Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Canadian Health Care: A Reality Check on a Reality Check
For years, Canadians have feared the American health care system; now Americans are being told to fear ours
I'm a secret CNN fan. I just can't get enough of those talking heads with their gleaming teeth, wet-look lipstick and perfect coiffures. Even at 4 a.m., some gorgeous thing with flawless makeup (men and women) will be gushing about important affairs of state like Michael Jackson or that philandering governor from South Carolina.
Every once in a while, CNN will notice there's a country north of the 49th parallel that has some weird little customs, like parliamentary democracy or gun control. They then venture forth to do in-depth analysis of our quaint habits for the benefit of the enlightened viewers of, let's say, Kentucky.
Kentucky is to blame for the latest CNN investigation of Canada -- a "Reality Check" on Canada's health care. It seems the state -- known for fried chicken and racehorses -- is also home to Senator Mitch McConnell, a high-ranking Republican of impeccable conservative credentials. Senator McConnell does not like President Barack Obama's plan to reform health care, and he's decided to use Canada as a weapon to help him fight the battle.
As CNN reported, McConnell recently made a speech to the Senate referring to the "bureaucrats who run Canada's health care system" and using the Kingston General Hospital as an example of the horror of Canada's health care. KGH supposedly had waits of 340 days for knee replacement and 196 days for hip replacement. McConnell also fussed that Ontario's wait time for breast cancer surgery is three months. CNN did interview Dr. David Zelt, KGH's chief of staff, who pointed out the wait times are actually 91 days for hip replacement, 109 days for knees, and that these aren't the average wait times, but the time that nine out of 10 people have had the procedure. Many have them done much faster. For breast cancer surgery, the wait time at KGH is 23 days, across Ontario it's 34 days.
Both CNN and McConnell made a big deal out of Shona Holmes, an Ontario woman who claims she was forced by Ontario's health system to go to the United States for life-saving surgery for a brain tumour. She claims that in 2005 delays in access to treatment at home made it necessary to go to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona and pay $97,000 for her care.
In 2007, Holmes was part of a court case brought by the Canadian Constitution Foundation against the government of Ontario. The case challenges Ontario's "government-run monopolistic" health system that prohibits the sale of private health care and private health insurance for essential health services. It is still before the courts.
Holmes has become the darling of conservatives and the stop-public-health-care movement in the United States. She's testified before Congress, been on Fox TV as well as CNN, and her story is retold on hundreds of right wing blogs. She's now doing a nasty TV ad for Patients United Now, a Republican-led group opposed to Obama's reforms. You can see the ad at www.patientsunitednow.com. The group is spending almost $2 million on it to target politicians in Washington.
For a person living with cancer, the idea that someone's care could be unreasonably delayed is truly scary. It also doesn't reflect the experience I've had or the experiences that have been shared with me by so many other patients. Even CNN interviewed Doug Wright, a more typical patient in Toronto who is receiving very speedy treatment for his cancer.
Still, I found Holmes tale both compelling and troubling. So I decided to check a little further. On the Mayo Clinic's website, Shona Holmes is a success story. But it's somewhat different story than all the headlines might have implied. Holmes' "brain tumour" was actually a Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland. To quote an American source, the John Wayne Cancer Center, "Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not true tumors or neoplasms; instead they are benign cysts."
There's no doubt Holmes had a problem that needed treatment, and she was given appointments with the appropriate specialists in Ontario. She chose not to wait the few months to see them. But it's a far cry from the life-or-death picture portrayed by Holmes on the TV ads or by McConnell in his attacks.
In Senator McConnell's home state of Kentucky, one out of three people under age 65 do not have any health insurance. They don't have to worry about wait times for hip or knee replacement or cancer surgery -- they can't get care. The media household income in Kentucky is $37,186 -- not quite enough for the $97,000 bill at the Mayo Clinic. CNN didn't mention that in its "Reality Check."
As the debate on health care reform heats up the United States, it seems certain that Canada's public health care system will be used, or more accurately misused, in the battle for hearts and minds. For years, Canadians have feared the American health care system; now Americans are being told to fear ours.
62 Comments so far
Show AllHow much does brain tumor surgery cost in Canada? I am willing to bet it is a hell of a lot less than the $97k tab from the Mayo Clinic. Also, did McDick and the RNC help Ms. Holmes pay her bill? I doubt it. What an exploitative bunch of dirtbags!
Where do you think $2 milliom went to?
