Canada has a single-payer health care system. Everyone pays the government based on their total earned income, and then the government decides who will be treated, based on special interest groups “need”. So it’s a disdvantage to be hard-working and prudent, since you end up paying taxes but never using any services. For example, politically correct services like taxpayer-funded abortions, in vitro fertilization, and sex changes are provided, but necessary care like MRIs are rationed with waiting lists. For some treatments, you can wait for years. And the government restricts the number of doctors in order to keep costs down, since fewer doctors means fewer claims to pay.
Now you may say to yourself, “Big deal! At least it’s fair! Radical leftist politicians love single-payer health care, and they get in line for health care right behind ordinary guys/gals just like me! We’re all in it together, eh?”
Erm, not so much.
Look at this story from National Post: (H/T Secondhand Smoke via Andrew, ECM)
Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.
Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.
“He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done,” said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.
“In consultation with his own doctors, he’s decided to go that route.”
Mr. Williams’ decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada’s health-care system.
“It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province,” said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.
[…]During the 2008 federal election, Mr. Williams vehemently opposed the Conservative government, launching his “Anything But Conservative” — which has been credited with keeping the Tories from winning any seats in the province.
Anything but conservative, indeed, comrade Williams!
But that’s not all. What about former Liberal prime minister of Canada, Jean Chretien?
Jean Chretien takes his own family to private health clinics. In fact, he doesn’t just use U.S.-style private clinics. He actually goes to private clinics in the U.S.
And he flies to those U.S. private clinics on Canadian government jets, paid for by Canadian tax dollars.
According to access-to-information documents obtained by the Canadian Alliance, on Feb. 8, 1999, Chretien and two aides flew from Vancouver to Minnesota, home of the Mayo Clinic. According to air force flight logs, they flew back to Ottawa that afternoon with Chretien’s daughter. And on Dec. 11 of the same year, Chretien went back to the clinic, this time just with his wife and his aide.
These trips were courtesy of the Canadian Forces 412th Squadron, which has flown literally thousands of nautical miles taking Chretien back and forth to the clinic.
And what about former Liberal MP Belinda Stronach?
Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.
Stronach’s spokesman, Greg MacEachern… said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required.
But these Liberals are just regular leftists. What about the socialist leader Jack Layton? Surely a socialist wouldn’t take advantage of free market capitalism to be treated unequally, would he? That would be so greedy and capitalist!
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who’s campaigning as the defender of public health care, had surgery at a private clinic in the 1990s, The Canadian Press has learned. Layton had hernia surgery at the Shouldice Hospital, a private facility in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, while he was serving as a Toronto city councillor.
Capitalism for me, but not for thee, eh, comrade?
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I have one question on something you stated – the gov restricts the number of doctors. In one of the medical magazines I frequently receive it stated that one of the main reasons for doctor shortages in Canada was women – because of families, etc, the average female doctor’s career span is 8 years compared to 33 years for male doctors. On top of that, while I forget the exact figures, the number of females admitted into medical school is around 40 – 50%, so as you can imagine, it will quickly lead to shortages. So a peer reviewd medical study seems to contradict what you’re saying – it’s not quite the conspiracy you purport (not that Canada’s equivalent of the AMA doesn’t artificially depress the numbers admitted into college like they do in the US, but I have doubts that it’s the government).
LikeLike
I fully agree that affirmative action is definitely a factor. But there’s more to it than just that. The govenment does regulate medical schools.
This one is just informal, but easier to read.
Excerpt:
This one is more rigorous. It’s from the libertarian Fraser Institute in British Columbia. Mainstream news story about the study here from the radical leftist CBC.
Excerpt:
Hope that helps!
LikeLike
Wintery: As usual, there are three sides to every story: yours,theirs, and the truth. As a canadian(I live in Alberta,arguably the most right wing province in the country)I can see both pro and con in our system.Remember, nothing is perfect.Yes, we could use more doctors and yes,somtimes there are long waits for some services. On the whole, our system is excellent. In fact, the last WHO survey (admittedly in 2000) ranked Canada #30,ahead of United States #37.Oman,a bastion of democracy, was #8 and Columbia #22!As well,The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last or next to last compared with five other countries((Australia,Canada,Germany,New Zealand,and the U.K.) in their May 2007 report in such “trivial” areas as quality of care and access.Clearly,a one payer system is not the “evil” it is often portrayed as.
