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

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 *

Democrats

So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

Published

on

By

So-called Red Flag laws An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

As with most Leftist affronts to Liberty, unconstitutional gun confiscation SWATing or so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws are based on a lie. The usual contention is that these laws that eviscerate basic constitutional protections of due process are desperately needed because there are no other means to deal with people who are alleged to be a danger to themselves or others. Our previous article on the subject dealt with this outright falsehood. There are laws and procedures for involuntary civil commitments already on the books to handle these extreme situations. In the case of Florida and the Parkland mass murder, the “The Baker Act” was already in place, but the authorities failed to take action in time. Other states such as Colorado already have procedures in place for Mental Health Holds.

The existence of these laws have been ignored in the effort to ‘enhance’ the government’s ability to confiscate guns. Its just another case of the Left exploiting a tragedy to ‘Rahm’ through new laws to deprive the people of their means of self-defense.

Laws built on lies

Most articles on what is supposedly the urgent need for gun confiscation SWATing or ‘Red Flag’ laws will make vague allusions there are no other ways of handling these situations to the point of asserting that the government has never had the authority to deal with these situations.

State governments clearly have these abilities, but the existing laws protect the Constitutional rights of the accused without having the primary purpose of confiscating guns – an intolerable situation for the authoritarian Left that sees 120 million gun owners as a threat simply because they are gun owners.

Why violate one human right when several can be attacked at once?

Leftists seem to be in some perverse competition to see which one of them can conjure up new laws to attack Liberty in as many ways as possible. For them, it’s a more efficient form of tyranny with one law doing the work of several. What better way to suppress Liberty than to confiscate guns because of someone exercising their right of free speech while destroying due process protections?

The dangerous implications to the 1st Amendment

These laws will have devastating consequences for the natural right of free speech. It will only take one concerned person in the group of people who can initiate these actions to decide an innocent gun owner is guilty of ‘thoughtcrime’ to have their property confiscated. The odds are that the Left will also expand who can initiate these gun confiscation SWATings and streamline the process.

This will only serve to further stigmatize gun owners and suppress their right of free speech. Talk too much about the human right of self-defense and the law-abiding could experience a knock on the door at 5:00 AM with property confiscation conducted at gunpoint. One would then have a protracted legal battle on their hands to prove they are innocent after being treated as guilty with all manner of legal costs and red tape just to have their property returned.

The 2nd Amendment – the primary target

In their ongoing efforts to rid the nation of Liberty, the Left has decided that it should be illegal to defend oneself. Thus they have expended copious amounts of digital ink in demanding the death of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of guns. They are perfectly willing to do this one innocent gun owner at a time if they have to. Never mind that the common sense human right of self-defense is the bedrock of the Bill or Rights. They have no use for the limitations of their power afforded by the Constitution, much less the Liberty conserving provisions of the Bill of Rights.

But wait, there’s more – The 4th and 5th amendments also on the chopping block

These laws turn the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing the victim of one of these gun confiscation raids to have to prove they aren’t guilty of thoughtcrime before they can get their property returned. Not to mention the ‘ex parte’ nature of these proceedings depriving innocent of the critical right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser before these confiscations take place. Lastly, there is the takings clause applicable to the private property being taken for public use since not many innocent gun owners will have the means for a protracted legal battle with the government, resulting in the loss of private property.

Why the focus on firearms?-

The existing laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment are not only superior in protecting everyone’s civil rights. They also serve to keep people from harm by other means. The unconstitutional practice of gun confiscation SWATing only addresses the issue of guns, leaving the supposed danger to society free to use alternative methods to cause harm.

If safety is the point of the so-called ‘Red Flag’ or ‘ERPO’ laws, then why aren’t their proponents concerned about this issue? If someone has their guns taken away suddenly by unconstitutional means, what’s to stop them from using explosives – flour, etc.- from carrying out their deadly deeds? Suppose an alleged ‘danger to society’ no longer has their guns, but still has a motorized vehicle or the ability to make edged weaponry. What about that circumstance?

Well, if it were really the case in that these people are concerned about other people’s welfare to the point of having them committed, they would have to follow the rule of law and afford the target their right of due process, etc. They wouldn’t be able to take someone’s means of self-defense just on the word of some other aggrieved party. It wouldn’t serve their desire for gun confiscation and gun confiscation alone, so it has no usefulness for them.

