Connect with us

Healthcare

Canadian Doctor Danielle Martin on single-payer healthcare

Published

on

Dr Danielle Martin on Socialized Healthcare

Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This premise rings true for socialized medicine, described by most pundits as “single-payer healthcare.” The economic burden it would create if it ever came to be in America would be devastating.

That’s not the only problem. The immediate impact of socialized medicine is that it makes it extremely difficult to get medical care that doesn’t fall into the category of “life threatening.” When healthcare is free, people tend to get as much as they can whenever they can. There’s an appeal to something being “free” that drives people. The result is that everyone tries to get every bit of free healthcare they can which causes a shortage of available slots to provide the procedures.

If that sounds good to you, tell that to the person who’s stuck waiting for hip replacement surgery for a year or more.

Senator Bernie Sanders, the mastermind behind the current push for single-payer by the Democrats, had Dr. Danielle Martin on his show. She cheered the positive benefits, but she had to admit to one of the major flaws in such a system. The answer earned her a permanent place in our Quotes archive.

“If I have a patient who’s got migraines and I need advice about how to manage it, they might wait several months to see a neurologist for a non-urgent problem like that. Or non-urgent surgeries,  he classic example being a hip or a knee replacement.”

Source: Politistick

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Glen Walters

    September 19, 2017 at 12:17 am

    Most of the negative information we get from the Canadian health care system is planted by people paid for by the US medical and pharmaceutical companies to discourage us from doing it. To much profit, they rip us off billions every year. The US should just adopt the Canadian system but with universal single payer for all states. Maybe using Medicaid for every one. Canada’s health care system is best described as a collection of plans administered by the 10 provinces and 3 territories, each differing from the others in some respects but similarly structured to meet the federal conditions for funding. The simplicity of the five federal conditions is arguably one of the beauties of the Canadian system. They are the provision of all medically necessary services (defined as most physician and hospital services), the public administration of the system, the portability of coverage throughout Canada, the universal coverage of all citizens and residents, and the absence of user charges at the point of care for core medical and hospital services. Each province (and territory) has a number of options for financing its share of the cost for its health insurance plan. Some provinces have opted to finance their health insurance costs through the payment of premiums; other provinces and territories have chosen to finance their shares through various taxes and/or other revenue streams: Each province and territory has considerable leeway in determining how its share of the cost of its health insurance plan will be financed. Financing can be through the payment of premiums (as is the case in Alberta and British Columbia), payroll taxes, sales taxes, other provincial or territorial revenues, or by a combination of methods. Health insurance premiums are permitted as long as residents are not denied coverage for medically necessary hospital and physician services because of an inability to pay such premiums. Provinces that levy premiums have also instituted premium assistance schemes that are based on income, and those who cannot afford to pay premiums may apply for assistance through the provincial health insurance plans. A family of two living in the province of British Columbia would pay in monthly Medical Service Plan (MSP) premiums about $96.00 for a family of 2. If they used the American system, their children could be on the plan until they were 26. The highest federal income tax rate in Canada is 29% (for persons with annual taxable income over $120,887), and the highest provincial income tax rate in British Columbia is 14.7% (for those with annual taxable incomes over over $95,909). The typical upper-income level Canadian taxpayer is not in a 55% tax bracket. By way of comparison, a typical upper-income level American taxpayer residing in California pays a roughly equivalent share of his income in federal and state taxes, even though the U.S. has no national health insurance program. As noted above, any broad statement about Canada’s health insurance program is difficult to assess because Canada has a number of different provincial/territorial programs, not one national program. Wait times for medical procedures in particular can vary quite widely across provinces, cities, and individual hospitals, and of course wait times can also vary widely depending upon the type of procedures involved. What was not found was any study demonstrating that doctors in Canada are more likely to issue prescriptions in lieu of performing more thorough diagnoses than doctors in any other western countries are. An important factor to consider in this area (one which is not unique to Canada) was reported in a 1997 British Medical Journal article which noted that studies have found patients often report dissatisfaction with their doctors if they don’t receive prescriptions as a result of office visits, even if prescriptions are not the best course of treatment for their health issues. A 2005 survey conducted by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada reported that “more than 4 million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor.” This figure represented about 12% of the 2005 population of Canada. Note that the term “family doctor” as used here refers to a family (or general) practitioner. Thus the statement “some Canadians do not have family doctors” does not simply mean those persons see a number of different physicians instead regularly visiting the same physician; it means they do not have access to physicians who specifically practice family medicine. As with other kinds of medical care, emergency room treatment wait times can vary quite widely from province to province, region to region, and hospital to hospital. A 2005-2006 study of Ontario emergency departments conducted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) found the following: Ninety per cent of patients who went to major teaching hospitals were seen within nine hours while the vast majority of patients who sought care at busy community hospitals (those with more than 30,000 emergency visits per year) concluded their visits within 7-1/2 hours. Waits were shorter in less busy community hospitals, where 90 per cent of patients spent three hours or less seeking and receiving emergency care. But only 30 per cent of people in need of help went to these smaller institutions. Seventy per cent sought assistance at either the busier community hospitals or teaching institutions, where waits were two or three times longer. The good news for the extremely ill is that 50 per cent of patients who require the most urgent care were seen by a doctor within six minutes and 86 per cent were seen within 30 minutes of arrival in emergency departments. Geography clearly mattered in terms of wait times, according to the study data. People in the Toronto area, where 90 per cent of patients were in and out in just under 12 hours, faced the longest delays. The shortest waits were in the Sudbury-Sault Ste. Marie area, where 90 per cent of patients finished their visit to hospital emergency departments in about 4-1/2 hours

