I wrote a little about Universal Health Care in a post last month in the context of a practice called "Body Attachment." Today there's an article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) comparing medical care in the U.S. with that in Canada.
The article focused on the wait times for elective and non-emergency surgeries, but was, overall, rather benign in its tone towards Canada's system. Not at all what I expected when I opened the story. The WSJ even included data - well known but neglected in most discussions - that Canada's system cost less as a percentage of GDP (10% vs 14%) and that Canadians live longer that Americans (79.4 yrs vs 76.8yrs).
I go to Canada a lot. My wife is Canadian and her father needs regular medical care and so I've been to the hospital and have knowledge about scheduling there. When he needs immediate care, there is no waiting. When he needs tests there is some waiting, but it depends on the exact test to be done. Most importantly, he never gets a bill for his care. He's had to go in for emergencies twice this year. He's retired and if he and his wife were living in the same situation in the States, they would have no insurance and those two visits would likely have taken every penny they could scrape together before Medicare or Medicaid kicked in. In Canada, he goes home from the hospital and a home-care nurse comes by when needed and he never gets a bill.
The wait times are being more closely managed in the Canadian system, and there is a general issue of the public using emergency rooms and clinics for very minor problems like colds. But that happens here, too.
There are just so many reasons why learning from all the best systems in the world and implementing a Universal Health Care system in the U.S. makes sense. I am constantly baffled by the arguments against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment