Obama's Cousin Trashes ObamaCare

Perhaps one of the study's most unexpected findings—depending on your political point of view —is that the quality of health care in Canada tends to be higher than in the U.S. The researchers looked at 10 statistically adjusted studies of broad populations and found that five favored care in Canada. The U.S. came out better in two. Three were inconclusive. Docteur points out the universal coverage in Canada helps to ensure that Canadians receive the care they need throughout their lives. "I think the main point is that our study showed quite clearly that it is not the case that the U.S. is dominating Canada … in terms of quality of care," she said.
And some more reports by commonwealth fund
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror–Mirror-on-the-Wall–An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
The U.S. health system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the United States underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.

and I have no clue how the smiley face got on my post

It is laughable to imply that the Kaiser Foundation is an objective organization, Andrea. Timothy Leary used to be their director of psychology or some such. And promoting single payer universal healthcare is pretty much the Commonwealth Fund's mission statement.

So is the NCPA an objective organization when their soul purpose is to promote Private business – I took this from their web site. Face it we do have good health care and we do score well on some areas but on others we lag behind. And we also pay much more than other countries – Usually when something costs more you get much better results. We also provide this good health care only for a few – Not for everyone, and that is the big difference between us and other countries.
Give you an example – NY's Sloan Kettering – The best cancer care hospital –
who do they accept these insurance companies – I took it from their site – Atena , Blue Cross Blue Shield , Cigna, GHI, Magna Care , Part of Oxford depending ..Qualcare, Tricare and parts of United health care ..that's it ..my insurance company is not on their list..Luckily I don't have cancer.
I can do this with all the top institutions and doctors ..not everyone can go anywhere unless you want to pay out of network and can afford to . But you walk in to any hospital in France you can go in….
They can not say to a patient, 'Oh, you don't have money or the right kind of insurance.' it's the fact that it's offered to everyone. Every man, woman and child who is a legal resident in France is covered by national health care."
And Rush Limbaugh says hes going to Costa rica for health care if we pass reform here – does he realize Costa Rica is a very socialized medicine country -

What Andrea's and larry's back and forth demonstrates is that we don't agree on the need for health care reform in America.

One point, I think, is missing in this comment stream….and it makes a big difference….

The U.S. is the most prosperous, wealthy country in the world……and so we SHOULD have the most superior health care in the universe. The fact that we score equal, more or less, with Canada and smallish European nations…….translates into a negative for the U.S.

Then, the question becomes: Why is it that the best the richest nation can offer in health care is so pitiful in comparison to lesser nations? We know the answer…..the rich and powerful in the U.S. must be protected at all costs.

Andrea says, "The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) whose goal is to promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."

Sounds good to me. Is there some other way to do things without having the government run the economy (aka, communism, marxism, etc) ?

Rev says, "The U.S. is the most prosperous, wealthy country in the world…"

Not to worry. Obama is going to fix that.

Obamacare represents yet another transfer of wealth from future generations so that the present generation, including the Reverand and Andrea, can enjoy, so they hope, lower cost health care. Obamacare purports to increase coverage for the uninsured and underinsured, and reduce costs for all. But this is an economic contradiction. It is also immoral.

Existing government run health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid face projected future insolvency. Yet Obama continues to push for expanding the role of government-run healthcare, with the bill to be paid in the future. Our children's children will rightfully condemn such intergenerational plundering.

Maybe insolvency is the whole idea. It sure seems like it. The revolution can't happen during prosperous times.

King – I didn't know how else to get you this information, but I found this article addresses some interesting issues that aren't in the mainstream healthcare debate. The article is from monthly physician's journal. Thought you might like knowing the perspective of some doctors rather than politicians:

Why US Healthcare Costs Are Out of Control: Two Insiders' Perspectives
Frank J. Veith, MD; Zvonimir Krajcer, MD
Posted: 03/05/2010 in MedScape

As the authors of this commentary — a vascular surgeon from New York and a cardiologist from Texas — waited in an airport boarding area, we pondered why healthcare costs in the United States are out of control. Here are some dollar-wasting examples that we have both observed:

1. The Building of Shrines for Hospital Administrators. We have both witnessed the building of expensive and unneeded new healthcare facilities to satisfy the desire of an institution to provide a monument to a hospital executive who is nearing the end of his or her career. In one case, architecturally spectacular new hospital buildings costing billions of dollars were erected within a few hundred yards of similar facilities belonging to a competing institution. In another case, a specialty hospital was constructed despite the fact that 2 other similar specialty facilities existed within a few miles. In both instances, as large as the costs of the new buildings may have been, they were dwarfed by the costs of the duplicative staffs required for the new facilities. Moreover, to keep both new facilities acceptably occupied, substantial additional monies continue to be spent on advertising and public relations campaigns.

