Chris say:
C. M.
It seemed to me that in the 1990s, when the Clintons were trying to reform US health care, the Canadian system was what the Republicans pointed to as a means of showing that no way did we want THAT sort of program in the US.
But, according to the research I did, what I found was that AS A SYSTEM, most Canadians are very happy with it, in regard to such things like ease of use, lack of paperwork, satisfaction with the quality of care, etc. Bot civilians and medical professionals were positive on this subject.
Where there was any unhappiness, it seems to me that it was in such things as "wait time" for non-emergency treatments, like MRIs, knee or hip replacement, etc. To me, this seems to be a funding level issue, not a design-of-the-system issue. In other words, the Canadian system could provide MRIs on demand within 48 hours, but realize that would mean doubling the number of MRI machines from, say 2 per 30,000 people to 4 or 5/30,000 pop. In order to make these changes, the budget would have to be considerably increased, and the current level of funding is based on the assumptions of wait time that are built in. A gold plated system (instead of the silver plated on they have) is possible, but the taxes required might be more than people want to pay.
Does this strike you as a fair understanding of what you see, as a user of the Canadian system? If so, it seems to me that the argument needed in the US is to argue that distinction, and go for a single payer plan, with funding levels to be an open and clear discussion topic. Frankly, I'd be real happy if every American got silver-plated care. We can argue with making it a gold-plated system later.
Pr Chris
Chris Miller Edit comment Delete comment | Homepage | 07.26.09 - 2:56 am | #
C.M. replies:
That's the best assesment of the Canadian system I've ever heard from an American.
C.M. Edit comment Delete comment | Homepage | 07.26.09 - 5:08 pm | #
No comments:
Post a Comment