Excellent article Mr. McLeod. This chill of censorship directly from the executive branch is spreading. When democracies die, it is invariably the death of a thousand cuts, rather than a single blow. This is yet another.

Fact:

Corporations in the health-care industry are interested in profits to the same degree they are interested in public health. The reason is that the two go hand-in-hand. Corporations provide options - if you get no results, you get no money! That being said, introducing for-profit health care introduces some legitimate risks.

Fact:

The current system is a laughing stock. It takes months to get simple surgery, where in the US - you get treated the day you walk in those doors. It is controlled by special interest groups, plagued with inefficiencies and expensive - it represents more than 40% of our taxes.

It is a catch 22 - who knows what to do here. However, we might as well experiment. Let's allow some for profit health care delivery - let's see where it takes us!

It is controlled by special interest groups...

This is not a fact. I'm sure the BC Liberals would differ with you on who controls the Health Care system.

Laying the blame of our health care woes at the feet of "special interest groups" (we know you mean unions) is easy, but hardly fair or accurate. The Liberals are in control, or so they tell us. They sign the contracts, they manage the system, so if you want to lay blame start there.

verso,

i will define special interest groups more broadly as politicians, unions, social activists, etc.

when decisions are made to help get people elected, to increase the pay of administrators, cooks, cleaners - or based solely on community activism - you have a problem.

The health care system is not a place where you go to get fixed. It is a political engine, where the patients are actually forgotten about.

I don't blame the NDP or Liberals. I blame our system, which needs to be fixed. I don't care if it is for-profit or not, however we need to take this out of the hands of our politicans. The government should have little to no mandate over the delivery of health care.

Atleast in America, the paying patient comes first! I am by no means advocating American-style healthcare, however.

It is controlled by special interest groups...

ya for sure . . . the BC Fed & its gang of Health Care Unions

Yes if they happen to have a healthcare insurance!
If we experiment as you suggest, we will wind up paying as much for drugs as USA citizens do!
Why do you thing they come in droves to buy their prescriptions in Canada?
This is indeed something the politicians have to get involved with. "Free enterprize" has proven where its objective lies!

Um, excuse me Cappy, one gets medical service in the USA, if one is insured. Presently there are more people uninsured in the USA, than the whole population of Canada!

You want to know the American attitude to the poor? Remeber hurricane Katrina? The poor and black people were left to die!

The reason our health care costs are so rampant is that we are paying for medical services that no one even dreamed of in the 1960's when universal healthcare was created.

- Do we need all those hip and/or joint replacements?
- What is the cost to the system per AIDS patient, per day?
- What is the cost of cosmetic surgery to the health system?
- What is the cost of keeping terminally ill patients alive, for just a few months more?
- Should we treat people with inguries that leave them in a vegatative or semi vegative state?

Important questions and no one has the moral fortitude to ask them.

Drug companies want to push more drugs, to create more profit for their share holders. That's why antibiotics are so genrously over perscribed.

The Liberals have a fine history of diverting tax dollars to their politcal friends. RAV > Olympics > BC Rail are but a few examples of the Liberals robbing the taxpayer to suit their own political agenda. Healthcare is just the same.

I find it incredibly funny that someone can talk about the cost of health care here , and then suggest that the US system is somehow more efficient. A large reason for bankruptcy in the states is being ill... and the system there is well known for how expensive it is, and how much of the health care $ goes into bureaucracy/overhead instead of helping people.

Supply/demand have no place in the health care industry!

It's very simple really. Fundamentally, the debate is about whether our taxpayer-funded public health system is primarily there to serve the health of individual citizens or the health of corporations and the economy in general.

I don't blame the NDP or Liberals. I blame our system, which needs to be fixed.

If not the NDP or the LIberals (in other words government) than who? Do you expect the system to fix itself? Like it or not, the government is accountable and that government today is the BC LIberals.

I think you're being disingenuous... if the NDP where in power now, you wouldn't hesitate to lay blame at their feet. Be honest.

Don't forget that the bottom line result of many budget cuts has caused a huge increase in the demands on the health care system. (IE more poverty equals more illness and more drugs paid for) This has been part of the B.C.Liberal (even their name is a lie), stratagy of making the system look unsustainable. The supreme court demands that health services be delivered in a timely and efficient way. If the neocons can shovel as many people into the system without providing proper infrastructure, it then looks unsustainable and then they can say it must be privatized. It's all a con to allow their corporate cronies in to let them fleece the public. Shameful, greedy politicians are causing much of this just to make money. Wake up Canada before these ba$tards reach their goal of completion of the race to the bottom.

I believe passionately in the pharmaceutical industry and know a little bit about this. We pay less for drugs, because we are a secondary market. Drug companies make their money in the USA, and all other markets are viewed as "free money". They sell a product where supply = demand.

Now - if it weren't for those Americans paying lots of money for drugs, we'd be screwed. There would be no funding for new innovations, no profit incentive.

It is not the government creating new drugs - it is public companies...

Yes I do remember Katrina. It triggered the single biggest public relief effort of all time. Americans opened up their wallets and homes like never before.

Those poor black folk - yes. Left to die - give me a break. They didn't evacuate (for whatever reason) and were left in dire circumstances. Don't give me that crap.

verso,

i don't trust the ndp to manage much more than a kool-aid stand. i have some respect for some of their members (i.e. their leader), and am sure that many of them care.

it all comes down to vision. i envision a society full of good jobs, opportunity, technology, innovation, entertainment, creativity, low taxes and freedom to decide how, where and when your money is spent.

Conservatives/BC Liberals are more likely to shape a society which promotes these values, than the NDP. I could care less about the day to day decisions that either party makes.

Unfortunately conservative policies fail to deliver those goals. Have failed in the past and will continue to fail in the future. If their policies worked the IMF/World Bank would leave a swath of prosperity in their wake, instead its poverty. If the policies of the many conservative governments of the world worked the world would be a much better place.

As for health care, everyone knows what Campbell is up to. There is no "conversation" going on. Its just a sell-job.

We have private health care already, it hasn't worked.

Wal*Mart in Florida will soon begin a program to sell generic drugs for $4.00 for a 30 day supply. This would normally cost between $12.00 to $30.00.
This helps the poor more than the government could.
My motto " if it moves, privatise it. "
You can see details on DRUDGE.

Drugs already are a private operation Ron

it all comes down to vision. i envision a society full of good jobs, opportunity, technology, innovation, entertainment, creativity, low taxes and freedom to decide how, where and when your money is spent.

Conservatives/BC Liberals are more likely to shape a society which promotes these values, than the NDP. I could care less about the day to day decisions that either party makes.

...and I could care less about your touchy-feely non-answer.

I'll ask again, because it seems you believe the BC Liberals are not responsible for the health care system.

If the Liberals are not to blame and shouldn't be held responsible for what is wrong with it, who is?

"The System," is a non-answer... the system does not run or fix itself.

Cassels speach was cancelled " in the interest of presenting a balanced viewpoint" says a Ministry spokesperson. Since when has this government ever been interested in a balanced viewpoint? I'm wondering if they have a swamp for sale. I'd like to buy it.

What is it with Canadians and health care! The left wing has somehow framed this debate so that ANYTHING private is bad. Delivering the best healthcare reasonably possible is now a secondary issue in this public versus private debate. What a bizarre concept. Rationalism and logic has been thrown out the window in favour of this emotional argument that public delivery of healthcare services is the only solution. Bull! The private sector does many things better (and cheaper) than the public sector as we all know. There is lots of room in the healthcare system for improvement and it is time to figure out which parts of the current public system need to be thrown out and rebuilt. Yet every time such a debate starts it is attacked with "private sector firms only care about profits and stockholders blah blah blah". Left wing rhetoric designed to ensure nothing changes. The Left seems more interested in protecting union jobs than fixing healthcare and improving the system. It’s sick. It’s disgusting.

As for Andrew McLeod's article it is a bunch of innuendo and exaggerated problems. So the government postponed a speaker. Big f*@&!*% deal. So what. And is MacLeod really suggesting Pfizer and other pharma companies did not speak to the NDP when they were in power?! Get real. And don't you think the health care administrators will find out this Cassels’ information elsewhere?! Cassels lives in Victoria after all. Plus there are plenty of other anti-P3, anti-change academics around spouting their jive. Access to information is not the problem, dogmatic policies committed to public-only solutions is what is screwing up the system. That has gone on for too long. We need our healthcare administrators hearing some new voices and opinions. Not the same old crap from guys like Cassels stating the private sector is evil.

Its because their argument is so weak even one knowledgeable speaker could swing the "conversation" against them.

Somehow I doubt they're interested in balance when talking with like-minded souls.

If the Liberals are not to blame and shouldn't be held responsible for what is wrong with it, who is?

"The System," is a non-answer... the system does not run or fix itself.

