Too Old' for Hip Surgery

[BridgeTroll]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html

'Too Old' for Hip Surgery

As we inch towards nationalized health care, important lessons from north of the borderBy NADEEM ESMAIL
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are inching the U.S. toward government-run health insurance. Last week's expansion of Schip -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- is a first step. Before proceeding further, here's a suggestion: Look at Canada's experience.

Martin KozlowskiHealth-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.
Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.

These constitutional challenges, along with one launched in British Columbia last month, share a common goal: to win Canadians the freedom to spend their own money to protect themselves from the inadequacies of the government health-insurance system.

The cases find their footing in a landmark ruling on Quebec health insurance in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance violates citizen rights as guaranteed by that province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The experiences of these Canadians -- along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 -- show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance.

In the wake of the 2005 ruling, Canada's federal and provincial governments have tried unsuccessfully to fix the long wait times by introducing selective benchmarks and guarantees along with large increases in funding. The benchmarks and the guarantees aren't ambitious: four to eight weeks for radiation therapy; 16 to 26 weeks for cataract surgery; 26 weeks for hip and knee replacements and lower-urgency cardiac bypass surgery.

Canada's system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

If we move to a Canadian style system... where do WE go to get timely treatment???

[Deuce]

Mexico?

[BridgeTroll]

  Take two swine flu's and call me in the morning...

[CrysG]

Good for you BT you found cases of two people who were saved with the American medical system with the help of MONEY.

That points out two chinks in your armor. That the American health system will help out anyone...if you can afford to pay for it( to bad poor American's, our health system cares more for rich Canadians) and that "along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008" that at least those 750,794 get to see a doctor. People who can't afford to see a doctor here wait.......I donno until they die.......

Some points to add-

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals

The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

[BridgeTroll]

Good for you BT you found cases of two people who were saved with the American medical system with the help of MONEY.

Some might answer that the reason people from other countries use our system is because of the advanced care and facilities that are funded by our current system.  The very "greed" you decry results in the extraordinary care to be found here.

As I have said... ad nauseum... most of us see the need for reform.  We are wary of the proposed revolution...

[CrysG]

And I'll add.....as nauseum....what's the point of having the worlds best health care(hahahahahhaha) if only the rich can afford to use it?

[BridgeTroll]

if only the rich can afford to use it?

Because THAT statement is not true!  The vast majority of well insured people are not rich... The obsession with the term "the rich" is amazing... What constitutes "the rich" this week?  Medical insurance and 50k a year??

[Tripoli1711]

What the hell is this argument that only rich people can use health care?  Where does this come from?  I hear this all the time and it is such BS it makes my head spin.  Do you have health insurance?  How much do you pull down a year?  I have never lived a day in my life without health insurance and I am nowhere close to rich.  What is the definition of "rich"?  If you cannot afford health care, you work harder or cut other expenses until you can!  How is the concept of working hard and providing for yourself in a free society on life support?  When did this happen?  If you truly cannot provide for yourself the government helps you.  Nobody has a problem with that.  I agree health care costs too much, but you ain't seen nothing yet by way of costs until the government steps in.  And you certainly do not have to be "rich" to have health coverage.

[CrysG]

I want to live in your dream world Tripoli, where everyone makes 25 an hour and they have expenses to cut. Sorry kids no food for you, Tripoli says I have to cut expenses to be able to afford healthcare. The same healthcare that may or may not cover mommy because she's allergic to pollen(it's happened). I pray that you can continue to live in that world that one day you wont be one of the  half of all personal bankruptcies in the United States that are due to medical bills. Oh and btw medical bankruptcy hits the middle class. The typical person filing for bankruptcy due to medical costs is about 40 years old, with some college education, middle-class or working-class, and a homeowner.

[BridgeTroll]

Your jumping all over the place Crys.  This is where the "discussion" breaks down.  First you argued that only "the rich" could afford health services.  This is clearly not the case.
The second issue is affordability and the possibility that one may go bankrupt providing care.  I and many of us agree with the second issue.  This is most definately an area of reform.  Many of us do not want to see a revolutionary change in healthcare because for most of us the system works pretty well... warts and all.

Lets use a laser to remove the warts... not a chain saw...

[Shwaz]

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

Of this 18% how many choose to go without healthcare benefit's offered by the company they work for?

Many opt out of benefits because -They're young & healthy and not worried about the immediate future or maybe they just chose to keep more earned money in their pocket's.

With unicare you would no longer have a choice as your tax spend will increase whether you like it or not.

[CrysG]

"Many of YOU do not want to see a revolutionary change in healthcare because for most of YOU the system works pretty well... warts and all."

The problem is that most of YOU are worried about YOU. YOU will not worry about the system that is currently in place until YOU have a problem with it. YOU don't want YOUR money to help pay for a system that will help everyone.

[BridgeTroll]

The problem is that most of YOU are worried about YOU. YOU will not worry about the system that is currently in place until YOU have a problem with it. YOU don't want YOUR money to help pay for a system that will help everyone.

Again... you are wrong.  We are saying... lets fix the parts that are broken.  We have identified most of em and figure out an equitable solution that preserves what is good and efficient about the current system and folding in protections for the un and under protected.

By making this an us vs them or good vs evil argument... you accomplish nothing.

[CrysG]

"Of this 18% how many choose to go without healthcare benefit's offered by the company they work for?"

Shwaz,

Since I'm 99% sure I know who you work for, would your opinion change if you knew that one of your co-workers(my sister remember) can't afford the $600 a month coverage that your company offers but because our mother and I have migraines SHE can't get independent coverage.

Either through taxes or premiums you're going to have to pay, wouldn't it be nice if everyone got a seat at the table?

[Tripoli1711]

I pray that you can continue to live in that world that one day you wont be one of the  half of all personal bankruptcies in the United States that are due to medical bills.

This is the precise reasoning behind individuals purchasing catastrophic medical insurance.  Medical bankruptcies are caused by cancer, heart disease, etc.  They are not caused by breaking an arm.  We don't need to spend trillions on socialized medicine across the board to counteract said bankruptcy.

When has anyone said that we think everything is going swimmingly?  Has not each and every one of us in this discussion today said that we believe reform is important and necessary?  Take a deep breath and set aside the emotion for a moment, it is clouding your ability to maintain any analytical integrity.  All caps, personal attacks and gross mischaracterizations of the other side are about the least persuasive means you can possibly employ to support an already flawed point of view, and you have a monopoly on all at the moment.