From the Denver POST
If the only way we compared the two systems – U.S. versus Canada – was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.
Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America’s health care problems…
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.
Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada’s taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.
Myth: Canada’s health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everybody is covered.
Not so incidentally, single-payer systems run by the U.S. government can approach Canadian efficiency. Medicare and Social Security run at less than 3% overhead.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada’s GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada’s. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada’s government decides who gets health care and when they get it. While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
RTFA. The article continues on to examine more myths…and lies.
Thanks, Cinaedh
And that was the last post from Eideard, before JCD revoked his rights to post stuff on dvorak.org/blog. Bye Eideard! I’ve enjoyed your posts over the years.
because the issue “feels” right. That is, repugliscum feel it is WRONG to steal their money and give it to people who refuse to work. I have to admit, I would not want my money stolen and given to people who don’t work either.
Then you get mush brain LIEBERTARIANS and Repuglican Spin Meisters to convince the self centered that taxes is theft and the uninsured don’t work.
Viola==a compassionate conservative dumb ass voter voting year after year against their own self interests.
Kinda a Darwin Award for an entire Society.
I’d laugh, but I know the dumbshit egotists will “honestly” disagree, and thats the whole point. — “I knew a guy who – – – -and statistics go out the window. Don’t let facts confuse a heartfelt “value.”
Good morning Jag–nice to see you up and posting.
Just want to add, that YES the waste and inefficiency of our for profit medicine is such that universal converage should be immediately possible at a SAVINGS to the government healthcare expenditures but OBAMA thinking he has to put a stake in his own program to get the camels nose under the tent is willing to waste 2.6 trillion in order to maintain for profit insurance scamsters. Shockingly Bad Government and all squarly on Obama. Sad, he might be right that the “powerful forces in Washington” won’t let a government option without their golden parachutes being filled first.
Its an on going crime, right before our eyes.
I too congratulate Eideard for stating simple facts.
This is Yet another Blog post about the same subject matter that has popped up again and Again this past week or more… Here we go again… I look forward to reading all the Conservative reterick once again..!!!! Lets do somethng good for our country and create a healthcare system that we can be pround of…becasue what we have now is definetly Broken.
A more appropriate headline would be:
Why do Democrats continue to lie about the true cost of Socialized Medicine?
Answer: They don’t want to discuss the rationing of health care.
As Obama said during his infomercial – to save costs, forget about the surgery and just dish out more pain pills.
If socialized medicine is so fantastic, why did Congress opt out of the plan? Hmmmm?(Kennedy plan)
Perhaps we should let the Canadians run our healthcare system. I certainly don’t trust the good ole U.S. Federal Government to keep overhead costs to 1%!
I find it funny that a country with nearly no military or defense budget has taxes that are higher than ours. Truly amazing.
#5 all of the ultra conservatives obviously have what ever they need when they need it and do not have any concern for their fellow man…its self centred assholes like this that are preventing the country from doing something good for all citizens. What is basicall wrong with this? The rationing of healthcare is ongoing now as we speak, the health insurance companies deny coverage every day to patients that need help or even worse…cover the cost initially, then decide after the fact to revoke the coverage after a procedure, then leave the “Covered and Insured” individual in dire straights… so of this is a system that works, show me one that doesnt… What we have now is a for profit and Greed..ONLY system… The Insurabce companies..are spending more $$ then we can count to protect their interests…and each time republican speaks out against universal health care, I would like to know how much an insurance company has paid for the capital hill mouth piece… everyone votes for his own wallet, and dont be fooled by any politician.
I live in Canada and have worked and the used health care in the US. Neither is perfect, both need reforms, and both sides are working away at it. You hear news stories from both sides of the border about some particular craziness. I don’t believe any of them most of the time. On the whole, I’ve received very good care on both sides of the border.
I don’t think a Canadian style insurance approach would work in the US at a national level, it might at a state level. One thing I do know, the US costs (highest per capita in the world) are not sustainable.
As for the Republicans distorting our health care system. What else is new? However, the Democrats do a pretty good job themselves painting our system as nirvana, which it isn’t.
#5
They don’t want to discuss the rationing of health care.
Myth. RTFA, if you are able to do so.
…why did Congress opt out of the plan?
Duh! Because the wealthy people profiting insanely from the status quo paid them to do so?
This is a very well written article with few surprises for those of us in the U.S. who are A) honest and B) paying attention.
I won’t derail this conversation by attempting to make a point about people really being able to keep over 80% of their income in the U.S. What a nice dream!
Other than that, this article makes a lot of valid points.
#5 – jbenson2,
You don’t really think you made any point with that, do you? Congress doesn’t have to deal with my own crappy health care coverage either. And, I have a fairly expensive PPO.
Perhaps you should try reading the article.
Nevermind though. You’d first have to open your mind to things like observable facts and real data.
#7 – Derek,
Has it occurred to you to actually check on anything before you say it? Making shit up is not a way to win arguments.
Canada spends $18B/yr on defense, making them 16th in the world in spending, depending on which of the following pages is more current.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
I think most would consider that a fairly high percentage for a country ranked 36th by population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Perhaps we should implement a minimum IQ for posting here.
A repuglican scum friend of mine righteously told of a friend of his in Canada who had to wait for 6 months to get a hip replacement and thats why he was against USA socialized medicine.
I asked him the age, prognosis, and desires of the patient and why he would design the USA model with the same delays if he was starting from scratch and already paying 250% more than Canada per capita.
I informed him that if I, also his friend, wanted a hip replacement that I would NEVER GET IT, as I can’t afford the co-pays.
I asked him which is worse NEVER getting healthcare in America or having to wait for 6 months.
He said I was obfuscating the issues.
Hah, hah. What the republican dolts here refuse to understand is that THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE would be cheaper over time with universal converage. They are like the monkey with a fist full of nuts, can’t stand to let go.
Dolts. Hard hearted, self absorbed, and short sighted. I hear you are rebuilding the party too! (smile!!)
#7 Afghanistan Troop Losses:
1,197 killed
US: 712
UK: 169
Canada: 120
Other: 193
ANS : Because lying is the short path to winning over sheeple that don’t do research.
#9 – qb,
No system in the world is perfect. No system in the world will provide the best possible care for each and every individual.
With the highest cost per capita in the world, as you point out, and the worst health care of any developed democratic nation, I think we can safely say that the U.S. system does far from an adequate job. In fact, I’d call it horribly broken.
My source for the statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality could, of course, be biased.
It is the CIA afterall.
Yup. That’s right. The CIA says that Cuba beats us by a not insignificant amount on lower infant mortality and Bosnia beats us on life expectancy.
Don’t trust me. Here are the links to the CIA site.
http://tinyurl.com/yrq7l8
http://tinyurl.com/m2jhtt
Most of the French Canadians living in New England bring their relatives to the states for health issues because the service is so poor there. I don’t believe this article.
#17-jera… I am from maine..Orignally..and this sounds like some crap my father would say..but i have never actually seen it..can u prove it?… I think not…and besides if they did..they must be extreemly wealthy French Canadians… just the fact man!!!
#17
There are always exceptions to any norm; better and worse. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called a norm, would it?
Trotting out only the exceptions that are worse to bolster your arguments, while utterly ignoring better and the norm itself, is intellectually pathetic.
#13 – bobbo,
You make a very good point. Here’s one you miss.
Have you noticed how often hip replacement is used as the example of the U.S. system being better than the Canadian one? Whether true or false is irrelevant.
Consider the patient.
Hip replacements are largely performed on the elderly. The vast majority are done while the patient is on medicare.
So, it’s a comparison of the U.S. socialized medicine versus the Canadian socialized medicine.
This is not the issue.
We need to compare the U.S. private system with the Canadian socialized system. Hip replacement doesn’t do that. So, while our medicare wait times for hip replacement may indeed be shorter than Canada’s, this is a completely irrelevant statistic in the comparison of private versus public funding of health care.
The thing I’ve found weird about this whole comparison is that Canada and US are very different countries. Canadians, in general, like their health care system. Americans, in general, like their health care system.
The countries have charted two very different courses over the last 20 years. The quality of health care treatment did indeed decline during the late 80’s, 90’s and into this century. Why? As a whole, Canada went through a period of belt tightening and fiscal reform. For the most part, deficits were brought under control and debt reduced or eliminated. This meant less money for everything, including health care.
Now new models are emerging (private clinics and hospitals, nurse practitioners, community health care, etc). Canada tends to be more organic and evolutionary in it’s change. We tend to do things differently than the US – it’s part of the culture.
This is not a criticism of the US or any other country – that’s just us and who we are. I don’t think our model would work in the US because our culture and political systems are far different.
#22 Scott
One thing to remember, the US is #3 in the world in public health care spending per capita. #1 in private spending. You guys spend a whole lot of money on both sides.
#5: “If socialized medicine is so fantastic, why did Congress opt out of the plan? Hmmmm?(Kennedy plan)”
Probably because the American Medical Association is a group with deep pockets and many lobbyists, whose ox would be gored if medical costs went down.
The Money to fund any program to provide universal health care would easily be attained if we would start to mind our ouwn business, like many other countries around the world. We currently have more than 700 US Military installatiions overseas.. we have personnel in more than 150 coountries… and we wonder why some folks dislike us?… the war on terror is also the most costly hoax in american society.. it seems to me that a fraction of this cost spent on the correct places will cover the cost of doing whats right for america and that is taking care of her people.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564
The Article is a little dated but factual.
Its a shame we spend so much on the military. Its not necessary…
Just sounds like more of ‘the grass is greener’ argument.
We’ve got a long way to go.
No one addressed one crucial issue: statistics=damn lies. Particularly when manipulated by the Govt. in their own favor.
Simplest example (check it, very well documented): If 55 yrs or older person dies from disease for which he/she was denied care for: it is counted as a death of old age! Because they WON’T treat the disease, they assume the outcome is natural… Many more such examples contributing to a fake smiley face statistics.
So, yes, they spend less but they care for people less too.
I live under the Canadian system and my wife works under it. Canada does not have a single system, each province has their own system,the feds kind of set the rules but never pay the amount they should. When it was started it was at OVER 100%, today it is under 50% for British Columbia, higher for other provinces.
The system has chased out the ‘cowboys’ of medicine, since it is hard to fly high under this system. The US system does not have this, which is why so many of the new techniques recently have been developed under the US system. The system up here plays it pretty conservative on what is an accepted treatment.
Also, the system is NO WAY as efficient as this story makes out. They are counting the FEDERAL administration cut, but they really only set some standard and give out money. There is the Provincial overhead, where standards are set and checks are cut. There is the local health district cut, this is where a lot of the policy is set and people decide “yeah, a 9 month wait for an MRI for a 40 year old mother of 2 with sudden onset blindness” is par for the course. THEN there is the overhead at the hospital level where there are not more administrators than doctors. A Hospital that ran with 5 administrators in 1950, while now 10 times bigger, has an administrative staff of over 500. JUST at the local level. Each level takes an increasing cut for administration.
That is the problem with health care spending. In the old days it was between you and your doctor. Things were a hell of a lot cheaper. Today there are 5 levels of ‘oversight’ and ‘management’ which all take an increasing piece of the pie.
#22, Scott,
You make a good point on hip replacements.
Many Medicare patients are turned down for hip replacements that do not show up in statistics and when authorized, usually have varying wait times, depending upon their locality.
The same problems exist in Canada where those in very rural areas have to schedule surgeries in distant hospitals which increase the wait.
The other never mentioned part of the Canadian system is a few years ago several Provinces tried to impliment the American style of health care. They did this by choking the system of funds, thus creating huge backlogs and ordering hospitals to close thus reducing the number of beds. These governments then turned around and pointed to how the Canadian system was failing. Those governments are gone and the whole system is rebuilding itself but some of the legacies remain.
The Canadian system is much better than what is available in the US. Yes there are still problems but they are being corrected. As I understand, ALL wait times are being reduced.
#2 – bobbo – Kinda a Darwin Award for an entire Society.
LOL (And good morning yourself. 🙂 )
#12 – Misanthropic Scott
Here’s an interesting page about military expenditure. This chart says a lot. The two data tables under “Other spending priorities” puts things into perspective.
#14 – qb – Canada: 120
Does that include “friendly fire” kills?
#17 – jeraa2t – Most of the French Canadians living in New England bring their relatives to the states for health issues because the service is so poor there.
Care to share the stats?
#26 – ridin the short bus
Good link.
#30 Anecdotally, that makes sense. My father has had two knee replacements. In the late 90’s the wait time (Vancouver) was about a year. We sent him to Texas and paid the $35,000.
He had his other knee replaced last year. From family doctor visit to surgery was less than 4 weeks. Same health care system, but a different period.
A colleague’s father was diagnosed with bladder cancer recently. After initial diagnosis the surgery was scheduled for 10 days out. 3 days in more test results came back and they moved the surgery up to the 5th day.
I am not going to argue with anyone and say that we couldn’t get a surgery done faster in the US, especially with money in hand. However, the above times are pretty typical based on my experience.