When government runs your healthcare ...

[Tigermike 3,055]

When government runs your healthcare ...

Posted by: McQ

Remember the outcry when Cigna wouldn't approve what it considered experimental liver transplant surgery for a young woman (Cigna later approved it but she died before the operation could be performed)?

Remember how we were told that under a government insurance plan, that would never happen.

Well, if Canada is any example, and I think they are, those who claimed government would see something like that through my need to rethink their claim:

Dying nanny told to leave country

TONY BOCK/TORONTO STAR

Cancer-striken Juana Tejada at her Downsview home May 28, 2008 with her husband, Noli Azada, who flew here from the Philippines after she was diagnosed.

'I paid my dues here,' says Filipina woman denied residency after diagnosis of cancer

Jun 09, 2008 04:30 AM

Nicholas Keung

Immigration/Diversity Reporter

Juana Tejada wants to stay – and die – in Canada.

A live-in caregiver from the Philippines, the terminally ill cancer patient will be forced to leave when her work permit expires in two months, even though her period of service here as a nanny was supposed to be the gateway to permanent residency.

Tejada has twice been denied a chance to stay, however, because her illness puts a burden on the health-care system.

"I only have one dying wish," Tejada said after a recent chemotherapy session at Princess Margaret Hospital. She has stage 4 lung cancer, a disease that originated in her colon.

"I hope I get to stay to bring my family here, to give them a better future than in the Philippines."

The 38-year-old came to Canada in 2003 under the federal live-in caregiver program, which grants permanent resident status to domestic workers after they complete their three-year assignments and obtain the necessary medical and criminal-record clearances.

Her cancer was found in 2006, during an exam for her immigration application. Tejada appealed to immigration officials to waive the good-health requirement for humanitarian reasons.

"While I am sympathetic to your situation, I am not satisfied that these circumstances justify granting an exemption," a case processing officer in Alberta wrote in the latest decision. "In the opinion of a medical officer, this health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health and social services."

Tejada has since asked Citizenship and Immigration Canada to reconsider, but her chance of succeeding seems as slim as her surviving the cancer. Doctors told her only 5 per cent of people in her condition are still alive after five years.

"I have paid my dues to earn my permanent residency. I have worked hard to try to give my family (her husband and six siblings) a better life," said Tejada, who has been apart from her family since 1995, when she began working abroad as a domestic. "I didn't want to have cancer. It is not my fault."

Tejada, who is on morphine to ease her pain, was forced to quit her later job at a Tim Hortons because of her illness and has been living on disability assistance – another factor working against her application to stay. Her husband, Noli Azada, has flown in from their poor village to look after her.

"Juana has respected and followed all of our laws to the letter. If not for her cancer, she would have already been a permanent resident and realized her dream," said her immigration lawyer, Rafael Fabregas.

"Is it right to kick her out of Canada now because she is dying?

"While it may be legal, I don't think it's right. It would be manifestly inhumane."

Tejada and her husband, who is here on a visitor's visa, have until Aug. 8 to leave the country.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/439665

Now, of course, the argument is going to be, "she isn't even a citizen". No, but she's certainly a legal resident who apparently, to this point, was given treatment.

But more importantly, it should be obvious that the Canadian government won't hesitate to refuse treatment to someone, humanitarian grounds be damned. Assuming they'd extend such a refusal to citizens isn't at all far fetched. They can't send them home, but they certainly can refuse to continue treatment because doing so would "cause excessive demand on health and social services".

Given this example, how far do you think a young woman wanting an experimental liver transplant would get in such a system?

http://www.qando.net/

When people tell you how much more humane government-run health care is, ask them to explain the case of Juana Tejada in Canada. Tejada came to Canada as part of the government’s attempt to attract foreigners to fill roles as live-in caregivers, apparently to help the Canadians to save some money on wages. When Tejada herself became sick with cancer a few years after her arrival, suddenly the Canadians didn’t find her valuable enough to treat

Got that? They wanted Juana to come to Canada so she could serve Canadians who needed home health care. When Juana got sick, the same health care service for which she worked couldn’t be bothered to foot the bill for her treatments. Juana worked and paid into that system for three years before they discovered that she would “cause excessive demand” for her treatment.

Now, let’s imagine that a private health insurer pulled that kind of stunt. It would make headlines, and political candidates across the spectrum would start including Juana as the victim of the corporate, profit-centered mentality of the American health care system. Except, of course, it doesn’t happen. Insurers can’t kick people off their rolls for getting cancer after their coverage starts, and the US government doesn’t deport legal immigrants for dying before they’ve serviced enough Americans to make them worthwhile.

