From: jpd10@ccc.amdahl.com (Michael Surkan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Medicine & Liberty
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:45:00 GMT
Reply-To: jpd10@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Michael Surkan)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

WARNING:This is a rather lengthy dissertation, and if
        you're not really interested in the problems with
        Canadian medicare, skip it.
  
  Reading many of the postings regarding Canada's medicare
I am amazed at how universally such a socialized system is
praised. Well, I thought it was about time a different point
of view was expressed. Quite simply, not ALL Canadians are
happy with the current system (being a Canuck myself).
  In a country where there is no government medical system
(ie. NOT the USA) and people must pay for everything
themselves (a totally fictitious place) people would be free
to make their own decisions on how to spend their money. I
like using the example of a young 24 year old lady with a
good job who decides to blow $2,000.00 on the down payment
for a new sports car instead of paying medical insurance
premiums. If it so happens that this very dame gets creamed
by a lorry as she is driving the car off the lot and dies
because she didn't have insurance coverage for necessary
operations I maintain that she has the RIGHT TO DIE.
  In Canada, that fundamental right to make your own
decisions has been taken away. The Government has declared
that all people must have medical care and they will make
you pay your insurance premiums, like it or not (in the form
of taxes)! Where does the right to make decisions (ie. spend
our money how we bloody well please) come into the equation?
Someone might say that you have to make payments to the
government for health care every year, but that is but a
pittance of the true costs.
  The case for socialized medicine rests on two principals:
     a)The government knows what is best for it's
       citizens and will take care of them in
       spite of the reckless behaviour of a few
       morons.
     b)There is an inherent moral imperative in
       society that DEMANDS each of us to be his
       brother's keeper, whether we like it or
       not. If someone is too selfish to help a
       fellow brother in need, society has a
       RIGHT to force him (ie. the government
       extorts money from our paychecks for
       things we may not believe in at all).
  It is these tenets that I wholly, and unreservedly
reject.
  I do not believe that the fact of someone's existence
gives them a RIGHT to demand succor of my person. No one has
a right to EXPECT anything of anyone else. If I get ill by
feeding myself improperly, what right do I have to DEMAND
that someone else who takes care of their body provide for
my needs? If people feel like helping others, and giving to
charities that's splendid (even I enjoy playing the part of
philanthropist on occasion). But what gives a person the
right to come up to me with the muzzle of a gun (which is
what the government does when they ask me to pay taxes)
DEMANDING that I give to United Way? Once a country steps
down the slippery road to socialism, freedom and liberty
(which were NEVER synonymous with equality) go out the
window.
  Medicare is turning Canadians into honourless spies, who
make it their business to keep their noses in each other's
affairs. After all, if it is a burden on everyone to pay for
medical treatment of lung cancer victims, then it makes
perfect sense to prevent lung cancer from going out of
control by banning cigarettes and tobacco. What's next? Will
the country decide that in the interests of keeping medical
costs under control they are going to ban (ie. take away
someone's right to choose) ice cream and cholesterol laden
foods? Why not ban motorcycles, since the mangled bodies
coming out of the accidents are costing tax payers so much
to fix up.
  As long as people are responsible for their own medical
expenses, no one could be bothered that you eat junk food
and don't exercise. But as soon as everyone has to pay for
your medical treatment society feels it has a right to tell
you what to do. If society has a "responsibility" to care
for you, you also have a "responsibility" to take care of
yourself.
  So far all the reasons I have given for my dislike of
social medicine are moral ones. There is, however, another
fundamental flaw of social health care. Namely, that a
centralized socialized medical scheme is the answer to
cutting costs. I will grant that there is a lot of
bureaucratic waste in the American medical system (a system
which I do NOT extol). This overlapping red tape may be done
away with as a result of greater centralization. This,
however, will NOT deal with the underlying problem of
ballooning medical expenses.
  I remember reading a letter to the editor in Maclean's a
while back when someone commented on how their grandfather
had stayed in a Toronto hospital for a week in 1910 for less
than five bucks. The author of the letter couldn't
understand why the costs have went up so much since then.
  Well, in 1910 hospitals were virtually a place to go and
die. The nurses didn't know much more than how to bandage a
patient and bring soup. The physicians knew how to give a
few vaccines, administer opiates, and take out an appendix.
There were no multi million dollar cat-scan machines, hi-
tech biologically engineered drugs, or surgeons skilled
enough to do heart surgery. If we wanted to forget about all
medical advances in the last 80 years we could very easily
set up "affordable" hospitals yet again.
  The underlying problem which causes medical expenses to
fly through the roof at an exponential rate is the never-
ending advances in medical science. However much people wish
to ignore this, the more advances to be made in science the
more the cumulative costs of health care rise. We would like
to think that a new break-through will replace old
treatments and actually cut expenses. This, however, is not
true for the most part. If we discover a cure for
Alzheimer's  we will simply have one more disease added to
the list of curable ailments.
  Sixty minutes did a report on the plight of hemophiliacs
in the USA. The cost of factor 8 (a clotting agent they
need) has went up considerably due to the battery of tests
blood must go through these days to ensure it isn't
contaminated with HIV. This 60 Minutes report was making the
point that hemophiliacs can't afford factor 8 any more, and
that even insurance companies often have million dollar
limits on claims which can easily be overridden in some
cases. Moral of the story: there should be a national health
care system so everyone can afford million dollar
treatments.
  This does raise some questions, however. Isn't there a
point at which society cannot afford to bear the cost of a
given medical treatment? If a 100% effective cure for cancer
was discovered tomorrow that cost $10,000,000.00 per
patient, due to the extreme complexity of making the drugs,
should Canadian medicare pick up the costs?
  Somewhere, sometime, people are going to have to make
tough decisions on what the cost of life is. We are fast
approaching a time when our knowledge of saving life will
far outstrip our economies ability to provide those ALL
those services. Who is to decide what treatments are
economically viable and which aren't?
  In my opinion, if we left everything to the individual
such questions society wouldn't have to deal with these
issues. If someone can afford the treatment, they get it, if
not, well let's hope there's a heaven. I left Canada because
I couldn't stand the encroachment on freedom and it looks
like the USA is trying very hard to destroy what is left of
it here. In my dreams I think of a land where a man can
truly be free again. Perhaps Hong Kong?

                     Michael Surkan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics