Myth 16. In countries with government-funded health care, people get immediate care in emergencies, though they may have to wait for elective procedures.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 11:14PM The usual response to concerns about the months-long waiting lists for surgery in Canada and Britain is that this is a mere inconvenience, a small price to pay for universal “free” care. If you have a really serious need, you’ll get immediate attention—or so Michael Moore and others tell us.
Although one can surely come up with anecdotes about someone who got good emergency care in a Canadian or British hospital—especially if the person is a prominent journalist—this is not the norm.
The average wait in Canadian emergency rooms is 23 hours, stated John Stossel on ABC’s 20/20.
Once admitted, a Canadian patient may wait three days in the emergency department for a bed (Michael A. Platokov, “A Temple for Human Sacrifice,” Western Standard 12/4/06).
Actress Natasha Richardson suffered an epidural hematoma from head trauma while skiing Mont Tremblant in Quebec. Prompt neurosurgical treatment probably would have saved her—but it took 4 hours to get her to a properly equipped hospital after she started to deteriorate and called 911 from her hotel room. Quebec—unlike the U.S.—has no medical helicopters (CBSNews.com 3/21/09).
But the flip side, advocates for the Canadian system say, is that U.S. helicopters are “way overused.” A person with a non-life-threatening injury might get killed in a helicopter crash, as has happened (Slate.com 3/27/09).
Because of lack of a single bed in any neonatal intensive care unit in southern Ontario, 10 to 15 babies per year have to be transferred to Buffalo, N.Y. Parents of Ava Isabella Stinson were amazed at the way their daughter was treated—and ended up with a different view of Americans.
“Even the security guards care about how you feel.” And the Ronald McDonald House was “like living in a mansion, said Stinson” (Buffalo News 7/2/09).
Cancer might be considered an emergency by the patient—but not by the Canadian or British health bureaucracy. Those who want prompt surgery generally have to come to the U.S., as Stuart Browning shows in the video A Short Course in Brain Surgery, which has been seen by more than 3 million viewers.
In Britain, the National Health Service is supposed to cover necessary treatment, but people are selling their homes to get cancer care (Daily Express 12/22/2008). One British cancer patient waited for an appointment with a specialist, only to have it cancelled—48 times (David Gratzer, “The Ugly Truth about Canadian Health Care,” City Journal, summer 2007).
Kidney failure is fatal, if you can’t get dialysis. In Britain, you are ineligible for this life-saving treatment once you reach the age of 55. The mother of Beth Ashmore, a past president of the National Association of Health Underwriters, developed kidney failure while visiting England. Treatment was denied because of her mother’s age, so Ashmore arranged for a specially equipped jet to bring her home. The hospital, however, had placed her in a back room to die, alone—and could not locate her! Thus, she died while an aircraft that could have saved her waited on a runway in Atlanta to find out its destination.
Mere pain, no matter how severe or disabling, is not considered life-threatening, so orthopedic surgery that could relieve it is usually long delayed. Dr. Brian Day, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, saw his operating room time reduced from 22 hours to only 5 hours per week, 10 hours less than recommended for minimal competence by the Canadian Orthopaedic Association. He had 450 patients waiting for care (National Post 10/23/07).
Additional information:
- “What America Needs to Learn from Canadian Medicare,” by Lee Kurisko, M.D., and Dave Racer, M.Litt., J Am Phys Surg, summer 2009.
- “Lessons from Sweden’s Universal Health System: Tales from the Crypt,” by Sven R. Larson, Ph.D., J Am Phys Surg, Spring 2008.
- “The Failure of Socialized Medicine in Canada,” presentation by David Gratzer, M.D., AAPS 64th Annual Meeting, 2007. (MP3 audio file)
Reader Comments (8)
Good job of cherry-picking negative stories about the Canadian health care system. However, how to explain the lower cost for better outcomes in general?
There are clearly two sides to this: Something like "the devil you know" and "the brave new world". Unfortunately, and I truly wish it weren't so, we know the devil you know to be unsustainable ... the country and businesses are going broke trying to pay the tab, and people are going without care.
That leaves us with the brave new world. Where is your spirit America? What timid little frightened critters you have become. I hope you find it in you to step up for future generations.
23-hour waits are bad, yes. Fortunately, OBAMA IS NOT COPYING BRITAIN OR CANADA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS. He has said on multiple occasions that he does not wish to socialize health care like many other countries, and that he seeks to create a system that is 'uniquely American.'
