DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum For those Universal Healthcare Lovers

Calgary's quads: Born in the U.S.A.
No beds in Canada forces mom to Montana

Michelle Lang
Calgary Herald


Friday, August 17, 2007


A rare set of identical quadruplets, born this week to a Calgary woman at a Montana hospital, are in good health and two of them were strong enough to be transported back here Thursday.

The naturally conceived baby girls -- Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia -- were delivered by caesarean section Sunday in Great Falls, their weights ranging between two pounds, six ounces and two pounds, 15 ounces.

Their mother, Calgarian Karen Jepp, was transferred to Benefis Hospital in Montana last week when she began showing signs of going into labour, and no Canadian hospital had enough neonatal intensive-care beds for all four babies.

Calgary Health Region doctors said the chances of naturally conceived quadruplets are about one in 13 million, adding the last set of identical quads in Calgary were born in 1982.

"Karen and I are excited to welcome four healthy, beautiful girls into our family," said J.P. Jepp, the 37-year-old father of the quadruplets, in a statement.

"The pregnancy has been an absolute roller-coaster of emotion for us, and we're thrilled our girls are finally here and that all are well."

Indeed, physicians said Thursday the quadruplets have a good prognosis. Although they will likely require between four and six weeks of continued hospitalization, Calissa and Dahlia were well enough to be brought back to Calgary's Foothills Medical Centre Thursday, accompanied by their father.

Karen Jepp, 35, is expected to be transported to Calgary with Autumn and Brooke today or Saturday.

On Thursday, CHR officials said the Jepp newborns have defied the odds in more ways than one: not only is it rare to naturally conceive quadruplets, but it's unusual for such multiple births to be successful and healthy.

Only 10 per cent of women pregnant with quadruplets successfully carry the babies as long as Jepp did.

"These are spontaneous identical quads, so they are incredibly rare," said Dr. Ian Lange, head of obstetrics and gynecology at the CHR, in an interview.

"We're so pleased. . . . (Karen) did amazingly well."

Lange said local physicians had been closely monitoring Jepp's pregnancy and were anticipating her newborns would require care at Foothills' neonatal intensive care unit.

But when Jepp began experiencing labour symptoms last Friday, the unit at Foothills was over capacity with several unexpected pre-term births.

There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit, forcing CHR officials to look south of the border.

Jepp was transported to Benefis hospital in Great Falls last Friday -- making her the fifth Alberta woman to be transferred south of the border this year because of neonatal shortages in Calgary.

Dr. Tom Key, the Montana perinatologist who delivered the babies, described the decision to send Jepp outside of Calgary as "unselfish."

"There's not a physician in either of our countries who wouldn't love to take care of a mom in this situation," he said.

Key added that Karen Jepp was transferred to Montana, in part, because physicians felt it was necessary to go ahead with a C-section after it appeared Dahlia's health may be in jeopardy.

It took less than five minutes to deliver all the quadruplets at around 2:30 p.m. Sunday.

Because Jepp managed to carry the four until 31 weeks of pregnancy, none of the babies required ventilation when they were born.

The babies were handed off to four teams of nurses and respiratory therapists as soon as they were delivered.

"They're tiny, but they have great colour," said Kate Jepp, the quadruplets' aunt. "They look good."

She said her brother and sister-in-law are ecstatic about their new babies, although they did initially find the transfer to a Montana hospital stressful.

Now the couple, who also have a young son, have to worry about beginning a new life with four more children. Kate Jepp said the family will have to buy a new house and she's asking Calgarians to make donations to a trust fund for the babies at any Scotiabank location.

"You times everything you need for a new baby by four," she said.

The CHR, meanwhile, will pick up the tab for transferring Jepp to Montana.

The flight alone is estimated at between $10,000 and $15,000. The hospital costs are as much as $8,000 a day per baby and about $2,500 a day for Jepp.

mlang@theherald.canwest.com

© The Calgary Herald 2007


web page



No room for preemies in Canada

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 25 (UPI) -- Canadian officials were trying to find a hospital room for two premature babies born in the United States because Canadian hospitals were too full.

There were no neonatal intensive-care beds available for the babies in Canada, the Globe and Mail newspaper said Wednesday.

High-risk pregnant patients are transferred to U.S. hospitals for a number of reasons, including an increased number of premature births, a nursing shortage and a stretched Canadian health-care system, the newspaper said.

Since April, British Columbia has paid more than $1 million to transfer nine expectant mothers to the United States.

