“People primordially fear illness and death, and physicians, from shaman to modern scientists, have always been perceived as holding a near-talismanic power over both. With the rise of modern wealth came the potential for enormous tax harvesting, and politicians were quick to see that this power over life and death could generate deep feelings of gratitude and loyalty. Could they take this power unto themselves?” – excerpt from The Trouble with Canada . . . Still A Citizen Speaks Out , by William D. Gairdner. Yes, they could, and in 1966, Canadian politicians took that power unto themselves, then promptly reneged on their promise to provide universally accessible healthcare for everyone. Welcome back to The Atlantis Report. You are here for your daily dose of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Please take a second to hit the like button, hit the subscribe button, and don't forget to also hit the notification bell. Thank You. The Deception. According to Tom Kent (the government’s senior policy wonk at the time), the Medical Care Act of 1966 was needed because “many poorer people just did not get care when it was needed.” In an imperfect world, it is probably true that some people did not receive care when it was needed. However, as I have said it before, it is doubtful that more people lacked access to care under the pre-1966 private system as compared to the government’s socialized system. Furthermore, in the private system, contrary to Kent’s assertion, healthcare was routinely provided to people who could not afford to pay for it. Charitable impulses and the pursuit of profits are not mutually exclusive concepts, despite what Kent wanted us to believe, and despite what politicians and bureaucrats still want us to believe. That’s the deception. Broken Promises. Kent said that the government’s objective with the Medical Care Act was “to make sure that people could get care when it was needed without regard to other considerations.” That sounds good, but as Milton Friedman warned, we should judge policies by their results, not their intentions. At the beginning of each year, budgets for Canadian hospitals are dictated by the government, and if this predetermined tax revenue is depleted before the end of the year, as often happens, new patients are put on a waiting list for the next fiscal year. Thus, the government breaks its promise “to make sure that people [can] get care when it [is] needed without regard to other considerations.” Moreover, the government breaks its promise every year, usually more so than the previous year, thereby establishing a trend of deteriorating performance over fifty-plus years, with deadly consequences: In the 2005 Chaoulli decision, Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada noted that patients in Canada die as a result of waiting lists for universally accessible health care. Our analysis estimates that between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times between 1993 and 2009. (emphasis added) Year after year, “wait times” in Canada tend to increase, not decrease. It seems that politicians and bureaucrats do not embrace the concept of “practice makes perfect,” no matter how much time we give them. Private Healthcare? How Dare You! More than a million Canadians are waiting for the healthcare that the government promised to deliver. And, as we have seen, in 2005, the government, through its supreme court, acknowledged the deadly consequences of its broken promises. The logical solution is to return healthcare to the private sector. However, heartless politicians and bureaucrats ignore this solution, and they cruelly forbid patients on their waiting list from accessing private healthcare options in Canada, thereby condemning many of them to death. Despite the government’s growing incompetence, a more recent court ruling affirmed the government’s position that people must be denied the freedom to pursue private healthcare options in Canada. Last year, the British Columbia Supreme Court “dismissed a court challenge by Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association, whose surgical clinic in Vancouver provided medical services to patients failed by the public system, in violation of BC law. Dr. Day argued that the province’s ostensible ban on this type of privately funded healthcare violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the court ruling acknowledged the plight of thousands of patients on waiting lists, it simultaneously denied them the right to do anything about it.” Shockingly, as Justice John Steeves affirmed the illegality of voluntary exchanges between patients and doctors unimpeded by government conditions, he irreverently declared that this does not violate these individuals’ right to liberty under the Charter. The Charter is part of Canada’s Constitution. Section 7 of the Charter reads: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In his ruling, Steeves wrote: “Liberty interests under section 7 are engaged only where the law or state action interferes with a person’s ability to make fundamental personal choices” . That sounds good, but then Steeves wrote: Patients are free to spend their money on healthcare services as they deem appropriate (admittedly within the constraints of the MPA [Medicare Protection Act]). Therefore it cannot be said that there is a sufficient causal connection between the impugned provisions and the alleged deprivation…. I conclude