Things aren’t going according to plan for the Liberty Grabber Left

The progression for the Left has always been one of control, registration and then confiscation. They used to think that it was just a matter of time before Intergalactic Background Checks would be put in place, then registration would be required – both of which would do nothing to keep people safe or ‘cut down on the carnage’. It was all supposed to happen as it did in the UK and Australia. Intergalactic Background Checks, registration, then confiscation.

But that isn’t happening, despite the baseless polling to the contrary, everyone isn’t clamoring to have the government control their private property. Most of the Pro-Liberty see the danger in this control, with it leading to registration, followed by confiscation. Most on both sides have already admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks don’t work, that the dirty little secret being that these have no other purpose than as a stepping stones to confiscation.

The Takeaway

As others have indicated, Leftists aren’t anti-gun, they are anti-Liberty. They love to see them in the hands of the ‘politically correct’, but cannot deal with them in the hands of the right people.

Leftists desperately want to deprive the Pro-Liberty Right of their guns. These firearms represent a vitally important and final check on unlimited governmental power. It’s the primary bulwark against them attaining government power to attain their wondrous utopia they desire. They are so desperate to remove it that they will confiscate them one innocent person at a time, without a care for its effects on safety or Liberty.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

PragerU: Do college students support abortion or life?

Published

on

PragerU Do college students support abortion or life

Progressive indoctrination centers, better known as American universities, have been pushing students towards a leftist worldview for decades. One might start believing the mainstream media narrative that college students are overwhelmingly pro-abortion based solely on other things we’ve seen coming out of college campuses.

PragerU tackled the issue. While nothing in this video will shock anyone, it’s a good cross-section of perspectives that likely reflects what’s actually going on at universities like UCLA. Will Witt went there and found the standard answers on both sides of the board. While the majority were pro-abortion, two pro-life students were found. Their responses were clearly more thought through than the answers given by their pro-abortion counterparts.

This leads to my next article. I’m starting to believe that if people are given all the information about abortion, and more importantly about the life attributes of preborn babies, they’d be more willing to accept a pro-life perspective.

Of all the challenges facing America today, the abortion issue is the most directly tied to life and death, literally. A world without abortion can only be achieved when we’re willing to have the conversations with everyone regardless of their current stance.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

A glimmer of hope: Only 7% of millennials support taxpayer-funded abortion without restrictions

Published

on

A glimmer of hope Only 7 of millennials support taxpayer-funded abortion without restrictions

A new poll reveals that a very small minority of millennials are in favor of the stated Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. While a large chunk still believe that abortion should be legal, only 7% believe that it should be taxpayer-funded and without restrictions.

As with pretty much every poll ever conducted, the polling process used by Students for Life Institute for Pro-Life Advancement was done in a way that heavily promotes the idea of opposing abortion. But it’s encouraging to see that such a small percentage were essentially willing to identify in favor of the most radical abortion stance available to them.

According to Live Action:

Only 7% of Millennials want taxpayer-funded abortion without restrictions

https://www.liveaction.org/news/7-millennials-want-taxpayer-funded-abortion/Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said the survey shows that Millennials are rejecting labels and instead are focused on the reality of how political policies will affect them. “Especially as we talk with Millennials, who are often outside the political structure of Washington, D.C., the anti-abortion movement must be clear on what we are advancing and its impact on mothers, the preborn and taxpayers,” she said. “And for those elected officials who want to engage in life-affirming legislation, Millennial voters are listening when you compassionately address the specifics of life in law.”

My Take

At the heart of the issue, we are in the middle of a cultural battle. Most still look at abortion as a discussion between political and religious groups, but the reality is the issue comes down to an understanding by American society about whether it’s morally or ethically correct to condone abortions.

The real question is whether one believes a preborn baby is a person. Generally, those who see the fetus as a living person side against abortion while those who see it as a collection of cells favor abortion. This is why I’ve said before we really need to look at this issue through the lens of cultural implications rather than fight solely on the political and religious fronts.

The only way to end abortion on-demand in America is to make it perceived as the immoral practice that it is. We need to promote the righteousness of adoption, empower the family system, and remove the stigma associated with being pro-life.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report