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

  • Dr Danielle Martin on Socialized Healthcare

  • Dr Danielle Martin on Socialized Healthcare

NOQ Report has new contributors being vetted, interns, and long-time contributors who want to remain anonymous. Their stories are posted on this author's account which is operated by Sal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
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 *

Culture and Religion

The Guardian: Pro-lifers are “pro-death”

Published

on

Prolifers are pro-death

Today, on the 45th anniversary of Roe Vs. Wade, The Guardian published an article entitled, “Let’s call pro-lifers what they are: pro-death.”

The article states that the pro-life movement has, by adopting its very name, caused “the battle over reproductive rights” to take on “an apocalyptic tone.” This rhetoric, the article states, “turns every clash between the two sides [pro-life vs. pro-abortion] into a prelude to Armageddon, the final showdown between life and death, good and evil.”

It is only by using debunked and “mythological claim that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, lifelong depression and suicide,” the article claims, pro-lifers claim that they are protecting the lives of both the unborn and the mothers. The article does not acknowledge “academic studies dating back to the 1950s show that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer,” as were noted last year in the highly respected journal First Things, nor does the Guardian article acknowledge what psychologists have termed Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS).

“We should take back the mantle of life.”

Using a 2015 article from NPR, the Guardian claims that “the US now bears the ghastly distinction of having the highest maternal mortality rate of all the world’s wealthy democracies.” The Guardian article maligns the maternal mortality rate in the United States, linking the mortality rate with laws imposing abortion restrictions.

Contrary to the article’s claim that maternal mortality rate is directly related to restrictions on abortions, however, the CIA World Factbook shows multiple countries which, having more restrictions on abortion than the US, have lower maternal mortality rates. These countries include Norway, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Austria, and Germany, to name just a few.

The authors proceed to list various circumstances that may lead to the death of the mother. For example:

“Take the not-at-all-hypothetical case of a woman who wants an abortion because of a pre-existing health condition, like diabetes, that could lead to problems with pregnancy…”

The article concludes with the following exhortation.

“And surely the time has come to raise the charge that the “pro-life” movement is, in effect, pro-death.”

Reference

Let’s call the pro-lifers what they are: pro-death

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/abortion-lets-call-the-pro-lifers-what-they-are-pro-deathEver since the anti-abortion movement claimed the “pro-life” label in the 1970s, the battle over reproductive rights has taken an apocalyptic tone. If the anti-abortion side is pro-life, then the other side – the millions of women who rally every January to keep abortion legal and safe – must be composed of the gaunt, gray-winged handmaidens of death.

This polarizing rhetoric turns every clash between the two sides into a prelude to Armageddon, the final showdown between life and death, good and evil. When charged with caring only for life in its fetal form, the anti-abortion side hoists its mythological claim that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, lifelong depression and suicide. Thus they can say that they do not only save fetal lives, but the lives of the women who carry these fetuses.

My Take

If I had to sum up a pro-lifer’s response to this article in one word, it would be celebration.

The pro-life movement is the only movement dominated, run, and lead by women; the only movement dedicated solely to saving lives and caring for women. The “pro-lifers” have earned their name with righteous labor and a glorious mission.

This is a battle “between life and death, good and evil.”

The fact the pro-abortion advocates are now attempting to re-frame “pro-lifers” as being “pro-death” shows the world precisely how effective the pro-life movement has been.

Make no mistake: this effort towards re-branding is nothing other than a sign of weakness.

This, I believe, is worth celebrating!

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Fake medical news

Published

on

Fake medical news

CNN won four – count ’em – four Fake News Awards. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s commentary on the President’s so-called heart disease wasn’t available when the awards were being selected. Then they would have won five. And on the way, they created a new category of Fake News: Fake Medical News.

Let’s get one thing clear here. This isn’t the distance diagnosis of Trump’s “mental illness” that Dr. Bandy Lee, a formerly licensed psychiatrist made. That sort of diagnosis requires that evidence be manufactured. No, this is the process of taking existing evidence and twisting it into something that it isn’t. Of course, that’s standard fare for the Left, so we really shouldn’t be surprised.

Trump Health

The first is the trend of the President’s Agatston Coronary Calcium Score. This is the data. And it’s factually correct. So far, no problem. But right below the data is a false statement.
This graphic, which CNN put up twice during their interview segment with Dr. Gupta has several clear statements. We can’t go Democrat and twist them, so we have to take them at face value. After all, that’s exactly what CNN wants us to do.

“A score of 100+ = High Risk of Heart Attack or Heart Disease Within 3-5 Years”

During the interview, Dr. Gupta admitted that this score is about average for 71 year old men in the US. If the caption was true, then the average 71 year old man in the US is at “high risk” for a heart attack in the next three to five years, and that’s, to quote Rush Limbaugh, “Barbra Streisand!” Yes, they have the “get out of jail free” line “or Heart Disease,” but it doesn’t change the way CNN used the data. They wanted us to believe that the President is on death’s door due to heart disease.