Of course the BC Liberals are not to blame. We have one of the best dismal health-care systems in this country. The Liberals have increased funding, which has done little to help.

Nobody is to blame. We are struggling with an outdated fully public, publicly funded health-care system - which was initiated when the majority of the population was in their 20's-30's are fairly healthy.

Change is facing some headwinds, but the erosion of the system as it currently stands is obvious. Our head dr. believes in private delivery, most levels of government throughout this country agree.

Finally, the majority of citizens polled agree. It is inevitable.

What is it with Canadians and health care! The right wing has somehow framed this debate so that ANYTHING public is bad. Delivering the best healthcare reasonably possible is now a secondary issue in this public versus private debate. What a bizarre concept. Rationalism and logic has been thrown out the window in favour of this emotional argument that private delivery of healthcare services is the only solution. Bull! The public sector does many things better (and cheaper) than the private sector as we all know. There is lots of room in the healthcare system for improvement and it is time to figure out which parts of the current private system need to be thrown out and rebuilt. Yet every time such a debate starts it is attacked with "public sector uniions only care about themselves blah blah blah". Right wing rhetoric designed to ensure nothing changes. The Right seems more interested in protecting its investments than fixing healthcare and improving the system. It’s sick. It’s disgusting.

Unfortunately we have the current public system because the previous private system was widely regarded as a failure. And back then we were even younger.

Also, the private parts of the current system is where many of the biggest cost pressures come from. Perhaps the answer is more public and less private. But for some reason Campbell doesn't want to have that "conversation".

I was raised with Blue Cross covering my medical needs in Alberta. My parents had five children. There were many doctors visits ( at home ) and trips to the hospital. My Dad payed for private insurance. It was not a huge burden.
His taxes were lower, that payed for Blue Cross.
I would guess that 70% of what we pay in taxes goes towards health care. I understand that Canada spends 120 billion a year for healthcare. That's a lot of money.

It is a lot of money Ron and that's one of the reasons why its such an important subject. The big one obviously being our health.

But 70% of our taxes do not go to health care. As Cap pointed out, less than half of even our provincial taxes go towards it and as we know the federal health burden is only a fraction of the provincial one and we pay more federal taxes than we do provincial. I can dig up the actual percentage of all our taxes that goes to health care later if you like.

As for the old days. There were lots of people happy with the private system and lots of people unhappy with it. When the country was having bad times is when even regular hard working joes couldn't afford to get care for their kids and that's when the private system lost its untouchable status and when many people demanded that somebody (government) do something. Unfortunately the people who remember how bad it was are dying off now.

Cute verso, but do you have an opinion on anything? You seem to be smart-ass sniping and fairly slippery. What's your 2 cents on the debate?

Here are some interesting figures to wrap your head around:
#1 United States $2,580.00 per capita
#2 Switzerland $1,429.00 per capita
#3 Netherlands $729.00 per capita
#4 Canada $709.00 per capita
#5 Germany $685.00 per capita
#6 Austria $655.00 per capita
#7 Belgium $652.00 per capita
#8 Greece $622.00 per capita
#9 Australia $611.00 per capita
#10 France $564.00 per capita
This is the dollar figure of the amount of private funds going into health care expenditures in those respective countries. Interestingly enough, the US also spends more public dollars than Canada (per capita) to keep their lumbering pharmaceutical industry-catering health care system hooked up to a life support system. I actually know how the pharmaceutical companies operate - because I was thoroughly courted to join their workforce as a young biotech scientist in the making. Cassel is one of the few people who know that "diseasifying" sells - prozac, vioxx, viagra, HRT, metforin, statins, tamiflu.... I've sat through seminars teaching us how to "repackage" old drugs for new uses so we don't need to go through the FDA to let them hit the shelves - and there is surprisingly little efficacy in the drug treatment itself. For example - statins (which are over a billion dollar industry in the US) actually only help 30% of the people taking them - who knew? The side effects stink - but the drug itself is no better than a placebo for 70% of the population, and it is 100 times worse in terms of detrimental side effects. Only a fool would want to put their lives in the hands of an industry who profits from their illness.

It wasn't meant to be cute but to show there is rhetoric on both sides of the debate...

I don't have the answers, I'm not an expert in the field. However, IMO, there's a roll for the private sector, we have it now with doctors... but that roll can't be at the expense of equal access (eg: the recent MRI fiasco).

There are some new things being tried in the public system that are resulting in quicker treatment... see here:

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=1425

I believe there are efficiencies that can be made with in the system as it is now. Talk to be people in the field, they'll tell you where they are...

Like I said, I don't have all the answers but I don't like what I see south of the border... where the wealthy get gold plated health care and the poor get sub-standard, if any care at all. That's my motivation for questioning those who advocate for more private involvement

Quebec also has done very well in making changes within the public sphere to the point they wiped out a year+ long waiting list for eye surgery and are now advertising for patients. All they did was set aside OR space and people to do nothing but eye surgeries.

I'm sure there's lots of other efficiencies that can be realized without throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

And like it or not this is where the private-side has to do better. We've had a private system in the past, we spend lots of money on private providers now and we have the US private system right next door.

With all that knowledge its not enough to say let's try the private side. We don't need to, we can already see it. If there's private-side ideas that haven't been tried in the US or Canada then by all means put them forward for debate. Because simply attacking the public side is not going to win the hearts and minds of people scared of US bankruptcy rates.

And with that, cappy has lost what shred of moral fiber he may had actually had.

Interesting post Avicenna, thanks.

ubiquitous:

pharmaceutical companies have provided drugs and medical techniques that have cured forms of cancer, prolonged the life of AIDS patients, helped us with our common colds, flus and headaches. They've prevented blindness, mimimized pain and even returned the erection to the old married guy (not me though, yet!)

I believe in them because they create jobs for bright minds, pay their shareholders and do most of it without any public funding whatsoever.

I have plenty of moral fiber. This system (though not perfect) has created more innovation, drugs and cures than any other. You take away the profiteering, and you have nothing at all.

I am not sure when (or if) you will ever understand this.

Point taken Capitalism but Avicenna's post points out the darker side of a private pharma industry - the one where medical problems are manufactured and a cure is sold (including the ubiquitous 'anal leakage' side effect). In my opinion, the pharma industry is less interested in curing deseases such as cancer because a cancer cure would lower profits - I feel that they are more interested in providing hard ons for old men.

verso - I'm happy you can appreciate it, unfortunately, capitalism hasn't figured out that time is the only cure for the common cold as of yet - and it is entirely up to him if he rather spend his savings while killing time, but I hope he doesn't insist on company.

Excellent post, Avicenna. Cassels is tops. I've got his article in Common Ground magazine (Jan. 2006) in front of me where he deconstructs the efficacy of flu vaccines entitled: "It's flu season: Randomize before you immunize."

Interesting: Cassels found that regardless of industry claims
that the vaccine offers "70 to 90% protection," in reality, the vaccines lowered clinical influenza by only 6%.

Of course, the average person would have no idea that the 70 to 90 percent refers only to the percentage of times that the vaccine triggered an antibody response.

But does an antibody response equal "protection?" I don't think so.

As I have been trying to tell everybody on this forum many times regarding HIV antigen-antibody reaction:
THE EXISTENCE OF ANTIBODIES IS NOT A DEPENDABLE INDICATOR OF HEALTH OR DISEASE, but only that the immune system has reacted to antigens or antigen-like substances.

As Cassels, writes, the existence of antibodies in 70 to 90% of vaccine treatment means very little when compared to actual presentation of illness.

And this is just one of the many ways the pharmaceuticals use numbers to present a questionable conclusion about the efficacy of their endless products.

Avicenna's post regarding statins is another.

So when you see any of those emerging ads on American tv with smiling teenage "know it alls" and housewife geniuses advising you to "ask your doctor about...," my advice is: DON'T.

If your doctor doesn't know how best to treat you, get another doctor.

Image the Pharmies trying to do an end run around doctors by appealing directly to patients, who usually know absolutely nothing about medical science.

Don't get me started!

Also, Avicenna, you might know something about this:

I'm trying to figure out if it is true that cancer biopsies might actually CAUSE metastasis by causing malignant cells to leave the area of the biopsy and to enter surrounding tissue or the bloodstream thereby being delivered throughout the entire body, or at least to specific organs which would have remained cancer-free if the biopsy had not been done.

I'm looking at biopsies in prostate cancer in particular--especially becauses many men are known to live many years with slow-growing prostate cancer as long as it does not leave the prostate gland--but I believe this problem might exist regarding other cancers as well.

Anybody have any information on this?

The whole debate over public / private healthcare delves straight to the heart of the Canadian identity.