There are lots of things we could do to improve our system. For starters, let’s stop crowding our emergency rooms with patients who have minor ailments( go to a walk in clinic!)and free up resources for people who really are in need.Let’s introduce a simple equivalency program that allows foreign qualified doctors to practice sooner,rather than wait years for clearance if they even get it. Why not try to sign doctors to contracts in remote areas(say five years) in exchange for financial aid or fast tracking their applications? Tax credits for improving your health?Massive focus on prevention? The list is almost endless.
We on this side of the border often hear horror stories of american citizens paying $15000-20000 or more for a service as basic as child birth.Or, stories of people who are simply refused treatment bcause they don’t have insurance. Sadly, people have even died as a result of this callousness.There’s plenty of blame to go around.
In the end, I am extremly happy with not only the level of care but,also,the ease with which the system is payed for. I will never have to choose between paying the mortgage or the hospital bill. I only wish everyone was as fortunate. I wonder what people in third world countries think of our “hardships”? Food for thought I guess.Thanks as always for listening to my rantings!
LikeLike
Hey Warrick, thanks for your comment. I don’t trust the WHO results, they favor socialized systems, (= “access”). I trust the cancer survival rates.
Can you point to a specific horror story? I can point to many in Canada. Canadians that I know do not realize that emergency room care is free in the United States. The poor are served by Medicaid and the elderly by Medicare. I need some data if you want to make the assertion. Statistics are best. Please check out the comparison from Stanford University of US health care to other countries that I lnked to in the related posts. We are number one in the world, and it’s not even close, in the only measure that counts: saving lives.
I am actually deeply concerned by Christians like yourself who support socialized medicine. It means that a huge chunk of the conomy is run by a secular government, paid for by many religious Christians, who funnel money into things like taxpayer funded abortions and coercion of pro-life nurses and doctors. (Think Calgary Foothills Hospital). These things don’t happen as much in the private sector – where you have choices. I think you need to seriously consider small government conservatism. Have you read a book like Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics, or Jay Richards’ Money, Greed and God, or Robert P. Murphy’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism? (That last one is the best for beginners)
Sorry to disagree with you. My whole blog is an effort to convince Christians to realize that their own relgiious liberty is tightly entertwined with small government and free market capitalism. Conservatives in Canada that I’ve met really are not well informed about economics, and that’s why I’m here to write about it. (Not saying you, just saying Canadians don’t know about Hayek, Sowell, etc.). There just isnt anything like talk radio to explain things like minimum wage and rent control in Canada. Nobody knows about supply and demand and economic incentives, in my experience.
Send me your address, I’ll send you a book. I just shipped a “Money, Greed and God” to a young lady in Calgary, whom I admire, for Christmas. She’s up to chapter 4. Or you can search my blog for lectures by Jay Richards on economics, or posts featuring my two favorite economists, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. (And Jennifer Roback Morse)
LikeLike
Emergency room care in the United States is NOT free – they cannot reject you, but it’s far from free. It only seems free because Warrick talked about, too many people here also use the ED (emergency department, commonly known as the ER) as a primary care physician and then just don’t pay the bills. Most with insurance in the US who go to the ED without PCP approval often get stuck with the bill which in most cases is a minimum of $600, and often much, much more.
On top of that, if you read the article you linked to, it gives no specific reasons why he went to the US – he could have a heart defect that only a handful of doctors in the world are even qualified to work on, none of the those doctors being in the US. It also doesn’t specify how it will be paid for – I bet he takes advantage of canadian health care and has it paid for via single payer (and before you say not possible, I bet there’s a loop-hole for procedures that can’t be done in Canada).