Yes, Dr Gupta flatly declared “The President HAS heart disease.” Had he actually spent time reviewing how cardiac tests are properly used, he wouldn’t have been able to say that. So after consultation with the former Chief of Cardiology at a major metropolitan medical center, we can now properly understand this data.

President Trump is 71 years old. You expect calcium in his coronary arteries at this age. But we don’t know where that calcium is, and that makes a difference. If it’s all in one spot that means something very different from a little here and a little there. Further, CNN flatly lied in their graphic. The proper outlook should have been “moderate risk,” not “high risk.” And with just the Agatston score, you can’t determine the presence or absence of heart disease. It’s only a screening test, and even if your score is over 2,000 – Trump’s is only 133 –  there’s still a 13% chance that you don’t have any coronary disease.

Dr. Gupta could have discovered this information with a simple internet search. It’s all out there. So Gupta’s statement that “Trump has cardiac disease” is coming from either an idiot or a liar… You pick.

At age 71, there’s no reason to even look at a calcium score. All the calcium score tells you is that you need a functional test. What’s that? A stress test! And you may want to add an echocardiogram. But at age 71, those would be routine, so there’s no point in looking at a calcium score. At age 65 I had both, just like the President, and we didn’t bother with an Agatston score. And just like the President, mine are NORMAL. What does this mean?

A normal stress test in a 71 year old male means that the President has a very low risk of any sort of cardiac event for at least the next two years. But Gupta got all excited about risk factor modification. Let’s get real. If his lifestyle has worked for Donald Trump for 71 years and he’s at low risk, what does he really need to change? There’s very little chance that he will ever develop coronary disease.

What things are they recommending? Diet and exercise. Give me a break. Yes, the President could lose a few pounds. That would improve his golf game and make him look better when he’s standing next to Melania. But the calorie restriction high carb diet they’ll prescribe will make things worse, not better. There’s a better way, and Dr. Jason Fung and Nina Teicholz have proved it.[i] Exercise is good for some things, but it won’t help his weight. And the only thing wrong with Donald Trump’s cheeseburgers is the bun. He should get rid of it.

One other part of the problem is that they are pushing statins on him. Statins can lower cholesterol, but it turns out that doing that can easily affect your thinking, since cholesterol is a YUUGE part of the cell membranes in the brain. We also should recall that all those studies that appear to say that lowering cholesterol is good for you seem to ignore all the bad things that the drugs do. In short, if the President just gave up carbs, he’d lose weight and wouldn’t have any need for statins.

So what’s really going on here? We have a neurosurgeon who works for a network that wants to destroy the President giving a message that matches the Left’s party line. He couldn’t be bothered to do his homework and discover that the President’s doctor is right. Trump’s heart is in great shape. And while we’re at it, let’s look at that other thing – the echocardiogram.

Echocardiography lets us get a view of how the heart muscle and valves work. Trump’s echo was – drum roll please – normal. That means that his heart valves are fine. But there’s something more important here. If you have blocked arteries in your heart, areas of heart muscle won’t get enough blood flow and won’t contract properly. They’re called “segmental wall motion abnormalities,” and you’ll see them on the echo. If you don’t have those, you don’t have blocked arteries. That’s called “normal.”

But we’re not done. The Left is grasping at straws. A number of docs are arguing in print that high cholesterol will kill him. As I said before, it’s time to re-read all those old studies. And for the rest of us, read “The Big Fat Surprise.” The actual data simply does not support those claims. A researcher named Ancel Keys simply lied about a host of studies and managed to get his views established as the gospel truth. Only now we are starting to learn why Eskimos and the Masai were able to live for millennia on very high fat diets with zero heart disease, zero cancer, zero high blood pressure, zero obesity, or any of our other modern health problems.

But Dr. Gupta is not the only liar on the Left. Trump takes finasteride to prevent hair loss. Numerous commentators are dropping hints that its documented side effects of sexual dysfunction and depression may be in play. They have no data, but are happy to drop hints about a possible “sudden onset of mental illness.”[ii]

Let’s wrap this up. Donald Trump is in excellent health. Frankly, the only diet change he should make is to dump the buns from his cheeseburgers. And he should dump the statins with them. As Dr. Malcolm Kendrick notes, “Statins might alter what is written on your death certificate, but they are extremely unlikely to change the date.”[iii] We might even suggest that he drop the Finasteride and switch to Rogaine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta should go back to neurosurgery, a field where he is respected. But don’t count on that happening. CNN likes his way of presenting lies about Trump’s health. So all we can really do is to laugh at them on inauguration day in 2024 when President Trump watches Mike Pence take the Oath of Office.


Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Published

on

The Real Mitt Romney

Utah is abuzz with rumors and anxiety over the possibility of a Senate run from former governor of Massachusetts and Holladay, Utah’s own (according to his recent Twitter edit), Mitt Romney. Romney has yet to declare candidacy, but according to a poll on Thursday from radio host Rod Arquette, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee’s favorability among Utahns approximates 60%.

His intentions remain a mystery, but should he toss his hat into the ring, Utahns would face a far more compelling question: which Mitt Romney will we see?

That could depend entirely on his audience.

Utah is a strange place politically. The more I participate in local politics, the more I realize that most Utahns care little, if at all, about policy. Their main concern is personality — and I can prove it.

According to Conservative Review’s Liberty Scorecard, Utah’s federal representation boasts the largest spread within the same party: a 71% gap between Senator Mike Lee’s 100% rating and Senator Orrin Hatch’s dismal 29%. As for Utah’s remaining representatives, Chris Stewart comes in 2nd place with a 70% score, followed by Mia Love with 62% and Rob Bishop with 60%. Recently elected Representative John Curtis is too fresh to merit a rating, but his predecessor, Jason Chaffetz, amassed a score of 78%.

In other words, the same electorate is voting overwhelmingly for candidates with wildly differing philosophies. But the common thread is easy to find: niceness.

Utah may be a traditionally red state, but it’s also a caring state. And when the two come into apparent conflict, Utahn’s typically opt for the latter.

Mitt Romney’s image of clean-cut benevolence is deeply ingrained in the Beehive State’s collective psyche, which is why he can garner a comfortable majority in favorability without hinting at any policy whatsoever — besides his obvious disdain for President Trump.

In fact, Romney’s renewed prominence in Utah most notably stems from his 2016 speech at the University of Utah, during which he rightly condemned then-candidate Trump’s character and personal history. Trump’s lifelong moral despotism and his abrasive conduct on the campaign trail were deep causes of concern for stalwart Utahns, who accordingly panned Trump in the primary (13.82%) and reluctantly nudged him to victory in the general election (45.5%).

Now, a week following Trump’s “bleep-hole” comments about Haiti and African countries in favor of places like Norway and South Korea — comments Mia Love has already condemned — Mitt Romney is again perfectly poised to emerge as Trump’s foil.

But unfortunately, his chances in Utah have little to do with policy.

Now that we know our audience, we’re brought back to the initial question: which Mitt Romney will we see? Whether you like Romney as a person but dislike him as a politician, vice versa, both, or neither, his long-standing reputation as a flip-flopper is unarguably well deserved. From abortion and Reagan to guns and taxes, Romney’s history of political metamorphosis is scrutinously documented.

Not coincidentally, his progressive standpoints persisted throughout his governorship and Senate candidacy in left-leaning Massachusetts, while his conservative reformation occurred just in time for his presidential bids.

Of course, it’s possible that Romney was sincere in his numerous changes of heart — one thing people are entitled to is the evolution of their personal beliefs. But as this is politics, one should be very cautious in attributing motive, one way or another.

The problem is that while Romney painted himself as a Democrat Lite for Massachusetts and a red-blooded conservative for the RNC, there’s no telling what persona he might adopt for a Senate race in Utah beyond that of the “nice guy,” and in politics, words like “nice,” “caring,” and “compassionate” often mean social programs.

Ideological shifts aside, Romney is at best a pragmatist, not a constitutionalist, having proven his disregard for natural rights on matters of health care and abortion — Romneycare was as much a violation of rights on a state level as Obamacare is federally, and his “pro-life” position that states should have “the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not, state by state” exhibits ignorance of the sole purpose of the federal government: securing our unalienable rights, even in matters of state nullification.

Romney also experienced backlash from conservatives in August 2017 when he publicly defended Antifa, a domestic terrorist organization, following the horrifying neo-Nazi display in Charlottesville.

In short, Mitt Romney is not good for Utah, nor is he good for liberty. At best, he would establish an elevated moral compass in terms of personal lifestyle, but that’s no excuse to squander freedom.

Romney would most likely amount to no more than another Jeff Flake — a well-meaning, moderate, Mormon Senator, a good man with strong values, who blatantly misunderstands the role of government and the cause of individual liberty.

This has nothing to do with objective opposition to Donald Trump. I applauded Romney’s speech at the University of Utah, and I’ve had plenty to say about Trump’s shortcomings over the past two years.

But the cult of personality is just as dangerous in one direction as another, and if Romney has plans to run for office in Utah, he’s found the perfect base to latch onto a “nice guy,” whatever he stands (or falls) for.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.