It’s a busy time for me just now. Still, wanted to post something about the many myriad emails I’m getting about what’s going on down south. This one is funny–apparently the Stupak amendment which would not allow federal funding to pay for abortions “denies women’s rights.” Really? Because there’s never been federal funding for abortions through health care as I understand it but now that the status quo remains it somehow has a devastating effect on women?
Like I said, I’m busy these days, so maybe I am misunderstanding something here. Either way, whenever someone says “abortion is a woman’s right” that’s my cue to jump in and ask why. And people don’t generally have a very good answer for that. (Ya, I don’t accept “her right to control her body.” Come up with something new and even just a tiny bit logical.)
by 
I’m an American and I can say quite honestly that the law will not change anything- Stupak only wanted to make certain that the law would carry over into the new reforms, so his amendment guarantees that. Furthermore, I can attest to the fact that while this law has been in place, there have been no women roaming the streets, clutching at hangers. It’s all very overly-dramatic rhetoric, really. I’m willing to give some the benefit of the doubt- things are very tense now.
Just as a question, since I don’t know if you go back and read the comments that people leave, how is universal health care in Canada? Does it really work effectively or is it better to just leave health care as a private institution?
Vann: In my experience (admittedly not the most exhaustive in the country; I’m lucky to be healthy), you get very good care in Canada… once you get in. The major problem is the waiting – several months to see some specialists, a year or more for surgery (including heart surgery). Another big issue is staff being overstretched, which sometimes leads to hospitals closing their ERs nights and weekends (there have been a few deaths because of that alone). And another big one, of course, is the growing number of people who have no family doctor and no hope of getting one, either, because years ago the government (composed of people who NEVER make any mistakes) decided there were too many doctors and limited enrollment in med schools across the country.
Still, it’s not completely evil; there are tons of really good people in the system. But the bottom line is this: When you get the government to provide something, you always end up with a Lada.
A good book on the problems with the Canadian health care system is Code Blue, by David Gratzer: http://www.amazon.com/Code-Blue-Reviving-Canadas-Health/dp/1550223933/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257897923&sr=1-3.
It seems to me that anything you want to be done inefficiently, give it to the government to do. We all know this is true. Workers simply dont’ work as quickly or as efficiently when their jobs are secure and their pay cheques are guaranteed. In the private sector, if you don’t work well, you get fired. Bosses know they cannot keep employees who are inefficient, they cost them money.
So take health care, and run it by the govt, and you will definitely get a very costly system that will not be as efficient if it were run privately. The problem with private health care, as I see it, is the gouging of the citizen by insurance companies, and the inability of some citizens to afford any insurance at all.
So, if there is some way to address those problems, then private health care would definitely seem the better option to me.
I am stunned by how much better the health system is that my daughter now has at her disposal, since she moved to Texas. Compared to what we have here in Nova Scotia, Canada, it is embarrassing to tell people about our health care.
Slow, inefficient, months waiting to see specialists, hours spent in emergency for routine stuff such as broken arms and legs, it definitely seems much worse here than in the US.
I would prefer a private system myself, the big problem is can it be affordable for those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder?
Julie: a group of very left-leaning academics at the University of Manitoba co-authored a study that found that access to quality care was LESS dependent upon socio-economic status in the US than in Canada. The gist of it was that in the US, you (or your insurer, or a charity, or the many public hospitals that provide pro bono services) can DO something to get medical care, whereas in Canada, as with Soviet era failing states, it’s all dependent on whom you know and what strings they can pull. Problematic as it may be if treatment depends upon financial resources, it’s still more democratic than protekzia, as Russian immigrants to Israel (and for all I know elsewhere) call it.
I’ll try and dig up the study, since it came up in a different context the other day.
End health policy wonkfest.
I don´t know if I´m the best to comment as I´ve been healthy. I live in Alberta and until recently we were the only proince in which we had to pay something to Alberta health care. I also have 4 family members whom are nurses, (mother, brother, 2 sister in laws). I do know that at one point it was difficult to pay for even the small health care fee.
There is a medical clinic nearby where I go and I don´t need to wait. You go, see the doctor and then you leave. There is no payment necessary. I don´t have a family doctor, but then I´ve also moved around. I don´t abuse it as I hate going to the doctor. I only go when necessary.
I´ve given birth for my second in a hospital with a midwife and I had no cost. My first was born in Spain. They sent me a bill that said PAID on it. I have to say that I like being able to go to the doctor and not have a fee or giving birth is free. The system is not perfect, but I wonder, had I been pregnant without insurance, giving birth is more costly than an abortion. I would not have had an abortion but financially it would have put more pressure. Both pregnancies were surprises and in difficult situations. (I was asked to have an abortion for my first by my family-in-law.)
The system is not perfect, which is why I´m not against some private health care. The problem with the insurance companies in the US, seems to be the pre’existing conditions. From what I understand there is an insurance available for people below a certain income, (Medicaid). I admit I don´t know how the system works on an everyday basis in the US .
I don´t think at first glan the health care reform is bad. Everyone should be able to get health care when it is needed. Insurance companies should be regulated somewhat.
Too much capitalisme brings greed. Too much socialisme brings ineffectiveness. There needs to be a balance..
.
I think in Spain there are two systems, private hospital and public hospitals. That may be a solution.
The biggest complait here are wait times which can be dangerous. My only experience has been Emergency rooms. (If your condition is serious, you are bumped up.)
The other problem is what should be covered. Abortion, as you know is covered. Recently the Alberta governement took away sex changes from the bill, which caused backlash from gay supporters.
Basic health care is important and should accessible for all. I think that is what the reform is about.
Case in point, I was just told by a plastic surgeon’s secretary that my husband will have a three year wait to get his hand fixed.
He has Dupuytren’s disease, which results in one finger bending in toward the palm, to the point that it is unusable. If it gets extreme enough, circulation is cut off and the finger has to be amputated.
The secretary told me that there are 2000 patients waiting for this doctor for various procedures, and there simply are not enough surgeons here in Nova Scotia to handle the patient load.
This is one of the results of socialized medicine, as the state controls medical licenses, and will not allow doctors to set up practise in certain regions. I don’t understand their allocation of medical services and their granting of medical licenses. I have heard that many medical students who graduate here cannot set up practise because the number of licenses are limited. However, the need is definitely there. So these med students go elsewhere, many to the US where they can start work immediately.
So it is the funding that is limiting the number of doctors per region? it would seem that is the overriding factor, as the govt decides so much money per region per specialty, regardless of the need.