Thursday, July 30, 2009

TWO revealing comments posted to the "conversation" between NYT columnists Gail Collins and David Brooks on the merits or lack thereof of a single-payer health care system:

I’m a 65+ Canadian (with a bunch of US relatives) still working full time by choice (self-employed) and paid into the Canadian health care bureaucracy for 47 years with minimal useage. The fact that there are almost as many Americans +/- without the financial means to access anything but limited health care in the US as there are Canadians in all of Canada (33 million), has always amazed me.

Now I pay very little but I get access to the same medical fraternity & facilities & treatments as the wealthiest Canadians.

Obviously, Americans will decide what health care outcome they prefer and probably don’t want or need to hear the opinions of Canucks on the matter. But those Americans hearing anecdotes on the “outright failure” of the single payer, all-inclusive, Canadian system need to know the truth in terms of universal accessibility, cost per capita, medical outcome statistics, wait times, etc. As ham-fisted as the Cdn system might be, the health care outcomes for Canadians rank near the top, worldwide and cost less per capita.

My personal, 6 year battle with cancer is destined to go on for another 10+ years and never have I been adversely affected in any way (including wait times) by the Canadian system. Beware the extreme, anecdotal “case studies” pillorying the Cdn. Health Care System that I’ve seen on US TV ads. In your own best interests, dig deeper for the truth.

— Bruce Warren

I’ve lived in Canada most of my life, and I see the doctor I want to see. When he doesn’t know what the problem is, he refers me to a specialist. No one has to be asked to see “if it’s covered”. If there’s no need to refer me, he doesn’t. Period.

I’ve never had to wait for treatment that I’ve needed. My sister has had cancer, and was seen and operated on within the week. My father has heart disease, and has always been treated in a timely manner.

The woman in the TV commercial who stated that she had to pay to go to the US to be treated for a “brain tumor” apparently didn’t have cancer — she had a cyst in her brain. That’s likely the reason why she didn’t receive an immediate operation — there were other people who actually had brain tumors who needed to be operated on, and her situation wasn’t life threatening.

We have a single payer — the province. The province is a “not-for-profit” entity — they don’t pad the cost of health care to make money. This is one way that a single-payer system saves money. Comments from other readers discuss some of the other ways:
- Purchasing in large quantities mean that better prices can be negotiated
- A single payer system eliminates the majority of the paperwork associated with a for-profit health care system
- “Limits on what is covered” have always been in place; right now in the US, the limits are determined by what is profitable to an insurance company. A single payer system means that they are determined according to what is the best allocation of dollars for the health care system.

I guess the best way to put it is that, if the workforce is healthy, then it is better able to generate income tax dollars. The fact that a single-payer system costs less than a for-profit system on a per capita basis is just a bonus.

— D Simpson