Connect with us


Canadian Doctor Danielle Martin on single-payer healthcare



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
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 *


In Lieu of what is Right – An Interview with Dr. Ken Wright



One of the most vapid and reliably anti-Constitutionalist members of Congress is known to anyone who takes to Twitter, Ted Lieu, of the California 33rd Congressional District, suddenly has a staunch conservative to square off against. I got to sit down for about an hour over the phone with Dr. Ken Wright, who was one of the most interesting interviews I’ve done this year (and after Erin Cruz, Austin Petersen, Shane Hazel, and Hunter Hill, that is saying something).

Dr. Wright is a renowned pediatric ophthalmologist who is invited to teach all over the world. For that reason (sorry doc) I thought he might have the demeanor of a college professor. Analytical without a lot of passion. I was right about the analytical part. I was dead wrong about the lack of passion. This is a man who in no way needs to run for Congress, but instead sees it as a public service that he is willing to take on to make the world better for his family and for all of ours as well. It’s probably worth noting that one of the most respected and freedom-oriented members of the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul, is also an ophthalmologist. I also have an acquaintance here in my home town who is a Constitutionalist and an ophthalmologist. There seems to be a pattern here.

I found Dr. Wright to be authentic, passionate about Constitutional freedoms, and a man who will not be bullied by anyone. He supports much of what President Trump is trying to do, however I have no trouble believing he would stand up to the President should he go off the rails. The people of the California 33rd would do well to put a man of such integrity into office, and with him get rid of one of the most staunchly anti-freedom members of the US House of Representatives, Ted Lieu.

BW: What specific experience and education make you feel makes you the most qualified to be a Congressman?

KW: With the present state of our representatives I think as long as you have a pulse you could do a better job. They’re bought. The special interest lobbyists are running the show. Any good, ethical citizen could do a better job and do what is right for the people.

**I needed to take a moment to stop laughing at this answer. It was funny because it’s true.**

I’m a pediatric ophthalmologist. I know people all over the world since I travel for teaching in my field. I was awarded a service medal from the President of Panama after Noriega was ousted due to the work I was doing there. I’m a doctor, and doctors use data and facts to make decisions. We don’t put a Band-Aid on an infection and expect it to go away. Dems in inner cities have made people dependent for more than 50 years with no way out and they end up in gangs or living on welfare. Let’s get factories into the inner-cities. Let’s get them jobs instead of food stamps and a few bucks. I want to actually solve problems instead of creating a never-ending cycle of dependency.

BW: What specific issues will be your main focus if elected?

KW: Immigration is a huge problem right now. President Trump gave Congress the job to put together a real plan for DACA and they’ve done nothing. We need a clear policy regarding immigration. To my mind we need to secure the border. Without that we have open borders. We need a wall for at least part of the southern border. It worked in Israel. Then you can think about what to do with 13 million illegals.

Whether they were invited by the government or not, many illegals came here because we wanted people to come here; we wanted them to do certain jobs like pick crops or be a housekeeper, and it would be wrong to send them all home after so many years. That said, criminals with so much as a DUI have to go. This is my problem with sanctuary cities; they allow criminal illegals to roam free and harm our citizens. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, but rather an American problem.

The largely law abiding that we choose to let stay can get in line behind everyone else and perhaps pay some fines and do some service, but they shouldn’t be able to get to the head of the line like so many Democrats want, and they certainly shouldn’t be given blanket amnesty.

Healthcare is a big issue, mostly because the Democrats have made it that way with Obamacare. Despite what the Democrats say, there were never bodies lying in the street before Obamacare. No one is turned away from any emergency room. Everyone can get care. Not everyone needs health insurance. If you’re a 20 year old on your first job and in good health, perhaps you don’t need to spend money on health insurance, and it’s wrong for the government to force you to subsidize health insurance for others. We need to repeal McCarron-Ferguson Act which exempts insurance companies from most federal regulation including anti-trust laws. That would allow real free-market competition back.

BW: What failures do you feel have been made on the part of Ted Lieu?

**Note: I asked Dr. Wright to please try to keep this to a top 5 list… I know I could write an article just on this question**

KW: When the Syrian war was really going on he wanted to bring 200K refugees from Iraq and Syria and voted against the SAFE Act. That’s dangerous for America.

He doesn’t protect America first. He wants open borders. He’s for sanctuary cities. He votes against Kate’s Law every time it comes up. He has sponsored legislation for no-money bail, saying bail is unfair to the poor, yet judges can take that into consideration. He wants to take the discretion away from the judges.

He’s a hypocrite. On his web site the number one issue he talks about is climate change. And yet, when he was a state senator he accepted $13K from real estate developers who wanted to build a new stadium, and then he co-sponsors a bill to exempt the real estate developers from environmental regulations. He’s a career politician and has never had a real job in his life. I’ve had a real job. I’ve run a business and put people to work.

BW:  What political challenges do you face and how do you plan to overcome them?

Well, District 33 is only 24% Republicans, which has discouraged the GOP and the GOP wasn’t even going to run someone in 2016. However, there’s almost 30% here with no party preference. I was able to take 37% in 2016 and I didn’t have a real organization. I have a whole organization this time and I think winning this district is doable.

BW: With the current debate over gun-control, what are your thoughts?