"We hear that we have some of the best health-care professionals and some of the best hospitals in North America," Guylaine Lefebvre, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, told the newspaper. "Yet to be denied that care because we just don't have the availability of a bed for you, just doesn't seem to make sense."

Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.



web page

So the Canadian Health Care system is finding the places needed for these people by any means necassary and they're paying for it.



Sounds like they're doing whatever it takes to make it work for their citizens,

Unfortunately, this does happen. Many provinces are in need in new hospitals, especially in Alberta due to the economic boom and the large numbers of new residents.

But it should be pointed out that these people got the care they needed when they needed it without having to pay for it. The government paid for the flights as well as the US hospital fees.

In my mind, thats a success story.

Jules finally shows up, only to bash Canada.
There's a nusring shortage up here because we can't compete with private health care in the U.S. In my province, nurses are overpaid IMO, yet compared to what nurses make in places like Ontario in the U.S., they're vastly underpaid.

Americans go abroad to cut medical costs

Operation elsewhere

By Tracy Correa
Fresno Bee
Monday, June 25, 2007

Three years ago, James Dodd of Hanford weighed more than 400 pounds.

He had trouble breathing at night and doing work around his house. He was desperate for help.

But when Dodd, 54, started looking into lap-band weight-reduction surgery for relief, his insurance company denied coverage, calling the procedure "experimental."

An Internet search for alternatives turned up Bajanor Hospital in Tijuana, Mexico, where doctors perform the procedure for $7,200 — far less than the $37,000 he said he was quoted at the time.

He got the surgery and is happy with the results, despite serious complications.

"Everything in life is a risk," said Dodd, now recovered and slimmer. He said he also could have had complications in the United States, adding, "It would have bankrupted me here."

Dodd is among an increasing number of Americans venturing out of the country — to places like Mexico, Thailand, the Philippines and India — for medical treatment because of the high cost of healthcare.

Patients can save as much as 80 percent on procedures done by medical professionals often educated and trained in the United States at hospitals increasingly accredited for meeting U.S.-like standards.

An estimated 150,000 people traveled abroad last year for medical treatment, and the number is expected to double by 2010, said Josef Woodman, author of "Patients Beyond Borders: Everybody's Guide to Affordable, World-class Medical Tourism." Nearly half had medically necessary surgeries, such as hip replacements or spinal work, heart surgeries, even cancer treatment.

The book, released in March, tells how patients can save 25 percent to 75 percent on anything from LASIK eye repair to neurosurgery by traveling outside the United States.

Health-industry representatives said U.S. healthcare costs more, in part, because of skyrocketing medical-malpractice insurance and the higher wages and benefits paid to hospital workers.

Costs are high, said Woodman in a telephone interview, "because Americans demand from cradle to grave the most expensive treatment, the most extensive testing."

He said the American healthcare system is "stuck" because insurance companies are dictating what can and can't be covered, and consumers are unable to negotiate direct payment to providers.

Dr. Steven Parks, a longtime surgeon and clinical professor for UC San Francisco's Fresno-based medical education program, said that while he has been all over the world and knows there is great medical care available, he advises caution.

He said there are also plenty of Third World countries with hospitals and doctors that don't meet U.S. guidelines and restrictions but offer huge discounts. Hospitals here have to meet certain standards, he said.

Those who choose to go abroad? "I think it is probably dangerous, and you are probably taking a risk with your life. I think you should find a way to get it done at the good hospitals in town," Parks said.

Woodman has traveled abroad for his own care. He went to Costa Rica for dental work — a root canal, implants and follow-up care — after looking at several other countries. He said he saved about $2,000.

The key to a good experience, he said, is to do your homework, find out about the doctors, try to interview them beforehand, and then ask about success rates and find out about the facility. "If they don't speak English, then move on."

Interest in traveling abroad for medical treatment has spawned a new industry: medical tourism. Companies are playing the role of travel agent and medical-care coordinator and linking American patients with overseas hospitals for a fee.

MedRetreat, based near Chicago, was one of the first when it started in 2003.

The company describes itself as "a medical gateway to healthcare abroad where smart medicine and exotic travel come together."

Fast-growing market

Company spokesman Patrick Marsek said MedRetreat organized care for 200 people in 2005, about 350 in 2006 and expects to have helped 650 patients this year get treatment in places such as Malaysia and Thailand.

Fresno-based HealthMed Tourism is hoping for similar success.

Owners Emily Higby and Fely Guzman have backgrounds organizing specialty getaway packages — wine-tasting excursions to South Africa, for example.

