American Vs. Canadian Healthcare

Irrespective of where one "comes out" on the level of government involvement needed in healthcare in the U.S., the facts are these: tens of millions of people in the U.S. currently do not receive even basic healthcare; some people (and their families) experiencing serious healthcare problems are being ruined by healthcare costs; and many children are falling through the cracks. In the face of astronomical profits in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, the latter social condition, i.e. children going without basic healthcare, is both deplorable and appalling. It is untenable that any "just" society of such considerable affluence would knowingly allow its own children to suffer; particularly when system reform could easily address the matter. Nevertheless, these facts are indisputable.

I also wish to clarify and correct two false statements made regarding the Canadian healthcare system - one made in the movie Sicko and the other made on Oprah. First, to address a comment made by a Canadian in the movies "Sicko", who claimed healthcare in Canada was free -- healthcare in Canada is not free. Second, to correct a member of your studio audience who claimed to be from Canada and who articulated we have unacceptably long waitlists - Canada does not have excessively long waitlists for those who require emergent or urgent care (i.e., diagnostics, treatments or surgeries). These are facts, and arguments to the contrary are spurious. So, then where do these fallacies originate? As in the U.S., there are public relations firms who are paid by lobby groups to convey messages to the public through the news media. Also, as in the U.S., even though some of these have no basis in fact or reality, they are indeed believed by the public.

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 healthcare 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 characterized 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 supply and demand is to incorrectly characterize healthcare, its demand, its costs, and human nature.