I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC paid her bill plus all of her other "expenses" while she does ads and becomes a media darling and right-wing talking point. I personally know two people in Canada who had life-threatening brain conditions: one a cancerous tumour and another a cyst in a ventricle blocking flow of spinal fluid. Both received the necessary Cat scans and MRI's and were in surgery within a few weeks. It is truly nauseating to watch the crap that is marketed as news in the United States in order to influence important policy decisions that will deprive 10's of millions of ordinary citizens of health care while the big corporate honchos line their pockets.
Sadly this crap marketed as news has been around for years, and you are absolutely right, it is nauseating. This is especially true in airports where every boarding area has a television set to Headline News with the volume cranked all the way up, and no remote to shut it off.
gracchus, I have thought for some time about that airport forced media feeding that only earplugs can defeat -the latter which may also turn off announcements such as gate changes that you might actually want to hear.
Wasn't there something in 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 involving propaganda that couldn't be turned off being beamed into every home? I think this is a little more than marketing crap. Note that free speech is definitely not a right in airports and if you don't conform to the norm you will get authoritarian attention in short order and your freedom of movement will likely be summarily curtailed too. There's no innocent until proved guilty in an airport and social compliance devices (tasers) and worse abound.
Are airports a glimpse of what the continent wide state security apparatus will look and feel like in the near future?
Brain surgery in the States is more expensive because it's harder to operate in a vacuum.
You won your bet.
It would have cost her $97k less, or $000000000000000.00
As Ms. Mason demonstrates here so clearly: facts and truth have nothing to do with "reality" in the US media -- which makes coherent, rational, public discussion of almost any issue...well, pretty darned near impossible.
And what's worse, if you DO happen to back someone into a corner with facts, the inevitable response is, "well where'd you get your facts, obviously they have an agenda".
Who cares about Canada's health care system? America's system is doing just fine. People die every year but blaming the insurance companies for it is silly. Government has no business dictating health care. If Americans want single payer, then they'll ask for it but until then we're all happy letting the free markets decide who deserves to be insured. Just give us more tax cuts and we'll all be able to pay our insurance companies and we're all covered.
"letting the free markets decide who deserves to be insured" Lovely.
"If Americans want single payer, then they'll ask for"
Because we obviously arn't asking for it right now are we?
Wasn't there some big prophet, lived like 2000 years ago. He's famous for telling us to help the least among us. Starts with a J ...??
Jesus did often implore the individual to give to those in need through such stories as that of the Good Samaritan. Of course, more importantly He gave each of us free will, to determine for ourselves the value of that message. As for giving to the government, He suggested we give only what was Caesar's; the rest, it can be assumed, He meant for us to be responsible for ourselves.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy
Responsible for ourselves? That's exactly the opposite of Jesus' message -- we are each other's keeper.
Paying what is Caesar's is also an artful dodge, but also a compelling commandment to pay taxes, although at the time the Roman rulers were hardly offering social welfare to the Judeans (apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, etc...)
And the judgment of nations, in fact, the only real judgment in the Gospels, speaks of countries being divided up between those who cared for the least amongst them and those that cared not. Guess what happens to those socities who didn't do anything to help their afflicted, imprisoned, and destitute members.
Of course, the question, "am I my brother's keeper?", was posed to God by Cane when asked of Abel's whereabouts (Gen. 4:3-8). The question itself was never answered by God, and has been debated by theologians for centuries. In any case, it predated any of Jesus' teachings. Those teachings, including all of the Gospels, articulate Jesus' teaching to "love one another." The New Testament teaching of the judgement are perhaps best articulated in Matthew 25: 31-46. In this passage ALL nations will be gathered before Him, then seperated into two groups, the blessed and the accursed. While this passage indicates the blessed are those who fed, clothed, etc., the country of origin is clearly irrelevant; instead those blessed chose to behave charitably, individually, not through government coercion.
Ultimately the choice is clearly left up to the individual, to use one's own free will, to behave with charity or not.
My earlier reply references a Kennedy quote you would benefit from reflecting upon.
"Who cares about Canada's health care system?"
Several million Canadians do, but you're asking the wrong question. What matters is who cares about the USA's health care system and whether American's are getting factual information as a basis for comparison. Of course, for some people, facts are merely impediments to their real agenda and should be dismissed as unimportant distractions by all concerned.
This is satire, right? Irony? Has to be! You couldn't possibly be serious...
Laffing G.
That's a good one. I especially liked "... we're all happy letting the free markets decide who deserves to be insured."
It had me ROTFL.
Love your sarcasm!
But be aware, your comment might be used by McConnell.
