| |
| home about contact links |
| |
August 20, 2007Canada's ConundrumPolicy pundits who endorse a single-payor health care system for the U.S. like to laud Canada's system as fairer and better run - but they discount or ignore that country's health care woes. A good corrective is to read this article from the Buffalo News on one patients attempt to get the Canadian government to pay for his cancer care - which he had to buy out of pocket in the U.S. After battling brain cancer, Lindsay McCreith is ready for his next fight: He's taking on the Canadian health care system. His case has potential repercussions on both sides of the border as pressure grows for health reform. It started when the 66-year-old retired auto body shop owner suffered a seizure last year, and he was told he would have to wait more than four months in Canada for an MRI to rule out a malignant tumor. Rather than wait, McCreith quickly arranged a trip to Buffalo for a scan. The MRI confirmed his worst fears -- a cancerous growth that a Buffalo neurosurgeon removed a few weeks later. "If I had been patient, I'd probably be disabled or dead today," McCreith said. Now, McCreith is suing the Ontario government in a closely watched constitutional challenge that could reshape universal health coverage in the province by striking down the prohibition against patients buying private insurance. On this side of the border, advocates of universal health insurance champion Canada's popular public program as a fairer system that the United States should emulate, as seen in Michael Moore film, "Sicko." Yet critics see the long waits for some services in Canada -- mainly for non-emergency surgery -- as an argument against an increased role for government in health care. In Canada, McCreith's story reflects a debate, intensified by the long waiting times, between those who want more for-profit, private care and those who fear the rise of two-tier medicine that undermines the public system. Critics of the U.S. system are right to point out that health insurance is unafforable or unaccessible for millions of the uninsured; but they forget that "two tier" health care regimes exist in public programs like Canada's Medicare, where some patients buy their way out of public queues, or are better equipped to navigate the system to find critical care. The mistake is to think that the choice for U.S. voters is between the status quo and Canada. Market-driven policy fixes for the U.S. health care system can improve health care coverage without sacrificing innovation or leading to a government take over. Posted by Paul Howard at August 20, 2007 02:30 PM CommentsPost a comment |
|
 | ||
| home spotlight commentary research events news about contact links archives | ||