If we can agree that healthcare is not something that you can ascribe a bottom line to - the economist's preferred choice - than we have to look at Canada in its historical position as a socialist democracy. By privatizing healthcare, and placing a profit motive on services and delivery, we are moving the Canadian identity itself away from a socialist to 'free market' capitalist state.

I realize Canada is already a rampant capitalist state, but with regards to the social safety net and health care, we like to consider ourselves socialist and pay considerable tax dollars to do so.

The whole debate over public / private healthcare needs to be addressed not from a position of profit motive influenced by multinational pharma co's & their lobbyists. This is a decision Canadians have to make.

As for Big Pharma having an interest in keeping us all on pills... the word 'obviously' comes to mind. Lower back pain? don't stretch or do yoga/exercise, take this pill... until it hurts again, then take another... anon$$$$$$$$$.

Big Pharma has no interest in cause prevention, only in symptom mitigation.

As for demand on our healthcare system, I'm with Grumpy. 20 years ago a knee injury meant serious surgery, and lots of in-hospital recuperation. Maybe you could walk, but you'd never run again, so you elected not to submit yourself to serious surgery. Now, you can be in & out in an afternoon & doing a 5K two weeks later. Surprize! more people are electing to have those elective surgeries and it's packing up the operating rooms. This is where private clinics - paid for via public MSP - can aide our public system, and already do.

Thanks Truman. This is exactly why the health profession needs to remain regulated and in the public realm. Your average person does not have the know-how to make the best choices when it comes to health care - and a private pharma isn't going to give you all of the information that you would need to make a good, informed decision. Externalities! I've tried to remind cappy of this very basic economic principle, but I suspect that he was dreaming up a way to beat the slots during that lecture in ECON101.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't public health (which is to say a healthy public) be bad for biz?

I would expect that when a healthy diet, lots of exercise, and a balanced approach to living can be commodified and packaged for profit we will see health-care providing corporations jump right in. Until then, treating the symptoms of the sick will be much more profitable than keeping people healthy by most accounts.

Also, with regard to the little blue pill... if you can't get it up it's OK to just take some Viagra. Hmmm, Capitalism, aren't you usually criticizing drug addicts (in other threads) for not dealing with the root (pardon the pun) of the problem. How is a man relying on drugs for an erection (and its subsequent happy pay-off) any different from a person relying on some other drug to achieve a few moments of bliss. I think there might be a double standard at work there.

So do the Cosa Nostra, Hells Angels, and Hollywood to name just a few. Those three things don't automatically translate into the public good.

Stump:

When people start dying, getting diseases, becoming impoverished, looting, vandalizing and creating misery for all of those around them, in the name of Viagra - we can have that discussion.

Really?
Check out what Cuba is doing in that field,You will be surprised!

"The current system is a laughing stock. It takes months to get simple surgery, where in the US - you get treated the day you walk in those doors."

True but it will also cost you tens if not thousands of dollars, or hundreds of dollars in insurance premiums a month, and then you get to fight the insurance companies for months...I much prefer our system.

If Cassels thinks this frames the debate he's already missed the boat.

Brian, any idea how much our system costs you? By my calculation it costs my family about fifteen hundered dollars a month in premiums and taxes....

More a function of the laws that proscribe some substances and not others (and open the door to profiteering by a criminal element) IMO.

Only people in BC and Alberta pay premiums NLN, unless some other province has jumped onboard.

And since the average wage in Canada for a single earner family is around $50,000 its pretty clear many people can't afford the amount of health insurance they'd need for their family.

A little bit of health insurance is just a waste of money since if anything does happen you'll disocver you're not covered and be looking at bankruptcy.

Why do some Canadians think that the American way is always best? There have been numerous studies done that indicate that British Columbians are among the healthest in the world. Research also shows that our health care system is much cheaper than in the United States. So why would anyone, other than the super rich, want to adopt the American way where over half the population doesn't have health insurance? Even most Americans would benefit having a Canadian-style health care system. Only corporate America is preventing that from happening. If wealthy Canadians want American-style health care they should go to America.

Nonutsleft
You still don't know anything about the health system - It's been at least 8 months since you said you came here to learn. Instead you're still posting the evidence that you haven't got a clue. Are you trying out for Ron Erwin's mantle?

The folks that talk the loudest about how the present health care system is no good, possibly didn't remember the bad old days where each province had a different system and when moving between the provinces you had to make sure you signed on to the new one. We got stuck once and I had to get a extra job to pay for the birth of our youngest. But if Gordon wants to talk to people why not the writer of this article? Gordon took a ADM to Europe to get some opinions. never quite got around to telling the folks who paid for the trip( us) just what he found out, if anything. The opposition has a critic, it stands to reason that he should be involved in the talking to the citizens events. And just because a fellow happens to have some ideas different than those pushed by the Premier doesn't mean he knows nothing. Methinks he knows too much and they are afraid of being out done. and for those who think the US system is just dandy ask yourself why so many US citizens fill up the ferry to Victoria to buy prescription drugs made for Canadians. Too expensive in the states, that's why. A hip replacemtn in the good old US of A can be done within a few days if you have enough money, if you don't. learn not to use the one you have.

Capitalism
SO the Viagra didn't work for you! That's too bad, have you tried the Cialis?

IAMC/ ROn Erwin says

.

SO that's what your problem is!!!

I am fed up with allllll you left wingers decididing where MY money goes.
I am in control, not you and the government. Leave me alone to die under the Johnson Street Bridge.
Go away, leave me alone to decide where my hard earned money is spent.
I will be able to decide these things in the near future, so piss up a rope you socialists.

Tyee editor, please note the above post by IAMC. It is clearly not within the parameters of appropriate posting etiquette and the posting guidelines of this site.

Hey Avicenna, you saying that the United States'ers pay more than three times as much as the Canucks? And they still have more people without health care than there are citizens in my favourate country (you guessed it Canada)?
WTF??? Stop! listen, whats that sound ...

G West, you are a wimp. Mommy isn't going to help you. You may have to help yourself.
I am a self avowed Libertarian. I am not presenting an objectionable viewpoint.
You are out to lunch buddy.
Cry to momma, you coward.
I am sure that I will gain support for my argument against you.
Cry to thetyee.ca all you want. I don't fear your influence.
I laugh at you.

Last week you were a self-avowed conservative.
Now you're living under the johnson street bridge.
I think I'll look you up and you'll find out how much of a coward I am.

He who laughs last seldom gets the point anyway.

IAMC/Ron Erwin:

This:

is what you wrote (emphasis mine).

I find it offensive. Very offensive. Not too mention its ad hominem characterization of an identifiable group of people.

I think it is presenting an objectionable viewpoint; in fact, that's about all you ever do is post objectionable viewpoints and I think, in keeping with the principles of this site, that your posts require heavy and consistent redaction. I will keep pointing it out until you stop of someone in authority takes you to task.

Rules aren't fair if they aren't applied with equity to everyone.

Do you understand?

Sorry, G. West, but socialists aren't necessarily identifiable, eh.

Oh yes they are!

Just like anti-Semites, eh!

So G West doesn't hope for free speech. But what does redaction mean?
Aren't you the authority G? You seem to think you run this site. I sure know I don't. The Tyee is a free exchange of ideas. I'm on the right and you are on the left.
I am sure there is room for both of us in this world.

IAMC/Ron Erwin
You're not the only fish in the sea. What I'm writing isn't just meant for you, Ron.

I'm making a point to others, behind the scenes.

I can take anything you can dish out Ron - some others don't seem to feel the same way - you just happen to be a convenient exemplar.

As for 'redaction' - look it up. I'm not your dictionary.

I'm not an authority at all - I'm busy questioning authority, as always. I know you won't understand, but believe me, others do!

Aye, Lefty, not only do both the public and private sectors in the U.S. spend a heck of a lot more for their pitiful health care (not that it appears to be making anyone there healthier - quite the contrary), but the growth of health expenditure per year outstrips Canada as well (the U.S. has an increased average cost of about 3.2-3.5%/year whereas Canada's health care cost growth is about 1.8%). Best of luck to them, with war, global monopolization, outsourcing of cheap labour, and environmental disasters wacking them from behind - the U.S. is the lumbering shadow above our heads with a cry echoing from behind shouting a warning of "Lumbar!". And the bigger they are, the harder they fall - and Canada better not be the stupid rodent the fat cat falls on.

Truman - in regards to diagnostic tests having the potential to increase the rate of cancer growth - it depends. Any invasive surgery (inclusive of biopsies) increase inflammation in that area - and we know that inflammation can "feed" cancer cells growth factors and provide them with nutrient rich blood to support their growth. So, in a person susceptible for a certain kind of cancer - such aggravation may propel a static cell into active growth - thereby increasing metastatic potential. We also know diagnostic procedures such as x-rays also increase a person's risk for developing cancer - so it is a balancing act of pros and cons. What is lamentable is the fact that the basis of medicine espousing the concept of "First do no harm" is firmly kicked and stomped upon thoroughly by our "modern" medicine and its drug trade pimp.

