In a recent Milwaukee Biz Blog, State Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) attacked the Massachusetts health coverage plan in particular and universal "government run" health care in general, and the idea people regard these approaches as being free.
Hint - we don't. He suggests that so-called free market approaches are best, which would be true, if it wasn't for the existence of Canadian health care.
I can hear the conservative chorus of "Oh Canada," and I'm not talking about the national anthem, bemoaning once again that a "failed" system is being thrown in our faces.
Last week, Grassroots Northshore had James Clancy, the president of Canada's 350,000-member National Union of Public and General Employees, to explain their system.
Many times he pulled out his OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) card. With it, he can stop in a clinic or hospital, get the treatment he needs, and on the way out all he has to do is say goodbye to the receptionist. His wallet stays in his pocket.
I know this first-hand. My new son-in-law in Calgary tells me this is how it works.
Oh, and what about those famous wait times? Clancy admits that there are waits for some procedures, but life-threatening cases get moved ahead.
He points out that in our country, one out of six people don't have coverage. "If you're in line for a movie and they pull one out of six people out of line, of course you'll get in faster," he said. But have you been to a doctor here lately?
Canada is working on shortening the waits, and their conservative leader has a target set for 2010. Imagine that. A government actually committed to doing something for the public good. How quaint.
Clancy pointed out that their system runs $2,000 annually less per person than here. Full coverage and the ability to catch problems earlier and cheaper are a couple of reasons why their health outcomes are better than ours.
Then why do we accept such a system? If you had an employee that spent more on delivering a service and doing it not so well, you'd show him the door.
Sen. Kanavas says the free market will be our savior. Unlike Canadian health care, we don't have proof that this form of faux populist empowerment is going to work as well. Look no further than the recent subprime mortgage blow-up, which right now is a real threat to our economy. People basically didn't know what they were getting into with these mortgages and now many will be losing their homes, sucking down with them the financial institutions.
Look at the recent Medicare Part D scheme, which was to empower senior citizens. For a population who can get anxious over details, this has been a labyrinth nightmare. I know a professor at a university hospital, and she says she can't hack her way through the plan for her mother.
We are stuck with our health care because the for-profit health care interests basically got to the politicians before the people and are doing it often. So how did Canada do it?
Clancy said it got rolling with a meeting of 72 people in Saskatchewan. From there, the movement snowballed and one of their political leaders, Tommy Douglas, took up the cause. By 1962, the province passed universal health care, and in 1966, it was Canada-wide.
Of course, the insurance companies howled this would be the death of Canada's health care and economy. Last I checked, both are still functioning and in fact, if the value of the dollar is any indication, their economy is doing better than ours - no doubt in part because Canada got smart on health care.
I'm not against profit, just against one sector making it harder for others to make it.
The State Senate offered up the Healthy Wisconsin plan. Though not perfect and in need of some work, this is a bold step that would bring the reform people want and need.
Like Saskatchewan, the Badger State could lead the way to universal health care for the rest of the country. We've done it before by activating many programs for the good of this country, and we could do it again.
Keith Schmitz provides business-to-business public relations in Milwaukee and is chairman of Grassroots Northshore, a progressive political group.
10 Comments
The only thing that is broken in health care is the cost of health care and no one is addressing this problem. The government caused the problem with health care cost crises in America by over socializing (with mandates) medicine to the extent it is not completive.
http://www.InteliOrg.com/
Excellent points, Keith. Canada's problem is funding and ours is systemic. They could increase their funding by 10% -- to 11% of gross domestic product -- and still be well under our 16% of GDP. And they still cover 100% of their people compared to our 85%. Indeed, our health care problem is more with the politicians that collect the big campaign checks from the insurance industry. Too bad they don't represent their constituents instead.
Thank you.
The contrast with Rep. Kanavas' observation on this topic is enlightening in itself. Has anyone noticed how the politicians invariably state what they believe will get themselves elected, while the citizens articulate the need...and a logical way to approach the problem?
