Dang Kevin, don't you get it ? The wonders of the "free HC for everyone" system don't include provisions for people who are greedy enough to push out 4 kids at once. And that is BY DESIGN.Oh, no no, that simply will NOT do in the peoples paradise that is, CanaDOH! Mike Moore just will not have it.

If ya don't abort yer quats, ya can't have any "free healthcare"! How can ya have any "free healthcare" if you don't abort yer quats ?

Remarkable how almost everyone except Robert Mugabe understand why Zimbabwe's supermarket shelves are empty: with price controls that limit profits or cause losses, producers simply aren't prepared to supply products. They're rather not suffer the loss, thank you very much.

Why doesn't anyone understand this when it comes to education or healthcare?

If you cap prices, supply decreases and demand increases, so you get shortages. If you prop up prices (as is most frequently the case with the price of labour) supply increases and demand decreases.

It's economics 101. And common sense. Funny how many politicans and populist left-wingers think they're too good for either. As if their good intentions somehow change basic facts.

Yes, madam, we have found four slots for you. You can deliver your first child in Calgary at 7:30 AM on August 16, the second in Toronto at 7:45 AM on August 16, the third in Halifax at 9:30 AM on November 22 and the last in Yellowknife at 12:05 AM April 27. Unfortunely we still haven't found a room for you yet. And all times and places are subject to change.

If there is any better example of why the Hillary!care model doesn't work well, I haven't heard it yet.

I'm certain that Michael Moore, hearing of this woman's plight, would've invited her to stay in his mansion and give birth there.

What? Did they forget to ask the Cubans?

What's really telling is the Montana has an economy roughly equal in size to TUNISIA. And yet it was able to provide a medical service unavailable in Canada.

But that's really the bottom line of socialized health care: in order for it to work, mathematically, it must be rationed. Let's strip away the BS and say it: The free market is a rationing system, HMO's ration, you cannot have a plausible Take All You Want For Free system in ANY sector of the economy, so their is no way a national health plan can avoid turning to rationing. And sorry, your ration does not include intensive care for all four babies. Please choose your choice of surviving offspring.

Ben

At first I was like, hey, they just got screwed because they happened to have a rush of preterm births in Calgary, that can happen to anyone, let's not get carried away with the significance. But that quote about nowhere else in the entire country that could handle it made me rethink it.

Oh, and babies A, B, C, and D are US citizens (dual), too, aren't they? Bet they didn't plan on that.

The sad thing is that if Bill's wife gets elected amd the leftists retain control of congress there is a strong possiblity that they will impose socialist health care here and there will be no where for Candians to go for adequate health care. And there will be no adquate health care on the planet.

And of course there will be no advances in medical technology--that simply doesn't happen is socialists systems. Just like the cars in Cuba, medical technology will be forever frozen in time.

With the leftist's in control people like the late Christopher Reeves will never walk again no matter how may fetuses they kill to use in Joseph Mengele-like experiments.

ten bucks says the suggested difference in the cost of NICU care (i.e., what the hospitals get paid) has something to do with the shortage...

Yup, it's remarkably easily explained once you understand the relationship between price and supply - price is simply the nob that controls supply. Turning the nob down decreases supply. Turning the nob up increases supply. No government decree can change this fundamental law.

The same bunch of wackos with SAVE THE WHALES,SAVE THE REDWOODS,SAVE THE RAINFORESTS bumper stickers on their cars are the same ones who are often prochoice and proabortion

I'm not sure who your betting the $10 bucks with, but I think you need to pay them. The Calgary hospital had an unexpected number of premature births and didn't have the full 4 empty NICU slots available that this unusual occurrence required.

For those of you so down on health care for the masses, let me say two words -- Typhoid Mary.

If you can live your life in isolation, then maybe it doesn't matter if the rest of the world is healthy. As for me, I would rather have the guy with the drug resistant TB getting care somewhere on the public's dime that walking around infecting everybody else.

Spurwing:
I'm not sure how your comments fit into the discussion. Nice non-sequitur.

If her Thighness gets her way, the hospital in Montana will no longer be an option for our Canadian friends to rely upon.

Rance:

I'm not sure who your betting the $10 bucks with, but I think you need to pay them. The Calgary hospital had an unexpected number of premature births and didn't have the full 4 empty NICU slots available that this unusual occurrence required.

Great.. then surely you can cite when there was an 'unexpected' number of premature births in the U.S. and there were no NICUs anywhere in the country available.

"There wasn't space anywhere in Canada, so we had to turn to our friends in Montana."

LOL at Rance's spin attempt.

"The Calgary hospital had an unexpected number of premature births"

Again proving that socilized health care is great, as long as you're healthy. If something "unexpected" happens like a sickness or accident, well that could be a problem.

The US health care industry is treated as a part of the Canadian system. That is why they can get away with paying half what American's do. When presented with a case that happens once every few years, they can go to which ever hospital in the US has the unused capacity and will except the least amount of money. This is much much cheaper then trying to maintain the excess capacity themselves. Canada must pray that the US system doesn't change.

The phrase "anywhere in Canada" is probably short hand for "anywhere in Canada within a reasonable distance". If you look at the map, after Edmonton, Great Falls is the closest city of any size. It's the next logical place to go. These are cities in areas of low population density and don't always have all the bells and whistles that less rural areas have.