G. West, whadya mean, "just like anti-semites?" I don't get it.

Truman, cast your mind back a few weeks to an incident of selective redaction. If you need to refresh your memory just check the two most recent stories (and their comments thread) about 'lessons' and 'nerve wracking' - you're a clever guy, you'll figure it out.

And Ron, if you're still out there you might be interested in Paul Krugman's Op Ed in tomorrow's NYTimes. He has something to say about your beloved Blue Cross.

I'll just post the first few paras:

“When Steve and Leslie Shaeffer’s daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs.” But “shortly after Selah’s medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively.”

So begins a recent report in The Los Angeles Times titled “Sick but Insured? Think Again,” which offers a series of similar horror stories, and suggests that these stories represent a growing trend: more and more health insurers are finding ways to yank your insurance when you get sick.

This trend helps explain something that has been puzzling me: why is the health insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing?

Now we know at least part of the answer: they’re working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don’t get it. In the past, they mainly concentrated on screening out applicants likely to get sick. Now, it seems, they’re also devoting a lot of effort to finding pretexts for revoking insurance after they’ve already granted it. They typically do this by claiming that they weren’t notified about some pre-existing condition, even if the insured wasn’t aware of that condition when he or she bought the policy.

Welcome to the ugly world of American health care economics.

G. West, I remember the thread, but you just used 44 words telling me how to figure out what you mean when you could have just told me. How sensible is that?

This is when you know you have touched a nerve with a Liberal Party hack, probably some Liberal riding association fart catcher....

Passaglia writes...

Fact:

This is fiction. All in all, about 20% of the markets in the bio tech's and mining are real. The other 80% are fakes. What are they faking for? The money. Don't kid yourself, one who professes to know what your name tag represents.

Bio techs on the whole are more interested in money than health 4 out of 5 times, and the same goes for the banks that give them the "Capital" to farm the masses with more money spent advertizing and brain washing than they do trying to serve humanity. Ultimately, Capitalism, 4 out of 5 are like pigs at the trough, serving only themselves.

More fiction. The current public system was initially designed to regulate or control the top end of the incomes of private doctors who, like a good chunk of the same greedy doctors that end up as CEO's in the markets, pass on their private billing directly to the consumer, much like the same system the U.S. has today.

More fiction. Its not a catch 22. Better health means cheaper costs... a complete shift from greed driven by supply (sickness) and demand (exploitation of ignorance/damage control), to health and enlightenment. Unfortunately, we would have to take the U.S.'s number one economic sector on and thats the food and drug manufacturers of which, our politicians have become their lobbiests and the media, their PR.

There's no more need for experiments, the juries already in. For profit healthcare doesn't work. Far to much greed.

I'm looking at biopsies in prostate cancer in particular--especially becauses many men are known to live many years with slow-growing prostate cancer as long as it does not leave the prostate gland--but I believe this problem might exist regarding other cancers as well.

Anybody have any information on this? -
Truman

Yah... Normally, once testing has concluded that there is a chance of cancer in the prostate, surgeons say is there of cancer spreading with the use of biopsies. Unfortunately, my memory doesn't serve me as to what the percentages of risk are, or whether or not there is a claimed risk with all biopses in general without a phone call to confirm. The best person to ask with this one is a surgeon.

You probably know the rest.

Most prostate cancers are slow growing. The five year survival rate for localized cancer is good news – 100 percent. However, after five years, the survival rate gradually declines to 52 percent at ten years but these stats don't account for the fact that most men who die from slow growth prostate cancers die in their 70's and 80's.

Increased levels of testosterone with men who have prostate cancer is argued to increase the rate of cancer cell growth due to what testosterone does… increase muscle mass and cellular growth and repair overall.

In other words, raising free testosterone levels with synthetic testosterone therapy, or restoring natural free testosterone levels to more youthful levels, can also accelerate cancer cell growth, but this also means that getting healthy and restoring youthful levels of free testosterone, while inhibiting the production of estrogen, also speeds cancer cell growth… and this is where the male body enters a paradox, of sorts.

Similarly, a man who does nothing with BPH or prostate cancer in terms of reducing estrogen levels, further damages the prostate tissues with elevated estrogen levels over time. As the ratio of estrogen to testosterone levels increase, prostate problems continue to escalate. When estrogen breaks down, it produces 4-hydroxy estradiol, which acts as destructive free radicals in the prostate, and here, we have our paradox. Increase levels of free testosterone, and cancer cell growth accelerates. Do nothing in terms of diet or reducing estrogen levels, and the prostate tissues continue to become more damaged.

Cont.
A highly concentrated extract from the nettle root (Urtica dioica) provides a unique mechanism for increasing levels of free testosterone. The prostate gland also benefits from nettle root. For 30 years, nettle root has been used in Germany as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), known as enlargement of the prostate gland. A metablolite of testosterone called dihydrotestosterone (DHT) stimulates prostate growth, leading to enlargement.

Nettle root inhibits the binding of DHT to attachment sites on the prostate membrane. Nettle root extracts also inhibit enzymes such as 5 – alpha – reductase that caused testosterone to convert to DHT. It is the DHT metabolite of testosterone that is known to cause benign prostate enlargement, excess facial hair and hair loss at the top of the head in males. The three herbal recommendations that are 80% effective with the complete reduction of BHT are:
Stinging Nettle root extract (Urtica dioica) 300 mg
Pygeum Africanum (Prunus Africana) 125 mg
Saw palmetto berries 450 mg
Chinese Licorice 225 mg
Corn silk 480 mg
Zinc (with copper, as copper can become depleted with Zinc supplements)
Vitamin E (natural gamma topicoferols)
Standardized USP progesterone cream (natural source)

Natural progesterone creams are also excellent boosters of free testosterone. Progesterone is one of the two most important hormones in your body. It is a natural energizer and antidepressant, and optimizes your libido and is a precursor for estrogen, testosterone, cortisone, aldosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone or DHEA – the second most important hormone. It is the only replacement hormone that does not suppress or turn “off” the body’s own hormonal production of the same hormone.

DHEA is the most abundant steroid hormone produced by a man’s body in the adrenal glands. The average male synthesizes between 25 and 30 mg each day. The second most abundant steroid hormone is cortisol, which is synthesized at the rate of 10 to 20mg every day. If stress is higher, then cortisol output is higher.
Your body makes more DHEA because it inhibits excessive cortisol action by binding it to its receptors. Therefore, if DHEA levels decline, there is no “braking action” to “turn off” the excess cortisol, which literally destroys your brain, heart, arteries and muscle tissue. As discussed, progesterone raises DHEA levels and may also increase testosterone production. Men who take progesterone cream should take, daily, the herbal extract combination of Pygeum Africanum, Saw Palmetto berries, Stinging Nettle, Chinese licorice and Corn silk to protect the prostate from BPH and higher free testosterone levels… and here, too, is a contradiction. The healthiest 100 year olds have DHEA levels at, or near youthful levels… but lets face it… healthy centurions are doing more than one thing right.

Obvious foods to avoid for men with prostate cancer are red meats and commercially raised meat and dairy products (as they contain PBC’s and growth hormones), along with acid forming foods. Foods to load up on are Lycopene containing foods such as tomatoes, watermelons, grapefruit and papaya (notice the reds), as well as the cancer fighting DIM vegetables (Idoles, diindolylmethane) of Broccoli sprouts, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale, Swiss chard, cabbage, cauliflower, arugula, and watercress.

As for the rest, the hormonal links and causual effectuals, the effects PCB's have, along with chronic periods of weight gain and obesity, and the various variables to consider, namely age, diet and detox for the breakdown, elimination and buildup of the body for health overall, well, I would need a bit more room. :-)

I dunno Truman, you asked the question - I'm a lot less prolix than many around here so I'll leave it at that. 44 words is pretty lean imo. Besides, I always assume others are reading this who may not have the background.

Please stop picking on clueless his sniveling, whining and stamping his feet is lowering the level of intellect on this thread.

Please stop picking on clueless his sniveling, whining and stamping his feet is lowering the level of intellect on this thread.

I enjoy watching IAMC flame out... there's nothing better than watching an opposing poster discredit him/herself.

I believe this story was about a fellow being cancelled from a appearanc on health issues. Ithas now degenerated to name calling by a couple of scribes, between name calling and anti semite comments. Could you maybe sor of sick to the subject in hand or take a break from your telling us you live under a bridge or lived in Alberta and on and on. Mind you maybe the story has played itself out and if so, move along

I think I've figured out your schtick - 50 years ago you couldn't spell intellektooal and now you want to be one.

Or, do you only care to discuss facts when it suits you, and the rest of the time pass your left wing gas?

