The United States Democratic Congress passed Health Care legislation labeled Obama Care, with much fanfare in 2009. There were many of President Obama’s bases constituents that were disappointed that a public option was dropped. Based on the IMF’s report on Canada, perhaps they should be careful what they wished for.
The International Monetary Fund, based in Washington was warned that Canada’s Health Care costs are unsustainable. In it’s report it warned that Canada’s Federal and Provincial governments have not been honest about the real costs of universal health care and those costs will swarm Canadian budgets in the future.
Alberta’s reported costs exceed 40% of its annual budget. According to the IMF, the real costs of health care remain hidden. The report said the present system is unsustainable. Provinces need to start being more upfront with Canadians about the true nature of the costs and the best practices for ensuring can be maintained in the future. (To be read as more rationing of treatment, services and longer wait times.)
As a caveat the IMF warned, “Putting off hard decisions is heading in the wrong direction.”
It’s a shame the IMF was not able to weigh in on the lies and deceit used by Obama Care’s proponents before the bill was ultimately forced through a skeptical congress.
Further, this month, the
Fraser Institute has issued it’s 20th edition of it’s in depth report, “Wait Times for Health Care in Canada.” Also know as “Waiting Your Turn.”
In the report, highlights include the following:
- Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and elective treatment in 2010.
- Patients in Ontario experience the shortest wait (14.0 weeks) followed by Manitoba (17.5 weeks), and British Columbia and Quebec (18.8 weeks)
- Patients wait longest to undergo orthopedic surgery (35.6 weeks) and wait least for medical oncology treatment (4.9 weeks)
- Canadians wait nearly 3 weeks longer than what physicians believe is “reasonable” for elective treatment after an appointment with a specialist
- Throughout the provinces, in 2010 people are waiting for an estimated 825,827-procedures. Assuming that each person waits for only one procedure, 2.45 percent of Canadians are waiting for treatment
- Only 9 percent of patients are on waiting lists because they requested a delay or postponement
The National Center for Policy Analysis, (NCPA) reported in 2009 on the differences among survival rates among Canadians, Western European Countries and Americans with Cancer. Not surprisingly, with other issues included.
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
To be sure, the United States system is not without its problems the vast majority that were dealt with in the
Republican Plan and never introduced by the Pelosi led 111th Congress.
Noted in the above reference that the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) was unable to financially score the impact of the President’s proposed legislation as signifant possible funding was not available.
So why the rush to replace the best system in the world with the well documented systems that are financially unattainable, provide rationed care, poor outcomes and prolonged times? The answer is quite simple.
In the progressive mind a larger more intrusive government is the best government, no matter the cost, no matter the outcome. Can the reader name government programs if successful at all that would not be provided less expensively and more efficiently in the private sector? It’s not likely.
Politicians have a knack for exempting themselves from programs like Obama Care to be sure that took care of that here…. So when it comes to health care the unspoken words are “let them eat cake while they wait.”
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.
Jim Campbell runs Charging Elephants.