that the plaintiffs have not established a deprivation of their right to liberty under section 7. To say that this is a deception seems blatantly obvious. Steeves ignores the fact that “the law or state action” necessarily includes the MPA with its acknowledged constraints. Among other things, these constraints include rules about which medical practitioners may offer their services, which services they may offer, and at what prices they may offer these services. This clearly interferes with people’s (patients and doctors) “ability to make fundamental personal choices.” Yet while this deprivation of liberty is beyond dispute, Steeves denies it. There you have it. Free equals Unfree, according to the BC Supreme Court. The courts will continue to support politicians and bureaucrats. The duplicity of these charlatans is painfully clear. For decades, their bureaucracies have feasted on billions of tax dollars while thousands of dead Canadians wait for the healthcare they were promised. They are dead because the government denied them the right to use their own money to save their own lives by purchasing private healthcare from willing providers in the Canadian marketplace. The trail of broken promises will grow longer. The inhumane treatment of Canadian patients will become more widespread, and many more will die. Nothing will change until the masses realize that their health and well-being can be greatly enhanced only through the restoration of their freedoms. Canada's health care and health insurance (these are different issues) have their problems, but it can always be worse. Try this experiment ... next time you're at the doctor, ask him, "What will I pay for this visit or the test or procedure you recommend?" I'm certain that he will look at you as if you had antennas sticking out of your head. What you pay for healthcare in the US is utterly disconnected from any economic reality and health care providers in the business of health care have absolutely no clue what the price of their service is. Now try this experiment ... after receiving treatment, if you have health insurance, you will receive one or more EOBs that purport to describe what your health care providers billed for, what your insurance carrier paid, what it denied and what you may owe. Now, try to make sense of that and match it to the bills you receive from your providers or make any sense of what gets paid and what does not or why. For example, in November 2019, I had a neck and head MRI as part of a stroke diagnosis. In January 2020, my neurologist ordered his own MRI. The price charged for the Nov 2019 MRI was north of $5,000. The price charged for the January 2020 MRI was around $500. My insurance carrier paid 100% for both and did not deny one as gouging or excessive (how's that for controlling costs?) Now, try this experiment ... fire your doctor for crummy service and see what the reaction is. I guarantee that the noises he'll make won't be anything like "How can I win your business back?" I fired my rheumatologist for crummy front office support (could never reach anyone even for urgent service needs, never got a return call, bills were always screwed up) and the fact that he treated me like a human chemistry experiment rather than even try to figure out a treatment plan. His reaction was shock. He had no clue what is customer's experience with his practice was. The long and short of it is that the rest of the Western world believes that private healthcare means "American style" healthcare. Our system is even more unpopular abroad than it is at home, and so you'll never convince a critical mass of Canadians, Brits, or anyone else to vote for that. People are more scared and more offended by de facto rationing on the grounds of "how much is your life worth to you?" compared to de jure rationing that at least maintains the pretense of "to each according to his need". Nearly 1 in 4 Americans are skipping medical care because of the cost. For many Americans, a trip to the doctor hinges on whether they can afford to go, rather than if it’s a medical necessity. Over the past year, 22% of Americans say they have steered clear of some sort of medical care — including doctor visits, medications, vaccinations, annual exams, screenings, vision checks and routine blood work — because of the expense, according to a recent online survey of roughly 2,500 U.S. adults conducted on behalf of Bankrate. Additionally, 15% report that another family member in their household decided to forgo medical care because it was too expensive. When broken down by age, millennials (ages 24 to 39) reported avoiding the doctor’s office at higher rates than baby boomers (ages 56 to 74). Let's be clear, the US has not had a free market in either health care nor the means to pay for it since the early 20th century. That said, competitive markets ration by price but expand output to meet demand. The state stokes demand, restricts output and then rations by queue... This was The Atlantis Report. Please Like. Share. Leave me a comment. Subscribe. And please take some time to subscribe to my backup channels, I do upload videos there too. You'll find the links in the description box. You will also find a PayPal link if you want to make a donation. Thank you wholeheartedly to all those of you who have already donated. Stay safe and healthy friends!
The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more
No comments:
Post a Comment