This guy isn't being sarcastic, if you've seen other posts by him. He's a gasbag who spouts right wing talking points that make no sense whatsoever.
Example: "Government has no business dictating health care". This is another iteration of "we don't want the government getting between doctors and patients!" which is a total red herring, since neither the public option or single payer would do that nearly as much as private insurance already does-- they are mainly mechanisms for paying for health care; while private insurance does indeed get between you and your doctor by limiting what will be paid for denying payment, and often limiting which doctors you can use.
Thanx for pointing this out.
If you are right then consideration of Laffing Garfield’s posts is wasted effort.
Laffing Garfield: I can agree that the gov't should not be dictating health care.
However, the idea that the current system is a free market is really off the mark. There is very little business activity in this country that is done in free markets. The closest we get is small businesses and small farms who have an uphill battle against monopolies and oligopolies.
If we had free markets, physicians would not be losing their licenses because they heal/cure their patients with "unapproved therapies". The FDA would not be removing low cost supplements from the market because "it's unfair for a pharmaceutical company to compete with over the counter, low cost items." Don't believe me? They recently did it with pyridoxamine, a form of vitamin B6 that natural medicine doctors have used for years to help prevent diabetic complications. Recent research showed that these docs were right. So, a drug company came up with a "drug", the active ingredient being pyridoxamine and that was the end of a very effective low cost treatment. The list goes on and on.
I recently spoke with a young woman whose boss (a nurse who owns a home health care business) recommended a natural treatment for a UTI. The woman tried it. She had previously gone to doctors and took long antibiotic treatments that were billed to Medicaid. This time she spent $20 of her own money and three days later she was fine.
We the people at all levels of society are being ripped off constantly by the medical monopoly. The FDA suppresses all sorts of simple cures.
Spend $49. Go to www.wrightnewsletter.com and sign up for a one year subscription. It is written by a physician with 35 years experience at this. He even ran for Congress once. You can search 9 years of newsletters with a very good search engine.
Open your eyes and your mind. As Gilbert & Sullivan once said "Things are never what they seem, skim milk can masquerade as cream"
By the way, in most universal healthcare system the government DOESN'T control healthcare, they simply control the funding. HUGE difference. It is very odd that someone who thinks it is ok for insurance companies to interfere with health care is so worried about "bearcats" controlling healthcare. Even if insurance companies are called something different, what is the freaking difference between the straw man argument there and the reality we have in the current privatized, for profit system? My god, will the right just once come up with a logically convincing argument, something where you don't have to as ideologically inflexible as they are for it to be convincing?
If it is unprofitable to deliver a health care service the service will not be delivered. It is actually more profitable the more you deny service, which was the behind the scenes justification (obviously something different was said to the public) for HMO’s in the first place. Competition will not change this, it will just spread the profits a little more evenly amongst smaller companies instead of having them go to the big companies as they are now. If it is profitable to deny service, and if executive compensation increases along with profits, guess what, nothing will change. If marketing, administrative costs amongst other things are in place, the same holds true. Tons of waste.
Are you joking? Give us a single example, just one, where a privatized service delivered universal access at a lower cost with less waste. In Chile, for example, people like you talked about the wonderful (and mythical) "free market" in regards to pensions. I still see Chile referenced as a positive example. How did Chile do with that? Horribly. Massive amounts of waste (profits, executive salaries, marketing, administrative costs are always going to be massive and as far as the delivery of social services are concerned, waste), to the point that the CONSERVATIVE candidate for president said the system needed to fundamentally change and the state had to take a far more active role. This is the case, without exception, across the region, and this region has tried your ideas more than any other. There was a poll done across Latin America and the Caribbean by the non-partisan Chilean firm Latinobarometro, that showed that a majority of people in Argentina and Chile want the state to control the now privatized pension system, amongst other services:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N144...
"According to the annual Latinobarometro survey, more than 80 percent of those living in continental Latin America and the Dominican Republic -- a region of 400 million people -- believe the government should control and oversee public services such as pensions, health and education, the annual survey showed."
"...In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, some 90 percent believe that pensions should be in the hands of the state. All currently have private pension systems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in Chile also believe the telecoms system, privatized 20 years ago, should be in state hands."
If you ideas worked so well, why are so many people who’ve had them forced on them rejecting them (really across the ideological spectrum, 80% of Latin America and the Caribbean aren’t leftists, the majority might be but not that large a majority)?
Mitch McConnell is a virulent, callous fear-monger and an unapologetic cracker. He loves to talk tough and the Dems quake in fear whenever he opens his ignorant mouth to spew disinformation along with bile and contempt. They should instead drown him out with derisive laughter. The day the Dems do that, however, I will eat my hat.
Actually, for those of us who listen carefully to Mitch McConnell, he is a pretty sophisticated Sophist who comes off sounding like a "cracker." He tends to appeal to a certain constituency that re-elects him every 6 years. His agenda is essentially that of corporate Amerika while he sounds "down-home." He is a consummate Washington Insider who uses his considerable talents to force this country into a regressive killing off of the New Deal.
As for the Canadian health-care system versus the United States' chaotic system, many years ago my younger sister and her husband fled to Montreal when she was pregnant so she and her baby could receive adequate care.
People like McConnell use scare tactics and get away with it because most of our Media keep us ignorant about the facts. It ain't easy for the average person in this country to get the facts in a sea of lies and repeated distortions; it takes time, effort, and thought and most people are just too damned busy trying to survive day-to-day.
-30-
Agree! To echo Lloyd Bentsen, "I know crackers, and that Senator is no cracker." Here's a cite and a remark from hillbilly report dot org - presumably a bunch of crackers:
Cite: And of that nearly $4 million in contributions from all health care related donors, $1,597,180 has come in the 2008 cycle alone - more than three times what he has received in any previous two-year period. No one would doubt that both McConnell and his health care industry donors have gotten their money's worth out of this arrangement.
Remark: Mitch McConnell and his greedy handlers in the insurance companies are a perfect example of why we need a public option. As long as folk like that make all the decisions, money desperately needed to cover the health of Americans will go into men like Mitch McConnell's pocket. They care little about the health of our nation as long as they can keep feeding each other millions of dollars to maintain the status-quo.
They have failed American miserably. Lets take our healthcare out of the hands of Corporate whores like Mitch McConnell.
http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/198/on-healthcare-mcconnells-position-has-been-bought-and-paid-for
My point being, let's not put rural whites into Mitch McConnell's mold. Many of them are our allies, and they are already ready to rumble over mountain top removal.
Kentucky elects creeps like MM because there's no real opposition in that state. How many Democrats in KY ever bothered to stand up to him? And isn't KY governed by a Democrat and if so why isn't he pushing for KY single payer? Anyone from KY who knows about this?
We get the same bullshit out here in Louisiana.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Are you actually expecting a Democrat to be better than a Republican? Snap out of it!!! :-)
"Are you actually expecting a Democrat to be better than a Republican? Snap out of it!!! :-)"
Yes, I do.
In Kentucky, many of the horses get better health care than do the uninsured humans and the humans who are insured but have been denied care by a greedy insurance company. Similarly, I hear that the horse unemployment rate is lower than the human one these days.
Shona Holmes better pay back the Canadian taxpayer for every treatment she has received in Canada. Given her condition, I bet it's a lot more than she has paid into the system via taxes.
She does represent a direct challenge to the Canadian system -- the challenge of self-interested individual using her own unfortunate condition to advocate for dismantling a system built for all. It's a damn shame.
I predict that the position a Senator or Congressman takes in 2009 will be the deciding factor in 2010 in determining whether that person is re-elected. Those who vote for a national health care will win. Those who vote against it will have only the backing of the insurance industry--lots of money but no way to fend off the attacks of opponent who keep pointing out the source of the funds and the vote of the candidate. The Blue Dog democrats had better get the message soon: almost 70% of the voters back home want the health care package to pass.
I'd like to believe you, but the recent history of those who kept trying during Obama's candidacy to point out the source of his funds and his voting record don't provide much encouragement.
Did you support Obama last year even when he made his corporate ties known? So many times Obama made his positions Republican that I finally gave up supporting him and went Nader. What about you?
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Supporting Nader? You naughty naughty terrorist!
If you're asking me, I'm not eligible to vote in US elections. If I were, I certainly wouldn't endorse either of the corporatist political facades. Doing so, as I see it, makes one complicit in their mutual agenda, both domestic and foreign.
Good article. Unfortunayely it won't reach the majority of Americans who faithfully get all of their political education from the likes of CNN and FOX.
I don't think the main problem in this case actually is the majority of Americans who, it appears, already favor something that approximates single-payer health care. The problem, as I see it, rests with those who oppose even that level of public intelligence and cohesion. Their fears are quickly surpassing desperation.
I showed it to a couple of workers at lunch from another company, one an Obama shill and another a solid Republican. Both of them called me a "terrorist" for showing them this.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
If they can read give them this:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
If they can't then ask them to watch this movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
That will give them an idea of who the real terrorists of society are.
The "free market" is a myth.
