An inconvenient truth for GOP: Canada's system is better...
An inconvenient truth for the GOP: Canada's system is better
Republicans want to ensure no public option creeps into the American system
Eugene Lang and Philip DeMont
From Monday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Sep. 14, 2009
It is rare for Canada to get noticed in the United States. In fact, it is almost unprecedented for anything Canadian to be the focal point of debate in Washington. Yet we have seen just that in recent months during the congressional wrangling over U.S. President Barack Obama's attempts to reform health insurance.
Canada's medicare system has suddenly been thrust into the spotlight south of the border. It has been pilloried by the Republicans in Congress, the subject of derisive and distorted television advertisements, described variously as a system of medicine by bureaucrat, a statist form of health care afflicted by gross inequities and inefficiencies, one that pales in comparison to the U.S. model. The hysterical tone of the anti-medicare rhetoric among Republicans would make one think Canada is North Korea.
But there is an inconvenient truth that the Republican ideology cannot dispute. Canada's approach to providing citizens with universal health insurance is superior to the U.S. model of private insurance. When we get beyond the anti-medicare ideology and histrionics on Capitol Hill, we can establish this by reference to four basic numbers that give a good sense of our system versus the system in the United States.
Life expectancy is a basic measure of the quality of health care. In the U.S., a citizen will live 77.8 years on average. In Canada, you can expect to live two and a half years longer (80.4 years). Infant mortality is also a vital indicator of health care. In the United States, 6.37 infants die out of every 1,000. In Canada the number is 5.4 out of a 1,000.
But what about the cost differences of the two approaches to health care? Surely our Leviathan-like system, which produces such enviable results, must cost a fortune relative to the U.S. model.
The best measure of health care costs is the percentage a country spends relative to the size of its economy, or its gross domestic product (GDP). Canadians spend about 10 per cent of GDP on health. Americans spend 16 per cent to achieve inferior results on life expectancy and infant mortality.
Finally, it is estimated that there are somewhere around 40 million Americans – about 12 per cent of their population, well in excess of the total population of Canada – who have no medical insurance whatsoever. These unfortunate people are literally on their own in paying for any and all medical treatments they require. That gap in coverage is staggering, making the United States an outlier among all advanced Western nations.
One might ask how many uninsured citizens exist in Canada? The answer is zero – all Canadians are insured. In this country, good-quality, universally accessible medical care is regarded as a basic element of citizenship, kind of like owning a gun is in the U.S.
So to sum up. We live longer than the Americans do. We are less likely to die at or soon after birth than the Americans are. All Canadians have medical insurance, whereas a huge number of Americans don't. And we pay less as a society for health care than they do in the United States. Four numbers paint a stark picture. And when you strip away the anti-medicare ideological rants and falsehoods on display in Washington, Canada's approach to health insurance would probably sound pretty good to many Americans.
To their credit, by putting public insurance on the table as a supplement to private plans, the Democrats in the U.S. Congress are trying to drag the United States into the club of civilized nations when it comes to health care. We've been in that club since the establishment of medicare more than 40 years ago.
Don't get us wrong here. We are not saying medicare is perfect; it is far from that, and it requires constant improvement, as most Canadians understand. But it is not a bad deal for citizens of this country.
The Republican-led anti-medicare lobby in Congress knows these numbers and facts. But they are regarded as inconvenient truths that must be ignored in the crusade to discredit the Canadian approach to health insurance, to ensure no public option creeps into the U.S. system. Anti-government ideology is running amok in Washington, trumping facts and rational debate, distorting one of the most important public policy issues the United States has grappled with in decades.
Ultimately, the U.S. public will pay the price for that.
Eugene Lang is a former senior economist at Finance Canada. Philip DeMont served as a senior policy adviser to Ontario's health minister.
Re: An inconvenient truth for GOP: Canada's system is better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Life expectancy is a basic measure of the quality of health care. In the U.S., a citizen will live 77.8 years on average. In Canada, you can expect to live two and a half years longer (80.4 years). Infant mortality is also a vital indicator of health care. In the United States, 6.37 infants die out of every 1,000. In Canada the number is 5.4 out of a 1,000.
Life expectancy is problematic because people die in ways and in places that the health care system cannot do anything about.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...in-united.html
"...once fatal injuries are taken into account, U.S. "natural" life
expectancy from birth ranks first among the richest nations of the
world."
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_O...esentation.pdf
As for infant mortality....
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html
"A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill
sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low
weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000
live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly
increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely
to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three
times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate
that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the
U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8
per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had
Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate
would fall to 5.4."
Re: An inconvenient truth for GOP: Canada's system is better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
An inconvenient truth for the GOP: Canada's system is better
..unless you're trans, and have to go to the Clarke Institute because of where you live in Canada.
Re: An inconvenient truth for GOP: Canada's system is better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Finally, it is estimated that there are somewhere around 40 million Americans – about 12 per cent of their population, well in excess of the total population of Canada – who have no medical insurance whatsoever. These unfortunate people are literally on their own in paying for any and all medical treatments they require. That gap in coverage is staggering, making the United States an outlier among all advanced Western nations.