KW: Well this isn’t an easy issue. I think we all, or at least most, agree a civilian doesn’t need to own a surface-to-air missile. At the same time, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about being able to resist a tyrannical government. We need to find a balance. I think for certain weapons perhaps some form of mental evaluation might be in order. The problem is the Democrats always want to take it too far. Instead of making things simple and wanting to implement legislation that might actually save lives they are intent on disarming the population.

BW: There has been a lot of debate over President Trump’s tariffs. How do you feel about them.

KW: Great question. Would you agree that it is equally wrong for one to hire someone to commit murder as it is to commit murder yourself?

BW: Sure.

KW: Well by the same token, if it’s wrong for us to use slave labor to make our products, it’s equally wrong for us to allow China and other countries to use slave labor without any kind of penalty. The Chinese have a miles long factory where people were crammed into tiny rooms to live and work. It was so miserable that people were jumping to their deaths. Know what the Chinese government did? They put up nets outside the building so that people couldn’t even kill themselves to get away. It’s that miserable and yet we are profiting from it in the form of cheaper goods. You’ll notice that the President isn’t imposing these tariffs on Europe or Canada or other nations that play by the rule of civilized behavior.

BW: I’m personally very much against tariffs, but I have to admit that I never thought about it that way.

KW: Most people don’t.

BW: I ask this of all California candidates since your state pretty much has been the leader on this issue: What about legalization of Marijuana?

The half-life of marijuana is 3-4 days. If you smoke 2 or 3 times a week then the half life becomes about 2-3 weeks. Alcohol is metabolized much faster. I think it should be available but through a pharmacy, and not in smoking form. Physicians were encouraged to give more opioids for pain management and they found it to be profitable. This has led toward a lax attitude toward drugs. Marijuana should be available to those who need it, but we can’t be so careless with how it’s used.

BW: What do you want the people of the California 33rd to know about you?

KW: Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that we are Americans first. Vote for someone who has the moral fiber to do what is right. Don’t vote for someone just because they might be at your end of the ideological spectrum.

You can learn more about Dr. Ken Wright by clicking here.


Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Kamala Harris: “Stop slaughtering babies! Abortions OK”



You may have missed it amid the wall-to-wall coverage of the Parkland shooting and the CNN Town Hall, but Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has become pro-life — she just hasn’t realized it yet.

Two days after the massacre, Senator Harris told MSNBC, “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.” This just two weeks after she helped defeat a 20-week abortion ban in the Senate.

Apparently, Senator Harris, a staunch pro-abortion advocate and Planned Parenthood donation recipient, couldn’t hear the cognitive dissonance, referring to deceased teenagers as “babies,” while almost one million actual babies are literally being slaughtered every year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the United States saw 926,200 abortions in 2014, of which Planned Parenthood claims 323,999 — about one-third. In the same year, total gun homicides (including gang and drug related, all age groups, and the tiny fraction that is mass shootings) totalled only 11,000.

926,200 to 11,000 — even 323,999 to 11,000 — is not even a close contest. Babies are being slaughtered, Kamala, but not the ones you care about.

(And to anyone claiming that unborn children are not babies or human beings or living things, I recommend Ben Shapiro, as usual, and I’ve already covered whether an unborn baby has rights).

Harris’s appeals to deceased children contributed to increasing cries for a boycott of the NRA, but pro-lifers on Twitter such as Steven Crowder and Devin Sena were quick to point out the irony of supporting a murder mill that receives over $540 million in taxpayer funding while berating a much less influential group whose purpose lies in defending basic constitutional rights and has never killed a single human being.

But let’s take Senator Harris at her word; in the aforementioned interview, she insisted, “When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body, and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding, this cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical.”

All right then, let’s look at what happens to a baby when it’s aborted.

Below there are diagrams of abortion procedures, but no actual photographs, as even I can hardly stomach looking at that horror or putting it on my website. Here’s one in an article on partial-birth abortions, and I’m sure you can find othersfairly easily if you really want to “shock some people into understanding.”

Let’s start with partial-birth abortions, also known as “dilation and extraction,” wherein the baby (read: living human child with its own DNA) is partially delivered through the birth canal until its head gets in the way, at which stage the abortionist stabs the baby through the back of the head, vacuums out the child’s brains, causes the skull to collapse, and removes the baby-shaped tumor, deeming the operation a success.

Next up is dilation and evacuation, a slight variant of the previous process, whereby the clump-of-cells-with-a-unique-heartbeat-and-pain-receptors is arbitrarily snipped to pieces by an abortionist with a toothy clamp and the leech’s body parts are ripped from the womb one at a time until he (or most likely “she” in many cultures) has fully exited the birth canal.

You may notice that I employed varying levels of sarcasm throughout that discussion, as this is and ought to be an intensely difficult topic to discuss. It’s disturbing, horrifying, and disheartening.

But Senator Harris is right, even if in the wrong way. We cannot just stand by as babies are being slaughtered, and if takes brutally direct language and agonizing photographs to “shock some people into understanding,” then so be it.

Almost one million babies are murdered in the United States every year. If that fact is less viscerally disgusting to me than seeing a picture of a premature child, then that’s a problem I need to work on.

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

Culture and Religion

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



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.”


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

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.