I'm sorry to say that Canada's system of health care is not our answer. In fact, its a system what we should steer clear of at all cost. Increased numbers of health care services would lead to longer lines, less quality doctors, and an overall decline in the efficiency of our medical services. The increased numbers of people utilizing the medical services would overload the health care system, causing it to fail. In the case of Shona Holmes, a Canadian resident, she was failed by her country's system. After learning that she had a tumor in her brain, she sought immediate attention to have it removed before it caused fatal blindness. Sadly, the doctors in Canada were ultimately too busy treating the massive amounts of other patients who were exercising their right to free health care. She was put on a waiting list and it was estimated that she could be seen in 4-6 months. In an attempt to save her own live, Shona came to the US where she had to pay out of pocket for the procedure to have her brain tumor removed. "Thats the stuff I find so tragic - having dinner with my friends and I know how much money I owe them," she says with tears.
This is a prime example of why we cannot put our faith in a system of health care that will provide equal service to anyone and everyone. I hate to be the pessimist, but this is a world that lives on the survival of the fittest theory. While better health care is a step forward, free health care for everyone is not our answer. Our country simply cannot handle such a strain, and a free health care system will only fail us in the end.
While browsing through my classmates’ blogs to look for an interesting blog to comment on, I came across a blog titled Getting Personal With My Government with an article titled So you want health care like in Canada? They can't even pronounce their letter "O". First of all, what piqued my interest the most was: What would pronouncing the letter “O” have to do with healthcare? As I read on, I thought that Canada being a developed country as it is, and many other developed countries in Europe that also have universal healthcare, must have some degree of legitimacy in their decision to offer universal healthcare. After all, they all are democratic countries. The majority of the citizens like it and prefer it, otherwise it wouldn’t be there. So how can such a large number of people and countries choose something so absurd?
ReplyDeleteSo, I did some research on the comparison between Canada’s healthcare and the U.S.’, and boy was I in for a surprise. Though both sides have valid arguments, the author of the above-mentioned blog overlooked some key issues in her argument in favor of privatized healthcare. In an article titled Battle of Health Care Systems: Canada vs. United States written by Nicole Callsen, here is what I found:
1. 49 million Americans have no insurance.
2. The U.S. is the only developed country where its citizens can become bankrupt due to healthcare costs.
3. Some 700,000 American citizens go bankrupt every year due to their inability to pay medical bills.
4. In 2006, some 19% of Americans under the age of 65 did not seek medical treatment due to the heavy costs of medical care.
5. Canada’s population is overall healthier.
6. The life expectancy rates of both males and females are higher in Canada: the men’s rate is 77.4 years, and the women’s life expectancy is 82.4 years. On the other hand, the United States’ rate for men is 74.8 years and for women it is 80.1 years (Healthcare Care System Grudge Match, October 2007).
7. Fewer Canadians are obese and fewer have heart and other health related diseases.
8. Canada spends less than 10% of its GDP on healthcare, while the U.S. spends 15%, and still 700,000 Americans suffer bankruptcy due to healthcare costs.
Callsen states that though the U.S. is technologically more advanced than Canada in medicine and healthcare, only the wealthy are able to benefit from it. One Ipsos poll concluded that Canada leads on affordability and access while the U.S. is ahead on availability.
My question to the author of this blog is: Do we just ignore the 49 million uninsured Americans?
Works Cited
O’Neill, June, O’Neill, Dave. “Health Care System Grudge Match: Canada vs. U.S.” Oct. 2007. Web. Healthcare—economist.com
Callse, Nicole. Battle of Health Care Systems: Canada vs. United States. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://www.interesting-health-facts.com/2010/01/battle-of-health-care-systems-canada-vs.html
U.S. vs. Canadian Healthcare: Poll Compares Citizens’ Experience as Patients. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4467
In Lee Bailey Bradshaw’s Blog Post “So you want healthcare like in Canada? They can’t even pronounce their letter “O”, Ms. Bradshaw gives her view on why Canada’s healthcare system is not America’s answer.
ReplyDeleteFirst lets look at some of the main characteristics of Canada’s healthcare system. Their system in general is supposed to be a mix of a public-private system, where the private sector gives healthcare services and the public is responsible for financing the services. Even though this is the way it is supposed to be, the government actually has a large authority over the services given by the private sector. The private sector does have their role, but the government exercises more authority than the private sector is given. Another element of this system is that it is not a single national system. The country is divided into 10 provinces, each of which are responsible for making their own laws regarding healthcare. The federal government plays its part by spending tens of billions of dollars annually in the healthcare area. At any time the federal government can choose to withdraw its financial support. This allows the federal government to set its own rules for the provinces to follow in order to receive this financial support. These requirements are that all provincial systems be publicly administered, comprehensive, universal, portable and accessible.
With that general overview, lets take a look at Ms. Bradshaw’s arguments against this system. Her first argument is that the increased numbers of health care services would lead to longer lines.
-This argument is valid and can be backed by facts. The Health Council of Canada did a survey regarding wait times in Canada vs. the US. In every single instance, Canadians had a substantially longer wait.
Her second argument is that there would be less quality doctors.
-Americans have access to better quality, while all Canadians have access to the same care but at a lower cost. The reasoning for the lower cost is that there is a restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services.
Her last argument is that there would be an overall decline in the efficiency of our medical services.
-I agree with this premise. If healthcare were to become public rather than privatized, what point would there be for doctors to pursue this degree. I understand a doctor’s first code is provide the necessary services and they are compassionate humans, but being honest, if doctor’s pay were decreased and hours increased, not many doctors will “stick around”. I myself am going into a medical field for two reasons: 1) because I like to know that I’m making a difference in someone’s life but 2) because it pays well. My decision to choose this career path includes both of those reasonings. One by itself would prompt me to look at other options. Just being realistic, I do not believe a good percentage of current doctor’s would have pursued this field if they though the outcome would be like Canada’s.
Overall, I believe Ms. Bradshaw makes some valid points that can be backed by facts. There are many more factors, both good and bad, that can be taken into consideration on this topic, but she covered some of the main ones that most citizens would be concerned with in healthcare services provided.