Marquette Warrior

Friday, January 16, 2015

Universities and Free Expression: Canada is as Bad as the U.S.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Anti-Christian Bigotry in Canada

Saturday, November 02, 2013

David Suzuki: Environmentalist, Hypocrite, Crackpot

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Canadian Warns About Socialized Medicine

Thursday, June 30, 2011

No Free Speech in Canada

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Canadian Health Care: Yet More Failure

Given that socialized medicine in Canada was the model that proponents of ObamaCare looked to -- although happily they had to make some large compromises -- news from north of the border is relevant.

From The Star:
It’s no surprise to Thelma Lee that emergency room wait times are not meeting provincial targets.

Lee said her 41-year-old daughter, Marlene Stephens, died Saturday after waiting nearly 90 minutes at the William Osler Health Centre’s Etobicoke campus emergency room with breathing problems.

Lee feels her daughter was not seen fast enough by medical staff.

“They didn’t touch her,” said the grieving Lee. “She was crying out, ‘I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe’. . . Nobody attended to my daughter.”

On Monday, Auditor General Jim McCarter released his annual report which found that despite putting an extra $200 million into shortening emergency room wait times over the last two years, “significant province-wide progress has not yet been made.”

“Complaints about overcrowding and delays in hospital emergency rooms have persisted for years,” McCarter told a news conference on Monday.

Emergency room waits for people with serious conditions sometimes reached 12 hours or more, the report said. That is far greater than the province’s 8-hour wait time target, the report found.

And for emergency patients who need a hospital bed, they waited on average for about 10 hours but some waited 26 hours or more, according to the 2010 Annual Report.

“Our audit found that wait times for patients with less serious ailments have been reduced somewhat,” McCarter said. “However, there has been only minimal progress in reducing wait times for patients with more serious conditions.”

Health Minister Deb Matthews defended the province’s ER wait times strategy, saying Ontario is the first province to set targets and measure waits.

“When we started, about 81 per cent of people who went to emergency departments were seen within the target,” she said. “Now we are at 85 per cent . . . a lot of hard work goes into getting those wait times down.”

McCarter’s report shows the real problem with ER waits doesn’t necessarily start in the emergency department.

A big part of the problem is the lack of in-patient beds, which forces admitted patients to be housed in the emergency departments, the report said.

The lack of in-patient beds is influenced by two things, McCarter found. Beds are being blocked by patients who no longer require hospital care but who are waiting for a long-term care bed and by “less-than optimal practices” by hospitals in managing patient flow to free up space.

“There is no question; the ER is the canary in the coal mine. When something isn’t being properly being managed anywhere in the health system, the problems then show up in the emergency department,” Matthews said, adding that is why the Liberals are expanding homecare initiatives.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak said the auditor has been saying for some time that an investment in long-term care beds can help the backlog.

“It makes me sad when I hear about families who have to wait 23 hours with their sons or daughters in an ER room,” Hudak said.

“It is absolutely outrageous when you see the money is there but it has been abused and wasted in scandals . . ..”

Hudak said getting rid of Local Health Integration Networks — 14 bodies across Ontario that direct community-based health care planning — would save the system $250 million. That money could go back into hospital care, he said.

New Democratic Leader Andrea Horwath said Ontario families are forced to play a waiting game for services and even life-saving programs.

“Families are waiting longer in emergency rooms . . . and to get their loved ones into long-term care or see them provided with home-care support,” she told reporters.

Lee called 911 early Saturday morning after her daughter collapsed with breathing problems when she came down the stairs.

Paramedics arrived quickly, but Lee said her daughter waited for about 90 minutes in the emergency room before being treated.

“This should not be happening in Canada,” Lee told the Star on Monday.

Stephens, an early childhood educator and mother of two sons, did not have any pre-existing breathing problems, said Lee.

Susan deRyk, chief communications officer for William Osler Health System, said the hospital cannot comment on any individual patient case due to patient privacy. “Our sympathies go out to the family,” she said.
Of course, horror stories about emergency rooms in the U.S. are not unknown. But this case is consistent with systematic data collected by the Auditor General.

