Back to Health Care

Gah, we're back to this farging topic. Sadly, we're probably going to be stuck here until Obonehead finishes with health care "reform."

So, while Mrs. Fulminandrew was getting dressed, the boy turned on the idiot box. The default channel was showing, I think, Canada AM, and I heard the moron commentator drag out that hoary old chestnut, "Canada spends half, as a percentage of GDP, on healthcare, with better outcomes, than the USA."

Where do we begin with that stinking pile? How about with defining "better outcomes."

Is it better for the people waiting 2 years for joint replacements? How many retirees die waiting for a new hip or knee? Was it a better outcome that they spend the last of their "golden years" wheelchair bound and in pain, while Canada saves a few bucks on their health care? On the other end, was it better to skip giving that sick, premie all the care possible? Yes, the kid died, and his parents were devastated, but we saved the health care system a few bucks. How many cancer patients are forced to forego a final 6 months with their loved ones because the new drugs are unavailable because they're too expensive? That a good outcome? How many critically ill patients die waiting for surgery? How many cancers metastasize in the 4 - 6 months between diagnosis and treatment? Let's define our fucking terms...

"Better outcome" = longer life expectancy. According to worldlifeexpectancy.com Canada beat the USA's 78.1 years with 81.2 years. Okay, the average life expectancy in Canada is 3 years longer than in the USA.

In compiling that statistic, did they take into account the following:

Murder rates. Most murder victims in the USA are young men invooved in criminal activity. That's gonna skew the life expectancy down.

Immigration. The USA has upwards of 20 million illegal aliens. Most of them are from Latin America, all of whose countries have lower life expectancies and poorer early life nutrition and health care than the USA. Couldn't find statistics on legal immigrants, but, generally, people move to a better places, so I'm willing to bet that the legal immigrants, generally, suffer the same nutrition and health care issues as the illegals. This will skew the life expectancy down.

Lifestyle. The USA is trumpeted as the fattest, unhealthiest country in the developed world. Okay, if that's so, then the obesity related health care issues (diabetes, heart disease, joint problems...) are going to cost the system more, per capita.

Military forces. The USA has the largest military in the developed world, and the most soldiers in combat, and all the health care issues associated with that. Did Mr. "Canada has better outcomes on less money" take into consideration combat medicine, prosthetics, post traumatic psychiatric treatment, etc.? Did he take into consideration the deaths of soldiers skewing the life expectancy down?

How about heroic measures both at birth and death? An extreme premature birth who dies, in most of the world will be counted as a stillbirth. In the USA, if a baby draws first breath, no matter if he dies within minutes, he is counted a live birth. Not only does this skew the life expectancy down, it shoots a hole in another hoary old chestnut, "The USA has the highest infant mortality in the developed world." Yeah, because they count ALL the babies born alive, not just the ones that make their shitty socialized medical systems look good.

At the other end of life, socialized medicine is killing the elderly. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is now at the doctor's discretion for both the very old, and for deformed babies. Great, don't spend money keeping people alive, kill them before they fuck up the statistics. I know, I know, we don't have that in Canada, not actively, we just don't treat the very, very sick. We put them on a waiting list and hope they die before they cost us an opportunity to turn our noses up at Uncle Sam.

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure you can think of more. And that is just on the subject of "better outcomes." On to costs.

Canada has only 1 health care system, the govt provided one. The USA has 2, the govt provided one, and a parallel private one. Each gets about 1/2 the per capita spending. There being 2, you have a choice, go with the govt one, or pay for the private one. In the private one you have access to much better, and faster treatment. Why?

How about this; self interest. When the payer is in charge of your treatment, it is in his self interest to deny treatment, to save money (that would be Canada). When the payee is in charge of your treatment, it is in his interest to get you treated so he can, you know, get paid (that would be any private system). With the former, costs are kept down, at the expense of the quality of treatment. With the latter, costs tend to drive up, with the benefit of better quality of care.

Don't believe me? Then why, to take a recent example, does Canada not have enough neo natal care beds to treat our babies? Why do we have to send them to the USA? If we have such a wonderful fucking system, why does our system outsource its problem cases to the eeevil, 2 tier American system. In fact, if govt health care is so bloody wonderful, why do the rich, world wide, go to the USA for treatment? Cutting edge technologies? Rapidity of treatment? Availability? The patient and his doctor being in charge of course of treatment? All of the above?

Yes, the Americans spend a whole lot more on health care than we do. Good for them, and thank them very much, because if they stop doing so, the whole world loses its hospital of last resort.

Oh, and Mr. "Canada has better outcomes on less money?" Kindly fuck off and die.