Opinionated Fool

The Globe and Mail makes an almost convincing argument as to why it is Ignatieff should take ownership of the healthcare issue in Canada. It’s originally a liberal/NDP issue. Michael Ignatieff is in command, barely but in command, of the liberals. Therefore, it should default to being his issue. The Globe rightly points out it doesn’t fit Stephen Harper if you follow along party lines, what with conservatives–at least, if you look south of the border for your definition of conservatives–opposed to anything government regulated on basic principle. But what the Globe and Mail leaves out, and this is what surprises me, is that Ignatieff isn’t in much of a better position to take ownership of it. If anything, he’s in a worse position than Harper.

Prior to his career in politics, Stephen Harper wasn’t a whole lot different from the average Canadian. Sure, he might have been president of the National Citizens Coalition, but he was still subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else living in Canada. Still fell under the jurisdiction of the very healthcare system he may or may not still want to turn inside out. He, his wife, his kids, were all subject to it–and would therefore be perhaps a little better qualified to have an opinion on exactly what to do with it.

Michael Ignatieff? His healthcare consisted of pretty well full coverage, most likely, while he was living in Boston. Likely paid for both by his employer and, if that wasn’t good enough, out of pocket. Prior to that, he found himself living in the UK. Where he again, most likely had some form of private insurance in addition to, if he ever used at all, the public option as exists across the pond. He has had no experience, either positive or negative, with Canada’s healthcare system since the 1970’s. Certainly he returned to Canada in 2005, and also entered politics at that point–he would be in waiting for Stephane Dion’s eventual implosion before taking charge of the liberal party, but he’s still had no actual experience with the healthcare system as faced by average Canadians. So to expect him to fit into the issue his party has traditionally taken ownership of in the past is, perhaps, a bit of a stretch.

If any one of the three would be the most likely to fit into the healthcare issue, and I cringe to publish this realization, it would almost have to be Jack Layton. Not that I’d be interested to see what he’d do with any kind of actual power, but he seems the most likely candidate for a defense of Canada’s current healthcare system both in and out of Canada. And, in fact, it might make slightly more sense than the Globe’s suggestion that simply because Ignatieff is the liberal leader, it should be his issue–the NDP was, after all, the originating entity that brought about healthcare. So, to exercise the Globe’s logic a bit farther, the issue of healthcare in Canada is actually an NDP issue. And, as such, should be written rather firmly into Jack Layton’s platform come next election. Stephen Harper should steer clear of it–it’s far too liberal for him, as should Ignatieff–it’s far too “Canadian” for him. Or, better yet, why don’t we just not make it an election issue at all. After all, it’s not like previous elections have brought about any real significant changes to it since the 1980’s or so.

It’s a US political pass-time to mock the healthcare system of their northern neighbours. Often times, without having much of a clue what they’re talking about. This time, the microphone was handed to republican Dick Morris, who most asuredly didn’t disappoint.

Of course, it started out with the proclamation that–oh my god–Canada’s a disaster. Organized chaos, perhaps, eh Dick? Oh, and let’s not forget their favourite line–it almost always appears in a healthcare versus profit margins argument. Canada’s healthcare system allows at least 20%, or one in five, people to die as a result of it. Gee, now where’ve we heard that before? Can I get some proof with that?

No one’s saying the universal healthcare system’s absolutely perfect. And if you are, well then you’re just about as much an idiot as Dick Morris is. But Canada spends less per capita on its healthcare, in spite of a smaller population than the US–and despite Morris’s asertions to the contrary. Canada doesn’t have the problem the US has of many people preferring to wait until they literally can’t breathe before finally, grudgingly, giving in and going to the emergency room–where they promptly yes, get treatment, and also walk out of the said emergency room with a bill often times larger than most people’s anual incomes. And, you don’t hear of folks declaring bankrupsy in Canada, or remortgaging their homes, for the sole purpose of being able to aford treatment. Well, that is, unless your name’s Shona Holmes and you like the idea of headlines. Or is it that we’re all just stuck on a waiting list and haven’t gotten in yet to see the doctor who will most asuredly tell us we’re about to die from inadequate care?