Besides, if it were made even slightly more difficult for patients to receive health care, perhaps mildly sick people with colds and minor flus and whatnot would learn to just get some bed-rest and eat some soup instead of wasting their insurance company's money on a pointless checkup.
To Michael O'Hara... Their costs are not lower - their taxes are very high compared to ours. Their outcomes cannot be compared to ours since so many Canadians flee their system, purchase insurance for the US and are treated here. They are a racially uniform population with very little obesity so many diseases we deal with are very limited. The problem with Obama-Care is that the government has a long track record of running health care systems (VA Hospital) that does an abysmal job and are super-expensive. Medicare and Medicaid do not even come close to covering the true cost of care. The Feds cannot even run a simple "Cash for Clunkers" program - much less the highly complex heath system.
Ours is the best system by far in the world and Michael Moore is a liar in "Sicko". I have worked in the Canadian, Cuban and Moldovan medical systems and they all are terrible examples to follow. Rationing is the only real way to cut costs. Most countries that ration health care have private options that people pay for in order to obtain reasonable care. In Europe patients frequently cross borders to obtain modern treatments unavailable in their socialistic systems.
We need refinements in our system to eliminate insurance abuses and we need to require young people to at least pay for high deductible health insurance. Many so-called "uninsured" simple refuse to pay the premium since they feel that they will live forever and do not want to sacrifice their beer, cigarette and rock concert budgets for insurance they feel they will never need. These same young people when sick, however, demand that someone else pay the bills for top-shelf care and scream that medical care is "too expensive". They have to take out auto insurance in order to drive so why not require some form of health care coverage since if they become ill the taxpayers end up paying for their care.
In summary, our system is far from "broken" and is still the best (by far) in the world. Do not let socialists take over a large part of our economy!
My wife fell in the Tower of London on a vacation trip a few years ago. The "Beef Eaters" insisted on calling an ambulance which took us to a hospital . The service was thorough and quick - a little over four hours. An X-ray was taken and they gave us some presription medicaton. There was no cost. The technician in the ambulance was proud that someone with a heart attack could be operated on within the hour. Emergency care seemed better than it is here but it is true that there are longer waits for non-empergency surgery.
Urgent care was at the hospital with "minor trauma" and "major trauma" units. I think that there could be life saving advantages to that system but I do not know how it effects costs.
I lived in England for a number of years and was treated on the NHS for various ailments during that time. Patients ARE treated based on need, so if it is a medical emergency, you WILL be treated immediately. Those that have extended waits are usually waiting for less life threatening surgeries etc. Having said this, since returning to the States a couple of years ago, I'm appalled at the system here which orders unnecessary testing, entailing even longer waiting while Drs wait for results.. . . I just sat in my PCP's office for four hours the other day--and have been told by other patients that this is common--this would never happen under the government run NHS who have a duty to minimize waiting times. What's more, of course there are the odd examples of systems failing because there is no such thing as a perfect system. However, our system in America is NOT providing the best care for the people and we can learn from looking at other country's health care systems rather than bandying about these extreme and incorrect statements.
The Australian system should be looked at - a combination of private insurance and public health care systems. Not 'socialized' but if you can afford to pay insurance, incentives are in place to have cover, and if you can't then you are covered. Private insuance is incentivized with extras cover, a govt rebate is provided, and more health care options are available (private hospitals eg). Medicare rebates on Dr visits are available to all with a safety net in place above this. So chronically sick don't have to bleed themselves to get treated.
All taxpayers pay a 1.5% levy on taxable income. Yes, more tax is paid, but a pharmaceutical benefits scheme is also available to all. Yes there are horror stories and state-run hospitals need urgent capital and operating cost injections (Medicare is a federal program). But this is a fed/state funding issue, not a weakness with public health system.
I believe I'm alive because of this system! The health of the nation is too important to leave totally to private concerns.
I live within sight of the Canadian border, and go there a lot. I have friends and family there. I have not heard one of them say their system is perfect, but I have also not heard one of them say they would trade their system for our non-system.
I have Canadian health care to thank for a good friend of mine over there being alive. He had to have openheart surgery. He got it. NO WAITING, and HE WASN'T BANKRUPTED. He said, "that would never happen in the States."
I have Medicare (I am disabled) and I had "government" health care in the Air Force. Both work better than ANY private insurance I've had.
Get your facts better organized before trotting out the demon of "socialized medicine" that the right wing has been doing since at least 1934.