creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
24 Jul 2014
Immigrant Kids and the Fear of Disease

In 1952, Sen. Patrick McCarran of Nevada took the Senate floor to warn of the dangers posed by foreigners. … Read More.

20 Jul 2014
The Truth About Violence in Chicago

Living in a city that had 82 shootings over the Fourth of July weekend, Chicagoans could be forgiven for … Read More.

17 Jul 2014
Where's That Inflation I Was Promised?

There is a point at which firmness of conviction becomes obstinacy, and there is a point at which obstinacy … Read More.

Is Canadian Health Care a Contradiction in Terms?

Comment

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. The following column was originally published in June 2005.

To critics of the American health care system, Shangri-La is not a fantasy but a shimmering reality, though it goes by another name: Canada. Any debate on health care eventually arrives at the point where one participant says, "We should have what Canadians have. Free care, universal access and low cost — who could ask for more?"

Well, plenty of people could ask for more — starting with the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2005, ruling on a challenge to the health care in the province of Quebec, the court sent a clear message south: Don't believe the hype.

The program, said the court, has such serious flaws that it is violating constitutional rights and must be fundamentally changed. And the flaws, far from being unique to Quebec, are part of the basic structure of Canada's health care policy.

No one doubts that the American model has serious defects, particularly rising costs and lack of access to medical insurance. But anyone who thinks the Canadians have come up with a magical solution is doomed to disappointment.

The dirty secret of the system is that universal access is no guarantee of treatment. Sick Canadians spend months and even years on waiting lists for surgery and other procedures. In 1993, the average wait to see a specialist after getting a doctor's referral was nine weeks. Since then, according to the Fraser Institute of Vancouver, it's increased to 18 weeks.

The typical patient needing orthopedic surgery has time to get pregnant and deliver a baby before being called. The Supreme Court cited the testimony of one orthopedic surgeon that 95 percent of patients in Canada waited over a year for knee replacements — with many of them in limbo for two years.

In some cases, the delay lasts longer than the person enduring it. Or as the Supreme Court put it: "Patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."

Not only does the government subject its citizens to painful and even fatal delays in the public system, it bars them from seeking alternatives in the private market.

You see, it's illegal for private insurers to pay for services covered by the public system.

That policy is what forced the Supreme Court to order changes. "The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance," it declared, "is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

The program has created a gap between supply and demand that is wider than Hudson Bay. Its failings, however, go beyond that. The single-payer approach, for example, is often held up as the only way to simultaneously control costs and deliver quality care. In fact, Canada has somehow managed to do neither.

After adjusting for the age of the population, the Fraser Institute compared 27 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that guarantee universal access to health care. By some mysterious alchemy, Canada has proportionately fewer physicians than most of these nations but spends more on health care than any except Iceland.

It would be a dubious feat to control costs only by depriving people of treatment. But to forcibly deprive people of treatment while letting costs surge is no achievement at all.

Admirers of our good neighbor to the north say the United States pours money into all sorts of fancy equipment but doesn't get better results by such measures as life expectancy. But life expectancy is affected by multiple factors, including education, crime rates and diet — with health care playing only a modest role. In those areas where modern medicine can make a big difference, the United States does very well.

Take breast cancer. In Britain, which is famous for its socialized system, close to half of all victims die of the disease, according to a Cato Institute study by John Goodman, head of the National Center for Policy Analysis. In Germany and France, almost one-third do. In Canada, the figure is 28 percent — and here, it's 25 percent. Our mortality rate for prostate cancer is 67 percent lower than Britain's and 24 percent lower than Canada's.

The usual story we hear is that the health care system next door provides first-rate care to all, at low cost. The realities — dangerous delays, bloated expenditures and mediocre results — are not so appealing. American liberals may not welcome evidence that the single-payer model works far better in theory than in practice. But for that, they can blame Canada.

To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
This column ran in the Wisconsin State Journal, Madison, on December 9th, 2007. The fact that it is a "rerun" does not negate its inaccuracies--no such caveat appeared in that publication.
I suggest readers check into Paul Krugman's New York Times column of November 9th of this year--exactly a month ago. Krugman notes that Rudy Giuliani has used these same "statistics" on cancer survivial in the English National Health Service even though they have been refuted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman
Moreover, the pro-business Cato Insitute and its Canadian clone, the Fraser Institute, can hardly be viewed as objective in this matter.
As a matter of journalistic ethics, you should send corrections and clarifications on Chapman's column to every paper carrying it, with the directive that they publish those corrections.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Aredee
Sun Dec 9, 2007 7:31 PM
In my earlier E-mail concerning Steve Chapman's column on Canadian Health care, I made one error. The Wisconsin State Journal did, in fact, print that the column had originally appeared in 2005.
The disclaimer was printed at the end of the column, while it was at the beginning of the column on the Creator's Syndicate web site.
However, my criticism of the content of the column, and its apparent misrepresentations--not to mention the fact that it was outdated--still stands.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Aredee
Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:44 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Jul. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 Jul 2014
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 26 Jul 2014
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 26 Jul 2014

25 Feb 2007 I Feel Bad About My Hat

10 Mar 2011 Stay Out of Libya

25 Dec 2008 Bush's Rare Glimpse to Dissent