And to counter a point you (wintery) made earlier, while sexist, if you limit the number of females enrolled in medical school you will most likely fix your doctor shortage problems without having to import what I believe to be wildly subpar doctors from the third world (I know, a vague statement, but one I believe to be true in most cases)
LikeLike
I had someone e-mail me that if it were the case that the surgery could only be done in the USA, then his PR people would have said that, but they didn’t. The more likely reason is that he would have to wait in line, and be operated on in subpar facilities. It’s just like Cuban dictators calling in specialists from abroad. They’re not stupid enough to go to the same doctors as the plebians. Equality for thee, but not for me.
He will be paying out of pocket for the care as Canada does not typically reimburse people for bypassing the waiting lists! Otherwise, no one would wait to be treated, but all would go abroad and the system would go bankrupt even faster than it already is.
LikeLike
It’s still all speculation – the article states nothing to support any of these claims. He didn’t talk about how he was paying, hinting that it will be using the single payer system you’re assuming that he’s shunning. Why do you assume his PR people would announce a major medical defect that could end his political career (a common pattern of silence through out history – medical problems are seen as a weakness and most people will not vote for you, so again, it makes sense that he wouldn’t talk about it)?
While I won’t say that waiting in line is a good thing, if it’s not urgent or life threatening, and again, we don’t know because it’s all speculation here, waiting isn’t always a bad thing (unless of course in the process of waiting the condition worsens to the point that it becomes fatal/inoperable).
But in the end, you have to assume the worst for the speculation to have any meaning: we have no idea what operation he’s having nor do we know how he’s paying and we don’t know where he’s going (other than to the US), so we assume it’s bad and we’ll base our arguments off that assumption – not a good way to argue a point, nor is it very convincing.
LikeLike
Canadian physicians came out and said that it was a non-specialized operation. But against my view, they also said that there would be no waiting list. I think he just wanted the best surgeons and was willing to pay for it. But if he had tried to pay for better care IN CANADA, he would be arrested. It’s illegal to pay doctors in Canada for better care. They call that “equality”. The rich liberals fly to the US, the poor wait in line.
Excerpt:
LikeLike
There’s also the issue of rights and freedoms. Canadians pay into their welfare state all their lives. The money is gone — it’s in governments’ hands. When we reach retirement age, we are effectively forced to reside at least six months of the year in Canada, to retain our provincial healthcare coverage. We are not free, e.g., to live year-round (or, e.g., nine months out of 12) in Arizona or Florida (or wherever). There’s a loss of freedom involved. We are, at least to a small extent, slaves of the state. The only freedom would be to walk away from a healthcare system we had contributed to all our working lives — and that’s something most Canadians cannot afford to do. And, not paying into the government healthcare system is not an option.
LikeLike
WK: Thanks for your reply. I’m surprised at your “knee jerk” reaction to anything that remotely resembles socialism . It’s time to take the blinders off and realize most every system has something worthwhile that can be co opted to improve the lives of everyone. Socialism has many variants which makes it difficult to pin down. As usual, it’s helpful to define our terms. Your default position seems to be socialism in the modern sense( i.e.Marx and Engels version) versus what was originally intended. I find a useful working definition(at least for this discussion) is what was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized” non coercive communities of people working non competitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all”. The emphasis for the Christian should be squarely on that part about “spiritual and physical well being”.That means providing health care to everyone on an equitable basis regardless of income. And before you even start, no, I do not support most of their other social and philosophical theories. This is for the sake of definition only.
I believe this whole issue ( health care) is symptomatic of a larger question often not addressed : what exactly should the role of government be? This is a discussion that is long overdue. Most democracies are still laboring under constitutions /charters etc. that were often enacted hundreds of years ago. Maybe it’s time to revisit these and make them more relevant for today.
There are some fundamental areas where government needs to be involved, if only to protect their citizens from unscrupulous behavior motivated by simple greed. Some of these would include a military, a justice system,some form of basic health care,education,and infrastructure. There may well be others. If you want to characterize such a system as socialism,fine. The name is less important to me than the outcome. Remember, in the final analysis, all of the resources in a country belong to the people who live there. The $64000 question is how to responsibly use those resources for the optimal benefit of the most people. Our aim should be focused on allowing for the free flow of goods and services that addresses a social as well as an entrepreneurial dimension.