It is in the nature of systems of socialized medicine to starve the providers. Given the choice of raising taxes, or imposing explicit draconian rationing, the politicians simply demand that the system produce better outcomes with the same resources -- or equal outcomes with fewer resources. But quickly that catches up with patients.

ObamaCare does not make it certain that this will happen in the U.S. But the vast increase in the power of the Federal government over health care now makes that a very real danger.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 12, 2010

Mark Steyn: Hate Speech About Islam?

Below is a video interiew with Mark Steyn, a fellow who has been in trouble with Canadian “human rights” authorities for “hate speech.” These authorities have the power to punish people for things they say.

The interview is worth watching all the way through — a total of four parts. Particularly interesting is the discussion of how “Muslim” now trumps “gay” and “female” among the politically correct.

And also, how Christian civilization is the bulwark protecting free societies.


See Parts 2, 3 and 4 here.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The U.S. Has Better Health Care Than Canada

From the National Bureau of Economic Research, a scholarly and detailed comparison of the U.S. and the Canadian health care systems.

It has lots of data. But read it, if you want the best scholarly read on the two systems.

It might seem that events in Washington are now leaning against a government takeover of U.S. health care. But the people who want government control have not given up.

Labels: , ,

More on Poor Health Care in Canada

Monday, August 03, 2009

Canada Health Care: Yet Another Horror Story

Friday, March 27, 2009

Free Speech is Dead in Canada — At Least If You Are a Christian

From Ezra Levant’s blog, how “Human Rights Commissions” in Canada have created a right not to be offended — at least is you are a politically correct minority.

One key point: “human rights” laws are never enforced in an even-handed way. Some groups are assumed to be protected, and others not.

Next key point: you have more rights if you are charged with murder than if you are accused of a human rights violation. Further, people charged with human rights violations in Canada have fewer rights than people once called before the Star Chamber.

Scary fact: people like those who staff “Human Rights Commissions” in Canada are fairly common in the United States, especially in academia. And especially in humanities departments, sociology departments, victim studies programs and education schools.

It’s riveting, so watch the whole show.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Natasha Richardson: Victim of Socialized Medicine

From the Associated Press:
NEW YORK – As a steady stream of celebrities pay their last respects to Natasha Richardson, questions are arising over whether a medical helicopter might have been able to save the ailing actress.

The province of Quebec lacks a medical helicopter system, common in the United States and other parts of Canada, to airlift stricken patients to major trauma centers. Montreal’s top head trauma doctor said Friday that may have played a role in Richardson’s death.

“It’s impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is . . . driving to Mont Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a 2 ½-hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city. Our system isn’t set up for traumas and doesn’t match what’s available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States,” said Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre, which represents six of Montreal’s hospitals.

While Richardson’s initial refusal of medical treatment cost her two hours, she also had to be driven to two hospitals. She didn’t arrive at a specialized hospital in Montreal until about four hours after the second 911 call from her hotel room at the Mont Tremblant resort, according to a timeline published by Canada’s The Globe and Mail newspaper.

Not being airlifted directly to a trauma center could have cost Richardson crucial moments, Razek said.

“A helicopter is obviously the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B,” he said.
And further:
Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe does not specialize in head traumas, so her speedy transfer to Sacre Coeur Hospital in Montreal was critical, said Razek.
But this sort of thing is not some anomaly in an otherwise efficient system.

From the Mises Economic Blog:
In writing about socialist medical care like they have in Canada, one of my points has been that socialist systems tend to be undercapitalized, as in such a system, capital becomes a liability rather than an asset. For example, the county where I work has about 80,000 residents and has as many MRI machines as does Montreal, which has several million people living in the area.

One doctor has pointed out that it took close to three hours to drive Richardson from Mount Tremblant to the trauma center in Montreal because Quebec has no medical helicopter system, unlike the USA, where such helicopters are common.

