Canadian Premier's Heart Surgery Plans Raise Questions About Health Care

[NateIU10]

So basically, rich, connected Canadian needs surgery. He comes to the US to get it. Why exactly do we want our healthcare system to become like that again?

Canadian Premier's Heart Surgery Plans Raise Questions About Health Care

Thursday , February 04, 2010
By Jessica Ryen Doyle

ADVERTISEMENT

A prominent Canadian politician’s decision to undergo heart surgery in the U.S. has touched off a debate about national health care in his own country.
At the center of controversy is Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Williams’ decision to head south across the border for his surgery is drawing fire from defenders of the Canadian health-care system – a favorite example for proponents of a government-run health care in the U.S.
Williams, a millionaire and former lawyer, left Canada on Monday to seek treatment at an unspecified hospital in the U.S. It is not clear what kind of surgery he’ll undergo, though Newfoundland Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale said that having the surgery in the province was not an option.
So what about a hospital in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver?
"Virtually all forms of cardiac surgery are looked after in Canada, and I would say extremely well," Dr. Chris Feindel, a cardiac surgeon at Toronto's University Health Network told the National Post. "Personally ... I would have my cardiac surgery done in Canada, no matter what resources I had at my disposal."
Feindel was quick to point out that U.S. patients have come to UHN's Peter Munk Cardiac Centre for valve repairs.
Canadian Sen. Wilbert Keon, a retired heart surgeon and professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, told the Toronto Sun that Newfoundland does not have the kind of "post-surgery technical support to allow all advanced complicated procedures to be performed there."
But, "I can’t imagine anything that couldn’t be done in Canada that is done in America," he told the newspaper.
"Virtually all" complex heart surgeries could be performed Ottawa’s Heart Institute, as well as medical centers in Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton, Keon told the Sun.
Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist and Fox News contributor disagreed with Feindel and Keon.
"You would not find a U.S. governor going to Canada for surgery," Siegel said. "We’d be putting our quality of care at risk if we went to a single-payer system like Canada."
Siegel said if the U.S. does move to a universal health care system, people wanting the "crème de la crème" in medicine would probably have to go elsewhere.
"It is quite possible that the procedure he is getting is so specialized that the top doctors doing it are to be found only in the U.S.," Siegel said.
There also is the possibility that Williams has private health insurance, which may or may not have been accepted at Canadian hospitals.
"I would expect that he is eligible for all the rest of us would be in terms of our own private insurance or government insurance, and I’m sure there’s anything over and above that, the premier would certainly take care of it himself," Dunderdale told the Press.
Williams’ recovery is expected to take three to 12 weeks, Dunderdale said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[rambone]

Why exactly do we want our healthcare system to become like that again?

That is the question.

 

[melensdad]

My sister lives in a small town outside of London. She can access the "free" healthcare that England provides for her. However she HATES the healthcare system in the UK. In fact she FLYS to NEW YORK CITY to see her Ob-Gyn, her Dentist and her Internist. She has never had a medical emergency since she moved to England but I suspect that she would NEVER consider have any elective or planned surgery in that country!

When her friends have gotten pregnant they often fly to Belgium to have babies in that country because the quality level of post-nadal care in the UK is miserable. Anyone who has the money or ability to leave the UK for health care needs does exactly what the Canadian Prime Minister is doing . . . LEAVES and comes to America!!!

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Sweden has, literally, the best healthcare system in the world.
However, the State controls ALL aspects of healthcare - who may become a doctor, what type of doctor they need, what specializations physicians may practice, if any - and how many doctors and pharmacists and nurses they need in a particular year.

They also have, at my last notice (sometime last year), 58% taxation rate of their gross income. But, they also have 450 days combined parental leave with the birth of a new infant, free dental and eye care, and prescriptions never run more than 90 Swedish kronor (~$12.50 USD) per month.... hospitals are located with regard to population density and geographically spaced pretty equidistantly, and they tier their hospitals. There are several local hospitals which can do most things, and a few higher-tier hospitals which can do more specialized things, and they have a couple hospitals which perform even the most radical and specialized of surgeries and examinations.

There is no duplication of technologies, which lowers costs - citizens may elect to take private insurance, but hardly anyone does so, which lowers costs. They don't have overlapping duplication of skill sets, which lowers costs. They are all very fit - obesity is shunned in Swedish society (find me a fat Swede and I'll find you someone who is loathed by his neighbors), which lowers costs.

The point is, we COULD have affordable, universal healthcare like the Swedish people do - but do we want to give all control to the State, and to pay INSANE amounts (albeit much less than we're paying now) in order to have it? The Swedes have had this national conversation and agreed that yes, they do want it. But I certainly do not, and I can't imagine most of my countrymen sacrificing so much just to have completely universal and completely affordable healthcare.

 

[dross]

As we become less capitalist, and more socialist, we trade the power of the dollar - which represents the value we've provided society - for the power of the connection, the favor, and our placement in society. We the currency in the market is political status rather than the value we provide. Under capitalism, innovators are rewarded, under socialism, conformers are rewarded.

The elite of either system will always have the best of everything. The difference is that in general to gain that power in a free market you must first provide value to the harsh judge of the market. To gain that power under socialism you must provide value to those already in power.

Under our system, Bill Gates has access to the most elite medical care in the world. His employees have access to very, very good health care. Under the system the socialists want to impose, like in Canada, Barack Obama will have access to the best medical care in the world. The average citizen will have access to the care whatever level of care the elite decides they should have.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Sweden has, literally, the best healthcare system in the world.
However, the State controls ALL aspects of healthcare - who may become a doctor, what type of doctor they need, what specializations physicians may practice, if any - and how many doctors and pharmacists and nurses they need in a particular year.

