Failure of Single Payer

[Originalist]

The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care


http://blog.westandfirm.org/2008/10/...alth-care.html


The Vancouver-based Fraser Institute has released another report on the problems with the Canadian single-payer system. Here are a few noteworthy excerpts from the press release about their peer-reviewed study, "The Hidden Costs of Single Payer Health Insurance: A Comparison of the United States and Canada":
The study shows that health care in Canada appears to cost less because relative to the United States, Canadian public health insurance does not cover many advanced medical treatments and technologies, common medical resources are in short supply, and access to health care is often severely delayed.

"On average, Americans spend more of their incomes on health care but they get better access to superior medical resources," [co-author Brett] Skinner said.

"If Canadians had access to the same quality and quantity of health-care resources that American patients enjoy, the Canadian health-insurance monopoly would cost a lot more than it currently does."

According to the most recent data, the United States outscores Canada on many key indicators of available health care resources, including:

* Number of MRI units per million population in 2006: US: 26.5; Canada: 6.2
* Number of MRI exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 83,200; Canada: 25,500
* Number of CT Scanners per million population in 2006: US: 33.9; Canada 12
* Number of CT exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 172,500; Canada 87,300
* Number of inpatient surgical procedures per million population in 2004: US: 89,900; Canada: 44,700.

...Even on health insurance coverage, the Canadian system does not perform much better than the U.S. when it comes to actually delivering insured access.

"Access to a wait list is not the same thing as access to health care," Skinner said.

The study cites government data showing an estimated 1.7 million Canadians (aged 12 and older) were unable to access a regular family physician in 2007. And it points to other research showing that the actual number of "effectively" uninsured Americans is less than half of the figure usually reported and that being uninsured is usually only a temporary condition.

Based on these figures, the study estimates that the percentage of the population that was "effectively" uninsured for non-emergency, necessary medical services at any given time during 2007 was not significantly different between the two countries: 7.9 percent in the U.S. compared to six percent in Canada.

"When Canadians can't get access to health care because they can't find a physician or wait so long that they are effectively uninsured, they are no better off than uninsured Americans," Skinner said.

[Originalist]

This one is even better.....

http://www.heritage.org/research/lec...er-health-care

[Aquila]

[n david]

Same old stuff different day. Let's just rest assured. The privatized for profit system will eventually become so expensive people will cry out for Single Payer. It's closer and closer every day.

Of course, cause it's "FREE," and people love "free." They don't care what it will do to the deficit and economy, or that it makes the government the middle man....all they care is they won't have to pay for it out of their pockets.

[KeptByTheWord]

I don't think the health care system in America would be so broken if we weren't paying for all the "illegals" to receive healthcare. When you consider how many illegals in America receive free healthcare, while the rest of the average american population must pay exorbitant costs.... perhaps we need to revisit this issue again. Nothing is "free" ... if you receive something for free, someone else paid for it. It may be free for you, but someone else paid the price, in this case... the American taxpayers.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

Of course, cause it's "FREE," and people love "free." They don't care what it will do to the deficit and economy, or that it makes the government the middle man....all they care is they won't have to pay for it out of their pockets.

I'm Canadian by birth, and I speak from a perspective of having been a part of both healthcare systems. In Canada, you could hardly get in to see the doctor for a serious problem in the ER because of the crowds of people in the waiting room with a sniffle, a cough, or some minor illness that could have been treated at home. I worked in the healthcare system too in Canada, and saw first hand the people who took advantage of the "free" healthcare by using it when it wasn't necessary, and creating backlogs in doctor offices and hospital waiting rooms for things that weren't something a doctor needed to treat.

I personally have relatives who could not get simple procedures done in Canada, and had to come to the US to receive those treatments, or worse, suffer for over a year because they could not afford to travel that far for treatment.

In the eastern provinces of Canada, one MRI and CT machine has to serve an enormous population group. I don't know the exact numbers of the ratio between population and availability, but I know that my family has to travel three hours to the closest large hospital that houses an MRI or CT scan!

Is that the kind of health care we really want for this country? I don't think so.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I'm Canadian by birth, and I speak from a perspective of having been a part of both healthcare systems. In Canada, you could hardly get in to see the doctor for a serious problem in the ER because of the crowds of people in the waiting room with a sniffle, a cough, or some minor illness that could have been treated at home. I worked in the healthcare system too in Canada, and saw first hand the people who took advantage of the "free" healthcare by using it when it wasn't necessary, and creating backlogs in doctor offices and hospital waiting rooms for things that weren't something a doctor needed to treat.

I personally have relatives who could not get simple procedures done in Canada, and had to come to the US to receive those treatments, or worse, suffer for over a year because they could not afford to travel that far for treatment.

In the eastern provinces of Canada, one MRI and CT machine has to serve an enormous population group. I don't know the exact numbers of the ratio between population and availability, but I know that my family has to travel three hours to the closest large hospital that houses an MRI or CT scan!

Is that the kind of health care we really want for this country? I don't think so.

A national health care program in the United States wouldn't be exactly like Canada's. Basically it would be a tweaked extension of Medicare.

We can make it work if we simply believe in it and dedicate ourselves to it as a society. We are Americans. We have proven time and time again that we can buckle down and do anything when we put our minds to it. If we can put a man on the moon... we can design a national health care program. We simply need to get a vision and commit to the hard work of doing it. What we have now isn't working.

Interesting article:

America needs cost-effective universal health care
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/august...al-health-care

[KeptByTheWord]

How would it be different?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

How would it be different?

First, it would generate far more revenue than Canada's. Second, we already have the facilities and equipment in place. Canada didn't when their first provincial system was began in the 1940's.

[Aquila]

Canadians still overwhelmingly prefer their system to America's. Yes, some do come hear for some treatments... IF they have the money to do so.