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Infographic: Opioid overdose deaths in the United States

Published

on

Infographic Opioid overdose deaths in the United States

The use of opioids in the United States has dramatically risen in recent years, prompting calls for action from both sides of the political aisle. It’s not like the old drug wars on the streets of New York or the suburbs of Dallas. This drug epidemic is affecting all races, economic conditions, and ages.

In this infographic from Visual Capitalist, they examine the death rates county by county. Of note is West Virginia, where in some areas the opioid death rate is approaching the cancer death rates.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Trump’s Medicare policy the next step in his march toward socialized healthcare

Published

on

Conservative media outlet praises Trumps attack on the Constitution

After squeezing all the political life he could out of the Kavanaugh confirmation circus, Trump went to work this week on other ways to fire up his uninspired base ahead of next month’s election.

On Tuesday, Trump made an appearance at an Iowa worship service disguised as a campaign rally, where the man who once bragged that he was capable of changing into anything he wants when it comes to his ever-changing policies, reached out to corn farmers being hurt from his “good and easy to wintrade war.

In an obvious attempt to buy votes in November and lay the groundwork for the 2020 Iowa caucuses, Trump announced that he would be expanding the use of ethanol; free market and the environment be damned.

Yesterday, Trump allegedly wrote an op-ed for USA Today — I say “allegedly” because Microsoft Word graded it at college level, and Trump speaks at a seventh-grade level or lower — decrying the Democrat Party’s call for “Medicare for all.” For the uninitiated, Medicare-for-all is the politically correct way of saying single-payer.

Trump’s fake op-ed is nothing more than the latest round of the politics of distraction where the GOP attempts to shift voter attention away from the past two years of lies and broken promises. In Trump’s case, however, the op-ed is also hypocritical because he supports single-payer healthcare, and his policies pretty much guarantee that socialized medicine will be here sooner rather than later.

Throughout his political career, Trump often sang the praises of socialized medicine and single-payer healthcare, and he reinforced his support during the 2016 campaign when he promised to have the government pay for universal healthcare for everyone.

During his campaign, Trump also made the promise repeatedly broken by the GOP to repeal Obamacare, which Republicans love and was given a big boost when Trump and the GOP completely funded it with the #MiniBusBetrayal he signed into law in September.

Many, including myself, pointed to this broken promise as evidence of Trump’s lack of integrity, but now I think it makes sense when you consider that Obamacare was created to be the catalyst for single-payer healthcare.

In his op-ed, Trump also renewed his commitment to save Medicare from being used as the mechanism for delivering single-payer healthcare. It’s a politically convenient move, but in reality, Medicare is already the largest socialized healthcare program in the world, so his Medicare policies are guaranteeing socialized medicine, not preventing it.

When you look at the complete package — lifetime support of socialized medicine, not repealing Obamacare, and letting Medicare grow out of control — Trump is accomplishing everything Barack Obama and the Democrats wanted concerning socialized medicine.

I guess I see now why we had to keep Hillary from winning and advancing Obama’s agenda . . . Trump wanted to be the one to do that.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Failure to repeal Obamacare is the albatross Republicans must cast away to keep the House

Published

on

Failure to repeal Obamacare is the albatross Republicans must cast away to keep the House

Maintaining a Senate majority is looking more and more likely, but Republicans in the House are in trouble. Democrats are throwing a threat of repealing Obamacare back in the faces of Republicans who failed to do as promised. Sentiment has shifted and suddenly a majority want to keep Obamacare where it is. It could cost them the House.

For the record, I was against the repeal and replacement plan the GOP put forward because it replaced government-run healthcare with… government-run healthcare. Had they been bold and simply repealed it, then spent real time and energy coming up with solutions for those in the most need, they’d be in much better position today. Instead, we’re stuck with Obamacare and the House is in jeopardy because of it.

Voters are fickle. They were for Obamacare before they were against it before they were for it again. The window of opportunity to repeal and replace it closed and they’re going into the midterm elections without a plan to to take another shot at it next year.

It was the promise to repeal Obamacare that got them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Failing to do what they promised when they had the opportunity is the albatross about their necks right now. The very thing that won for them is quite possibly what will make them lose.

Now, they’re trying a new strategy: hang Bernie Sanders’ $32 trillion universal health care proposal on every Democrats’ neck regardless of whether they support the plan or not. It’s a dishonest ploy with ads running against Democrats who have publicly denounced the plan. If the Republicans aren’t careful, they’re going to get accused of treating the people like fools who won’t do their own research (which is true for most, but it’s still not a play that’s wise to make this close to the election).

As a conservative and a Federalist, I have no horse in these races. If I were forced to choose, I’d vote against Democrats. But I’m not forced to choose (this is still America) so the advice I’m about to give is not out of appreciation for the Republicans’ plight but out of fear of the Democrats being in power.

GOP, stop playing the fear game and put forth a plan

Republicans know the general public no longer wants them to repeal Obamacare. Polls are very clear. So, they’ve decided to take the side of the status quo (keep Obamacare as-is) and push the Democrats further to the left (all embracing Bernie’s plan). This is a bad plan that won’t work, but even if it did work it shouldn’t be done because it’s disingenuous. Leave that line of campaigning to the left. Take the higher road.

Republicans already have the framework for a repeal and replacement plan that would pass IF they get more control of the Senate and retain control of the House. Roll it out. Now. Democrats have already made healthcare one of the defining issues of this election. Double down on them and lay out a plan. Then, let the plan win the elections for you.

Democrats will attack it, but you have something in your favor. You have Lisa Murkowski. I know what everyone’s thinking. She’s the lone traitor who almost cost Brett Kavanaugh his confirmation. That makes her bad, right? Well, yes, but as one who voted against the repeal and replacement plans, it gives her credibility to endorse the new plan that you roll out next week…

…if you were smart and rolled out a plan next week. Which you’re not. So you won’t.

But hypothetically, if you rolled out the Republican Affordable Care Act Phase One Fix, you could start dismantling Obamacare. Perhaps more importantly, you would catch Democrats (and the press) off guard and have nearly four weeks to demonstrate why you’re not the bad guys who will pull the rug out from under people. You’re trying to fix healthcare. That’s potentially a winning message. If you put forth a plan that Murkowski (and possibly a few Democrats) could endorse, it’s a a sure thing.

Instead, you’re probably going to keep doing what you’re doing, accusing moderate Democrats of being far-left Bernie socialists. Yes, some are, but the ads are going after pretty much all of them. You’re relying on the naivety of voters instead of putting forth solutions and educating people on why they’ll work.

By restarting the process to fulfill your promise to repeal and replace Obamacare, the GOP will have the winning narrative. Drop this propaganda push and do what you said you were going to do.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report