As part of the on going health care debate in this country, we are seeing more testimonials in letters-to-the-editor and blog posts about the lack of waiting lists for health care in Canada. People are describing timely consultations with primary care givers and prompt treatments from specialists. What is the reality?
A recently published chart from the Frazier Institute shows "clinically reasonable" and "actual" median waits for various specialties in Canada for 2008. The median clinically reasonable for all specialties is 6.0 weeks with the actual median being 17.3 weeks - almost three times the reasonable. From a low wait for heart surgery of 7.3 weeks compared to a reasonable of 5.0 weeks, the high waits are in multiple areas of specialty care - 5.6 weeks vs actual of 16.1 weeks for gynecologic care; 5.8 weeks vs an actual of 31.7 weeks for neurosurgery; and 11.0 weeks vs an actual of 36.7 weeks for orthopedic treatment. Even internal medicine which is one of the primary care specialties has actual waits of 12.5 weeks vs a reasonable wait of 3.3 weeks.
So although a minority of Canadians find prompt and timely care, the majority are faced with long and what would be considered unacceptable waits in this country. Access to a waiting list is not the same as access to health care.
Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop has an opinion piece in the Seattle Times today called "The Logic of a Locavore" in which she explains why we should eat local food. Many environmentalists embrace the buy local mantra in the mistaken belief it is better for the environment.
Harrop is, accidentally I think, very honest about the pedigree of this concept. Responding to the critique that eating local is passe, she writes:
Local is so 2008? Yes, and it is also so 1908, 1608 and 508 B.C. Until the last 100 years or so, the "alternative food crowd" encompassed nearly all of humanity.
I'm not sure why this is an argument in favor of eating local. Lots of things are 1608, including lifespans of 30 years, cholera, poverty, spoiled food and the like. Environmental icon Jared Diamond wishes we could go back even further.
But before they move to quickly to spend even more taxpayer dollars on various government projects, a little reading should be in order; namely, this report from Wells Fargo.
In a "Decision-Makers' Guide to Stimulus Part Deux," the authors of the paper first take Vice President Biden to task for saying, "the truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy." The authors point out that, "Everyone did not misread the ec!
onomy. Contrary to political rhetoric, economic analysis outside the beltway clearly anticipated a nine percent plus unemployment rate even with the stimulus package."
One of the major concerns over the last several months as government spending ramps up, is inflation. Again, the authors of the paper address this:
"Unfortunately, a second stimulus could add too much to the growth momentum to be consistent with stability in the long-run inflation interest rates and currency expectations. Inflation/debt concerns, which are already rising, would accelerate quickly and thereby prompt negative interest rate/dollar reactions that would create a boom/bust cycle..."
The stimulus/bailout mentality goes back to the reality that politicians don't always make the most sound economic decisions because they are influenced by the immediate short-term political gains and do not take into account, or minimize, the long-term costs!
. But this type of thinking has immediate economic ramificatio!
During mark up of the House health care reform bill last Friday, a patient-oriented amendment was soundly rejected:
“(k) Construction - Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.”
By rejecting this amendment it is now clear that the unstated intent of the bill is to have government bureaucrats dictate what doctors can or can't do for their patients. This places patients at the mercy of unknow and unseen officials,rather than allowing their own physicians to help them make their health care decisions.
Regardless of what proponents say, pending legislation is unquestionably a government attempt to take over our health care system.
Today's GMAP (Government Management Accountability and Performance) public meeting was on the state's stimulus efforts. Lots of interesting tidbits were reported including:
$4 billion has been allocated to the state - $827 million spent so far.
The Governor believes the states are being used as pawns in a political fight in D.C. on whether the stimulus package is working; she complained that some Senators were questioning the value of the stimulus package prior to her testimony yesterday in Congress on green jobs.
The Governor reported that her colleagues expressed concern at the national governors meeting about what type of information is to be reported to the feds and the time line for those reports.
The bulk of the state’s stimulus jobs are at Hanford. The Governor is concerned that some of those jobs aren’t being filled by Washingtonians; instead the contractors are hiring out of state workers.