Government-run health care rations treatment. It sets limits and conditions on access to health care, and generates irrational solutions such as this. And only the power of the government could have resulted in the deportation of a low-wage recruit into that system because she needed the very services she supported.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/10/cana...-to-save-costs/

[Justin5 20]

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/spending3.htm

[autigeremt 6,717]

The healthcare system isn't the reason for this! It's people who don't take care of themselves.

The way to lower healthcare is exactly that............HEALTH CARE! People need to take responsibility for themselves and exercise, eat smaller portions, and moderate their intake.

[AFTiger 282]

The healthcare system isn't the reason for this! It's people who don't take care of themselves.

The way to lower healthcare is exactly that............HEALTH CARE! People need to take responsibility for themselves and exercise, eat smaller portions, and moderate their intake.

Are they going to be required to report to the government for monitoring before they can go see a doctor?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Who knows???? I think healthcare needs to be streamlined, but in no way ran by the federal government.

[bigsixfive 328]

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/spending3.htm

Where's the plot predicting the results of the Democrat's wonderful plan that has the US behind Portugal in life expectancy and the per capita cost off the chart?

[Justin5 20]

Wow, I never thought showing chart of clear FACTS would cause such a still.

I said nothing. I am simply showing you where we are. You all are sooooo touchy.

[bigsixfive 328]

That chart is in international dollars. Give it a year or so, the spike won't be as drastic once the feds raise the rates back up. Also, it mentions nothing about how much we pay doctors, how much we pay the drug companies, how much the equipment costs, etc. That is a contributing factor to the higher costs.

Perhaps the most important thing neglected is the FACT that people from all those other countries come here for treatment routinely. Lets mess with something in which we're currently the world leader... good idea.

As far as the low life expectancy, there are multiple factors contributing to that. Genetics is a huge part. The other part is lifestyle and diet. Americans tend to be lazy and large. Lazy and large doesn't yield a long lifetime.

You're plot of FACT is taking 2 variables and neglecting their dependence upon many different, uncorrelated factors to make a statement.

[Justin5 20]

That chart is in international dollars. Give it a year or so, the spike won't be as drastic once the feds raise the rates back up.

The chart is based on 2000 statistics, when the dollar was kicking ass. So actually the spike right now would be WAY worse.

Also, it mentions nothing about how much we pay doctors, how much we pay the drug companies, how much the equipment costs, etc. That is a contributing factor to the higher costs.

Ummm yeah, thats why a national system would lower costs of the drugs, equipment, etc. I agree on doctors though. That is one of the major downsides of the national system. Doctors would no longer be making a TON of money. They still do very, very well in other countries.

Perhaps the most important thing neglected is the FACT that people from all those other countries come here for treatment routinely. Lets mess with something in which we're currently the world leader... good idea.

Ok, a good point. I'll give you that one.

As far as the low life expectancy, there are multiple factors contributing to that. Genetics is a huge part. The other part is lifestyle and diet. Americans tend to be lazy and large. Lazy and large doesn't yield a long lifetime.

National healthcare in other countries has improved diets of its citizens. I would give you genetics, except for the fact that we used to lead the world in life expectancy. We no longer do.

[Tigermike 3,055]

National healthcare in other countries has improved diets of its citizens. I would give you genetics, except for the fact that we used to lead the world in life expectancy. We no longer do.

And you attribuate that to not having national health care?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Touchy feely????? I wonder where that came from

[bigsixfive 328]

The chart is based on 2000 statistics, when the dollar was kicking ass. So actually the spike right now would be WAY worse.

Ok, I didn't see that. You're right, the spike would be higher. I still question the validity of the statement of the chart due to the other reasons mentioned.

Ummm yeah, thats why a national system would lower costs of the drugs, equipment, etc. I agree on doctors though. That is one of the major downsides of the national system. Doctors would no longer be making a TON of money. They still do very, very well in other countries.

So the national system might lower financial cost. What about quality of service? Again, other countries come here because it will be done right, and fast. The national plan, as executed by other countries and our very own military, is SSSSLLLLLLOOOOOWWWW, and the quality isn't near as good (in other countries). Slow diagnosis or treatment usually leads to a worsened problem. Worsened problems cost more to fix. Catch the cancer early and it is more isolated - one round of chemo is cheaper than three. Long term, its not cheaper... not to mention that anything the government controls or regulates automatically inflates.

Side note - I, personally, have no problem with doctors making a ton of money. They have a specialized trade,and they incur a high cost to be trained (now the AMA limiting the # of doctors and possibly artificially inflating salaries is another debate).