RSS
Home
Canadian health care: A warning to heed
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In Canada, our northern neighbor, the government pays for all health care, including everything from annual physicals and preventative measures to surgery and cancer treatment. As we discuss the future of health care in this country, especially the concept of a government takeover, we would be wise to look north of our border, and look closely.
I saw a woman on Fox News the other day who was talking about the shortfalls of the Canadian health care system. Her name was I believe Lin Gilbert, and she had a back problem that required surgery. However, she had been waitlisted for about three years before she ever got surgery. She talked about the many Canadians come to United States to pay out of pocket so they can get the care they need.
In Canada, there is no private health care sector. It's all government. Canadians can't buy their own care no matter how much they would be willing to pay, because there is no one to buy from. That's why so many come to the US for treatment. This would not be problematic--the cost-free care--except for the notorious wait times in Canada. Even for a simple diagnostic, you can wait months. Surgery can take a couple of years, if they will even operate on you at all. They have criteria by which they determine whether or not it would be the most prudent use of taxpayer money and doctors' time to operate on you or not. Not everyone makes the cut. There is another word for this: Rationing.
That's what the Canadian health care system does. I've read and heard examples of people actually dying while on a wait list. Many Canadians would rather come here to pay for the health care, but some simply can't afford it. I have to wonder what kind of red tape and mismanagement there must be in the Canadian system for someone to have to wait three years or more for an operation, and months for a diagnostic? However, the main point we should come away with is that we don't want that kind of system here. The US has almost ten times the population of Canada and our population is much less homogenous than theirs. Different cultural groups would all bring their own unique set of problems to a streamlined, one-size-fits-all government care system. Plus, we have a lot of unhealthy habits in this country, and we are the most obese society on Earth. I am aware that Obama doesn't want (at least not immediately) to create a universal plan; he wants to set up a government program that will compete with current options. While I understand the idea, where is the precedent for this? Government creating something highly similar to a private sector entity so the two can compete? Since when are the public and private sector supposed to compete? Competition is the job of private enterprises within the free market...what would happen if somehow the public plan won out? Wouldn't that create state-run care?
Many people point to Cuba as having a wonderful health care system. I'm sure they do have one. However, Cuba has about a third of a percent of our population, and their population is more homogenous than ours. It is not as ethnically homogenous as Canada's, but it is more culturally homogenous than our own. I really don't think you find much obesity in a communist society, either. Does the Cuban health care system really face the kinds of challenges that its same model would face here? If we Cuba-ized our own system, it wouldn't last. Our countries are too different.
We should consider all these things throughout this nationwide discussion on health care. It's a good thing the Senate has stalled the first main bill, because I don't think we're ready to decide as a nation--especially those who are so in favor of the President's and Congress' plan. I don't think the fans have really done enough analysis of their own on this issue, but they are out there cheering anyway.
Related Articles:
Comments