Or, do you only

G West,

What I meant to say that I am not the married guy using Viagara. I haven't needed it, or Cialis........yet!

The left cries wolf again. This Cassels thing seems like a non-story yet here we go. Lefties yelling about how the Canadian healthcare system is about to be transformed into the US model. This left wing smoke screen stagnates rational discussion on how we can fix our health system. We all know it has problems, we all know the US system is NOT the answer, we all know SOME type of private sector involvement will improve things, we all know the unions will fight like hell to stop ALL private sector involvement. We need to figure out where the private sector can help (and where it can't). Having a zero-tolerance approach to private sector involvement is not sustainable. When all those baby-boomers show up for hip transplants our system will collapse (or wait lists will explode). That's my 2 cents.

As for Cassels, it is obvious to most practitioners in the health care sector how big pharma is pushing new drugs that offer nothing new with no material improvement in health (hence reference drug pricing). It's Old Skool. Selling Sickness is a newer phenomenon however I think it is also common knowledge within the healthcare sector. I knew of it years ago when I was dabbling in that sector (and yes, it is evil). This seems to be example of The Tyee trying to stoke the fires of its Lefty readers into thinking the government is involved in a cover-up to protect its Big Pharma funders. That’s fair game I suppose, it is what The Tyee is supposed to do.

And no Asher, I'm not a card-carrying Liberal. I vote for people, not parties and thus I’ve been all over the map.

Passaglia, the Cassels "thing" is not a "non-story."

Pharmacare employees invited Mr. Cassels to speak; the Minister cancelled the engagement.

That's a story, and thanks to Andrew McLeod for doing it.

Passaglias Left Foot
Your post above makes several unsupported contentions or claims that I suspect are untrue.

Could you provide any evidence - other than your opinion for any of the following:

If you can support those points with evidence instead of your own opinions, which are, in their present form next to useless, we might actually have something to discuss.

In the meantime, I won't be holding my breath.

In fact, all you've really done is reveal your prejudices and ad hominem assumptions about people you don't agree with.

Not much to go on I'm afraid.

I have been absent from this thread for too long. I need to defend myself.
Or do I? Well G West is quoting the NYT, so I guess I need to pipe up with a negative statement about this particular publication that featured Abu Grabe on the FRONT PAGE for sixty days leading up to the 2004 US election.
Ha! it didn't work. Nice try losers.

NO you haven't!
Nobody missed you, so take a hint

Thanks for your kind words " alive ", are you looking forward to the NASCAR race this weekend?

Okay Alcibiades you asked to be schooled. Here goes. In my rant above the list breaks down as follows:
- items 1 & 2 are self-evident (just take a look at the prior rants from left wingers posting to this site).
- items 3 - why we don't want a US-style system is also easy: nobody wants to see a family financially wiped out by a disease. Sure we can quibble over paying user fees or prescription charges, but the big stuff must be covered by our social safety net (we are running a civilized country after all and our ancestors pillaged and stole the best country on the planet which is now being directed to the needs of only 32 million people....but I digress).
- item 4 - private sector involvement - is also pretty self-evident. Again, I'd like to see a rational discussion and review of the role of the private sector. The private sector delivers dental work, why not some other specialized health services? Do we really need all those non-medical support staff at hospitals on the government payroll? Show me I’m wrong.
- item 5 - okay I was a little rough on unions. I admit it.
- items 6 - obvious - we need to figure out where the private sector can help (presumably this was the assumption of whoever cancelled Cassels' presentation - health administrators already know his pro-public pitch, they should be hearing new voices proposing more radical thinking).
- the zero-tolerance status of private sector involvement in Canada's health care system is a big problem. The CBC's constant suffocation of any public debate on the matter isn't helping. The Canadian public has been brain-washed into thinking any private sector involvement in healthcare is the root of all evil. That is perhaps my biggest beef in this whole discussion. Fortunately even federal Liberals are starting to come around on this issue. We might see a change after all.
- item 8 - do you disagree the baby-boomers are going to break the system? C'mon. Baby-boomers are like a plague of locusts - they lay waste to everything in their path. Our healthcare system will be swamped by them in their retirement. (Hmm, I think I might have been a little rough on those poor old boomers here....oh well, I blame the gin I was sipping earlier).

So there you go. Now, show me I'm wrong.

PS Alcibiades. Interesting choice of handle. “…Alcibiades changed his allegiance on several occasions. He favored unconventional tactics, frequently winning cities over by treachery…” Are you really a Federal Liberal? :-)

You're wrong. All I have time for this morning:

1 & 2 - Most of the name-calling here starts with the right; the left is full of new ideas and if you'd read the Romanow Report you'd know why.

3 Health is a basic social need; it applies equally, as does illness, to rich and poor alike - therefore it is a good which should be paid for by the collective. It can't just be allocated according to who has the dollars and when. Even need for health services varies over an individuals life - consequently, like the rule of law, it is only meaningful and useful if it is equitable. Therefore it must be paid for out of the collective 'public purse'. The problem is management and fair allocation of scarce resources.

Dental services - especially with children would end up being cheaper and less problematic if they were public services too. The comparison is invidious.

The public system is already cheaper and much more efficient (with some notable elective surgery exceptions) without private profit. Why introduce other levels of cost and inefficiency to make profit possible for corporate entities.

Doctors are, in the main, private operators now and are doing very well thank you.

Thanks for admitting the union point was a dead letter.

The CBC is far from perfect; it's being strangled in several different ways but it is far more independent and open to debate than any of the private networks - as you must know if you watch any of it.

The public is not brainwashed. The public has a good memory and it can see what profit-oriented health care results in the US.

Your comment about baby-boomers is simply nonsense and I won't justify it with a response - as you obviously know.

Proving that for-profit health care is a disaster is simple - just look at the 41 million Americans who have no health insurance.

No political affiliation. The problem with googling someone like Alcibiades is that you don't get the whole picture that way. A very complicated character. You should read his dialogues if you're interested.

We dilute and/or surrender our current system of universal single-payer health care at our peril. It certainly needs improvement but permitting some private operators to start to skim the cream from the system by entering into specific areas of practice will be a disaster.

I know very well a Canadian and US board certified radiological specialist who tells me that error rates at private US radiology firms are more than 2 or 3 times that of the error rates in Canadian hospitals. This is just one example. There are dozens of others. To say nothing of the over-utilization of diagnostic services. One might have expected the reciprocal of this to be the case Canada using too many unnecessary tests; in fact, where it happens is in private, for-profit medicine and not in the public system.

I always find with much amusement, the "righties" always screaming about open and fair health care, as long as we pay lots. Let them pay for the private insurances, allowing us "lefties" to remain in good health under the public system. Listen to gordo (a convicted user), we will be all fit, and drunk and compulsive gamblers. Go ask the holiday boy, sober him up . alls well in his dream world.

Passaglias Left Foot you and your long winded usless rants against the Left is just showing your Lop-Sided views!
The fact is Campbell should be in jail with a rest of his cabell of lying cheating little yes boys and girls along with their CanWest rag!
legislature raids, Basi BC Rail, BC Ferries, Kinder Morgans Clear cutting prime forests mention in the CanWest Fiberal rag.

Winter Olympics 2010 is two billion over budget already with a little over three years left?
I personally think there should be a referendum on the 2010 Winter Olympics as I've talked to many people and 90 percent said they can't afford to go there!
The Sea to Sky Highway Is Being Built Just for the Rich so they can get back and forth to Whistler (as Whistler has been bought up by a New York Corp.)after the two-week Olympics. What a shameless grand theft of public Our the Taxpayer the Working Poor Hard Earned Dollars!
We are all sheeple if we let this go through without an extreme backlash against this
Campbell should be putting money into affordable housing, hospitals, schools, after school activities for all ages!

I partially agree Alcibiades, as you state "The problem is management and fair allocation of scarce resources." We simply disagree on how best to manage the system. The left wants 100% public ownership of all dimensions of healthcare (not only front-line staff but also cleaners, kitchen staff, security, lab testing, etc. etc.). The right believes the private sector can provide many (but not all) of these functions better and cheaper. My point is that it is impossible to even have this debate because the left wing has effectively demonized and brain-washed the Canadian public into believing any time profit is involved in healthcare the outcome can only be bad. Your earlier paragraph has a whiff of this tone with those quasi-intellectual, quasi-philosophical comments on equality and a comparison of healthcare services with the rule of law. Were you also drinking gin this morning?

If the 100% public system is so great then don't be so afraid to have this debate and perform a review of services. Simple. Some things will stay public, other can be improved with private sector involvement. It is so obvious yet people around here get incredibly upset at even the suggestion.

Passaglias's left foot, G West, an interesting debate is developing between you both, if you don't mind a couple thousand words from me on the subject...

