November 18, 2009

If Socialized Medicine Did This to Him, What Would it do to You?

A dirty little secret of mine is a love of mixed martial arts. Right now, the biggest star in the biggest MMA promotion is heavyweight titleholder Brock Lesnar of the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

At 6'3" and 265 lbs of ripped muscle, the 32-year old former NCAA wrestling champion is arguably one of the most dangerous MAA fighters in the world today, and yet his career may be jeopardy... and at least one person is blaming his health problems on Canadian health care:

Brock Lesnar's chiropractor blames the Canadian medical system for failing to manage the UFC fighter's mystery illness after he collapsed here last week.

"His symptoms became severe while in Canada, which because of their health care system made it difficult to manage. And at this point it's a possibility that it could jeopardize his career," chiropractor Larry Novotny told KSAX-TV news in Alexandria, MN, according to the network's website.

Yeah, I know... an unknown chiropractor in Minnesota isn't exactly House (though he may be as qualified to comment on the quality of Canadian health care as Hugh Laurie).

But let us accept for the moment the possibility that Novotny is correct.

If a highly-conditioned professional athlete at the top of his game could see his health and career threatened by the inadequacies of socialized medicine, what would it do to those of us who aren't in that kind of shape?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 18, 2009 01:42 PM

I live up here in the Great White North (Toronto), but am originally from California. So I've seen both systems. Can only speak about my experience, and for me they are about the same. The wait times here are longer for routine, non-urgent stuff, but quality of care is excellent and everyone has equal access to top specialists, even if you're not rich or well-connected. Had great care in California(Kaiser) through work as well. Here if I lose my job I don't lose my coverage,and that's a good feeling. I'm a conservative (go Steven Harper!)but here it's not a lib/con thing, nor should it be IMO. The conservatives are committed to our system ,and it's as natural as universal education or a public police force. I don't think there's any reason to be scared of it.

Posted by: Will Butler at November 18, 2009 05:07 PM


Part of the reason it's not a conservative issue in Canada would be due to the lack of the US Constitution applying to Canada. As a Conservative in the US, our Constitution defines Consevatism. As such, not only do I find the Federal government has no business providing healthcare, I also find that 'universal education' is un-Constitutional, as would be a FEDERAL police force. I'm not afraid of what they would do... oh wait, yes I am, after all, I've attended both private and public schools in the US. But either way, the simple fact is the Federal government has no right to legislate healthcare in the United States of America. That is the Conservative position. Whether or not they would or could do it well is a moot point and open to debate.

Posted by: Kat at November 18, 2009 09:06 PM

As Kat aptly put it the Federal Government has no business in health care. Do we need some changes/reform? Yes, but this is not the answer.

Anyone involved in problem solving occupations will tell you you don't "go big" with the solution unless its absolutely clear that it is the only way to correct an issue. Make small changes, examine the results, are they good or bad? If they are bad back them out and try something else. If you make multiple sweeping changes to a system it becomes difficult to know which change had positive or negative effects.

Start with tort reform, then allow coverage to be purchased across state lines, and finally work out a way to make health care less attached to to one's employment while still encouraging employers to participate. Also secure the darn borders and deport illegals, stop the drain on our social services by people who are not paying back into the system and never will.

Posted by: Scott at November 19, 2009 10:26 AM

Please don't ever use a chiropractor as an authority. They are not trained in medicine in the least and are a true danger. I would consider the average individual with a high school education to know more about medical care than a chiropractor.

As to being concerned for the bill in congress, we should all be very frightened. As good example is the recent announcement of Obama's doctors that mammograms are not necessary and women should not be taught to do self exam. Although this is recommendation at this time, with passage of the bill, this will be law. They will then make it so that you will not even be able to pay for the care you desire. After all, we all have to be equal. That means that if your wife is worried about a lump, she will just have to worry until she dies.

We have some minor issues with health insurance companies. We do not have to change the whole system.

Posted by: David at November 19, 2009 02:08 PM

Kat wrote - 'Part of the reason it's not a conservative issue in Canada would be due to the lack of the US Constitution applying to Canada'

Wow, what an amazing comment. Is this suggesting that Canada would be better off if the US Constitution applied to them? Do you realize that other countries have their own constitutions? You'll also have to enlighten me as to how Conservatism is part of the Constitution as I'm not from the US and find it difficult to see how a political point of view could be written into the constitution of a country that promotes how free it is. I also find it interesting how 'anti-FEDERAL involvement' many US conservatives are but no mention of how much power the individual states have. It appears you're country is like an organisation that wants everything decentralized, with a hate for head office but a love for the many branches. With modern telecommunications and transport, the US could be run efficiently with less than 20 states. Australia is about the same size as mainland US and we have 8 states and terriroties. Granted, we only have a population of 20mil so that's why I gave an allowance for more states. 'Economies of Scale' is what its' called (I think).

Anyway, regarding healthcare, ever thought of running a hybrid system like Australia. My pregnant wife can choose a private or public hospital because we have private health insurance on top of what the govt provides. It's relatively cheap, possibly due to no state legislation stopping companies competing across state lines and our litigation payouts aren't as much. If we didn't buy private insurance, then she could go to a public hospital for free.

Posted by: Dickie at November 19, 2009 10:18 PM
You'll also have to enlighten me as to how Conservatism is part of the Constitution as I'm not from the US and find it difficult to see how a political point of view could be written into the constitution of a country that promotes how free it is.

Did a double-take on this. Please explain to me how it would be possible to write ANY political document without an underlying point of view. This would be like writing a curriculum without an underlying theory of learning, or a catechism without an underlying theology. It's not possible.

In this particular case, the underlying political theory states that liberty inheres to all people equally by nature, that government derives all its power from the consent of the governed, that flawed humans cannot be trusted with unchallenged power, and that individuals have rights to enjoy the fruit of their labors. I could elaborate more, but perhaps you'd do well to read the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson expresses the main ideas succinctly. And yes, this is a very distinct political philosophy, not the absence of one.

It is not the case that "conservatism is written into the Constitution," and that's not what Kat wrote. What she wrote was that American conservatives draw their political position from the US Constitution. The Constitution came first. Modern, American conservatives attempt to conform to the political philosophy articulated there.

Kat made no claim that all nations must adhere to the US Constitution, and yes, other nations use other documents and other philosophies. What she did claim was that conservatives in Canada may take different positions from conservatives in the US because US conservatives are attempting to apply a document to current affairs that Canadians don't use. Her claim was both reasonable and correct.

There. Wasn't that simple?

Posted by: philwynk at November 20, 2009 09:39 AM