The Department of Transportation expects to create or retain 5,000 jobs as a result of stimulus funds.
The State has obligated the 4th highest amount of transit funding in the country.
The transportation construction market may have hit its saturation point as recent bids are coming in at or above engineer estimates in contrast to previous bids coming in below.
There is a high correlation with “legislative earmarks” and projects not coming in on time or on budget due to the circumvention of the normal vetting process and review.
I was reading the Washington Employment Security Department’s report on how many “green” jobs there are in our state (the Department says 47,000), but the definition they use is so vague and open ended that you can’t tell what makes a job “green.” On page five, however, I did find this nugget:
“Although employers identified many different occupational titles, there were no new or unique job titles identified by employers that were not already reflected in the existing national Standard Occupation Code classification system. This suggests...that the fundamental work performed by employees in these green jobs has not changed substantially such that employers believe that new occupational titles are necessary.”
In other words, most if not all of the 47,000 jobs listed in the report are existing occupations that the government has decided to label “green,” even though the employees are doing exactly the same work they did before. Here some examples of what the report calls “green” jobs:
- Millworkers - Earth drillers (but not for oil and gas) - Electricians - Roofers - Food Batchmakers
So, yesterday I was doing policy research on the state budget, and today I’m reading a government report on environmental policy. Does that mean that yesterday I did not have a “green” job and today I do?
“In 2007, when we adopted a set of climate change goals related to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced fuel use, we also set a goal to triple the number of green jobs we had in the state – to reach 25,000 green jobs by 2020. Less than two years later, we can point to 47,000 green jobs right now. Our green jobs are growing much faster than predicted.”
Did Washington State actually create 47,000 “green” jobs in little more than two years? Washington State Employment Security Department’s (ESD) report, “2008 Washington State Green Economy Jobs,” helps to answer this question. The report states:
“…there were no new or unique job titles identified by employers that were not already reflected in the existing national Standard Occupation Code (SOC) classification system… the fundamental work performed by employees in these green jobs has not changed substantially such that employers believe that new occupational titles are necessary.”
The acknowledgement that “green” jobs are not necessarily new is a departure from the Governor’s previous comments where she has clearly claimed that the State has “created” 47,000 new “green” jobs.
The Governor’s remarks today also support the findings of the ESD report. The Governor testified that:
“We learned green jobs are not necessarily some brand new type of job – they are often jobs we all know, only now they include new skills to meet the needs of the new century – for example, the electrician who can wire a smart home.”
While the state is actively pursuing “green” jobs it appears to have taken more of a hand off approach towards traditional jobs. In fact, when asked by media about Boeing’s potential movement of operations to South Carolina and out of Washington, the Governor stated that issue is between Boeing and the Unions. But according to the ESD report and Gregoire’s testimony, aren’t many of Boeing’s jobs “green” and worth saving?
In reviewing Sound Transit's 1996 plan, I also ran across this claim, which just seems kind of silly today:
Sound Move is based on extremely conservative cost and ridership assumptions and methodologies reviewed by an independent expert review panel appointed by the governor, the state Legislature and the state Transportation Department.
***A quick thank you to John Niles for maintaining these documents online, which funny enough either don't exist on Sound Transit's website or are not in an easy place to find.
In pushing yesterday for the sweeping health care plan working its way through Congress, President Obama argued for a government option, saying it “would make health care more affordable by increasing competition, providing more choices and keeping insurance companies honest.”He sounds like Adam Smith making the well-proven case for freedom in the marketplace – market competition drives down prices and improves quality and choice for consumers.
No, the President hasn’t suddenly experienced libertarian enlightenment.The competition he has in mind is the federal government competing against its own citizens.
Government works well when it sets rules that apply equally to all companies, protect consumer rights and provide for public safety.When government itself enters a market though, in this case as an insurance company, government officials end their role as impartial referees and become market players, with one important difference.The “competition” President Obama envisions is a national insurance company that can print its own money.