Higby became interested in medical tourism because she suffers from polycystic kidney disease, a genetic disorder characterized by the growth of cysts that can reduce kidney function and lead to renal failure. A kidney transplant could be in her future.

"I could probably get it anywhere in Asia for 75 percent less," she said.

Guzman owns a medical staffing company in the Philippines that hires out nurses and physical therapists to Asian health facilities.

The women have toured hospitals in Asia and plan another trip this summer. They said they will send people only to places they have visited personally and where they feel comfortable.

Dodd ran into some difficulty after his operation. He had serious complications after he returned home to Hanford. His stitches opened up, and his local doctor suggested he go back to Mexico to see his surgeon.

He had several additional surgeries there and a "gastric sleeving" to replace the lap-band. He ended up staying in Mexico for about three months.

Today, he talks about his Mexican surgery experience matter-of-factly, boasting of his less-than-200-pound weight on his 5-foot, 9-inch frame.

"My quality of life has gone up 100 percent. I'm thinking about cruises," he said, something he never would have considered before.

Dodd said the hospital didn't charge for treating his complications and the additional hospital stay. "Jimmy, you were our guest," he said doctors told him.

He has since retired from his job as a standards inspector at the Kings County Agricultural Commissioner's Office and has canceled his health insurance, which cost him $500 a month. He said he'll pay cash for routine care and go abroad for surgery.

Most pay their own way

Dr. Carlos Alessandrini, director and owner of Bajanor Hospital, who came to know Dodd well during his time there, said about 98 percent of the hospital's weight-reduction-surgery patients are from the United States, and the rest mostly from Canada.

He said most of his American patients don't have insurance and pay out of pocket.

The American Hospital Association in Washington doesn't have an official policy on the issue of medical treatment abroad. But spokeswoman Elizabeth Lietz said there are serious considerations people ought to think over before going to foreign hospitals.

"You might not have services and care like you have here," she said. "The U.S. is recognized globally for its medical treatment, and we are leading the way in advancing treatment of diseases and improving people's health."

Increasing demand for healthcare abroad prompted the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in 1998 to start an international accreditation branch. A large part of the demand — at least initially — came from U.S. companies with American citizens working overseas that wanted to make sure they were offering good care to their employees.

JCAHO International's accreditation has patient care and safety and goals similar to U.S. hospitals.

If more Mexican hospitals sought and received JCAHO accreditation — the Bajanor Hospital has not — author Woodman said it might boost credibility, making it even more convenient for Americans in border states to take advantage of lower health-care costs in Mexico.

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jun/25/operation-elsewhere/

As I've said many times,I don't care wheather they fix the broken,backwards system we have now,or do away with it all together. Which ever will accomplish the job is fine with me.

But we have 42,000,000 Americans without health care in our country. Costs range from 25% to 75% higher than anywhere else in the world.

Prescription drugs can be manufactured here,paid to be shipped elsewhere and STILL be sold in those countries MUCH cheaper than they are here.

Our people are being raped by the system we have in place now in its current form. Yes,it's the law suits,it's the malpractice insurance,it's the greed of the HMO's and other factors. It's not the fault of the people who "work within the health care industry". But the system is broken.

I'm just tired of it staying that way. So we either need to QUICKLY fix the system we have for the better good of all Americans,or scrap it all together.

I would advocate either. Because something has to be done.

LMFAO. Yeah....it's free. It's not like the Canadian government's wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars due to mismanagement or anything.

Healthcare is paid for through the provincial budget and is ultimately produced through tax dollars and, in the case of Alberta, royalty revenue on natural resources.

Ultimately, it could be said that Canadians still end up paying high rate health insurance...its just done through our higher taxes. However, the distinction lies in the fact that essential health care services for profit are illegal in Canada therefore you don;t see the out of control costs associated with US health care.

This case sounds like more of an availability issue than a quality of care issue.

Looks like was just a lot of preemies in house at the time.

jc...

Those outrages prices wouldn't be so outrageous if lawyers and greedy system pilferers would quit suing hospitals and doctors for stupid crap.

Remember, health care in the US didn't always cost a life's worth of wages.

They don't wish to take it from the word of someone who lives there and uses the system themselves.

They're dead set against it. And even though the Canadians I have talked to seem pretty happy with it over all,people who don't live there,haven't used it and have no idea of how it is funded have had their judgement clouded and their minds made up.

And all the proof and first hand accounts on how it works will never change their mind.

