Bashing Canadian Health Care Reaches New Heights in U.S.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WASHINGTON—It turns out that the ads about the horrors of Canadian health that aired around the U.S. in May were just the warm-up. Congress and the health industry lobbyists are going full-out, denouncing "Canadian-style" health care and trotting out as many suspect anecdotes as they can find.

The Canadian defenders, with some help from the U.S. media, are trotting out their own straw men. As usual in these debates, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Congressman Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, decided to dispense with hearing more troublesome positive facts about Canada by proclaiming on July 9: "I know enough about Canadian care, and I know this bureaucratic, socialized piece of ####### they have up there..."

Republican Paul Broun of Georgia seems to believe that Canadians are a callous bunch. Speaking on July 10, Broun said, "Life is precious. Some would say, 'Well, she's 85 years of age; we should just let her die.' And that's exactly what's going on in Canada and Great Britain today. They don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently."

Even the Senate, normally a bit more reasoned, added to the Canada-bashing last week with Arizona Republican Jon Kyl claiming that "the average emergency room wait in Canada is 23 hours—if you are even considered sick enough to be admitted."

On the other hand, there were several defenses of the Canadian system. The New York Times ran a series entitled, "How Does Canada's Health Care System Actually Work" and Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote about American admiration of Canada's more humane policies.

The McClatchy news service, one of the largest in the country, produced stories with favourable Canadian mentions that appeared in a number of U.S. papers and the Buffalo News ran an opinion piece on July 13 praising Canadian health policy

If Americans get a simplified view of the system to the north, focusing on rare exceptions and horror stories, Canadians, too, revel in caricatured versions of the U.S. system that ignore its strengths.

If the horror stories are true and the U.S. system is as disastrous as it seems, why isn't the drum beat for change louder? How has such an unfair system survived, relatively intact, for so long?

Having experienced both, there is no question in my mind that the Canadian health care system is better; for those with pre-existing health conditions, for the working poor, for employers, for containing costs, and most importantly, for making Canada a fairer, more caring nation.

But there's also a strong case to be made for a private system where insured patients are treated like valued clients, where investing in the latest technology gives a competitive edge and where the best and the brightest are rewarded for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

For many, the U.S. system isn't terribly different than in Canada. Seniors have most health costs covered—albeit with charges and deductibles reaching as much as $1,000 per year. People with very low incomes who qualify for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) get mostly free coverage, even if they complain of waits to see doctors and that the best hospitals refuse to help them.

On the other hand, there are huge gaps in the U.S. An estimated 13 to 16 million people making below $75,000 do not qualify for Medicaid or CHIP and millions more are under-insured and face catastrophic costs if they fall seriously ill. Those with "pre-existing conditions"—previously diagnosed illnesses and medical problems—may not be able to purchase any health coverage even if they can afford to pay.

The lobbies supporting the status quo are very strong, but for many Americans the system they have works, and those for whom it works—the employed, the educated, the middle and upper income strata—are in the best position to influence policy.

The experience of my family of four is typical of the insured. Health insurance is provided through my employer as part of a family plan. My contribution is about $180 per month and there is a $10 co-pay for doctor's office visits and a $100-a-year deductible for hospitalization. All of these fees are deducted from taxable income.

We are part of a "Preferred Provider" plan or PPO, which means that "out of network" doctors may have a cost in addition to what the insurance company pays. There are plenty of doctors to choose from and most hospitals seem to be in network, so the PPO causes little inconvenience.

State-of-the-art care is readily available, including our choice of specialists without having to see a general practitioner first. We have never experienced a wait, even for the most advanced diagnostic tools. There is a stunning variety of hospitals to choose from, including the consistently top-ranked Washington Hospital Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital and Georgetown University Hospital—no pre-authorization needed and all covered fully by insurance.

When we've needed to access hospital care—two births and one car accident—it has been exemplary. We've enjoyed private rooms and medical services that can only be described as stunning.

The Canada-slagging coming from Congress should be a considered a welcome opportunity to defend and explain our system, but with characteristic Canadian smugness we sometimes paint the U.S. system as a total disaster when it serves many well.

Let's hope that moderate voices start to prevail. Both countries have health care lessons to learn.

http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/canada_...ngton-7-15-2009

[justashooter 430]

On the other hand, there are huge gaps in the U.S. An estimated 13 to 16 million people making below $75,000 do not qualify for Medicaid or CHIP...

this is a "huge gap" in the system?

how much money do people have to make before they start to pay for things they receive?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The experience of my family of four is typical of the insured. Health insurance is provided through my employer as part of a family plan. My contribution is about $180 per month and there is a $10 co-pay for doctor's office visits and a $100-a-year deductible for hospitalization.

We are part of a "Preferred Provider" plan or PPO, ...

