"Free" Health Care

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
"Free" Health Care
186
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 8:58am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040721.shtml

Free health care

Walter E. Williams

July 21, 2004


Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim that health-care service is a human right that people should have regardless of whether they can pay for it or not and that it should be free. Before we buy into this socialist agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free." Let's look at our neighbor to the north -- Canada.

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman's work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News (www.canoe.ca), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Houston, Ontario has chosen to turn to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage.

Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so. The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers.

I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 1:27pm
And yes, I realize some people don't agree with this study as was stated in the article. I've since read more articles, and they all came to similar conclusions, even when they look at the outcome after 5 years, not just survival to the 1st birthday. But if 'marginally better survival' makes americans feel better when the rate of premature births is much higher, then I give up trying to understand.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 1:57pm
OK, I've done some very preliminary research.. Still can't find that article I had read weeks ago about the 'handful' of drugs not available in Canada, and how many where birth control.. In any case, I came across one well-known case: RU-486. It isn't available in Canada, but it is in the US.

Here's one source.

http://www.myrxminnesota.com/rxnotavailable.html

From what I gather, in many cases, it's just one 'form' of the drug (for example liquid instead of tablets), or dosage that isn't available in Canada. But sometimes it just isn't approved in Canada while it is in the US. Different standards.

Bear in mind I'd rather get life-saving drugs cheaper, than miss on a few drugs that for whatever reason aren't approved in Canada.

Just starting my research now about the 'reverse' situation.

http://www.kellymom.com/health/meds/prescript_galactagogue.html

to be continued..

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-11-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 1:16pm
Thank you for getting the truth out about Canada and its socialist system. I wish more people would read or find out the real facts about so called free medical benefits. There is no such thing as a free ride when it comes to health care. Someone always has to pay and that is the american taxpayer.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 1:41pm
I was looking at that list of drugs in your link and I think you are correct. I recognize many of them as being available here but it is the delivery mechanism that may be different (capsules vs tablets etc...)

I did post this link earlier on the board but here it is again (along with an excerpt regarding this issue).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Living/healthcare031022_canada.html

<

Every industrialized country has some form of price controls on patented medications, except the United States. American drug companies say price controls stifle innovation and discourage them from selling certain drugs in foreign markets.

"The principal problem with price controls is you have limitations on access to medicines, and you don't have the newest most innovative treatments," said Alan Holmer, president and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But when pressed, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry could only identify eight drugs not available on Canadian shelves, and three of those are contraceptives. That's not enough to bother many Canadians.

"I don't mind," said Ireland. "I think we have a pretty good selection."

And much of that selection consists of American-made drugs, at well below American prices.>>

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 1:48pm
Here is another interesting article regarding the pricing and sale of drugs from Canada.

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/prescription/Articles/a2004-02-03-crackdown.html

<
Drug Industry Giant Plays Hardball to Halt Sales to U.S. Buyers



By Patricia Barry

February 2004

Americans may soon find it difficult to buy lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada if a tough new effort by Pfizer Inc. succeeds in closing off the pipeline.

In a letter sent last month to all Canadian pharmacies, Pfizer—the world's largest drugmaker—threatened to cut off all supplies of its products to any pharmacy that helps the cross-border trade.

The company's action "will prevent us from being able to supply Pfizer products to Americans," says Dave MacKay, chief executive of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association (CIPA), a trade group of licensed mail order pharmacies. "And if it's effective it could set a dangerous precedent to choke off supply."

Pfizer, which posted revenue of $32 billion in 2002, makes top-selling drugs like Lipitor for cholesterol, Norvasc for high blood pressure and Celebrex for arthritis. These and many other medicines are much less expensive in Canada because its government regulates the prices of brand-name drugs.

Pfizer's move comes at a time when many cash-strapped American states and cities are considering buying drugs from Canada to curb soaring health costs. Over a million Americans are already doing so, although the practice remains illegal under American law.

GlaxoSmithKline was the first drugmaker, a year ago, to try to curtail cross-border sales. It was followed by AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and an earlier Pfizer attempt. The companies refused to supply Canadian pharmacies they identified as selling to Americans. But the targeted pharmacies sidestepped the ban by buying supplies from others that had not been blacklisted.

Now Pfizer is pushing to close that loophole. In a Jan. 12 letter, the company told all licensed Canadian pharmacies that its ban on exporting "includes not selling, transferring or distributing products to any person that you know, or have reasonable grounds for believing, will or may export Pfizer products out of Canada." Any breach of these terms, it added, "will result in Pfizer refusing all further sales … to you."

The company also now requires its distributors to report past and current orders from pharmacies and to seek Pfizer's approval to fill orders over a certain size.

"This is the boldest challenge yet" to the cross-border trade, says MacKay, "and we see it as something we can't get around because they're threatening the wholesalers."

The situation is so serious, he says, that CIPA member pharmacies are advising American states looking for big discounts that they won't take on contracts for bulk purchases. "We just can't sustain that type of volume in the face of these constrictions from drug companies," Mackay says. Even California, with its huge deficits, has approached them. "And I said 'Sorry, guys, this can't happen. We can't do it.' "

And for individual American customers? One possibility is that the pharmacies will recommend alternatives to Pfizer products. When Glaxo first launched its ban, "we suggested alternative therapies to our patients," says Robert Fraser, director of pharmacy at CanadaDrugs.com. "Many seniors were so ticked off with Glaxo that they consulted their doctors and went that route."

CIPA is considering legal action, MacKay says, and also hoping for help from "allies" in the United States.

In Minnesota, state attorney general Mike Hatch is investigating whether Glaxo violated antitrust laws and conspired with other drug companies to block Canadian sales to Americans. He has filed a lawsuit seeking documents from Glaxo. If an order is granted, he says, "we'll be visiting each one of these companies with a lawsuit."

Pfizer says its rules reflect its "commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the pharmaceutical supply system and protecting the supply of Pfizer medicines for Canadians." It also cites concerns about safety and counterfeit drugs.

But it is not clear why targeting only licensed Canadian pharmacies would reduce counterfeiting. "The key thing about Canadian drugs is that they're safe," says Fraser. Shutting off the Canadian pipeline would only send Americans into the arms of counterfeiters, he adds.

And MacKay disputes the inference that selling drugs to Americans could create shortages for Canadians. Drugmakers, he says, "can ramp up production in about two weeks" if there's a surge in demand. If there's a shortage, he adds, "it's a contrived shortage."

In response, Pfizer Canada spokesman Don Sancton says: "Historically, we've been able to meet demand by Canadians. But production is not the issue here. The issue is that the export of our drugs is unauthorized and the import of them by Americans is illegal."

Hatch of Minnesota says the real issue is prices. "What the drug industry is trying to do is stop competition. They want to maintain an artificially high level ."

Congress continues to debate the logistics of allowing Americans to buy drugs from Canada legally—which, Hatch points out, essentially means importing Canadian price controls through the back door.

While lawmakers haggle over these issues, MacKay says, "I feel I have to throw a glass of water into everyone's face in the United States and say wake up! If you don't see we're getting our butts kicked here by the drug companies, we will not be available to you tomorrow. And then where will you be?

"If you lose Canada," he adds, "you lose the potential to legitimize this whole process.">>

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 9:43am
LOL. Socialist????

I see... you don't pay for health care? Funny, I thought it also came out of your pocket, indirectly or directly. And the facts are it costs you MORE to do so that it costs us.

Has anyone understood yet that our government just PAYS for our healthcare, the way that for those americans that are insured, your insurance company PAYS for your healthcare? It's a SINGLE PAYER system, not socialized healthare. Or is that too complex of a concept for everyone?

Pages