Canadian Healthcare vs American Healthcare.

[burniegoeasily]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...YwEQersu6hioTK

With President Obama hoping this week's "bipartisan summit" will move his health-care bill out of the ICU, it's worth taking a look at a recent high-profile operation -- the heart work done on former President Bill Clinton.
Clinton, of course, got the best of care -- a cardiac stent (a tiny metal cylinder) coated with a drug to help keep his artery open. Recent studies in the New England Journal of Medicine and elsewhere have shown that these drug-eluting stents are more effective than bare metal ones.
But they cost two-to-four times more -- and the technology is relatively new. That combination has left government-run health-care systems slow to adopt them. The disparity between the US and Canada is striking.

Clinton: Got stent that's rare in Canada.




Per capita, our neighbors to the north receive only half as many coronary interventions. And only 30 percent of the stents placed in Canada are drug eluting, compared with a whopping 80 percent in the United States.
So a Canadian cardiac patient is less than a quarter as likely as an American to be outfitted with the kind of state-of-the-art stent that Clinton had.
In Canada, land of single-payer health insurance, you're also less likely to get the stent as soon as the need is clear -- especially in western provinces where resources are extremely limited and access is spotty. In Edmonton, Alberta, the wait for a cardiac procedure is routinely three to four months. In many areas of western Canada, less than half of angioplasties and stents are done at the same time as the original angiogram, a big waste of time and resources.
Canada has been attempting to deal with this problem of excess delay and inefficiency by introducing a database-driven system that assigns scores based on urgency. But many American cardiologists shudder at exactly this kind of solution -- a federal system for deciding who needs an urgent procedure and who doesn't. And if you were to think that rationing cardiac care is a way of saving money, you'd be dead wrong. An Austrian study just published found that the cost of waiting dramatically increases the average cost of treatment per patient.
The record of the last half-century is unmistakable: Government-dominated health sectors don't innovate as fast, and they resist the latest discoveries because they "see" the costs up-front, and are slow to accept the benefits.
Any of the ObamaCare bills would push us in Canada's direction, with policymakers looking hard to find overly simplistic solutions to justify lower costs for cheaper technologies. Indeed, some US "experts" are already brandishing a single 2008 study, known as the COURAGE trial, that seems to undermine the value of stents.
But ask any of the one million US patients who have received a stent over the last year if they think the capital investment that companies have made on evolving stent technology has been worth it. Perhaps even the former president would agree to the cost/benefit of stenting, even as he's championing a form of health care that could take that routine option away.
Marc K. Siegel is an internist in New York and a Fox News medical contributor.




Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bill_american_health_care_QF28dH78YwEQersu6hioTK#i xzz0gJ75Iuq2

[vc1111]

But ask any of the one million US patients who have received a stent over the last year if they think the capital investment that companies have made on evolving stent technology has been worth it.

I would ask this question though: How many of the "one million" had insurance? How many of the millions of uninsured Americans need it, but can't get it? How many of the uninsured don't even know they need it because they are avoiding even seeing a doctor due to the lack of insurance?

We may have a superior "system," but that does not mean it is affordable, not becoming flat out cost-prohibitive at warp speed, devoid of graft and corruption as I outlined on my last thread, or without flaws in delivery.

When money is no object, you can have anything. Unfortunately money is pretty much always an object.

Overall: Excellent article and your point it taken.

[burniegoeasily]

Originally Posted by vc1111

I would ask this question though: How many of the "one million" had insurance? How many of the millions of uninsured Americans need it, but can't get it? How many of the uninsured don't even know they need it because they are avoiding even seeing a doctor due to the lack of insurance?

We may have a superior "system," but that does not mean it is affordable, not becoming flat out cost-prohibitive at warp speed, devoid of graft and corruption as I outlined on my last thread, or without flaws in delivery.

When money is no object, you can have anything. Unfortunately money is pretty much always an object.

Overall: Excellent article and your point it taken.

I agree with your notion that some things need to be fixed/tweeked. I just fear we might get thrusted into a major train wreck while throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[kevin1]

I question the "need" for mandatory insurance, everybody needs healthcare, not all need insurance. I also question the number of people who supposedly don't have said insurance, the number seems to change depending on whom you ask. Short of price controls and/or tort reform I don't see the health care industry lowering their prices anytime soon, and even if such measures were instituted would they in fact make health care affordable to all?

[Coach Dad]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...Yz_6_b-gsGGDxA