Wow, I want whatever plan this author has. My premium is twice the above quoted - that for a family of three - and the plan carries a $500/$1000 annual deductible. I haven't seen rates like the above quoted for the last decade. Having worked in three different large corporations in those years, I'd like to think that my experience is more typical than that of the author.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Hey, here's a neat idea: let's combine the best of both the U.S. and Canadian health care systems! That'd be awesome. Both systems have their pros and cons and instead of making blanket statements about each, why not learn from the mistakes and make a better one?

[Peikko 1,575]

Because there is no real incentive in Washington to do anything. I believe that is why Obama is trying to push it through regardless, because it's like trying to push a huge rock uphill when the ground is all muddy. In that regard I do understand this idea that government is useless and while my personal opinion is, if government isn't doing a good job, fix the problems however unpalatable the solutions are, that's pretty much political suicide in the US because the overriding need appears to be to preserve the position of lobbyists no matter what. The governmental system is broken, I can see that.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[justashooter 430]

The governmental system is broken, I can see that.

no argument on that point. the health care system, on the other hand, works fine for me.

why let a broken system take over one that works for the majority?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Hey, here's a neat idea: let's combine the best of both the U.S. and Canadian health care systems! That'd be awesome. Both systems have their pros and cons and instead of making blanket statements about each, why not learn from the mistakes and make a better one?

fixxored

[Peikko 1,575]

The governmental system is broken, I can see that.

no argument on that point. the health care system, on the other hand, works fine for me.

why let a broken system take over one that works for the majority?

Why make a better system than one that is proven to be costly and ineffective? That health care workers themselves are not happy with? That rewards by procedure not by result? That gives the health care lobbyists an guaranteed income simply for keeping things as they are when it's all of the above? Hmmmm, I wonder why anyone would do that?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[DeadPoolX 9]

The governmental system is broken, I can see that.

no argument on that point. the health care system, on the other hand, works fine for me.

why let a broken system take over one that works for the majority?

Why make a better system than one that is proven to be costly and ineffective? That health care workers themselves are not happy with? That rewards by procedure not by result? That gives the health care lobbyists an guaranteed income simply for keeping things as they are when it's all of the above? Hmmmm, I wonder why anyone would do that?

I suppose he finds it effective for himself. Maybe that's not the most altruistic line of thinking, but if something works for you, you're probably not too interested in changing anything, either.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I agree totally. There is no incentive to change something one can't see is ineffective. However, the fact is that it is overly costly and ineffective in terms of delivering health care. That is a qualitative assessment from within the industry - it's not a personal opinion.

[HAL 9000 96]

No, I agree totally. There is no incentive to change something one can't see is ineffective. However, the fact is that it is overly costly and ineffective in terms of delivering health care. That is a qualitative assessment from within the industry - it's not a personal opinion.

Its always when tragedy comes calling close to home that most people become concerned about these things and in some cases... concerned about the consequences happening to others that may even be less fortunate than they are.

Such is the way when people confuse individualism with being ignorant of others. But that doesn't mean we'd still be paying for our neighbor's health care.

[DeadPoolX 9]

No, I agree totally. There is no incentive to change something one can't see is ineffective. However, the fact is that it is overly costly and ineffective in terms of delivering health care. That is a qualitative assessment from within the industry - it's not a personal opinion.

My dad's been a physician for over 30 years and 90% of the time he sides with conservatives and votes Republican. His opinion of the government -- and anything it does -- has never been very good at all. However, given the everyday hassles he has with HMOs and paying gross amounts of malpractice insurance (even when he was only sued ONCE and that was in the 1980s and the case was tossed out of court for being frivolous), he's said that he is ready for a single-payer health care system. So that definitely says something right there.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's a personal opinion from within the industry. In and of itself it's of the same value as anyone's personal opinion. It is certainly interesting though. Obviously the system, in your dad's eyes, has deteriorated from something he found acceptable, even possibly something very good, to something that is now very unacceptable.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My dad's been a physician for over 30 years and 90% of the time he sides with conservatives and votes Republican. His opinion of the government -- and anything it does -- has never been very good at all. However, given the everyday hassles he has with HMOs and paying gross amounts of malpractice insurance (even when he was only sued ONCE and that was in the 1980s and the case was tossed out of court for being frivolous), he's said that he is ready for a single-payer health care system. So that definitely says something right there.

Indeed.

[thetreble 19]

"I know enough about Canadian care, and I know this bureaucratic, socialized piece of ####### they have up there..."

"Life is precious. Some would say, 'Well, she's 85 years of age; we should just let her die.' And that's exactly what's going on in Canada and Great Britain today. They don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently."

How do you know something you've never experienced?

And since when do we just let old people die? They are covered until they are a bazillion.