No, no one’s saying there aren’t problems. But the biggest problem is misinformation. Or just plain ignorance. And unfortunately, it’s originating from inside offices that at one time were occupied by perfectly reasonable, well-educated people who claim to know everything there is to know about Canada’s healthcare system. Unfortunately, if that were true, there wouldn’t need to be such a ridiculous stand on something that even the governing party has stated they aren’t even looking at. And Dick Morris wouldn’t be deserving of the moron of the year award. Well, maybe he would. But not for this.

This time, though, Canada gets the blame for the high drug prices in the US. Republican senator Bob Corker accuses Canada of intentionally setting prices for drugs lower than those in the US. Because, you know, Canada has a say in what the drug companies charge to do business in the US.

The U.S. is the world leader in medical innovations and technological breakthroughs, Republican Sen. Bob Corker charged, yet Canada gets all the financial
benefit by selling drugs and medical devices at prices irresistible to Americans.

Yeah, let’s run with that. It’s all Canada’s fault previous US governments, and health insurance providers, are in bed with the drug companies to collectively screw folks out of getting what they need. That sounds good. He frames the US Canada relationship, at least in that industry, as parasitic in nature–and even goes so far as to say it’s the same with France and other countries.

“One of the things that has troubled me greatly about our system is the fact that we pay more for pharmaceuticals and devices than other countries, and
yet it’s not really our country so much that’s the problem, it’s the parasitic relationship that Canada and France and other countries have towards us,”
the Tennessee lawmaker told Carolyn Bennett.

Way to take responsibility for your own situation, senator. All the innovation happens in the US and Canada mooches off it for nothing. Okay, that works. We’ll ignore all the evidence that says otherwise just to suit your reality, Bob. Because folks on both sides of the border are just that polite. You can let anti-government propoganda get in the way of actual facts any old time, sir. The rest of us who possess common sense don’t mind. Really.

Why else, after all, would the democrats, or at least a small handful of them, have the nerve to inform insurance companies that there was going to be an investigation into money spent on executive compensation among other things? To read the article, you’d think it couldn’t be for any other reason than because they’re not backing Obama’s healthcare proposal. One insurance executive has even gone on the record comparing it to a reprisal audit by the IRS.

There’s just no way it could possibly be that someone might actually be looking to prove the insurance structure in the United States has actually gone out of controll, is there? I mean, surely not–the idea’s being floated by the democrats, after all. Here’s the catch, though. They’re going after insurance companies who’ve received 2 billion dollars or more in premiums, who’s employees received 1 million dollars or more per year between 2003 and 2008. Yep, definitely yet another democrat attempt to stick it to the insurance companies. Really. Because you shouldn’t expect that if you’re making that much money and doing anything that deals with people’s health, folks are going to want answers.

Fox News is shaking their heads and wondering, though, why it is they’re not telling the republicans about it. Well, I wouldn’t either. Since the election of Barack Obama, they’ve taken the insanity that was George W. Bush and turned it into something that even Canada’s conservative party, who’s seen as being on their equivalent of the political right, won’t even touch with a 10-foot poll. Losing to Obama? That’s okay, just claim he’s not eligible to be president. Don’t like his healthcare plan? That’s okay, just scream disaster and point north (it works quite well, by the way). That’ll get things done.

The amusing part in all this is, none of this has anything to do with a supposed conspiracy theory or anything like that. It’s no secret, even to bloggers that are obviously on the right of the political line, that healthcare costs in the US are less than tolerable–the article even goes so far as to point out that of the 47 million supposedly without insurance, 18 million of them make $50000 a year or more and have still not elected to purchase insurance. That article sort of halfway hints at the actual problem with the healthcare system as it stands now–healthcare may be afordable, but at what other costs? Do you not send your kids to college so you can aford to pay for the insurance?

And that’s the kicker. That’s the point behind the notice served to 52 insurance companies nation-wide–the same companies the republicans would be perfectly fine with allowing to continue to raise prices for service who’s quality doesn’t actually go up along with them. Because, you know, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? But if the system wasn’t broken, it wouldn’t be at least a small part of the election platform on the US side of the border every 4 years–at least on one side of the battlefield, anyway–and, most noteably, Obama wouldn’t have won on it in this past election. And now, the democrats want to find out exactly how broken is broken. And, let’s be honest here. If you have employees making over a million dollars a year from money that’s being paid out by people expecting you to provide them with medical coverage rather than spend your time looking for reasons not to do same, it’s broken. But, since it was a democrat behind the push, it can be little more than a conspiracy to obliterate the US economy. Because, you know, that fits much more easily into fox news’s tiny little ideological box. And, at the end of the day, that’s clearly all that matters.