They also have, at my last notice (sometime last year), 58% taxation rate of their gross income. But, they also have 450 days combined parental leave with the birth of a new infant, free dental and eye care, and prescriptions never run more than 90 Swedish kronor (~$12.50 USD) per month.... hospitals are located with regard to population density and geographically spaced pretty equidistantly, and they tier their hospitals. There are several local hospitals which can do most things, and a few higher-tier hospitals which can do more specialized things, and they have a couple hospitals which perform even the most radical and specialized of surgeries and examinations.

There is no duplication of technologies, which lowers costs - citizens may elect to take private insurance, but hardly anyone does so, which lowers costs. They don't have overlapping duplication of skill sets, which lowers costs. They are all very fit - obesity is shunned in Swedish society (find me a fat Swede and I'll find you someone who is loathed by his neighbors), which lowers costs.

The point is, we COULD have affordable, universal healthcare like the Swedish people do - but do we want to give all control to the State, and to pay INSANE amounts (albeit much less than we're paying now) in order to have it? The Swedes have had this national conversation and agreed that yes, they do want it. But I certainly do not, and I can't imagine most of my countrymen sacrificing so much just to have completely universal and completely affordable healthcare.

Just a couple of quick questions: what is the national population of Sweden? The actual physical size of livable land in Sweden? These are two huge points many folks miss when citing socialist programs that work like that of Sweden. On a small scale, it is easy to avoid the shortcomings of the system. The US is simply too big and spread out to work like Sweden. It could potentially work if it was structured from state to state, but then there would be a huge disparity based on the local/state economy.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Under the system the socialists want to impose, like in Canada, Barack Obama will have access to the best medical care in the world. The average citizen will have access to the care whatever level of care the elite decides they should have.

Which we have already heard come from his own mouth when he said he was the POTUS, of course he will have a different healthcare plan than us. The rest of them already have their cadillac plans payed for by us. We already have on the table what they are offering us, and some people think its a good thing?

 

[irishfan]

I am all for helping everyone getting healthcare coverage and making our system fair for everyone. However, the Canadian and UK systems are not models to follow but rather models of what not to do when it comes to healthcare. It is about time Americans go back to doing what is right for America and quit following the lead of others. I highly doubt you will see the powers that be running with a story like this but rather spinning it to make it much more attractive before shoveling it down our throats.

 

[jsgolfman]

Sweden has, literally, the best healthcare system in the world.
However, the State controls ALL aspects of healthcare - who may become a doctor, what type of doctor they need, what specializations physicians may practice, if any - and how many doctors and pharmacists and nurses they need in a particular year.

They also have, at my last notice (sometime last year), 58% taxation rate of their gross income. But, they also have 450 days combined parental leave with the birth of a new infant, free dental and eye care, and prescriptions never run more than 90 Swedish kronor (~$12.50 USD) per month.... hospitals are located with regard to population density and geographically spaced pretty equidistantly, and they tier their hospitals. There are several local hospitals which can do most things, and a few higher-tier hospitals which can do more specialized things, and they have a couple hospitals which perform even the most radical and specialized of surgeries and examinations.

There is no duplication of technologies, which lowers costs - citizens may elect to take private insurance, but hardly anyone does so, which lowers costs. They don't have overlapping duplication of skill sets, which lowers costs. They are all very fit - obesity is shunned in Swedish society (find me a fat Swede and I'll find you someone who is loathed by his neighbors), which lowers costs.

The point is, we COULD have affordable, universal healthcare like the Swedish people do - but do we want to give all control to the State, and to pay INSANE amounts (albeit much less than we're paying now) in order to have it? The Swedes have had this national conversation and agreed that yes, they do want it. But I certainly do not, and I can't imagine most of my countrymen sacrificing so much just to have completely universal and completely affordable healthcare.

How do you define "best"?

 

[CarmelHP]

Just a couple of quick questions: what is the national population of Sweden? The actual physical size of livable land in Sweden? These are two huge points many folks miss when citing socialist programs that work like that of Sweden. On a small scale, it is easy to avoid the shortcomings of the system. The US is simply too big and spread out to work like Sweden. It could potentially work if it was structured from state to state, but then there would be a huge disparity based on the local/state economy.

Sweden is an area about the size of California, and a 1/4 of the population of that state mostly clustered in a few majors cities in the southern part.

 

[dross]

To, me the health care issue isn't about what "works." They all work, to some degree. I happen to think that ours works quite well. Politicians and others who make their way in the world by following and stirring public emotion will always be able to tell you what's wrong, and they'll always offer a solution that they claim can be implemented without tradeoffs. I think a free market medical system works better than a government-controlled system, but in my thinking, we don't even get that far.

First, the government has no constitutional authority to implement a health care plan. Second, no one ever has a right to the produce of someone else. Those two points alone stop the health care debate in my mind. We never get to the question of what's better or not better. Freedom is always better. Self responsibility is always better. Allowing the natural consequences of the market and freedom police the system is always better. The government's role is to prevent medical fraud, and perhaps an educational role, though I'm not sure about that. The gaps can be made up with charity, to which I would gladly contribute if the men with guns hadn't already forced me to give to charity at the office.

 

[ddenny5]

One other point about universal healthcare is that they can say anything is a health risk. They will say that ammunition is a health risk so we need to ban ammo. The libs will site the expense of treating gunshot wounds with a blown up figure of millons of dollars. So we need to ban certain ammo because it is a health risk. For me, I do not want to go down that road.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Sweden is an area about the size of California, and a 1/4 of the population of that state mostly clustered in a few majors cities in the southern part.

exactly my point