American vs canadian healthcare

regardless of where one "comes out" on the level of authorities involvement needed in health care in the U.S., the facts are these: tens of 1000000 of people in the U.S. Presently do not receive even basic health care; some people (and their household) experiencing serious problems are being ruined by the costs; and many kid are falling through the cleft. In the face of astronomical profits in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, the latter social status, i.e. Kid going without basic health care, is both deplorable and appalling. It is untenable that any "just" society of such considerable affluence would wittingly allow its own kid to suffer; particularly when scheme reform could easy address the substance. Nevertheless, these facts are indisputable.

I also wish to clarify and correct two false statements made regarding the Canadian healthcare scheme - one made in the movie Sicko and the other made on a recent episode of Oprah. First, to computer address a remark made by a Canadian in the film "Sicko" who claimed it in Canada was free -- health care in Canada is not free. Sec, to correct a member of Oprah's studio audience who claimed to be from Canada and who articulated we have intolerably long waitlists - Canada does not have overly long waitlists for those who require emergent or urgent care (i.e., nosology, treatments or surgeries). These are facts, and statement to the reverse are merely false. So, then where do these false belief originate? In Canada, as in the U.S., there are populace relations firms who are paid by lobby grouping to convey messages to the populace through the news media. Also, as in the U.S., even although some of these have no basis in fact or world, they are so believed by the populace.

To the first point, healthcare system costs in Canada are paid for via personal and business tax contributions to provincial and federal governments (akin to your state and federal governments) and through premium payments made by individuals/families to government and based on income and/or ability to pay.

To the second point, for those who are sick, infirm, or suffering serious illness requiring advanced procedures, life support, or other medical/surgical treatments or interventions, these people are looked after. Our physicians, nurses, allied health and para-health professionals are among the best trained and dedicated anywhere in the world. The Canadian system is based on the practice of those who do not typically consume high levels of the services (i.e., working young adults through middle aged) subsidizing those who do (i.e. Birthing mothers, infants, and the elderly). The latter group consumes up to 85% or more of the total cost of care in the country.

In any event, the Canadian approach to healthcare does not warrant the "bad rap" it often gets from its American cousin. The American neo-conservative lobby is so strong and vocal (economically and politically) that even the hint of a government-sponsored social program which allocates healthcare risk amongst an entire population is shunned and decried as socialist or communist (and therefore "evil"). In the years to come, this shallowly processed view of social medicine will only exacerbate the American experience. Again, Americans need to look at who is perpetrating and perpetuating these fallacies, rather than simply buy a bill of goods that may not represent their interests in the short or long term.

Finally, healthcare is not like a typical economic good (e.g., vehicles, watches, real estate, sneakers, housecoats) in that people do not consume infinite amounts if it is free or there is only a nominal charge. Again, this is a fallacy I frequently hear being put forward in the American press. In reality, people consume only the amount they NEED (not want) which allows them to regain and maintain their health. Therefore to lump healthcare with other consumables governed by traditional supply and demand economics, is to incorrectly characterize healthcare, its demand, its costs, and human nature.