The Seattle Times’ Bruce Ramsey is thankful that he doesn’t have to suffer through that damned, Canadian socialized health care system.
An American friend lives in British Columbia with his wife, who just had hip-replacement surgery, paid by the Canadian taxpayer.
My mother just had hip-replacement surgery, paid by the U.S. taxpayer. (You know, Medicare.)
In Canada there is universal coverage, though the care itself is limited by squeezes on provincial budgets.
In the U.S. we have universal coverage for old people, but for the rest of us, our care is limited by squeezes on insurance company and/or household budgets. So what’s the point?
Says my friend, “You should hear the Canadians talk. They say, ‘We’ve got an OK system. If it’s really serious, they take care of you.’ “
And the last thing we’d want would be a system that takes care of us.
And it’s free, too, though don’t expect always to have the newest technology. You pay in taxes, of course.
Compare “tax-freedom days” — the day of the year in which, if you had to pay all your taxes first, you would be done with them. For Washington, the Tax Foundation calculates that day at April 16; for British Columbia, according to the Fraser Institute, it is June 8.
True, taxes are higher in Canada, but as Bruce points out, they cover health care as well. According to the Tax Foundation, Washington’s “tax-freedom day” is calculated on total local, state and federal taxes of about $14,100 a year per capita. Yet according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington state also spends an additional $6,700 per capita annually on health care costs.
Roll Washington’s per capita health care costs into our per capita taxes, and you get a “tax-freedom day” of June 5. Not all that different from British Columbia, huh? Plus they get all those other socialist goodies too.
Of Canada’s economic output, 11.9 percent goes to medical care, compared with 17.6 percent in the United States. Canada may be more efficient. It also saves money by making its people wait for things like hip replacements.
Osteoarthritis destroys the hip joint over time. The symptom is pain. My friend’s wife appealed to her primary-care doctor in April. He gave her pain pills.
See, that’s what happens when consumers are denied choice, whereas here in our free market American system, Bruce’s friend’s wife could have just sought out a new doctor.
In August she sought out a new doctor.
Oh. But still, a government bureaucrat is a government bureaucrat, so what difference would that make, right?
He said she needed a hip replacement right away and referred her to a specialist.
Oh.
She was told the specialist might see her in three months.
Bingo! Damn socialists!
She was lucky: He had a cancellation.
Oh. But still, a government bureaucrat is a government bureaucrat, so what difference would that make, right?
He approved her for surgery.
Oh.
She was told it would be three months, and to wait for a call from the scheduler.
Bingo! Damn socialists!
[…] She was about to sign up for New Zealand when the scheduler called. Luck, again. The specialist did the surgery earlier this month, and it went well.
Oh.
The patient’s room, however, was a four-bed ward, common in Canada. Two of her roommates were men — she was not happy about that — mixed-gender rooms being cheaper to administer.
Yeah… but… um… she got her hip replaced, essentially for free, as opposed to the $29,000 it would have cost her to go to New Zealand.
The price was right: only $2,100, all of it for an upgrade to a new ceramic hip, which probably will last her lifetime. The older metal-on-plastic technology, which ran a much higher risk of wearing out and causing her trouble, would have been free, courtesy of the government.
So let me get this straight… Bruce’s friend’s wife had a choice of doctors, and was referred to a specialist who replaced her hip promptly. Furthermore, the procedure went well and “the price was right.”
And the problem is?
Well, you know what the real problem is with Bruce’s column? It’s a red herring.
Despite the fact that his anecdote shows the Canadian system working quite well in comparison to the American system (or lack thereof) his whole column is entirely beside the point. Neither house of Congress even came close to seriously considering the kind of single-payer system Canadians enjoy.
So Bruce’s wife’s friend’s experience has absolutely no relevance to our current debate. Which I guess, considering the quality the debate thus far, is really par for the course.