Thursday, July 01, 2004
Health care advice from mom
[Paul Jacob, "About-Face Up North?," TownHall.com, 13 June 2004.]
Sometimes advice from mom can apply equally well to public policy as to playgrounds. This is certainly the case for the debate over universal health care in the U.S. As Paul Jacob explains, using the argument that "everyone else is doing it," is no way to defend socialized medicine:
"Would you jump off a cliff just because all your friends are doing it?"
For too many American policy wonks, the answer is Yes. Though jumping off a cliff can be hazardous to your health, many commentators on health care prescribe a similar leap into the abyss of socialized medicine. You know the litany: "Every major industrialized nation has national health care, except for America."
Canada's National Post recently reported on a nationwide poll. "More than half of Canadians support a parallel private health care system that would let patients pay for speedier service," Tom Blackwell's June 1 article summarized. "The poll found 51 percent favour a two-tier system, with support highest in Quebec, at 68 percent, and Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the birthplace of medicare, at 57 percent."
If you need a test, getting it in Canada is not the speedy thing it is in America. There's usually a lag. This applies to treatments, too, especially the older you get.
In his book Code Blue, medical student David Gratzer reported that Canadians wait for radiation therapy three to four times longer than Americans do. The average wait for an MRI scan stretches almost to half a year, while Americans wait three days. Only a fifth of Canadians diagnosed with cancer can see a specialist within four weeks.
Funny thing is, just like in the late Soviet Union, Canada's system falls short of the egalitarian ideal. Even there, the richer you are, the better your recovery rate. And this is not simply because rich people treat themselves better than the poor can. It's also because queue-jumping — "pushing ahead in line" — is rampant. David Gratzer summarizes the importance of "celebrity and connections":
Last year, researchers from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto surveyed cardiologists about preferential treatment. In a nutshell, the study's authors wanted to know whether the heart specialists were willing to help certain patients queue jump. Eighty percent responded that they did.
The rich and the famous just expect to go ahead. And do. "Bypass surgeries," Gratzer notes, "are performed 20 per cent more frequently in wealthier neighborhoods." Bypass indeed.
Americans should take caution. We certainly don't want to emulate a system whose patients now contemplate an about-face, emulating our system.
[Paul Jacob, "About-Face Up North?," TownHall.com, 13 June 2004.]
Sometimes advice from mom can apply equally well to public policy as to playgrounds. This is certainly the case for the debate over universal health care in the U.S. As Paul Jacob explains, using the argument that "everyone else is doing it," is no way to defend socialized medicine:
"Would you jump off a cliff just because all your friends are doing it?"
For too many American policy wonks, the answer is Yes. Though jumping off a cliff can be hazardous to your health, many commentators on health care prescribe a similar leap into the abyss of socialized medicine. You know the litany: "Every major industrialized nation has national health care, except for America."
Canada's National Post recently reported on a nationwide poll. "More than half of Canadians support a parallel private health care system that would let patients pay for speedier service," Tom Blackwell's June 1 article summarized. "The poll found 51 percent favour a two-tier system, with support highest in Quebec, at 68 percent, and Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the birthplace of medicare, at 57 percent."
If you need a test, getting it in Canada is not the speedy thing it is in America. There's usually a lag. This applies to treatments, too, especially the older you get.
In his book Code Blue, medical student David Gratzer reported that Canadians wait for radiation therapy three to four times longer than Americans do. The average wait for an MRI scan stretches almost to half a year, while Americans wait three days. Only a fifth of Canadians diagnosed with cancer can see a specialist within four weeks.
Funny thing is, just like in the late Soviet Union, Canada's system falls short of the egalitarian ideal. Even there, the richer you are, the better your recovery rate. And this is not simply because rich people treat themselves better than the poor can. It's also because queue-jumping — "pushing ahead in line" — is rampant. David Gratzer summarizes the importance of "celebrity and connections":
Last year, researchers from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto surveyed cardiologists about preferential treatment. In a nutshell, the study's authors wanted to know whether the heart specialists were willing to help certain patients queue jump. Eighty percent responded that they did.
The rich and the famous just expect to go ahead. And do. "Bypass surgeries," Gratzer notes, "are performed 20 per cent more frequently in wealthier neighborhoods." Bypass indeed.
Americans should take caution. We certainly don't want to emulate a system whose patients now contemplate an about-face, emulating our system.
Comments:
Post a Comment
