Quantcast

Clinton Got Quick Care, Unlike Canadian Heart Patients

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Clinton Got Quick Care, Unlike Canadian Heart Patients
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-08-04.html | September 8, 2004 | Michael Cannon

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of the study, "Mrs. Clinton Has Entered the Race: The 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates' Proposals to Reform Health Insurance."

The speed with which President Clinton received quadruple bypass surgery provides an important lesson in health care reform that voters should keep in mind this election season.

Last Thursday, the former president went to Northern Westchester Hospital, near his home in Chappaqua, New York, complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. According to the New York Times, "initial tests showed nothing extraordinary," but doctors asked the former president to return the next morning.

Friday morning, cardiologists performed an angiogram. One reported seeing "multi-vessel coronary artery disease, normal heart function and no heart attack." However, the extent of the blockage in his coronary arteries was severe enough that doctors sent him to Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan.

Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), said that when doctors at Columbia-Presbyterian saw the extent of the blockage, "[t]hey did advise him to have bypass surgery, and to do it as soon as he could." Columbia-Presbyterian admitted the former president Friday and performed a successful quadruple bypass Monday.

The timeframe is important.

President and Senator Clinton's greatest health care legacy is their attempt to pass the Health Security Act in 1993 and 1994. At the time, it was said that 39 million Americans lacked health insurance. President Clinton made "health coverage that cannot be taken away" his administration's top priority, and planned to make good on that promise by turning America's health care system over to the federal government.

Under the Clinton Health Security Act, the federal government would have compelled all Americans to buy health coverage, dictated what type of coverage they would receive and where they would purchase it, set prices for coverage and medical services, and encouraged states to form their own single-payer health care systems.

The power of individuals to make countless choices about their health care would have been handed over to government, and the few remaining market mechanisms that contain costs and promote quality would have been lost.

The Economist wrote of the Clinton health plan, "Not since Franklin Roosevelt's War Production Board has it been suggested that so large a part of the American economy should suddenly be brought under government control."

Critics warned that socialized medicine would have the same effect in America as it has in other countries.

When government makes medical care "free," people demand medical care without regard to cost. Governments can't keep up with the excess demand and therefore must find some way of allocating care amid shortage conditions. Most choose to make patients wait.

According to Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker of Canada's Fraser Institute, the median wait for an appointment with a cardiologist in Canada's single-payer health care system was 3.4 weeks in 2003. The wait for urgent bypass surgery was another 2.1 weeks on top of that, while the wait for elective bypass surgery was an additional 10.7 weeks. Canadian doctors reported a "reasonable" wait would be 0.9 and 6.1 weeks, respectively. Great Britain and New Zealand have even longer waiting times for bypass surgery.

Esmail and Walker cite studies confirming that longer waits for heart surgery result in a higher risk of heart attack and death.

In fact, they report American hospitals act as a "safety valve" for Canadian patients who face life-threatening shortages: "The government of British Columbia contracted Washington State hospitals to perform some 200 operations in 1989 following public dismay over the 6-month waiting list for cardiac bypass surgery in the province... A California heart-surgery centre has even advertised its services in a Vancouver newspaper."

Had America had followed his lead ten years ago, President Clinton might not have been able to get his diagnosis and surgery appointment so quickly.

Instead of waiting overnight for an appointment with a cardiologist, he might have had to wait the 3.4 weeks Canadians do.

Instead of waiting three days for quadruple bypass surgery, he might have had to wait over two weeks.

Instead of receiving care from what Senator Clinton called "one of the great hospitals in the world," President Clinton might be looking for a safety valve.

Since the Clinton health plan was defeated, untold patients have been aided because America's health care system, whatever its faults, was not subjected to the shortages and waiting lines that plague other nations.

But the future is less certain. Democratic presidential candidate Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) is aggressively promoting his $1 trillion health care plan that borrows heavily from the Clinton health plan. Senator Kerry too seems to believe that having government issue a paper guarantee of "coverage" is the same thing as having access to medical care.

Truth be told, presidents and senators will never have a hard time getting medical treatment. Esmail and Walker report "a profusion of recent research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected." It's the rest who have to wait. Despite the Canadian government's egalitarian rhetoric, "low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours."

I join all Americans of good will in wishing President Clinton a speedy recovery. And I hope they will join me in wishing Senator Kerry's health plan a quick, painless death.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,112
er, so what do you and your talking point powers that be suggest as a better alternative to kerry's health plan? it's easy to be full of trite quips but harder to speak of issues with substance. so far i've seen no substance from you.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,257
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
oh, come on!, that doesnt mean anything.

i can get any surgery done right here in Lima in less than 24 hours, performed by a john hopkins M.D. if i need or want to.

does that mean the health care system here is better than the canadian???

for god sake!! what kind of logic is that? of course clinton has the coins to get 1st level attention in the US, how does that upper boundary can be used to compare the lower boundary given by a public health service???

and what about those who are not counted in the "average time of wait" because they cannot even afford to be in the list???? do you count their wait time in terms of infinite and then do the average of that???
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
Good thing he wasn't Canadian, and umm poor...