I know you want to rag on socialized medicine, but I don't think these are the "poster children" for your case. It's just a group of people acting in a logical way.

"If you look at the map, after Edmonton, Great Falls is the closest city of any size. It's the next logical place to go."

Calgary population - 1,019,942
Edmonton population - 730,372
Great Falls population - 56,690
Montana population - 902,195
Red Deer, Alberta - 82,972
Lethbridge, Alberta - 81,692

A city of 56,690 had room, but nearer cities in Alberta that are larger didn't. I guess they had an unexpected rash of premature babies in all these other cities too.

While we are on the wonderful Canadian health care system, one of my contract employees father (who lives in Ontario) needed quadruple bypass surgery. He got it 3 1/2 years later, and this after several reschedulings. But it was free! His neighbor also needed the same bypass surgery and waited 3 1/2 years to be scheduled. However, a year before his surgery, he moved to a small pine box covered with dirt and rocks.

Let me see if I have this right...

If a Canadian comes across the border to have several children in an American hospital, they are an example of the failed Canadian health care system?

If a Mexican comes across the border to have several children in an American hospital, they are an example of trying to game the American health care system and just want to drop several anchor babies so their mother can stay here and live off welfare?

I think I get it....

I read the article, I believe that "Anywhere in Canada," meant anywhere in Canada.

"The Calgary hospital had an unexpected number of premature births and didn't have the full 4 empty NICU slots available that this unusual occurrence required."

Um, I'm pretty sure they said there was no where in "Canada". Not just the Calgary Hospital.

That'll be ten bucks, please.

And Matt, it seems that you're being a little dishonest there. Canadians are not coming over here in droves to have their babies for free.

The shortage of infant/maternity care in Canada is no secret. There have been recent stories of major maternity beds/staffing shortages in the Vancouver/Fraser Valley area of British Columbia. I know of at least one women being sent across the border to Seattle,WA to have her baby, and others waiting for hours for a bed to open up.

Which is why, though I'm planning a hospital birth with a midwife, I'm also preparing for the possiblity of home birth.

The phrase "anywhere in Canada" is probably short hand for "anywhere in Canada within a reasonable distance".

Yeah, that's it. Then why didn't the story say that?

A city of 56,690 had room, but nearer cities in Alberta that are larger didn't. I guess they had an unexpected rash of premature babies in all these other cities too.

by engineer

Dangit. I gotta learn to read all the comments before I start crafting a response. I went off in search of population numbers and as I started scrolling down the list, saw engineer's answer. Much the same thing I was about to respond to rance's idiocy.

Which is why, though I'm planning a hospital birth with a midwife, I'm also preparing for the possiblity of home birth.

22. Posted by Lyana

Lyana, are you living in Canada? If so, can you, will you, elaborate on this?

At least hope you hang around and weigh in on any health care debates that arise on Wizbang. As you might see, this is a huge issue here right now.

Your insights and opinions on this issue would be welcome.

FYI
According to www.benefis.org

"Benefis Healthcare is the largest hospital in the state and the largest non-governmental employer in the Great Falls area. We provide exceptional health care to approximately 225,000 people in service area covering 44,814 square miles"

"Benefis Healthcare is the home to Montana's most advanced Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)"

If anyone is interested, a "survey of more than 300 highly-educated and prosperous Americans" living in Canada, who used both health care systems, found 45% prefered the American healthcare system. Only 40% preferd the Canadian health care system.

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/070801-3319.asp

That survey - simple consumer preference - is an inadequate way of evaluating it. If healthcare is subsidised, for example, consumers don't get to see the real prices, and may prefer it, at first glance. By contrast, having to pay the full price of healthcare may superficially lead people to disfavour it. However, in either case, the preference is based on a significant lack of information.

Also, for those who disfavoured either healthcare system, you could have considerable differences. For example, the person who dislikes the Canadian system may have had to wait too long, or may have been unable to obtain care altogether. The person who dislikes the American system may just have been annoyed at the cost, or rude staff, but received perfectly adequate care.

This survey doesn't capture any of that information, so it's hard to draw useful conclusions from it.

(On the Benefis Healthcare comment, that the description "largest employer" has to be qualified by the adjective "non-governmental" is notable. Montana may be an improvement on Calgary, but it sure ain't a perfect world.)

Ivo, not to be contradictory, but in regards to your last sentence, no one is arguing that our system, or in any city or state, is a "perfect world".

The argument, at least from my standpoint, is why should we trade a flawed system for another flawed system? I still believe our system is better and could stand an overhaul with meaningful reform. That reform should come from reforming our immigration system which, as it stands now, puts an undue burden on our health care system. And from tort reform which, as it stands now, gives lawyers like John Edwards free reign in abusing our system.

Oh, I agree. Like our Canadian friend, I'd prefer Montana, but that isn't an admission that the US government is anywhere near small enough for my brand of politics and economics. US healthcare is also too socialised and bureaucratic. And any degree of socialised welfare does indeed make immigration a huge problem. Instead of railing against immigration, however, I'd simply argue that for anything other than acute trauma care, only legal immigrants who pay taxes get to enjoy government health benefits.

Sadly, I don't see much chance for meaningful reform in healthcare in the US in the near term. The Democrats seem intent on blocking anything proposed by the Bush administration, and the Republicans won't (or at least, shouldn't) permit the kind of socialised Hillary-Care the Dems have been touting. Still, it ain't Canada, and that's a good thing.