Something to think about....

[femkes_follies]

The next time somebody whinges on about the blessings of socialized medicine, consider the unavoidable, irrefutable other side of the coin:

""It's impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is ... driving to Mont Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a 2 1/2-hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city. Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States," said Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre, which represents six of Montreal's hospitals."

And the implied statement there is that even the Canadians know that they can't compete with the quality of health care available in the states. Are you really willing to tradde quality for "equality"? (Which still won't exist, even if it's the stated goal.

Comments

[odettedamboise.livejournal.com]

Here's a little something to add to your mulling...

There are plenty of areas of the US while are more than 2 hours from the closest trauma unit. There is ONE level one trauma unit in the entire state of Indiana--Wishard in Indianapolis and it is a public hospital. IIRC the overwhelming majority of level one trauma units are public hospitals because it is extremely expensive to have a level one trauma doc sitting around in the bullpen waiting for an emergency, publically funded hospitals are the only ones who are willing to foot the bill. Burn Units are at public and university hospitals because they are expensive to build and expensive to maintain even when empty.

When I had my major head trauma when I was a teenager, I have to be transported out of the state of Maryland and into the District to Greater Southeast, a public hospital, because it had a head trauma unit.

The current managed care system in the US is broken, and the public hospitals are the ones doing the heavy lifting already. They are also not going to be using the Canadian model. Public health is not necessarily a bad idea.

[femkederoas.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. It depends on how its done.

And they refuse to fix one of the major problems - out of control liability lawsuits and payments. Because the lawyer lobby doesn't want it fixed.

The public hospital where I grew up was to be avoided if at all possible. Even if it did have SOME facilities not duplicated elsewhere. It also had a severe staffing problem.

Granted, private funding causes its own problems. I could tell stories about the merger of two local hospitals and the goofiness that went on with the radiation unit because one bequest came with a string attatched - a specific director. And she was/is a severe problem. Right down to the plasma TV in her office.

Still, if you go over any of the current proposals making the rounds, even if you leave human nature out of the equation (which you only do if you're an idiot), the math doesn't work and the damage to quality and availability of certain services makes me shudder.

[rectangularcat]

I am going to be terse but I am just cranky today so I apologize in advance.

I lived in the States for 5 years both in Mississippi and Washington states.

I lived in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia , North West Territories and Alberta.

I've been lucky to always have been insured.

When you live in a rural area, the care you get in a trauma is not the care you'd get in a major urban center. In Quebec they do not have a helicopter ambulances. In BC, Alberta, NWT they do. Still when I am at work I am 45 minutes by helicopter from the closest hospital and even that if I need specialized care, I will be sent to Edmonton which is a 2 hour jet ride away. It's a risk I am very aware of.

We aren't as well equipped for traumas because frankly our population density isn't the same. Also we don't have the near same level of gunshot traumas.

Still, I'd rather be in Canada where I won't go bankrupt due to my medical bills. The care I am currently getting for my pregnancy is world class.

I also think these studies speak for themselves. Equality means that medical care is a right not a privilege.

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(02)00259-4/abstract
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/343
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/CAN_Comparison_Sheet.pdf

[femkederoas.livejournal.com]

I am going to be terse but I am just cranky today so I apologize in advance.

Hey, anybody on my F'list is someone I regard highly enough that you can always feel free to say what you think without fear that I'll get into a snit about it. ;-) My best pal in all the world sits near the polar end of the political spectrum on a lot of things.

That said, we get back to the whole study design question when it comes to socialized medicine. None of the studies on either side are in any way, shape, or form unbalanced - because both sides have an axe to grind.

I currently stand amongst the uninsured. And I'm still against every goofy-ass plan to socialize the American medical system that I've yet seen. Because for none of them do the numbers add up - even if you don't count for human nature. Which is just ludicrous to start with.

There are a couple of big drawbacks. One of them is that letting the American Congress get their hands on that much money is a disaster looking for a place to happen - nobody could mismanage it better. And once they start "fixing prices" they'll also start fixing salaries. Likely with no regard to what sort of compensation is necessary to get people to even do some of these jobs. I worry about a lot of research and treatment development coming to a screeching halt. I worry that general medicine will suddenly develop all the horrors present in the VA system. With essentially no redress.

I think there is probably something in between. But I don't think nationalizing the health care system is the way to do it, and I'm convinced this administration is utterly incapable of coming up with anything remotely realistic or feasible.

But then again, I have strong Libertarian if not Social Darwinist leanings. As far as I'm concerned the only "rights" anybody has are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - anything else is gravy. And even those can be abbrogated if you absolutely insist on being an idiot.