We should not be surprised. In Canada, no medical device has the capability of producing an income, so hospitals and medical care facilities often lack what is common in this country. For example, if a hospital or medical practice here purchases an MRI, that machine is able to provide an income to the provider as patients use it.

However, because no one can charge medical consumers for anything in Canada, the decision to purchase an MRI machine is purely one of cost. Medical facilities have only so much money to use, and the purchase of a device that performs MRIs means funds are drawn away from paying medical workers.

I remember a dentist friend telling me about visiting a dental clinic in Germany, which has had socialized medical care for years. He said it was like stepping back into the 1960s.

So, Ms. Richardson, RIP.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Kind of Health Care Obama Wants To Impose on the Nation

Via Modern Commentaries, an article from the Wall Street Journal on what socialized medicine has meant in Canada. Some tidbits:
  • In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

    Ontario’s government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He’s challenging Ontario’s government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

  • Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

  • On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a “Birmingham” hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was “too old” to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He’s heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.
Of course, one might argue that the liberals and leftists who favor socialized medicine are themselves at risk in the same way as ordinary citizens.

But they are not.

In any massive bureaucratic system there are enclaves that provide decent service for people who know how to play the bureaucratic game, who have connections and also have the ability to raise hell if they get poor quality care.

Thus, socialized medicine is really something that they want to impose on us.

In principle, it’s just like forcing people to have a smaller “carbon footprint,” while the liberal elitists are using a massive amount of electricity and jetting around the country in private jets.

Politics in America really has resolved itself into a battle between the liberal New Class that wants to dictate peoples’ lifestyles and ordinary Americans who still hold to the notion that they live in a free country.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Free Speech Wins -- Sort Of -- In Canada

As much as free expression is under siege in the U.S. (especially on college campuses), things are worse in Canada. But it does win sometimes. From the Reason blog:
Last month, when an officer of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission interrogated him about his decision to reprint the notorious Muhammad cartoons that originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Ezra Levant did not try to ingratiate himself. Levant, former publisher of the news magazine the Western Standard, called the commission “a sick joke,” compared it unfavorably with Judge Judy, and dared the “thug” across the table to recommend that he face a hearing for publishing material that offended Muslims.

That way, Levant explained, he could be convicted, which would give him a chance to challenge the censorship that Canadian human rights commissions practice in the name of fighting discrimination. “I do not want to be excused from this complaint because I was reasonable,” he said. “It is not the government’s authority to tell me whether or not I’m reasonable.”

Legally, that remains to be seen. Canada’s national and provincial human rights commissions were established in the 1970s to vet complaints about discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services. But many of them have broad legal mandates that can be used to attack freedom of speech. Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act, for example, prohibits publishing anything that “is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt.”

Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, claims Levant did that by running the Muhammad cartoons. “Publishing of cartoons in the Western Standards [sic] is in fact spreading hate against me,” Soharwady scrawled on a complaint form he submitted to the commission in February 2006. He also complained that “Mr. Ezra Levant insulted me” when the two debated the cartoon controversy on CBC Radio. Soharwardy is demanding an apology. The commission can impose fines and gag orders as well.

Meanwhile, the Canadian, Ontario, and British Columbia human rights commissions are considering similar complaints against Maclean’s magazine and the journalist Mark Steyn over an October 2006 article adapted from his book America Alone. The Canadian Islamic Congress claims Steyn “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt” and harms their “sense of dignity and self-worth” by worrying about high Muslim birth rates.

Even if a complaint is dismissed, Levant notes, responding to it requires “thousands of dollars in lawyer’s fees” and “an enormous amount of time,” which encourages journalists to steer clear of touchy subjects. “A warning shot has gone out to every other media [outlet] in the country,” he said during the 90-minute commission interview. “‘Don’t mess around with the Muslim radicals, because they’ll call in the censors.’”
As on U.S. college campuses, the fact that a spunky person or group can beat the censors isn’t sufficient. The should not have to.

Most people don’t much like conflict, and particularly don’t like having to pay high legal fees just to enjoy the right of free speech.