You've brought up some good points, left foot, that I'd love to address.

Points 1 & 2:
Are lefty rants an offensive, or a counter to right rants? I'm leaning to the left in terms of counters, here, and intitial tone does set the tone for counters, do they not?

An excellent point!!! Will Canada have a social safety net for the big stuff without public health care? Not without health insurance, you won't, and thats if the insurance company will cover you. What we will have if we go all private is this:

- no money, no coverage. A distinct separation of the class's in terms of the haves and have nots with health care.
- U.S. insurance companies coming into Canada by the droves. Who really wants the public healthcare system to go away besides Harper and his beloved NCC? U.S. insurance companies!!! Who else?
- 41 million U.S. citizens are without healthcare insurance? How about the 100 million or so that think they are insured until the "big stuff" happens, only to find out that their insurance company leaves them high and dry. If we want HALF of our population to foot the bill, which they can't do, to survive in the hospital, then get rid of public health care and say hello to the prestige of the all mighty dollar.

I would like to see a rational discussion on this one myself. Out of the 132 billion spent on public healthcare in 2005, approx. 30% of the spending was private. What comprises private healthcare spending is:

- doctor fee's and salaries.
- dentistry
- optomistry
- blood work and clinical testing
- naturalpathy and diet
- elderly and home care etc.

Public spending deals specifically with hospital staff payrolls (specifically nurses salaries), hospital budgets, prescription subsidies and all expenses related to patient billing that the public health care system covers. While some like left footer will argue that our payroll costs are too high to do the menials like building upkeep and changing sheets and bed pans, others will argue that its not enough. What decides payrolls shouldn't be the bottom line as much as it should be a good look at what the rest of the private sectors are doing with their payrolls. And in case we haven't noticed, they've gone up with the rest of the inflation driven tides of change. I liken this same arguement to that of people who think they can pay prison guards a minimum wage to save (or make) a lot of money... until they find out that no one in their right mind would do such jobs for such low pay. Again, this isn't the states where we have 15 million illegal immigrants to exploit.

We are led to believe that privatization of these expenditures in "for profit" hands will somehow deliver cheaper costs, while providing better services for our dollar. Think again. Look at what is private as opposed to public in this country and look one more time at what Business thinks it can improve on, while providing it more cheaply (to those who can afford it).

Cont.
There is a large (I say unjustified) expense dealing with administrative expenses that are on 3 levels (fed, provincial, hospital), sometimes 4 levels if one includes WCB claims. Multi level administrative costs lead to inefficiency and in some cases, crime within the system.

Since I'm an advocate of cheaper administrative costs, I believe we should cut out some un-needed administration costs, but keep (and perhaps for the first time enforce) the necessary regulation.

As it is now, the feds stroke the cheques to the provinces and the provinces spend as they see fit. Already, health costs change sometimes dramatically, depending on which province you live in, or what kind of health problems you might have. So I see a need for streamlined administrative costs, and universal reg's of coverage in this country, the second of which, we don't have in terms of expenditures passed on to the average Canadian. What we instead have, is provincial health taxation being pawned off as "insurance".

And if we think public healthcare should be done away with because of high administration costs or regulation loopholes, we can think again. Private means insurance administration costs which can become just as costly to the system, if not moreso.

Ultimately, and ideologically, it comes down to two forms of healthcare being the cheapest forms of all.

- Private. Pay as you go. No outside costs covered by anyone other than the patient, therefore, no extra administration costs. Downside, only for those who can afford it, only for treatment that is not considered essential or prioritized. Treatment's that are considered essential, cannot be overseered by standards set outside of the law.

- Public. Only one level of administration. Universal. Inclusive to the prioritized needs of patients.

Both have their pro's and cons, and explains to a large degree, why private healthcare is already here to the degree of approx. 30% in terms of expenditures. Pay as you go can only work for about 30% of today's afflictions.

We already know. Prevention? Not when its for profit. Who wants to bite the hand that feeds you. And will public healthcare take the torch of prevention? Not when there are so many biotech and private lobbiests for private healthcare in government. Left footer is just not getting how many pro lobbiests for full private healthcare there really are in this country. Left footer assumes that Cassels will actually at some point, have a chance to speak at all. And on this note, as Truman has mentioned, that is the story, to which, I might add, is well written and has the final point Cassels makes is worth a second read.

The left wants 100% public ownership of all dimensions of healthcare (not only front-line staff but also cleaners, kitchen staff, security, lab testing, etc. etc.). The right believes the private sector can provide many (but not all) of these functions better and cheaper.

That's a broad brush you paint with Passaglias... is this how you see things? So black and white? I won't speak for the right, but you really (mis)represent the left, at least from what I read here and in other forums. The left's view is much more varried than you care to admit.

ooops, please ignore the brackets in misrepresent

Do we need the therapies being currently recommended in the medical field? If I go to a surgeon, the surgeon will likely recommend surgury. If I go to a naturalpath, the naturalpath will recommend diet, herbs and time. If I go to a family doctor, the doctor will likely recommend drugs. It matters extensively what kind of service I will recieve, correct or not, depending on who I at first intitially see.

Since prevention and diet is low on the totem pole of priorities, (mainly becuase money can't easily be made from it) its not hard to see why the number one thing the patient has control of and effects the patients health and recovery as a whole, is so largely ignored. Cassels knows this well.

We already know. Private healthcare can theoretically "do it all"... except cover the expenses for half of the nation who can't afford to pay for expensive life saving treatments (largely assuming that cheap alternatives to the suggested expensive ones don't exist, which they often do as well)

To say that Canadians have zero tolerance for private healthcare is to label Canadians as fools. The public system will not cover specific needs of the public. Who else will cover those needs, other than private health care? In some ways, full on private for profit health care is the root of all evil. Who was it that said, "money is the root of all evil?" And when it comes down to private healthcare, trust me and any other Canadian with common sense, "its all about the money."

And with this, the notion to replace our system with that of the U.S.'s is ridiculous. And what is Campbell's goal along with Harpers? To do just that. I see that left footer has suffered by the hands of NCC propaganda as well with his bashing of the CBC.

Conclusions:

You think the next generation will do better?

In an age where we already know what human life potential is (120 years) and know why few of us get there, (environmental damage to DNA) even those who have substained premature aging from chronic timelines of acidosis and poor diet, malnutrition and obesity, the good news is that the answers do lie with prevention. Prevention is in itself, the cure we've been looking for. We've known of Free radical theory since the 50's and just started taking it seriously in the 70's. It's now 2006... when will the institutions of education, government, health, and finally common sense, start taking it seriously? When health becomes a greater priority than making money, that's when.

Meanwhile, our very food supply has been terribly comprimized, leading to exponuncial cancer growth in area's surrounding diet... prostate and ovarian cancers caused by PCB's, colon cancer caused by chronic food toxins and strong acids from processed foods (and gin) and on and on... they are leading the pack in terms of what kinds of cancers are accelerating.

Healthcare doesn't begin with patient care. It begins with whats on our dinner plates. It begins with the morals and goals we teach and instill within our children. We will see greed run rampant until it is countered with the good will of those who put health and the needs of ordinary people first.

To this end, we lack a provincial government in BC, or a federal government in Canada that has the morality or the goals that it takes to see the health care reforms needed, especially in terms of diet and prevention of disease, that we have now.

Where it stands now, is this. Consumer and buyer beware. Beware of what a degree as a family practitioner actually teaches the doctor. Beware of the nutritional requirements and needs of the human body, and be aware that true health and prevention of illness on all levels, physical, mental, emotional, begins at home.

For some reason, you don't seem to realize that healthcare in Canada is deemed as being an ESSENTIAL SERVICE, meaning that standards and regulations must be enforced on a broad scale to ensure quality care.

Now, without these same broad national standards being met, these same standards will fail more often than not, because the private sector to often decides not to pay, go broke, lower wages unfairly, treat their workers properly, little things that are the origins to the existence of organized labour and unions to begin with. In other words, unless you have the answer for corruption and poor leadership in the business world, unions are here to stay.

Belief and reality are often two very distinctively separate things. The reality is that All things can be bought in this world for a price. Choose very carefully what you buy...

And some of those things, the ones that are already free, are the most precious of them all. And when we try to put a price on it, the salts of India's sea, the love of a mother... lets just say LF, that believing it can be done and getting it done more cheaply traditionally has usually meant throughout the human walk through time, has meant turning free people into slaves to get it done, which has been the private sectors traditional approach to getting things done... without the pesky little unions and government regs and little things like that.

This is the most interesting thing you've said today. Especially after broad painting you're assumed version of Left/Right, you have just demonized the Left with such a false statement. The reason being, its because it not just any time profit is involved with healthcare, that it generally IS BAD.