2. Unnecessary Duplication of Services. One large city had 3 excellent transplant programs, each associated with a different university hospital. Administrators at a fourth university hospital decided they also wanted a transplant program to enhance their institutional image and prestige. When the relevant state agency determined that there was no need for a fourth transplant program in the city, there was a rumor that a top officer at the medical center interceded personally with a high-ranking elected state official. Whatever the truth of the rumor, the unneeded fourth program was quickly approved. The costs for the complex and extensive additional staffing and equipment for the extra program were borne by our healthcare system. Because the number of organ transplants in the area is totally dependent on the number of donor organs and not on the number of programs, no increase in quality or number of patients treated could accrue — only an increase in the overall cost. The sole purpose served by the additional program was gratification of the egos who served the institution.

3. Absence of Medical Malpractice Tort Reform. It is well known that medical liability costs are out of control in New York State. Abuses are rampant because the system depends on contingency payments to trial lawyers and "hired gun" expert witnesses who are often nonexpert and who are paid handsomely for their biased opinions — a pure example of conflict of interest.

Numerous studies have documented that most awards, some of which are larger than lottery payouts, do not correlate at all with actual malpractice and that most instances of actual malpractice do not result in awards. Clearly the system is fueled by the greed of trial lawyers who contribute large sums of money to the campaigns of federal and state elected officials so that they will block reform of a system that is nonfunctional and frighteningly expensive. The billion dollar insurance premium burden is, of course, passed on to our overall healthcare system.

Worse still are the staggering costs of defensive medical practices, such as adding unnecessary tests, hospitalizations, and consultations. These defensive practices are estimated to increase healthcare costs by 65-200 billion dollars every year.

Texas and a few other states have passed sensible state malpractice reform laws that protect patients' rights to seek redress for real malpractice, while limiting liability to reasonable amounts rather than lottery amounts. President Obama, however, who originally advocated medical liability reform as part of his healthcare federal legislative package, has inexplicably backed away. If we are serious about cutting healthcare costs, how can we not address this problem on a national level?

4. Need for Hospitals to Be in the Black. Hospitals need to survive. To do so, they cannot operate at a deficit. This requires hospitals to admit enough insured and paying patients to maintain their income stream. Tremendous pressure, therefore, is placed on physicians and surgeons to increase hospital admissions. In one New York institution, salaried staff surgeons were ordered to increase their admissions and operations by 20% or face a cut in salary. Because most surgeons normally operate on all patients who have appropriate indications for such aggressive treatment, the only way these surgeons could possibly increase their operative load was to perform procedures that were not indicated. Such behaviors subject patients to unwarranted risks and increases costs.

5. Decreased Physician Reimbursement Leading to Unnecessary Procedures. Physicians, like other humans, do not like to take a cut in pay. Physicians who do procedures are paid on the basis of the number of procedures performed. If the compensation per procedure is decreased, as is happening, the only way for a physician to maintain his or her income is to do more procedures. Accordingly, a cut in procedural reimbursement will inevitably motivate physicians to do more procedures. For reasons already mentioned, this will result in more unnecessary operations and procedures. Increased costs and unnecessary risks to patients will result.

6. Pay-for-Performance Systems. In an effort to improve the quality of healthcare and physician performance, financial incentives have been introduced. These provide additional income to physicians who can perform procedures with lower mortality and morbidity rates.

It is well known that patients who most need certain procedures are at higher risk for death and complications than patients whose indications are weaker or nonexistent. Physicians are therefore incentivized to add easier cases, even if some of the people do not need the procedure, so that their mortality and morbidity rates will be lower and they will receive higher reimbursement rates. This adds to the current trend of treating patients who do not need treatment, and it increases costs. In addition, as we have both observed, pay-for-performance systems motivate physicians to deny interventional or operative treatment to patients who need it most.

Conclusion

These are just 6 of many reasons why healthcare costs are rising uncontrollably. Suggesting detailed ways to address these issues is outside the scope of this article. However, we should recognize that some of these problems are inherent to a system in which compensation is based on the number of procedures performed. Others relate to the nature of man and the fact that humans are strongly motivated by self-interest, greed, and ego gratification. If these system and motivational factors are recognized, it is likely that measures to offset them can be developed. Healthcare costs are more likely to be brought under control.

Authors and Disclosures
Author(s)
Frank J. Veith, MD

Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY

Disclosure: Frank J. Veith, MD, has disclosed that he owns stock, stock options, or bonds in Vascular Innovations.
Zvonmir Krajcer, MD

Clinical Professor of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and University of Texas, Houston, Texas; Physician, Leachman Cardiology Associates, Houston, Texas

Disclosure: Zvonimir Krajcer, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

One word to explain why medical costs are rising so dramatically……capitalism.

Profits must always be made. The End.

Thanks, Irreverend,
I agree with almost every point.

Reverend,
How many doctors, hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, etc. do you suppose we'd have if we eliminated profit from the equation ? Do you think the availability of medical services would increase or decrease if we subtracted profit ?

You don't think much, do you ?

And promoting single payer universal healthcare is pretty much the Commonwealth Fund's mission statement. 

Same with the Kaiser Foundation, the WHO, etc., etc., etc.