So actual instances of censorship aren’t the real issue. The chilling effect of the mere threat of censorship is what’s pernicious.

Labels: , ,

Friday, September 07, 2007

Socialized Medical Hell in Canada

From The Toronto Star:
Patients suing province over wait times

Man, woman who couldn’t get quick treatment travelled to U.S. to get brain tumours removed


Two Ontario patients who had brain tumours removed in the United States because they say they couldn’t get quick treatment here are suing the provincial government over what they claim are unjustly long wait times for medical care.

Lindsay McCreith, 66, of Newmarket and Shona Holmes, 43, of Waterdown filed a joint statement of claim yesterday against the province of Ontario. Both say their health suffered because they are denied the right to access care outside of Ontario’s “government-run monopolistic” health-care system. They want to be able to buy private health insurance.

Ontario’s “monopoly” over essential health services and its delay in providing the services have left both patients to “endure significant financial, emotional and physical hardship to access such services in the United States,” states the claim .

The accusations made in the statement of claim have not been proven in court.

Holmes began losing her vision in March 2005, she told a press conference at Queen’s Park yesterday. An MRI in May 2005 revealed a tumour in her brain. Her family doctor couldn’t expedite appointments booked with specialists for July 19 and Sept. 19, 2005. As the tumour pressed on her optic nerves, her vision deteriorated. Afraid to wait any longer, she went to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Within a week she met three specialists and was told she had a fluid-filled sac growing near her pituitary gland at the base of her brain. They urged her to have it taken out immediately. She went home with the hopes of quickly removing what is known as a Rathke’s cleft cyst.

Unable to get surgery fast, she returned to Arizona and had the mass removed on Aug. 1, 2005. Her vision was restored in 10 days. The Holmes family is now in debt $95,000 because of medical costs.

“My husband has taken a second full-time job. We’ve re-mortgaged our home. It has to be known. People can’t go through this,” said Holmes, a family mediator. “I was very fortunate to save my eyesight but the cost and the battle has been devastating.”

Holmes’ experience was similar to that of Lindsay McCreith, a retired auto collision repair shop owner. According to the statement of claim, McCreith suddenly experienced seizures on Jan. 2, 2006. After waiting seven hours in a Newmarket emergency ward, he was examined by an internist. A computed tomography or CT scan showed a large wedge-shaped brain tumour. He was discharged from hospital four days later with a diagnosis of stroke and a prescription for anti-seizure medication.

Worried the tumour might be cancerous, McCreith and his family wanted an MRI. He was given an appointment date four months later. McCreith went to the U.S. and paid $494.67 (U.S.) for an MRI. Armed with the scan, he saw his Ontario family doctor, who referred McCreith to a neurologist. He was examined on Feb. 8, 2006. He was referred to a neurosurgeon but would have to wait three months.

Unhappy with this, he returned to Buffalo. In early March, during a biopsy, the tumour was found to be malignant and surgically removed. He paid $27,650 for his consultation, biopsy and surgery in Buffalo and OHIP has refused to reimburse him because he failed to seek pre-approval for the expense, the claim notes.
Socialized medicine, quite simply, is an idea whose time is past.

For it to work, two things must be true.

First, the population on which it is imposed must be highly deferential, and willing to tolerate being told by government bureaucrats that they can’t have the medical care they need.

In this, American is ahead of the curve, with the rest of the world catching up. More and more, people are demanding that if they can be helped they must be helped.

This, of course, puts huge strain on rigid government systems.

Secondly, for socialized medicine to work, technology must move slowly. When it moves ahead in leaps and bounds, a government bureaucracy (and rigid government budgeting) has trouble keeping up. If there were no such thing as an MRI, there would be no patients demanding MRIs and no fiscal problems keeping up with the demand for MRIs.

Thus the very expensive but also flexible and highly advanced health care system in the U.S. stays on the cutting edge, while government run systems struggle to keep up with the demands of citizens who know that decent health care is possible, and who less and less will settle for what government is willing to hand out.

Labels: , ,