The fact is,in Canada you can work hard,buy a home,pay for it and retire. If you become seriously ill over a long term period of time,you won't lose your home over medical bills.

In America,if you're retired,once your health care expires,you must get on Medicaid. The bills NOT covered by medicaid can be taken by our government by selling your home and taking the money out of the proceeds upon your death.

What you worked for your entire life can just be taken away. Why? Because you became seriously ill in America. But somehow people just keep advocating that.

By the account of what an "actual Canadian" posted DC,it was reported that the area that this happenned in grew so much,so fast,that the hospitals and medical establishments were slower in catching up to the building boom.

And the article I posted is showing how many Americans are going to other countries because of our medical costs when HMO's are denying their surgeries.

There's something terribly wrong with that DC.

I wonder if she enjoyed her 10 dollar asprin while she was here.

Quote:

---

I believe the point is, if our health care system was like theres, and we didn't have the beds, then what would the benevolent Candadian goverenment do? Fly them to France or England or Japan? and pay for it? That sounds like an incredibly efficient use of tax payer funds.... not to mention an incredibly safe and comfortable thing to do to a woman in her 8 1/2 month of pregnancy..

---

If a medical procedure is critical, the government will use any and all means to ensure that the citizen recieves the care they need. That being said, the government does not turn a blind eye to efficiency. Availability of services will first be looked at within Canada....then within the States.

The government does not set out to "waste people's money" but will utilize all resources available to them to get Canadians the care they need.

Its a tricky situation if you start talking about what is worthwhile and what isn't because you end up with the question of "What is a human life worth?"

Quote:

---

By the account of what an "actual Canadian" posted DC,it was reported that the area that this happenned in grew so much,so fast,that the hospitals and medical establishments were slower in catching up to the building boom.

---

Well Pit.. I'm an "actual American".. so does my opinion of the American health care system matter as much as his opinion of the Canadian health care system? In your mind, I dare say it does not..

Failure to keep up is pretty typical for almost all governement entities... when does a county government begin the process of building a new school? When the old schools are busting at the seams and have added temporary trailers and are at 120% occupancy.... when do they widen roads? After they've approved so many housing permits and built so many homes that traffic bottlenecks occur every single day.... when does the Canadian government expand or add hospitals? Evidently long after booms take place and people have to be shipped out to other countries for care..... See Pit, I understand that the area grew and the government was slow to respond with adequate medical facilities... perhaps what you don't understand is that that is the very nature of government... slow, prodding, not particularly responsive... always behind the curve playing catch-up...

Maybe you want that kind of health care system.. I don't.. and I'm an "actual American"...

Nurses are probably the most overworked and underpaid segment of our society.

This article's two years old, but I haven't seen where there's been any changes:
CBSnews

Canadian Health Care In Crisis
Free And First-Class — If You Can Wait

(AP) A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.

"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.

The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.

It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."

The federal government and virtually every province acknowledge there's a crisis: a lack of physicians and nurses, state-of-the-art equipment and funding. In Ontario, more than 10,000 nurses and hospital workers are facing layoffs over the next two years unless the provincial government boosts funding, says the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents health care providers in the province.

In 1984 Parliament passed the Canada Health Act, which affirmed the federal government's commitment to provide mostly free health care to all, including the 200,000 immigrants arriving each year. The system is called Medicare (no relation to Medicare in the United States).

Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance.

Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto, believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest.

"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will get care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly happy that some people don't get the health care that they need."

Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement.

"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the bill," said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone."

Deber acknowledges problems in the system, but believes most Canadians get the care they need. She said the federal government should attach more strings to its annual lump-sum allocations to the provinces so that tax dollars are better spent on preventive care and improvements in working conditions for health-care professionals.

In Alberta, a conservative province where pressure for private clinics and insurance is strong, a nonprofit organization called Friends of Medicare has sprung to the system's defense. It points up the inequities in U.S. health care and calls the Canada's "the most moral and the most cost-effective health care system there is in the world." "Is your sick grandchild more deserving of help than your neighbor's grandchild?" It asks.

Yes, says Dr. Brian Day, if that grandchild needs urgent care and can't get it at a government-funded hospital.

Day, an English-born arthroscopic surgeon, founded Cambie Surgery Center in Vancouver, British Columbia — another province where private surgeries are making inroads. He is also former president of the Arthroscopy Association of North America in Orlando, Fla.

He says he got so frustrated at the long delays to book surgeries at the public hospitals in Vancouver that he built his own private clinic. A leading advocate for reform, he testified last June before the Supreme Court in a landmark appeal against a Quebec ruling upholding limits on private care and insurance.