The point is well illustrated by Germany, which allows citizens to buy private insurance or pick a subsidized public option.Guess what?Eighty-five percent of Germans take the public option.Having eliminated most private choices, program managers began rationing care.According to today’s Seattle Times, “[Germany] tries to control costs by limiting what’s available.” The practice is standard in socialized systems.Laboring under intense budget pressures, government managers seek to control costs by limiting people’s access to medical treatments.
If the President wants us to gain from real competition, he should let Americans buy health insurance in any state, just like auto insurance.Making private insurance companies compete for our business in a national market, not starting a federal super-insurer, is the best way to get health care spending under control.
Here is an excerpt from the beginning of a new report by Dr. Ronald Utt, a transportation policy expert from Heritage Foundation:
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood remarked in May that his livability initiative"is a way to coerce people out of their cars."
When asked if this was government intrusion into people's lives, LaHood
responded that "about everything we do around here is government
intrusion in people's lives," a sentiment that would have certainly
surprised the authors of the United States Constitution, a document
whose major purpose was to restrain government.
The new health care reform plan unveiled today by Democrats in Congress is not universal care. The Democrat-proposed plan provides for 17 million people to go without health care coverage. The plan carries other risks, such as:
It raises taxes during a recession. Higher taxes, even on the so-called rich, means there would be less money available for investment and job creation, delaying the recovery and increasing hardship for people who are out of work. Business owners would slow or stop hiring, as they wait to see what their new payroll tax will be, and whether they will be forced to pay the proposed 8% “pay-or-pay” penalty each year.
The government option would crowd out private coverage. Many workers would be forced onto the government plan against their will, as employers drop their current coverage in an effort to shift health costs to taxpayers. Yet the President’s family and those of Members of Congress would not be forced onto the government option plan; as dependents of federal employees they would continue to receive first-class coverage.
Eight million people with Health Savings Accounts (100,000 in Washington) might lose their coverage if it doesn’t meet the federal definition of mandated insurance. Innovative patient-centered medical practices in Washington, such as Dr. Erika Bliss’ Qliance clinic in Seattle, would be forced to close.
Here's a good illustration of how the proposed health care plan would work was released by the Joint Economic Committee.
The three committees controlling health care legislation in the US House released their health reform bill yesterday with the usual fanfare. Basically every bad proposal kicking around Washington, D.C., is included in the 1018 page document. Debate on the House floor is scheduled to begin next week.
The lead-off provision is a government "option", ala Medicare, to compete with private health insurance. Never mind that Medicare started as a "competitive government option" in 1965, ran insurance for seniors out of business by 1970, and currently has a $67 trillion dollar unfunded liability.
The House leadership then stuffed an insurance "connector" into the bill to dictate the kinds of benefits people can select and how much they must pay for them. Massachusetts has had a connector plan in place for the past three years. The state is now running almost a $1 billion deficit for its health care spending. It didn't work for Massachusetts, but then a state, unlike the federal government, can' t print money or run deficits for very long.
A lot can be placed in 1018 pages, but other significant provisions include an individual mandate so everyone in the country must buy health insurance or pay a fine, an employer mandate that requires them to purchase insurance for their employees or pay an 8% payroll tax, a class warfare tax on the rich, and a schedule for decreasing provider reimbursement on Medicare and Medicaid patients.
The overall cost is estimated to be $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. Of course, Medicare was 300% over budget by 1990. So much for confidence in the bureaucratic budget process.
A new Rasmussen national telephone survey just released shows the country is shifting to opposition of the Administration and Congressional health care reform plans. Those opposed or somewhat opposed now total 49% with 46% in favor or somewhat in favor of the proposed health care reforms currently under debate in Washington, D.C.
Two weeks ago, Rasmussen polling revealed 50% in favor and 46% opposed. This is almost a 10% shift toward opposition.
As more Americans understand the magnitude and the expense of the proposed reforms, the negative impact of government controlled health care is starting to take hold. A prolonged debate gives more people the opportunity to see these reform plans for what they really are - an attempt to move our entire health care delivery system into the control of government bureaucrats.