One might ask how many uninsured citizens exist in Canada? The answer is zero – all Canadians are insured. In this country, good-quality, universally accessible medical care is regarded as a basic element of citizenship, kind of like owning a gun is in the U.S.
First off, this is rather disingenuous. They claim there are over 40 million Americans without health insurance. Then they claim that Canadian citizens are all covered. Unfortunately for their version of logic, fully a third of that figure of uninsured 'Americans' are illegal aliens and aliens are not covered by Canadian Medicare. I read an interesting story recently about a British tourist (accompanied by Jeremy Clarkson, no less) who had to come up with the money to have his son treated in a Quebec hospital before treatment could start.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6814702.ece
It is very dishonest for Lang and DeMont to count aliens against the US and exclude them when it comes to Canada.
Another large chunk of that number of uninsured Americans are people who can afford insurance (I'm talking about people who make somewhere above $50K a year) and simply do not buy any. Still another large chunk of those without coverage are the people who would qualify for Medicaid - if they'd simply apply.
Re: An inconvenient truth for GOP: Canada's system is better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
An inconvenient truth for the GOP: Canada's system is better
Republicans want to ensure no public option creeps into the American system
Eugene Lang and Philip DeMont
From Monday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Sep. 14, 2009
It is rare for Canada to get noticed in the United States. In fact, it is almost unprecedented for anything Canadian to be the focal point of debate in Washington. Yet we have seen just that in recent months during the congressional wrangling over U.S. President Barack Obama's attempts to reform health insurance.
Canada's medicare system has suddenly been thrust into the spotlight south of the border. It has been pilloried by the Republicans in Congress, the subject of derisive and distorted television advertisements, described variously as a system of medicine by bureaucrat, a statist form of health care afflicted by gross inequities and inefficiencies, one that pales in comparison to the U.S. model. The hysterical tone of the anti-medicare rhetoric among Republicans would make one think Canada is North Korea.
But there is an inconvenient truth that the Republican ideology cannot dispute. Canada's approach to providing citizens with universal health insurance is superior to the U.S. model of private insurance. When we get beyond the anti-medicare ideology and histrionics on Capitol Hill, we can establish this by reference to four basic numbers that give a good sense of our system versus the system in the United States.
Life expectancy is a basic measure of the quality of health care. In the U.S., a citizen will live 77.8 years on average. In Canada, you can expect to live two and a half years longer (80.4 years). Infant mortality is also a vital indicator of health care. In the United States, 6.37 infants die out of every 1,000. In Canada the number is 5.4 out of a 1,000.
But what about the cost differences of the two approaches to health care? Surely our Leviathan-like system, which produces such enviable results, must cost a fortune relative to the U.S. model.
The best measure of health care costs is the percentage a country spends relative to the size of its economy, or its gross domestic product (GDP). Canadians spend about 10 per cent of GDP on health. Americans spend 16 per cent to achieve inferior results on life expectancy and infant mortality.
Finally, it is estimated that there are somewhere around 40 million Americans – about 12 per cent of their population, well in excess of the total population of Canada – who have no medical insurance whatsoever. These unfortunate people are literally on their own in paying for any and all medical treatments they require. That gap in coverage is staggering, making the United States an outlier among all advanced Western nations.
One might ask how many uninsured citizens exist in Canada? The answer is zero – all Canadians are insured. In this country, good-quality, universally accessible medical care is regarded as a basic element of citizenship, kind of like owning a gun is in the U.S.
So to sum up. We live longer than the Americans do. We are less likely to die at or soon after birth than the Americans are. All Canadians have medical insurance, whereas a huge number of Americans don't. And we pay less as a society for health care than they do in the United States. Four numbers paint a stark picture. And when you strip away the anti-medicare ideological rants and falsehoods on display in Washington, Canada's approach to health insurance would probably sound pretty good to many Americans.
To their credit, by putting public insurance on the table as a supplement to private plans, the Democrats in the U.S. Congress are trying to drag the United States into the club of civilized nations when it comes to health care. We've been in that club since the establishment of medicare more than 40 years ago.
Don't get us wrong here. We are not saying medicare is perfect; it is far from that, and it requires constant improvement, as most Canadians understand. But it is not a bad deal for citizens of this country.
The Republican-led anti-medicare lobby in Congress knows these numbers and facts. But they are regarded as inconvenient truths that must be ignored in the crusade to discredit the Canadian approach to health insurance, to ensure no public option creeps into the U.S. system. Anti-government ideology is running amok in Washington, trumping facts and rational debate, distorting one of the most important public policy issues the United States has grappled with in decades.
Ultimately, the U.S. public will pay the price for that.
Eugene Lang is a former senior economist at Finance Canada. Philip DeMont served as a senior policy adviser to Ontario's health minister.
It's not rare for Canadians to crow about being better than America though. I think it irks them to no end when they realize their the only party to this supposed rivalry.
The Canadian system is not better than the American system. The French system, perhaps.