Its only 4 out of 5 times!!! the markets speak for themselves. The one time where profits are justified not out of greed, but necessity (and some, like myself, Andrew Macleod, Avencenna, Truman and others would argue that these "necessities" are created by greed), is what pays off the losses the banks take on the 4 out of 5 HMO's who are frauds.

RE: Correction
Out of the 132 billion spent on public healthcare in 2005, approx. 30% of the spending was private. Should read, "With the 132 billion spent on public healthcare, a further approx. 30% amount of spending (40 billion) was on private healthcare.

Let us all remember: our very own, Mr. Campbell, went on an expensive European health-care fact-finding junket with a number of his budies - press in tow. You know, we are the stock holders in our own HMO (BC Med - or whatever they call it now) and Mr. Campbell, our CEO went on this trip. Shouldn't we demand a full report about the findings of that trip at our next board meeting? Oh, yeah, I forgot, our CEO cancelled our board meeting! There is no sitting of the Legislature. If I remember correctly, the information that was coming over was pretty sketchy: wasn't Mr. Campbell saying that Britain was doing great with public/private partnerships while on the very same day the people in charge of the British system were resigning in shame as the private component was an incedibly expensive mistake.

Of course, he and his underlings continually tell us that what they are doing is good for BC but the details are really none of our concern. After-all, we are just the stock-holders of this province. As a stock holder, I grow weary of our CEO running the resources and infrastructure (including health-care and education) of our corporation into the ground. To me, he acts as though they are his to do with what he wants in the name of profits for other companies. I truly wonder if this CEO is working for us or working for them?!

SharingIsGood great point! gordo is a drunken alcoholic, with no morals except power & greed which are his god!
He knows the truth about Private health care FOR PROFIT $$$
Europe has been kicking them out, as we should do!
Is there no way the people of BC can get rid of these Vermin?
He got in with bribes, big biz contributions, Canwest rag,.
"REMEMBER LEGISLATURE SCANDAL OF 2003" WHY IS HE STILL IN POWER?
Where is the opposition?

Thanks, BC Dude.

I think what Andrew McLeod is reporting is part and parcel of a long litany of cover-ups and misinformation that this government spews forth about health care and just about everything else it runs. Sometimes they don't even cover it up. They are, at times brash and drunk with power and disdain. (I.E. - having ferries constructed in government-subsidized German shipyards, though they could have been built here to a greater benefit for the people of BC - even at twice the German price!)

Please refresh my memory. What was the Legislature Scandal of 2003?

Passaglias Left Foot
The 'left' has made the debate impossible! You sound a lot like nightbloom tilting at his invisible leftist windmills.

Give me a break. The left is in power in two provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is a distant 4th in the House of Commons. If there is no taste for change in health care it's because THE PEOPLE OF CANADA have the good sense to know that the right wingers who want to let the profit principle into the cabin realize it will be the death of a superior system.

You have no right and no logical basis to blame the LEFT for what's going on. That's why I get so frustrated with guys like you who post here and pretend the 'left' has any real influence. It doesn't - the truth does.

There's a nice summary of the "wonders" of the U.S. health care system (which I lived under for 20 years) on Alternet.org today

http://www.alternet.org/story/42011/

Thanks Booker!

It's time people started fighting back when they're confronted with the leftist conspiracy nonsense!

Here are a couple of interesting links that speak to the question of waiting lists and quality of care: (Note that the CBC link is linked to other articles including the first link I provide.)

http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fqIntl.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/intl_healthcare.html

Thanks too, SharingIsGood. It's wonderful to have people like you and Booker (and others) who have first hand experience with US corporate medical practice posting on this issue.

We've had decent public health care for so long (since 1965/66) in this country - longer in Saskatchewan - that most youngish people here haven't a clue about how awful and deadly the system was prior to that.

When the BS is weeded out , we are not the best medical system in the world, nor anywhere nearly as bad as the USA. I recall a statement by a US Governor at a Health conference.( It was really called Labour in a Global Economy. But the connection between workers and health standards)The Governor stated in his state well over 60 percent of expectant mothers met their gynaecologist on the delivery table.48 millions have no health insurance in the USA, and that was 15 years ago. It isn't getting any better down that way. Can our system do better? Of course it can but won't till the right wingers admit we have a system that covers everyone. Sure in BC and a couple other provinces we pay a monthly fee. And for drugs a deductible exists. Much higher now that Gordo has control. Wait lists are too long but as one person mentioned yesterday if you are waiting for diagnostic testing for a year or so you don't show up on the list for the specialists, which keeps it shorter than it is. Would I go the American route? No way. Are the costs too high? Seems some streamlining could help quite a lot. If one is on prescription dugs to make it thorough the months/ years of waiting to get on a wait list, is that smart use of medical funding? I personally have been to 4 specialists in the last year and a half. Am I on a list yet? Yes and it's 2000 people long. So what was started out to be a hip replacement, then nerve issues, then possibly back surgery is now a steroid shot. Two years for a half hour procedure in a specialist office. Wait for it, only two more months. a short trip to the USA could probably get the injection today, or if I was a tennis player, by tomorrow even here in Canada.

Thanks for the posting Brain. Good rant (and I thought I'd overdone it!).

I agree that WCB and the federal Ministry of Health should be completely over-hauled. The stories I've heard of WCB waste are legendary and yet another good example of why the public sector should not be running such ventures. You can huff and puff all you like about profits and administrative costs being high in the private sector, however when you drill down on the waste and overhead of most of our public institutions then your head starts to spin. We're being completely ripped off and get very little bang for our buck from WCB and those other institutions.

I disagree with Brain's other point. There seems to be a fundamental bias of readers here who believe that as soon as some private sector involvement starts to happen in Canada’s healthcare we'll end up with an American system. Presto! Over-night, like magic. That is a load of crap. It isn't the Canadian way. There is room for balance in the health system - we can balance private and public delivery to get a better bang for the +/-$100 billion we spend EVERY YEAR.

Believe it or not, it will be the private sector that saves our health care system and preserves it so we all have coverage in our old age. We need innovation and efficiency if the current system is to be maintained as those baby-boomers retire. Public sector unions have no interest in delivering this. The private sector will save the system.

Most of all we need a rational debate about how health care can be best managed and delivered, without all this hype and rhetoric about the system being sold to American corporations and Harper/Campbell & Co simply wanting to transform the system into a complete free-enterprize mess. That is total crap and you know it. We'll end up with a hybrid system and delivers better health care.

C'mon Alcibiades, this is so obvious. The Canadian public has rejected the democratic left wing in elections across the country. When the left stands up and tries to defend its policies and strategies it gets blown away at the polls. Everyone sees the TRUTH – sees through the union cronyism, hypocrisy and fiscal fantasy land they live in. The left maintains its power undemocratically through controlling the unions which run our public institutions plus the CBC. This is where debate grinds to a halt and they cling on to power and we get no change.

The people of Canada demand a great health care system. So far the left has brilliantly been able to mis-characterize this to mean a 100% public system. The times they are a changin’. If the truth could break through then we’d all see we get a lousy bang for our buck from the current public sector. It will be the private sector that saves our system.

Well, You are entitled to your opinion Sir!
What makes you think that we will not wind up exactly as the USA?
Free enterprise knows no borders, if there is a buck to be made, they will kill for it!

Passaglias Left Foot

What are you talking about? You're the one who said it was lefties that were preventing the consideration of private for profit health care alternatives in Canada.

DO I have to go back and post your quotation?

I said that was nuts because the lefties aren't in power. It's ordinary Canadians of all political stripes who are justifiably worried about what will happen to equal access once the profit motive is permitted in a universally needed basic good such as health care.

You may not wish to acknowledge that, but it has nothing to do with the Left. It is a fact of Canadian life that, more than any other single factor, Canadians value and treasure universal single payer health care.

I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone who can't get past the notion that they must put everything in left/right terms. You are a waste of my time.

I am they, and I am not about to kill you to make a buck as dead says. This kind of rhetoric is not helpful. If we want to ensure that we all enjoy decent medical care in the future, these kind of radical statements must be discounted.

What are you on about Ron? What kind of radical statements are you talking about?

Translation?

My brother is a supervisor in a 400-bed hospital in the USA. He has worked for 35 years in the medical field. The hospital used to be owned by the city in which it exists. A while back, the city sold it to an HMO. He says that since that time, the quality of care has gone down considerably. Nurse to patient ratios have been cut in half and they spend far more of their time processing paperwork that has nothing to do with direct serve to patients. Money made by the HMO leaves the community, the state actually. The people who donated time, money and energy to make their community hospital a great place to find treatment are now faced with a cold and callous system that does not provide care, but billable minutes and hugely inflated prices for commonly needed items (like $18 for a sanitary napkin).