As I said in my previous post, nothing is perfect. There are flaws in both systems that need to be rectified. Lest we think capitalism is perfect,don’t forget that it was unbridled capitalism that gave us Bhopal, 3 mile island,smog, polluted great lakes and more. And those are just a few of the environmental consequences. As a result of profit being held up as the ultimate goal we have such wonderful past times as strip joints,porn, and gambling. Oh, and lest we forget, there was that annoying little wall street meltdown.
Wintery, the point is( you seem to have overlooked this in my previous post) no system is perfect and all could do with some serious tweaking. Let’s “remove the plank in our own system before removing the splinter in someone else’”.(Ouch! That’s a horrible way to quote scripture to make a point!).
As to your ill considered comments concerning the financial acumen of Canadians, let me just point out that the G-8 last year named Canada the nation with the soundest economic fundamentals and a potential model for much needed change. They are projecting the same for this year. That’s probably why we have been able to weather the financial storm as well as we have. Not bad for a bunch of people who don’t understand the basics. By the way, talk radio is overrated, and usually ends up descending into a generally partisan monologue from a typically rude host who really doesn’t care about truth, but ratings. If it helps people vent and feel better,what the heck.
Your reasoning for rejecting the WHO study is,frankly,ridiculous. I’m more interested in the truth than the source. I notice you overlooked the other survey I noted.Your straw man argument about “the only measure that counts: saving lives” would work except that the vast majority of patients access the heath care system for things other than life threstening illness.Again, why should I believe the Stanford study over the one’s I cited. Kind of a hollow argument when you think about it,just like yours.Jerry’s concerns in this regard have,as yet,gone unanswered.
As far as medical horror stories go, visit any of the sites below and then decide if the U S system is “pure as the driven snow”.
Insurance Horror Stories – New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E4DE1030F93AA15750C0A9619C8B63
As I said, there’s lots of blame to go around. Let’s try to make things better for everyone having love and compassion and not ideaology as our guide.Can you even imagine the Good Samaritan asking to see a medicaid card before helping? I think not! Please, think on these things!God bless you brother.
LikeLike
I would consider your views as being socialist.
I believe that socialism is inherently hostile to Christian beliefs and the Christian life plan. (Look at Europe, or advanced cases like Zimbabwe/Cuba/Venezuela/North Korea). When socialism is fully implemented, Christianity dies. And single-payer health care is an important part of socialism. Look at the state of Christianity in European welfare states. That’s where your views lead.
I do NOT consider the United Nations and the New York Times as credible sources. They are hard secular leftist, in my opinion. You can’t go any further to the atheistic left.
You didn’t reply to the Hoover survey of medical outcomes, which is the only thing that matters. If I get sick, where should I live in order to get well? The answer is the United States. No one else even comes close. Unless you need an elective sex change or elective in vitro, (which kills dozens of unborn children), then Canada is your best bet. If you want nurses persecuted for offering to pray for a patient, then the socialist UK with the National Health Service is your best bet. If you want nurses forced to perform abortion, then look no further than the Calgary Foothills Hospital.
It is because Christians in Canada voted for socialism that you are now stuck with the loss of religious liberty that you see in Quebec and with the HRCs, and the cause of this is greed for your neighbors money (single-payer health care). In a very real sense, Canadian Christians sold out human rights (right to life, free speech, right to bear arms, right to own property), for their neighbor’s money. That’s what socialism is. There is no right to your neighbor’s money. And it’s not Biblical either. You need to read books like Jay Richards’ “Money, Greed and God”. Socialism is anti-Christian, and anti-Biblical.
I’m sure you are familiar with the Human Rights Commissions and understand the secular leftist worldview that creates those commissions. Many Christians voted for the Liberals in order to get health care paid for by their neighbor, and they got HRCs in the bargain. Christians voted for the persecution of Stephen Boissoin, because they wanted their neighbor’s money more than pastor Boissoin’s freedom. When you vote to transfer Christian money from Christian individuals to a secular leftist government, you are voting to hand power (money) to people who will crush your worldview and marginalize your beliefs from the public square.