This just in, Tenchiro eats better meals than most Ethiopians. :eek:
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
The US has the best medical system around.

It can be improved sure, but not by replacing it with a canadian/euro style socialist system...
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,257
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
yeah, social health care doesnt change things for those who want the best medical attention. if you want if and can fork it up, it will always be there.

its just for those who cannot even get the basic things, its a safety net, as close to the ground as posible that will lower the average, because new people who were originally out of any medical reach will be included. not because those who got fine attention before will get a worse attention.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,112
N8 said:
It can be improved sure, but not by replacing it with a canadian/euro style socialist system...
how? :oink:
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,257
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
N8 said:
The US has the best medical system around.

It can be improved sure, but not by replacing it with a canadian/euro style socialist system...

it wont get worse for those who are fine with it now either. its statistical-average get worse because of more people will get in, who originally were not even in the statistic. but overall those who were fine, will still be fine or better, PLUS those who didnt even got medical attention in the first place will get at least a mediocre one, which is definately better than no medical attention at all. or not??

or what value of "goodness of medical attention" do you give to those who cannot even afford to see a doctor???? infinitely long waiting time?? 0??? of course the statistic is fine, because they are not within the statistic. that doesnt mean they dont exist.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,257
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
N8 said:
The US has the best medical system around.

It can be improved sure, but not by replacing it with a canadian/euro style socialist system...

and about the "best" medical system?? i would dare to say in the statistics of those who actually get medical attention, yes. But overall for its population, BIG NO.

one thing is to have the "best" available medical care (which is almost available everywhere, even in the 3rd world), and another different, and more important, is how affordable or available it is to the population. the last being IMO the defining factor in the "goodness" of a health care system.

like education, doesnt matter that much if the US has the best universities around, if the educational system still pops out kids with a national average grade in the SAT verbal lower than mine!!!! as impossible as it sounds!!

as rich as the US is, its ridiculous there is still people dying in there for stupid things that can be cured or prevented given timely medical attention. and that kinda of things dont happen that often in say, sweden.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
N8 said:
The US has the best medical system around.

It can be improved sure, but not by replacing it with a canadian/euro style socialist system...
Wrong. The US has the best ACUTE care medical system in the world.

Care to look up how much money the US spends on administration compared to Canada with regards to health care? I know you don't care, because the data doesn't support your position, so I'll do it for you.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

Comparing Clinton to an average Canadian is intellectually dishonest at best, and even you are smart enough to see that. Comparing Clinton to Jean Chretien might be fair...Nice troll.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,112
ALEXIS_DH said:
like education, doesnt matter that much if the US has the best universities around, if the educational system still pops out kids with a national average grade in the SAT verbal lower than mine!!!! as impossible as it sounds!!
this is an unfair comparison.

a) the u.s. has a high immigrant population
b) i imagine that the sat is taken in peru by affluent peruvians who wish to study in the u.s. (based on the fact that my college did not have need blind admission for foreign students). on the other hand, the sat is taken widely in the u.s. as it's used as an admission criteria from the ivies (which i imagine peruvians shoot for, like my south african roommate freshman year) all the way down through podunk city college
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,257
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
Toshi said:
this is an unfair comparison.

a) the u.s. has a high immigrant population
b) i imagine that the sat is taken in peru by affluent peruvians who wish to study in the u.s. (based on the fact that my college did not have need blind admission for foreign students). on the other hand, the sat is taken widely in the u.s. as it's used as an admission criteria from the ivies (which i imagine peruvians shoot for, like my south african roommate freshman year) all the way down through podunk city college

my english is not really good. and obviously am not a native speaker.
dont you think its a very low standard against which you would compare the standard of a native speaker country???. regardless of my background. just concentrate in the quality of my english.

or do you think my non-native, english is a good paradigm to which you would compare??? its like being happy because the current US deficit is ONLY the 2nd worst since WWII.

that being my main point. even if 30% of SAT takers are US not english-speakers.

so my point regarding this and health is, truly is not very important for the OVERALL quality of education or medicine, if you have MIT and caltech popping future nobel laurates every semester, or if clinton gets attention overnight.
If you have high schools grads (most people get to that point) faring that bad in the SAT, or people who shorten their lifes considerably because cannot even afford a doc.

those MIT, caltech guys, clinton are almost excentricities in the educational-health quality chart, and are weeeeeeell above the average overall to be considered an representavie part of the pie on which you could define its overall success.

otherwise, according to that reasoning you could say russia and south america are overalll well off places, because after all, there a billionaires here. and well, that doesnt make any sense.