Fortunately, Orrin Johnson isn’t an actual politician–he just tries to be one. He’s taken up the fight against healthcare, and as usual, is dragging the Canadian system into the middle of it–and very badly misunderstanding it.

What’s set him off is an interview (video) on ABC, in which prime minister Stephen Harper correctly stated the issues of wait time that Canada’s healthcare system deals with are a provincial, and not a federal, matter. When asked by the reporter on more than one occasion in the interview if wait times were a concern and what he planned to do about it, Harper continued to tell him it’s a provincial matter.

I’m not entirely sure the reporter understood it after the second or third time Stephen Harper said it. He almost seemed a tiny bit disappointed that Harper wouldn’t jump into that debate–wonder which of the wingnut club paid him to try that out. Johnson apparently was quite disappointed with it. So, he decided to create one

Apparently, if you happen to be a republican, “I don’t want to get involved” somehow translates to “I don’t know”. From somewhere in that interview, and I for the life of me can’t see where, Orrin managed to grab on to the idea that Stephen Harper just doesn’t understand exactly how Canada’s healthcare system actually works. Well, to put Orrin and his supporters at ease, it works very well, thank you.

I’ve said it once, but I wouldn’t mind saying it again. Canadians can take criticism. Quite well, actually. But it may be a good idea to perhaps learn a thing or two before doing so. Just a thought. I mean, it might actually help your case a little better, I’d think. Of course, I could also be wrong–that’s not unheard of.

At a town hall meeting yesterday, US president Barack Obama made the mistake of saying the AARP was a supporter of the currently before congress healthcare proposals as they relate to seniors. What Obama didn’t do though, apparently, is fact check that statement ahead of time. The AARP came out in contradiction to him, saying escentially if the bill took away from medicare benefits for seniors it wouldn’t be supported.

Clearly, the group is more than a little cautious where this bill’s concerned–and who wouldn’t be? It’s pretty well larger than life right now. And, clearly, Barack Obama’s going through a tiny bit of an overconfidence phase. Sorry, Barack. Apparently you don’t get to guarantee support for something just by opening your mouth. Next time, before you declare an organization’s intent to support something, maybe you aught to make sure that organization actually supports the said something. Just a thought, of which the opinionated fool has plenty.

That’s apparently the Dalton Mcguinty approach to things. In the legislature this past week, it came out that the review, which was previously cancelled rather on the hush hush, ended up never actually being started to begin with. So all this time of saying Ontario’s government had things in hand with the investigation, they were primarily blowing smoke.

The article goes on to say their latest reasoning behind it was because the starting of that contract would have been a duplication of the auditor general’s efforts–funnily enough, the same reason they used to cancel it. Question of the day, from the opinionated fool: which lie is the real lie? Or does Dalton McGuinty expect tax payers to just buy whatever he spits out? Between Ignatieff and McGuinty, I’m having trouble seeing why anyone’s surprised at the number of elections, both provincially and federally, the liberal party of Canada hasn’t actually won.

Even the pro-healthcare advocates have to realize that. If the government does nothing, or gives the impression of doing nothing, you will have problems. The same would be and has been said about any other government run system–education, social security, pensions, etc. An example of the problems you might notice was posted to the Sudbury Star (Sudbury, Ontario) earlier this morning. It outlines an example of what can go sideways if the government doesn’t keep its ear on the healthcare situation.

Ontario’s government, under Dalton McGuinty, has let the Sudbury hospital situation slip just a touch out of controll. And, in fact, it’s not the only issue of its kind in the province–in fact, emergency room wait times are probably one of the biggest complaints against Ontario’s implementation of the healthcare system. It’s not a liberal versus conservative issue, however–British Columbia’s healthcare system, under Gordon Campbell’s government–also a liberal government, has significantly reduced those same emergency wait times in its own province. So what’s the difference between the two, and can people on both sides of the border learn from it?