The reason health care is so expensive in this country is described by the comment from Kat Aalto in response to State Sen. Ted Kanavas' post (see link above). We need to get rid of the complexity and greed of the large insurance companies, as well as the extra layer of employer-provided coverage. This is what is driving the costs up.
Everyone must participate in the program, just as everyone participates in Social Security and Medicare now. This is not a "mandate", it is just a fact. Participation is not optional for anyone for the program to work. Every young healthy person now will age as the years go by, and everyone runs the risks of accidents or unforeseen and unpreventable illness. We are all in it together.
We have had competition for 40 or 50 years now, and it hasn't worked. It has allowed the profit motive to take over to the exclusion of quality care.
We could foster real competition by moving to a single-payer system, which would allow everyone to choose their own providers, unlike now where each plan has a limited provider list. When doctors know their patients could go to any other doctor if they provide poor service, they will shape up pretty quickly. We get poor service now because most of us don't have much of a choice which providers to use.
A lot of people think a government-administered plan would be too much control. On the contrary, it would be far better than it is now with the insurance and drug giants running the show. Remember, we can vote out our state and US legislators. We can't do that with insurance CEOs.
The solution to costs rising much more than the inflation rate is to inject more competition. The current system is "government administered" with all the rules that favor insurance companies and medical providers at the cost of the end consumer. I guess old habits die hard: "Power Corrupts". The free market does not allow centralized power because consumers have a say and can easily switch providers. Can you imagine where we would today if Mother AT&T still controlled all telecomm in the US?
Health care is unique, competition increases costs as hospital acquire the same equipment other hospitals have to attract MD's.
Some of the causes of high costs are the marketing and administration of insurance insurance companies and the continued use of high cost medical , such as heart bypasses, that do not prevent mortality or morbidity.
With all other phone services providing "a voice connection" and virtually no other distinguishing features, competition will work. But in medicine "low price" more often indicates a physician unable to attract patients or a hospital that skimps on technology. Low price, and thus this so-called competition, will have the exact opposite effect than anticipated. But the "government administered" system is called Medicare with zero laws favoring insurance companies, because their omission from the system is what makes it more efficient than all others.
Health Care is not unique! No other distinguishing features (re telecomm)? There is something called The Internet that we are using right now. Biggest revolution since the Electrical Grid. BTW Zenith introduced a working Digital HDTV System in 1987 but your US government prevented this innovation from taking place so Zenith had to sell itself to LG. More like the US government shipping good jobs overseas and maintaining the status quo at the money trough.
Sorry, but I think health care IS unique. Are you going to seek out the lowest bidder when your kid is deathly sick? No, probably the opposite would be true. Would you go to Oconomowoc hospital for heart surgery because they are 10% cheaper than St. Luke's? I doubt it. Neither would I.
I'm not saying government is always good, and FEMA is an example of bad. But having been a Medicare provider for 20 years and a Medicare patient for five years, I would take Medicare over a system run by corporate CEOs who are controlled by shareholders and the profit incentive any day.
Aside from all that I have no dog in this race. Just family.
The whole point of competition is to allow the consumer to make a rational decision on purchases. Some may want the "Cadillac" health care treatment (and work towards the goal of being able to afford it!) while others (especially those who live a healthy lifestyle) may opt for cheaper plans that don't have all the bells and whistles. So it is not simply seeking the lowest bidder as any rational consumer weighs many factors besides upfront price. Wherever competition has been introduced it has been shown that service quality increases, and the opposite for restricting competition. Just look at the old AT&T, current Cable companies, and the old Detroit Automobiles. Isn't it obvious for those without vested interests?
And to repeat again (and again), the current US Health Care System is NOT a free market system. The Insurers and Doctors are working within the system our government created and runs. Another example of why government should be small by doing only the essentials, and not Big Brother.