' pay, transfer patients into managed care, and introduce arbitrary spending caps and price controls.
Actually, no need to cut doctor's pay, they just need to provide the right amount of care and yes, to have price controls so we don't pay exorbitant margins on drugs, devices, etc. And I just know what political bomb lie you're about to drop on me next…
Not surprisingly, that's what Bay State leaders have tried to do. Last year, a state commission recommended that the government stop paying healthcare providers for each procedure and instead compensate provider networks with a flat fee per patient. Of course, such a system of global payments, or "capitation," encourages provider groups to skimp on care, as they get to keep any money not spent treating patients. State Senate president Therese Murray has decided to delay introducing legislation until 2011 because of the backlash.
Yes! Death Paaannnnnnnnels!!!! So you're saying MA tried to do what Medicare has already begun with the DRG system, which is an excellent way to provide the right incentives for patient care, and, yes, to ration care, something we desperately need in this country.
Obamacare promises to expand coverage in the same way that Massachusetts did -- by expanding government-funded insurance. Canada did the same thing. Worse, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) - introduced on July 21 an amendment to the Affordable Care Act, backed by 128 lawmakers, to bring back the "public option" that failed to make it into the final health reform package.
To pay for all this new coverage, Obamacare introduces a number of new taxes on individuals and businesses. Once the Treasury has its hands on all that new revenue, it's unlikely that it will ever be able to let go. Those taxes will be here to stay.
Umm, how else do you expect to insure all these people who can't afford insurance? Private insurance? You'll need many more tax hikes to do that.
And when costs spiral out of control -- as they have in Canada and in Massachusetts -- American officials will likely double-down on their bets and seize ever-greater control of the healthcare system. Canada banned the private delivery of medicine in response to runaway costs, while Massachusetts sees a system of global per-patient budgets as the solution to its cost problems. Federal officials will no doubt implement some combination of the two.
Interestingly, the "spiraling costs" in Canada are, per capita, close to half of what we have here in the half-private US system, while they cover 100% of their citizens. This includes the private expenditures on health (about 30% of total expenditures in Canada).
Fortunately, we're not yet consigned to a Canadian-style fate. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly 60 percent of likely voters favor repealing the healthcare law. If Republicans take control of Congress this fall and the presidency in 2012, they'll be well-positioned to repeal Obamacare before the most egregious government controls kick in. If they don't, American health care in 2050 will bear a striking resemblance to Canadian health care in 1950.
I wouldn't trust any number put out by Rasmussen; regardless, I think Ms. Pipes meant to write that if we don't repeal our healthcare system will look like Canada's current system? Assuming the American system will follow the "tragic steps" of decline of the Canadian system she detailed above.
bla bla more political crap.