George Zeliotis told the court he suffered pain and became addicted to painkillers during a yearlong wait for hip replacement surgery, and should have been allowed to pay for faster service. His physician, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, said his patient's constitutional rights were violated because Quebec couldn't provide the care he needed, but didn't offer him the option of getting it privately.

A ruling on the case is expected any time.

If Zeliotis had been from the United States, China or neighboring Ontario anywhere, in fact, except Quebec — he could have bought treatment in a private Quebec clinic. That's one way the system discourages the spread of private medicine — by limiting it to nonresidents. But it can have curious results, says Day.

He tells of a patient who was informed by Ontario officials that since Ontario couldn't help him, they would spend $35,000 to send him to the United States for surgery.

Day said his Vancouver clinic could have done it for $12,000 but the Ontario officials "do not philosophically support sending an individual to a nongovernment clinic in Canada."

Canadians can buy insurance for dental and eye care, physical and chiropractic therapy, long-term nursing and prescriptions, among other services. But according to experts on both sides of the debate, Canada and North Korea are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery.

Meanwhile, the average wait for surgical or specialist treatment is nearly 18 weeks, up from 9.3 weeks in 1993, according to the Fraser Institute, a right-wing public policy think tank in Vancouver. A Fraser study last year said the average wait for an orthopedic surgeon was more than nine months.

Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government has pledged $33.3 billion in new funding to improve health in all provinces and territories over the next 10 years. But critics aren't impressed.

"It won't make a difference," said Sally C. Pipes, a Canadian who heads the conservative Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. "They need to break the system down, or open the system up to competition."

Pipes is a big supporter of the Bush administration proposal to allow Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into medical savings accounts. She claims the two-tiered system feared by Canadian liberals already exists because those with connections jump to the head of the medical queue and those who can afford it can get treated in the United States.

"These are not wealthy people; these are people who are in pain," said Pipes.

Another watershed lawsuit was filed last year against 12 Quebec hospitals on behalf of 10,000 breast-cancer patients in Quebec who had to wait more than eight weeks for radiation therapy during a period dating to October 1997.

One woman went to Turkey for treatment. Another, Johanne Lavoie, was among several sent to the United States. Diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 1999, she traveled every week with her 5-year-old son to Vermont, a four-hour bus ride.

"It was an inhuman thing to live through," Lavoie told Toronto's Globe and Mail.

"This is the first time someone has decided to attack the source of problems — the waiting list," said Montreal attorney Michel Savonitto, who is representing the cancer victims. "We're lucky to have the system we do in Canada," he told the court. "But if we want to supply proper care and commit to doing it, then we can't do it halfway."

An estimated 4 million of Canada's 33 million people don't have family physicians and more than 1 million are on waiting lists for treatment, according to the Canadian Medical Association. Meanwhile, some 200 physicians head to the United States each year, attracted by lower taxes and better working conditions. Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 people, while Belgium has 3.9, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The World Health Organization in 2000 ranked France's health system as the best, followed by Italy, Spain, Oman and Australia. Canada came in 30th and the United States 37th.

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein is pushing what he calls "the third way" — a fusion of Canadian Medicare and the system in France and many other nations, where residents can supplement their government-funded health care with private insurance and services.

But some Canadians worry even partial privatization would be damaging.

"My concern is that the private clinics would only serve to further drain the scarce physician resources that we already have," said Dr. Saralaine Johnstone, a 31-year-old family physician in Geraldton, a papermill hamlet in northern Ontario.

"We first need to guarantee that everybody has access to quality health care," she said, "and we just don't have that."

Quote:

---

Remember, health care in the US didn't always cost a life's worth of wages.

---

You do realize there are some very legitimate reasons for a lot of the health care cost increases?

Quote:

---

They don't wish to take it from the word of someone who lives there and uses the system themselves.

They're dead set against it. And even though the Canadians I have talked to seem pretty happy with it over all,people who don't live there,haven't used it and have no idea of how it is funded have had their judgement clouded and their minds made up.

---

Some of us can actually see that the results can be disasterous for us. Canada has a population of what? 50 million? maybe 70 mil? We have a population of over 300 million. We also have a larger percentage of people who are higher risk which would tax the system even more.

And that's without the illegal immigrants and several generations of entitlement factored in.

Quote:

---

We both know that grossly exagerated malpractice suits drive up the cost of health care.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Okay,it's been that way for how long now? What's being done about it? What has been done to fix it?

