Busting the Myths of Canadian Health Care (Reloaded)
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
In my previous post, Busting the Myths of Canadian Health Care, I've featured Part I of Sara Robinson's very insightful essay. Here's Part II.
Mythbusting Canadian Healthcare, Part II: Debunking The Free Marketeers
In the previous post, I looked at ten of the most common myths that get bandied about whenever Americans drag Canada into their ongoing discussions about healthcare. In this follow-up, I'd like to address a few of the larger assumptions that Americans make about health care that are contradicted by the Canadian example; and in the process offer some more general thinking (and perhaps talking) points that may be useful in the debates ahead.
Government-run health care is inherently less efficient -- because governments themselves are inherently less efficient.
If anything could finally put the lie to this old conservative canard, the disaster that is our health care system is Exhibit A.
America spends about 15% of its GDP on health care. Most other industrialized countries (all of whom have some form of universal care, either single-payer or entirely government-run) spend about 11-12%. Canada spends about 8-9% -- and most of the problems within their system come out of the fact that it's chronically underfunded compared to those other nations. If they spent what the UK or Germany do, those problems would mostly vanish.
Too bad that the only Democratic candidate (Dennis Kucinich) who is ballsy enough to propose a *true* universal health care (i.e. single-payer insurance, Medicare for all) didn't even had a chance to follow through.
Access: Public
canada
July 2008
Kucinich's solution is certainly the best, in terms of ethics. And his definitely has my vote. But a plan like Edwards' is probably more feasible in terms of transitioning to a single-payer system. We need the option of government insurance to compete with that of the private sector in order for Americans to truly see the cost savings and increased quality of coverage. Then, I bet private insurance will either die or offer choices we can all live with. The way it is now is just horrendous.
“But a plan like Edwards' is probably more feasible in terms of transitioning to a single-payer system.”
good point. *transition* and *feasibility* are the keywords. since Clinton's health care plan is similar to Edwards then we'll see how it goes otherwise, i doubt Obama's health care plan would do trick. but we'll see…
my two cents.
~C