'My heart, my choice,' Williams says, defending decision for U.S. heart surgery
By Tara Brautigam (CP) – 16 hours ago
An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.
"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.
"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."
The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn't closing properly, creating a leakage.
He said he was told at the time that the problem was "moderate" and that he should come back for a checkup in six months.
Eight months later, in December, his doctors told him the problem had become severe and urged him to get his valve repaired immediately or risk heart failure, he said.
His doctors in Canada presented him with two options - a full or partial sternotomy, both of which would've required breaking bones, he said.
He said he spoke with and provided his medical information to a leading cardiac surgeon in New Jersey who is also from Newfoundland and Labrador. He advised him to seek treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami.
That's where he was treated by Dr. Joseph Lamelas, a cardiac surgeon who has performed more than 8,000 open-heart surgeries.
Williams said Lamelas made an incision under his arm that didn't require any bone breakage.
"I wanted to get in, get out fast, get back to work in a short period of time," the premier said.
Williams said he didn't announce his departure south of the border because he didn't want to create "a media gong show," but added that criticism would've followed him had he chose to have surgery in Canada.
"I would've been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list. ... I accept that. That's public life," he said.
"(But) this is not a unique phenomenon to me. This is something that happens with lots of families throughout this country, so I make no apologies for that."
Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province's health care system.
"I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people," he said.
"We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done and I went to somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week."
He quipped that he had "a heart of a 40-year-old, so that gives me 20 years new life," and said he intends to run in the next provincial election in 2011.
"I'm probably going to be around for a long time, hopefully, if God willing," he said.
"God forbid for the Canadian public I won't be around longer than ever."
Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.
"If I'm entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would," he said.
"But I wrote out the cheque myself and paid for it myself and to this point, I haven't even looked into the possibility of any reimbursement. I don't know what I'm entitled to, if anything, and if it's nothing, then so be it."
He is expected back at work in early March.

[petasux]

"This was my heart, my choice and my health,"

Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.
"If I'm entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would," he said.
"But I wrote out the cheque myself and paid for it myself and to this point, I haven't even looked into the possibility of any reimbursement. I don't know what I'm entitled to, if anything, and if it's nothing, then so be it."

Honestly I dont see what the big uproar is over this.The guy could afford and did pay for the surgery out of his own pocket.Its comparing apples and oranges when you try to compare this guys surgery to the average American or even the average Canadian.It means nothing , anyone with enough money can have any procedure done anywhere they want.

We may have the better health system but that doesnt make it affordable for many folks.In fact theres entire families living off of not much more than my health benefits cost each year.

[burniegoeasily]

Originally Posted by petasux

Honestly I dont see what the big uproar is over this.The guy could afford and did pay for the surgery out of his own pocket.Its comparing apples and oranges when you try to compare this guys surgery to the average American or even the average Canadian.It means nothing , anyone with enough money can have any procedure done anywhere they want.

We may have the better health system but that doesnt make it affordable for many folks.In fact theres entire families living off of not much more than my health benefits cost each year.

The uproar, as I see it, is that the Canadian system has the inherent problem we are trying to fix, but worse. Good Healthcare, at an affordable price. And when America goes the rout Canada did, where will the rich get the good stuff? Because all the common folks will still be stuck with crap. All the same. And it is starting to look as if the overall quality will go down and be rationed. Kind of doing the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish. Or at least the way many Americans see it.

[Alsatian]

Originally Posted by petasux

Honestly I dont see what the big uproar is over this.The guy could afford and did pay for the surgery out of his own pocket.Its comparing apples and oranges when you try to compare this guys surgery to the average American or even the average Canadian.It means nothing , anyone with enough money can have any procedure done anywhere they want.

There are at least two points in the story of the Candian politician seeking healthcare in the US that are germane to the present US debate on healthcare.

(1) The procedure he would have undergone in Canada involved "breaking bones" whereas the procedure he obtained in the US was less invasive, involving orthoscopic surgery. To me that implies a superior level of healthcare procedure available in the US versus what is available in Canada. This is one of the issues people have made: socialized medicine tends to produce lower quality healthcare systems, less advanced healthcare systems. What is the incentive for developing new, improved, perhaps expensive procedures in a socialized healthcare system?

(2) The Canadian politician said something about having to "jump the queue" to get timely treatment if he were to have sought treatment in Canada. Again, this is one of the faults often cited against socialized healthcare systems: long waits for treatment. Basically, costs are managed by hiring a set number of doctors who can only perform so many procedures per unit of time (they can't work 48 hours per day), and this limits the cost. The downside is that some people have to wait a long time and this can be a problem.

So, I think this is a fine object lesson in what we can expect from socialized medicine if we go down that path -- over time a more slow advancement in medical science (which DOES admittedly reduce the rate of cost increase, but maybe in an undesirable way) and long waiting lines.

[vc1111]

Kevin:

I question the "need" for mandatory insurance, everybody needs healthcare, not all need insurance.

There can be a situation wherein mandatory insurance is critical to the survival of the entire premise of utilizing insurance to mitigate the chance of catastrophic financial loss. If legislation is to be invoked to eliminate the exclusions for pre-existing conditions, mandatory insurance will be a must. Otherwise, no company will be willing to engage in offering anyone insurance to cover health care.

Short of price controls and/or tort reform I don't see the health care industry lowering their prices anytime soon, and even if such measures were instituted would they in fact make health care affordable to all?

Only when the patient has a reason to pay attention to cost, will the health care industry be concerned with actually competing (one provider competing with all others). As it stands now, the patient is essentially entirely unconcerned with anything but his or her out of pocket costs.

Is it any wonder that costs keep rising?

[Fieldmouse]

Is it any wonder that costs keep rising?

and 60 trillion of unfunded government promises of healthcare absolutely has no effect , right?

I also question the number of people who supposedly don't have said insurance, the number seems to change depending on whom you ask.

and you should ask the question. At most it 12 million Americans. The number of 47 million is made up of illegals and or the younger generation who don't want insurance. So why are we woried about them?