Simply put, the difference is money. The BC government has committed more of its resources to fix its problems with the healthcare system than has Ontario at this point. And, while Ontario’s healthcare system is still a better alternative than is the system currently in the US, both can easily learn from what’s presently being done in BC. Ten hours’ wait in the emergency room, while still not anything to write home about, is still better than the average of twenty found in Ontario.

That having been said, emergency room wait times are not a Canadian healthcare issue, as evidenced by a study released in January of 2008 that noted emergency times south of the border were on the rise. Much the same as up north, general overcrowding and a shortage of resources is being blamed for the wait times. The only difference between the Canadian and American problems at this stage of the game is the many people who right now don’t have health insurance in the US–the very thing pro-healthcare advocates are critical about when it comes to their current system. A problem that can be, and is slowly being in some cases–like the case in British Columbia, delt with by increasing the amount of money dedicated to healthcare spending. Of course, it might also be helpful if the Ontario government maybe starts pulling some of that healthcare expense out of things that just plain aren’t working out.

Or rather, on Canada’s healthcare system. Rudy giuliani has officially joined the crowd saying that a vote for Barack Obama’s healthcare system will be as much of a disaster for the US as it has been in Canada. Except there are a few very noticeable problems with that statement–not the least of which is the fact he’s getting some support from another used-to-be, in former house speaker Newt Gingrich.

Giuliani continues to trumpet the idea that Canada’s healthcare system just plain doesn’t work. But, like most politicians and people south of the border, he does so without any real idea as to exactly how Canada’s system *does* work. Mind you, the jurry on whether or not Obama understands how systems like that actually work is still out, but that’s a point for another opinion. A few things to take into account when looking at the issue of healthcare, particularly north of the Canada/US border.

Healthcare in Canada is not nationalized. Yes, the regulation is national. However, that’s about the extent of it. Provinces do have the option of obtaining additional funding from the federal government, but it is the individual provinces that handle the actual delivery of health insurance. As such, while the Canada Health Act does lay out a definition of services that must be offered by each province/territory, it leaves the interpretation of those definitions up to the individual provinces.

In a document released in May of 2005 by Canada’s parliament, it explains the reasons for the current healthcare system as it stands right now, and as it stood when the Canada Health Act was initially created in 1984. The release highlights many of the reasons the pro-healthcare advocates south of the border hang onto when pushing for what it believes is a similar system.

Critics are quick to point out the common myth that Canada runs a socialised medical system, when in reality, it’s no more socialised than our education system–which the US has already to a large extent adopted. As stated above, funding does come from the government for various initiatives, but the hospitals, clinnics etc are run privately, by entities out to make a profit–just as they are in the US. In addition, Canadians still have the option of taking up private health insurance for items not covered under the public plan–in other words, things not considered by the regulatory body to be medically necessary. The only difference? If you can’t aford the private insurance option, or your employer doesn’t provide same, you’re not completely screwed.

Someone should ask mister giuliani, and those who would support his view on Canada’s healthcare system, one very important–and, I’ll wager, very difficult to answer–question. If Canada’s healthcare system is indeed such a disaster, why is it in the 40 to 50 years since it was in some way, shape or form adopted federally no one on either side of the political spectrum has tried to overturn it? If he can provide even a partial answer to that question, perhaps I’ll be able to take him without the for now requisit few grains of sault. But somehow, I doubt it.

Update: The US anti-healthcare crowd has a shill from Canada, who has no problem with their healthcare system now that she might get something out of them financially. Shona Holmes reportedly went to the US to receive treatment for what she says was a life threatening brain tumour that would have taken months before she could be treated here. Except, well, it was neither life threatening, nor a brain tumour, as reported by the Ottawa citizen. Yet, Shona still thinks she can sue her way into compensation from the healthcare provider in Ontario in compensation for her having decided to pay 100000 dollars to jump the queue. Her testimonial, which established that she was, in fact, in no danger of dying–contrary to her claim on just about every US TV station lately, was very promptly removed from the Mayo Clinic website, instead replaced with this. So, the clinic dodges a publicity bullet, Shona gets to sue for compensation for treatment she would have received had she waited, and the American population gets misinformed. Everybody wins.