---

Not sure... my guess would be 20 years or so it's been getting real bad... and nothing has been done to fix it.

Quote:

---

We both know that HMO's deny legitimate claims tooth and nail to their customers.

Been that way for years. What's being done to fix it?

---

Well my company got reports of that a year ago from a few employees, guess what we did... we switched insurance companies... hey, there's a thought.

Quote:

---

We both know that other free countries negotiating prescription drug prices have helped drive those costs down while we pay a premium.

What has been done to fix it?

---

Well, most of the pharmaceutical ads that I see have a disclaimer at the end that I never used to see stating that if you can't afford their medications, contact them and they have plan which may help you.... so evidently the pharmaceuticals themselves are starting to address their own problem.

Quote:

---

I'm all for fixing it. But from the pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington,to the HMO's,to lawyers to insurance companies are doing everything within their powers to keep this terribly flawed system in tact.

---

I guess this is why we can't reach much of an agreement Pit. I don't start from the premise that this is a "terribly flawed system"... I start from the premise that it's a very good system, with a few holes in it which need fixed.

Pit, did you read where taxpayers on average pay FORTY-EIGHT PERCENT of their income in taxes? Did you catch that? So, what's the answer to that, Pit. You have been a long time supporter of the poor. Well, if they have to pay 48% of their income, is that really cheaper than buying their own coverage in the current system? At least with our system, you don't have to wait 3 months to see a doctor.

Well.. this was in Calgary with a metro population of 1,079,310 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary

Compare to Columbus Ohio with a metro poulation of 1,725,570 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Ohio

Calgary hospitals: Calgary has three major hospitals; the Foothills Medical Centre, the Rockyview General Hospital and the Peter Lougheed Centre, all overseen by the Calgary Health Region.

Columbus has no less than 7 Hospitals

Children's Hospital - Columbus
Doctors Hospital West - Columbus
Grant Hospital - Columbus
Mt. Carmel Hospital - Columbus
The Ohio State University Medical Center - Columbus
Riverside Methodist Hospital - Columbus
St Ann's Hospital - Columbus

Of these I believe Grant and OSU are level 1 Trauma rated.

More beds in Columbus.. if there is a statistical anomaly and more preemies are occupying beds at a Calgary Hospital, then they simply relocate the patients.

P,I've said many times,that if we can fix the system we have to be more efficiant and cost effective,fine.

But would those that are "dead set against national health care" PLEASE tell me what is being done to fix our broken system?

The questions are in this thread. Why is it people constantly refuse to address fixing the system we have?

Surely you don't advocate that the status quo be continued as these spiraling costs continue do you?

I honestly believe that if our system were fixed,there wouldn't be so many fed up screaming for national health care.

But the reality is,if you look at the numbers,Americans are fed up with it. More and more Americans are all the time. If we don't fix the current system,voters will end up "mandating" national health care at the ballot box. And neither of our opinions will matter at that juncture.

I think the actual "care" we get under the current system probably IS better than what national health care would provide.I'd rather see our broken system fixed. But who's going to do that? When? How?

And in the mean while,while everybody is sitting on their thumbs,the number of Americans fed up and screaming for national health care is on the rise.

If somebody doesn't get busy and fix things,they're not going to have a choice in the matter.

IMO- Those who are putting their efforts shouting against national health care? Would be far better served channeling their efforts into fixing the current system. Before national health care is imposed upon them.
JMHO

j/c

I doubt the US would implement any plan that would be just like Canada's. Comparing a system we don't even have to the negative sides of Canada's system seems pointless.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, other than they don't have enough hospitals to meet the needs of their country and must send patients to other countries. You don't see that as a quality of care issue?

I disagree. I find it very relevant. Do you think our government would do a better job?

Highly doubt it but the issues and difficulties would be vastly different. I mean all the doctors in Canada have to take intensive Healing Hockey Injuries and we just don't get as much of that here.

Seriously though, no system is or will be perfect but I'd rather have one than not have one.

Those hockey injuries are tough.

I don't want a system that our government runs. Period.

I was talking to a man from England yesterday who moved to the states about a month ago. He raised an interesting point....For the people who want universal healthcare, are you willing to have your taxes raised to 40% or more? That's basically how Europe pays for it.

I certainly would not, but I also have a good employer who pays a lot of the cost, so I am biased.

I know there are other differences, but the bottom line is that taxes would be raised to have this paid for. How much is the question and to get a politician to try to answer that question is impossible