He says that the middle class and working poor are the most hurt by this system. He watches them go backrupt and lose their houses when emergencies happen. He understands that people can get no coverage when they have pre-existing conditions. He watches people who are in loving and fully-connected relationships get divorced so that one parent can become poor to receive welfare and the medical treatment for themselves or their child that goes with it.

He has always been very right wing, so-much-so that he is pleased that he making a great return on stocks in military hardware manufacturers that he purchased right after 9-11. He even voted for Bush twice! And yet, he believes that it is a travesty that the USA does not have a national health-care plan. He sees the people of his generation growing grey and he knows that the US has not planned for them. He and his wife are both highly intelligent, and they have made many wise choices with their capital and their investing over the years. He and his wife are in health-care and they have good insurance. Yet they are worried that it is not enough - that when they retire, his insurance company will become dismantled by some CEO and any pre-existing condition that he may have at that time will be disallowed by a new company.

He and his wife have been making sure that they have at least $1000000 in liquid assets to cover any possible health care needs - even then, he thinks it may not be enough. He plans on not retiring until age 70. By then, he will have paid into Social Security for 54 years, but he is afraid that with changes looming in the way SS is delivered, his assets will mean that he will be unable to collect a pension from the government. When the HMO took over the hospital where he works, pension plans were discontinued. Many older employees were pushed around until they quit. He is one of the few administrators who did not quit. There has been a contant turn-over in staff at the hospital. The workers are not happy people. Their service delivery worsens by the year and the community is ever-so-sorry they sold their hospital.

He sees other people who are equally frugal, trying their best, but though hard-working and honest, they have been unable to earn the cash and make the investments that he and his wife have made. He sees them as victims of an incredibly unfair system. For the first time in his life - he and his wife (who is a full Colonel in the military) are thinking of voting Democrat.

"For profit" health-care delivery is unethical. The number one goal of any for profit corporation is return on the capital investment of stock-holders. This is counter to the needs of people and families in crises.

Well put, SharingIsGood. I hope the interest in this thread hasn't bottomed out and people actually read your post.

The depressing statistics in the health care field in the US have a human side which is all too often forgotten here in Canada as some of us rush to embrace bankrupt ideas just because they are 'American' or profit-orientated.

In health care these things are not solutions, they are, as you so aptly put it, unethical disasters.

Send me an email at

if you're interested in some further discussion.

Alarmism! As mentioned earlier nobody wants an American style system. The story you outline is used to play on the fears of Canadians and scare them away from trying to change or improve the system we have. Using the bogeyman of the US-style system is getting pretty tired. This is Canada, not America. We'll find our own way to deliver good services to everyone and that way should include a private dimension. It is unethical not to try and fix our system. It is unethical to use such horror stories to spook Canadians into not considering alternatives.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

It seems all you do is rant about unions and lefty boogie men.

Some here may believe this system isn't as broken as you claim, but no one is saying the system can't be improved. The debate is how to improve it. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

An exceptionally informative and interesting piece, Sharing is Good. Well said and well worth reading.

Thank you, Lynn, Verso and G.West. I think the three of you understand that I am not being an "alarmist". I am merely reporting what my brother has said to me over the years. I have a very good open relationship with him (even though he has been a staunch supporter of the Republican party). Lately, he has been telling me that I may have been right all along, he knows in his heart that "sharing is good" and those who believe so are more socially evolved beings.

In terms of worrying about Canada's getting a similar health-care system, I urge people to look cautiously at the provisions of NAFTA and the Patriot Act. I believe Nafta states that anything that is allowed to be offered as goods or services open to bidding, is open to US companies to bid upon. Further, the Patriot Act means that information that any US company collects upon any non-US citizen and takes across their border (even in electronic form) is open for scrutiny by US intelligence gathering agencies.

We have seen that there is little (if any) separation between the the present executive branch of the US government and the the military-industrial complex. (Oil companies, Enron, Hallibuton, Cheney, Bush, etc.) I wonder if there would even be a line between state and corporation concerning the rights of Canadian citizens and medical information? After all, the US does not seem to care about the rights of people in other countries if it is counter to American corporate interests. This has been seen time and again. This is not alarmism, this is what has been happening throughout history since the Mexican War. We have all been witness to American foreign policy. I do not believe that the US military-industrial engine will change its methods of doing business overnight. After all, it has gotten them where they are, and they think it is just fine. I believe humans can be more humane to each other and do a better job of taking care of the planet while they are at it.

Passaglias Left Foot
Are you really no left nutter? It seems strange that 2 people posting to this site would both share exactly the same ignorant and uninformed attitude about the state of health care and the reforms needed to fix it.

There are movements afoot at this very time to further integrate the Canadian and US economy. Your sanguine view that we won't end up with a variety of US-style health care here is naive in the extreme.

SharingIsGood, 2003 Legislature scandal was the giveaway and insider info given to CNR about BC Rail. And CPR backed off because of the bull with Basi, Verk, etal The Finance minister Gary Collins re-signed the Transportation Minister Judith Reid with pay!
This is the letter I wrote to Premier/Dictator Gordon Campbell!
Hon Gordon Campbell
You Sir, are a lout, which is putting it mildly, everything you say or do is just one lie after another, just as you have proven the last five years!
You are a coward, you show your real face when you canceled the fall legislature as that is the People's and the opposition's Democratic right to ask all these questions!
"One" the 2003 legislature scandal involving the ministry of transportation Judith Reid, the ministry of finance Gary Collins, Basi, Verk, Basi, Pilothouse Public Affairs Boneman, http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/12/30/Raids_How_Big_a_Scandal/

Just a legal point!
If, in a case of an "Employee of the Crown" (Bureaucrat of any sort!) trying to withhold any information, try mentioning charge # 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC 337).

Under NAFA we agreed to remove heath care as we did not have the same system as the US and we wanted to protect our system. BUT their is the clause that if we open up our system the US will have first priority, get your
head straight , it will not be the UK it will be the monster to the south. Once the gates are open its over,
Stop saying theirs no more money, we are awash in money, we have some huge welfare bums in British Columbia and Canada "in excess out 90 billion dollars"!
All you have to do is do a Googal search http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/11/WelfareReport/

Our public health-care system as you can see by the truth is in very good shape in fact healthier than our so-called democratic political system!
Carol Taylor and her analysis of our health-care system is a sham and quite possibly verging on possible public fraud!
http://thetyee.ca/ September 25 2006.

A Very Concerned Citizen of this once proud, magnificent province of British Columbia!
Your Party the Liberals Are Rife with Organized Crime! Why?
The real meaning of democracy equals!

"By the People For the People"
"Power to the People"
END

http://www.iwtnews.com/home

I agree with you Sharing, the US is a horror show and is getting worse. Cheyney, Bush & Co have profiteered and pillaged that country's wealth and exploited the fears of its population. Nobody wants us to take that path. We'll find our own way to improving our healthcare system and it will include private initiatives to improve efficiency and apply new technology. Neither of these items are the strong suit of the public sector. As you mention, the focus must be on the best way to improve the system.

Sticks and stones Alcibiades....

I haven't seen any postings from "No Left Nutter". S/he sounds very intelligent and insightful though based upon your comments Alcibiades....

Thanks BC Dude,
The media did such a good job of avoiding the topic that I didn't know that the goings-on had an official name.

Thank you for your agreement, PLF. I would hope that we wouldn't get that horror show, but I don't believe that the people in power are trying to protect what we want in BC. If we open patient care up for bidding, then the American corporations are allowed to bid on providing the service; and once they get a contract, there would be years of litigation trying to get rid of them, even if their service delivery were worse than we wanted.

BCDude,

Your letter to Gordon Campbell is strong and heartfelt. I can tell you believe the words and are angry about content to which they speak. In order to make more headway with the Premier's office, I kindly suggest you run it past someone with good editing skills. Some of the brilliance of your commentary may lose its shine to a reader (government lackey) who may not see you as smart because of a few typos/grammatical errors. I know that I make plenty of errors when I type/write on these blogs, but when the words are being delivered to an MP's office, I want them to shine. I usually have three trusted "proofer's" read anything I send to anyone who thinks he/she is in authority. I have only respect for you and your intelligence, and I trust that you will not take offence at my suggestion.

Much appreciated SharingIsGood but I tell it like it is, to the fullest!
Only the Truth and that's the only way a politican WE Pay for should be!
The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

Our health care system when compared worldwide in regards to cost versus benefits is one of the worst. The better systems all have more privatization than ours. Don't let the government unions whom stand to lose billions of dollars brainwash you into thinking privatization is wrong. It doesn't mean we will be like the States and it doesn't mean we have to pay for healthcare other than through taxes. It just means the health care system can be more efficient and more cost effective if there is an alternate in supply. Government run institutions tend to be set up and ran to provide for their employees first and clients / taxpayers second. That, of course, is mostly the fault of the goverment unions themselves and the main reason why privatization works.