Update 2: Apparently, they’ve put her success story back where it was supposed to be. Guess they didn’t want to be caught defending the wingnuts. Too late.

Questions are being thrown about, both inside and outside of congress/the whitehouse, on just how much one should consider trusting US president Barack Obama when it comes to matters of spending your money. And, unsurprisingly, experts in the industry are now beginning to slip ever so slowly away from trusting him. Particularly with regards the economic predictions and the related stimulous package–a package that, the article goes on to say, hasn’t even come close to being rolled out yet.

The Obama camp has dug itself in a little bit deeper than it was hoping for, though, in trying to ramrod a healthcare reform bill, plus a cap and trade bill, through congress at the exact same time–and is getting more resistance than it planned on to both. What may have surprised Obama, though, is some of the resistance is coming from inside his own party, including Sen. Robert Byrd who has already indicated he won’t support the cap and trade proposal as it stands right now due to fears over new emissions regulations that would be introduced by the bill, and how it would effect the mining industry. In theory, Obama’s ideas, at least on a healthcare front, are souind. In theory. But he’s going to have to do a lot more sweetening of the pot–on both fronts–if he wants to be able to push things through before the fall. Otherwise, he may have talked himself into a hole that there’s no digging out of.

One of Barack Obama’s major platform points in his election campaign was to bring about the dawn of publicly maintained healthcare in the US; a point that, since he was elected, he’s continued to defend in spite of some pretty harsh criticism from congress. While in theory it’s a fairly decent idea to at least be exploring, I’m not really all that convinced that either side really knows exactly what it is we’re supposed to get out of this kind of system.

Obama maintains the US won’t be heading towards a single-payer healthcare system, much like that which you’d see in Europe, or Canada, but rather will be implementing a two-tiered system. Congress, however, seems to be clinging to the notion that single-payer is almost a certainty if one agrees to go along with the plan proposed by Obama. The only problem here is no one–neither for nor against the proposed reform–seems to really get it.

The gloom and doom segment of the anti-healthcare crowd seems to be stuck on the notion that *any* government-funded healthcare will put private insurance companies in the ground for good. Simply put, it won’t. (*) Even if Obama decides to adopt a model similar to that found in Canada, and even if he decides to outright call it a single-pay, government-run healthcare system, and even if over half the population of the US ends up taking advantage of the said system for one reason or another, it more than likely won’t amount to the complete crippling of the US health system as certain people like to charge. What it will mean, more or less, is folks who can’t for whatever reason aford insurance-unemployed, don’t get paid enough to do so, employer won’t pay for it, etc–won’t be completely screwed. There will still be the option of taking up an insurance plan with a private agency. And, it might even make the private companies slightly more likely to not require you take out a second mortgage in order to do so.

On the pro side of it, Obama’s supporters seem to be almost as alergic to the term “single-pay”, electing instead to try and brand it as a two-tiered healthcare system, where the government will pay for only those who have absolutely no other option. But that seems to be all we know about where he’s coming from. that, and the fact that it comes with a hefty bill attached. We’ve not seen any real specifics on the healthcare side of things out of the Obama camp aside from that to base any kind of a real opinion on.

As stated, the general, vague idea Obama’s put forth to us so far is, in theory, an awesome idea. And if I were in the US, I’d be keeping my ear to the ground on this one–well, I’ll be keeping my ear to the ground on this one anyway. But as it stands now, I get the impression he’s no more or less got an idea exactly what it is he plans on doing re: the healthcare system. If he does actually plan to implement some kind of convoluted two-tier system, then I don’t want to have to say it, but he’s going in a very wrong direction with the idea. And yes, if that is the case, Obama’s critics may have something here when they say it’s not going to work. Just not necessarily for the reasons they’re saying it’s not going to work.

(*): I am a Canadian resident, so my opinion on this may or may not be slightly biased–I like our healthcare system. Sue me.

Update: When pressed for more information on exactly what if any kind of limitations Obama would set on his new healthcare proposal, he wasn’t very forthcoming. Or rather, he wasn’t forthcoming at all. Not exactly a good way to inspire confidence in those who’s support you need, elle presidente.