There are some legitimate functions of government, but providing health care is not one of them. Health care is not a right. Religion is a right. Free speech is a right. Life is a right. Private property is a right. Self-defense is a right. None of these are recognized in Canada – all are under attack by the secular left state that economically ignorant Christians voted to empower, out of greed and envy. (Note: Harper is not doing this – I mean Trudeau, Chretien, Martin, etc.)
The very people who hated Bush the most are the ones pushing for government-run health care now – and they hated Bush because he was a pro-life Christian. You can see Obama pushing against conscience rights and for taxpayer funded abortion right before your eyes. He was supported by Christians who wanted the state to give them free health care, paid for with their neighbor’s money. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS. What part of that do Canadian socialist “Christians” not understand? When you vote to expand secular government, you vote for sex education, Darwin education, global-warming education, for abortion, for the destruction of marriage and family, and for anti-Christian persecution.
Regarding your comments on Canada’s economic health, I agree with you on that. I am not holding up the United States as a pure capitalism country. We have serious problems, many of them worse than Canada’s. But I should note that your prime minister shares my views on economics. He likes Hayek, and has said so. Hayek believed what I believe, which is that capitalism and the free market is the ground of liberty. Have you read “The Road to Serfdom”? It’s considered the Bible of modern conservatism, and formed the worldview of the greatest defenders of freedom in the 20th century, e.g. Thatcher and Reagan. And Harper.
Socialism is anti-freedom and anti-Christian. If you want to help the poor, do it with YOUR OWN MONEY. That way, you keep your freedom. Capitalism isn’t about getting rich. It’s about distributing power instead of centralizing it, so that a man is beholden to no other man, and can live as he pleases. I please to live as a Christian, yet because of socialists, I must pay to undermine my own worldview and subsidize the destruction of all the things I hold dear – life, religious liberty, marriage and family. No government can spend your money in a way that honors Christ better than YOU yourself.
If only we could confine government to the powers outlined in the Constitution. But alas.
Please put line breaks in between your paragraphs.
LikeLike
If smog is a by-product of capitalism, you should inform the Chinese. They’re doing it wrong. I don’t think it is wise of you to list the cons of capitalism, because you should also have a ‘pro’ list with all of the positive things capitalism has brought to the world.
The Canadian banking sector is more secure because the Conservative government has placed limits on the acceptable levels of risk a bank is able to leverage. It has little to do with socialist thinking, just sound economic policy from Harper, arguably the world leader with the sharpest finacial acumen today.
In a true socialist state there is nothing immoral about porn or prostitution, as there is no God to make it wrong. I site the Netherlands as an example.
I don’t think health care is a right that I am entitled to. In no time in human history has this every been the case, and I see no reason why it should start now. Again, in a true socialist state, there are no rights other than what the politburo says are rights.
Canada can afford public health care because the United States covers our defense requirements. Thank you Uncle Sam.
LikeLike
Stephen Harper is the finest leader of any country in the world today, in my opinion. Canadians should be proud. I’m excited to see what the new guy in Chile can do, though.
LikeLike
Canadian health care is my estimation sucks big time. Hell, I am from the province where they invented this system which as atrophied into one which puts people on wait lists and kills them.
Have paid into a system by taxes ( and not small taxes) all my life. When it was our turn for my wife’s cancer they put here on a wait list of three months minimum. What a joke, mestatic bladder cancer where everyday counts and they indicated an appointment in three months with therapy after the appointment.
Thanks goodness for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester where she has been for the past three months. Cost is high, but the service is availabe in a timely manner. So, guess I get to pay twice thanks to our socialized and single pay system which is, by the way, going to bankrupt the nation.
A Canadian on a wait list is no better offer than and uninsured American. The good doctors in Canada leave, frustrated with the system so we are left with the B and C teams rather than the A teams.
EOS
AP
LikeLike
Wow, thanks for sharing your story. This is exactly what I am afraid of… paying into a system for 30 years and then being put on a waiting list. They seem to pick and choose who they will treat… which is I guess the point of it. It’s to transfer power from those who work to those who are popular.
LikeLike
This is the way it really is, and there are a lot of other Canadians I met at the Mayo Clinic with similar stories. Really quite disgusting.
LikeLike