Senator McConnell doesn't oppose giving insurance companies billions of our hard-earned tax dollars (that was fun). He's fine with that. His top goal is only to prevent a public health insurance option.
“Medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients,” Mr. McConnell said. Of course, we know what he meant to say is that Republicans want having medical decisions to be made by faceless, unlicensed operatives at insurance companies, so long as it makes them profitable enough to be grateful in 2012.
He insisted that Republicans were in favor of health legislation. “The question is not whether to reform health care,” he said. “The question is how best to reform health care.”
He could have said that private companies can exploit government-delivered customers however they please, just so long as government subsidizes the indigent, coerces the unwilling and ignores the unbearable tax on the working class.
(The actual quotes above from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/a-senator-offers-two-faces-in-health-care-debate/, and obviously the rest I made up.) This also links to a second patient that McConnell was using as an example. This person in England was first denied a drug treatment because it was experimental and too expensive. But National Health Services reversed itself and he received the drug. The drug is very expensive and McConnell doesn't want us thinking about how the hell would we pay for it:
Reached by telephone in England, Mr. Hardy’s wife, Joy, said the medicine had been a huge help for her husband. “Sutent is enabling him to live a life,” she said. “We’re extremely pleased that Sutent is being given with the N.H.S. I don’t know how long we could have afforded it ourselves.”
The real purpose of "Medicare-for-All" is to get everyone to end-of-life in good health. Much of what ails us is caused by industrial poisons in our air, water and food. A single payer, like the State, has the ability to regulate corporate poisoning of it's citizens. Big Insurance has no ability or desire to keep our environment livable. Our corporations can and will kill anyone for a few dollars more. For those people that reach the end of their natural life and want to postpone the inevitable then there is personal savings or private insurance. The purpose of living is to experience our own individuality for a life time - no matter how long that might be.
The following of a re-post of a previously-made submission:
In 1999, I was experiencing what felt like severe indigestion that wouldn't go away after two hours. I drove myself to Emergency and within a matter of seconds after setting out my symptoms, I was being treated by a team of doctors and nurses for my heart attack. There followed four days in the Critical Cardiac Unit where I received the most absolute professional care.
The cost in the US - tens of thousands of dollars. The cost here in Canada - ZERO.
Last year, I was found to have a genetically defective heart valve that required open-heart surgery. In coming to that conclusion, I underwent several very expensive diagnostic procedures for which there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAITING PERIOD. The operation itself involved a team of surgeons, a team of anestheticists, a team of profusionists and several nurses. Again, ABSOLUTELY NO WAITING PERIOD. After the surgery, I spent ten days in intensive post-op care.
The cost in the US - hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost here in Canada - ZERO.
If I had been compelled to use the US medical system, there is little doubt that, owing to my financial circumstances, I would now be a dead man.
Why does the wealthiest nation in the history of the world have such a dysfunctional health-care system?
It is NOT the nation that is wealthy but the banksters, bullshiticians and corporate elite. The nation is in eternal debt.
And the dysfunctional health-care system is how it is because we are just serfs who are expendable.
And who are THEY? Watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
It is a long movie but very eye-opening to watch. But be aware: the implications are sickening. Just lucky that you have health cover.
"Why does the wealthiest nation in the history of the world have such a dysfunctional health-care system?"
Through the Republican Party and some Democrats the government is being run for the benefit of corporations. Some of the largest and wealthiest groups are medical doctors, health insurance companies and drug companies. They have united to get as much money out of consumers as possible and have influenced health care legislation.
But American consumers are tapped out and losing their homes and ending in bankruptcy because of this system, so now there is even support to change the system from some of the wealthy who have made their money with health care.
We never had a Tommy Douglas and Americans are not so united as Canadians. Its every man(woman) for himself in America. All of this bludgeoning with being "united" and "America is number one" is to hide that Americans are not very kind to one another.
America by comparison to Canada is far more punitive and Americans lack compassion for one another. So most Americans just didn't care about what happened to other Americans without health care...until it became clear that they also could lose medical care and go into bankruptcy.
Colleen, I have to say, that doesn't explain why we have no universal health care. So both parties are controlled by corporations, no big surprise. How is that different than Canada before Canadians got off their ass, with a large help from socialists like Tommy Douglas, and demanded a fundamental change to the system? Canada had roughly the same inefficient, for profit, wasteful health care system that we have now. If both parties are controlled by corporate power you don't constantly point that out and vote for the same parties, you try something new and raise hell. WE are the problem, not the crooks we put into office to be crooks.