Some of those who think the American health care system
needed to be trashed and reformed in the image of the Canadian system might be
interested in the opinion of Bacchus Barua, a senior economist with Canada's Fraser
Institute.
"Healthcare in Canada is anything but free," he
states, noting that the average family of four pays more than $11,000 a year in
taxes for hospital and physician care. However, he explains in an article for
The American "surely such expenditure is justified if Canadians receive a
stellar healthcare system in return for their tax dollars. Unfortunately, that
simply isn't the case."
Specifically, he lists some problems with his country’s
system:
** Canada has fewer physicians, hospital beds, and diagnostic
imaging scanners, and performs fewer medical interventions than its American
and European counterparts.
** Canada has one of the lowest physician-to-population
ratios in the developed world.
** A recent survey found that Canadians must wait an average
of about 4 1/2 months for medically necessary elective procedures after
referral from a general practitioner.
** The wait for diagnostic imaging technologies like MRIs is
over two months on average.
** Patients in Canada are likely to wait two months or more
to see a specialist, six days or more to see a doctor when sick or needing
care, and four hours or more in the emergency room.
** Due to the lengthy waits, about 40,000 Canadians leave the
country for treatment elsewhere each year [like the U.S.].
** Public drug plans covered only about a quarter of the new
drugs approved for sale in Canada between 2004 and 2010.
He concludes: "These realities serve to dismiss the
mythical notion that a Canadian-style healthcare system" is highly
desirable.
We are headed in that direction.
*****
During the mortgage banking crisis the federal government
pressured large banks like JPMorgan Chase to take over the bad mortgage loans sold
by failing banks Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. Now the government is
fining JPMorgan $13 billion for helping the feds deal with the crisis. Can you
say “shakedown?”
*****
Planned Parenthood involves itself with topics other than
planning parenthood on its Facebook page, discussing topics like why some types
of sexual activity are painful, transgender issues, and promoting Obamacare.
Not exactly family planning.
An article on the Internet site bighealthreport.com reports that
on Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page for teens it answers the question: “Is
promiscuity a bad thing?” and that the organization defended doing so with the
statement, “there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of
sexual partners.”
Isn’t this the mentality that has led to 40 percent of our babies
being born out of wedlock, and males with multiple children from multiple “baby
mamas?”
This “advice,” such as it is, increases the likelihood of
HPV and cervical cancer among females, in addition to STDs. “Even the
Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, considered
‘a person to be at direct risk for STDs if he or she had had two or more
partners during the 12 months preceding the interview’ during one of their
research studies,” Big Health Report said.
The article notes “a person with low self-esteem has been
shown to engage in sexual relations earlier, and engage in riskier, unprotected
sex with multiple partners.” Does that sound like “nothing bad or unhealthy” to
you?
Seriously? This is what we get for $542 million in federal subsidies?
*****
The “government shut down” really amounted to about 17
percent of the government being “shut down,” and that is somewhat like going to
a mall that has 100 stores and finding only 83 that are open for business. So,
while things were uncomfortable for some folks, it bore no resemblance
whatsoever to the government actually shutting down.
Of course, if the mall management blocked off stores that
otherwise would be open, things would be more uncomfortable. No sensible
businessperson would do that, but a petty, politics-dominated administration
would, and did.
*****
The emotional push to raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars
an hour for those working the least skilled jobs in the fast food industry puts
the spotlight on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.
Advocates think the wage ought to be based upon concerns
totally unrelated to the job and the business the job is a part of. “I flip
burgers at Burger King, and can’t support my family on what I make, so raise
the minimum wage,” is the mentality behind this ill-advised movement. In their
mind, if a PhD. in English, mathematics, biochemistry, or any other field
somehow ended up ringing up Happy Meals at MacDonald’s, the wage ought to be based
upon his/her training, or some arbitrary “living wage” concept.
A job is worth whatever the employer says it is worth.
Anyone who doesn’t like the wage is free to not take the job, or to look for a
better one. If the employer can’t find people to work at the selected wage, he
or she will have to raise it. Anyone who tries to find a better job, but can’t,
needs to pipe down and do the job the employer allowed them to have until they
can find a better one.
No comments:
Post a Comment