From the Mailbag: Oy, Canada!

Got an email the other day from Physicians for a National Health Program (not affiliated with Democrats for Nixon). The opening line, "Canada's publicly funded health insurance program known as medicare is one of the best health care systems in the world" did make me chortle a bit, especially since it was delivered (presumably straight-faced) by a Dr. Marcia Angell, who's currently serving as a senior lecturer at Harvard University's Medical School.

The point of the email was that "Health care is a human right," and the sender wished us to use our bully pulpit to spread that message.

Ahem.

Apparently, the gentleman is not a regular reader, nor particularly well-informed. So I responded thusly:

Thanks for the heads up.

However, Canada's government-run health care system is NOT "one of the best health care systems in the world;" based on actual outcomes and timeliness of care, it's WAY down the list.

In addition, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "Health care is a human right;" at whose expense?

The fact is, Canada's system is falling apart, as witnessed by the increased number of folks who must travel outside that country for *actual* care, and those who opt to buy private health insurance.

As one might imagine, I've received no reply (whether or not I've been taken off his distro list remains to be seen). But I thought it would be worth sharing with our readers why I answered as I did.

First, the Canadian health care system is, by any rational measure, a mess. They have been unable to effectively control the cost of health care, even through rationing and, well, more extreme measures. The noble-sounding idea that "health care is a right" doesn't even pass the smell test: health care must be delivered by a provider, so if it's a "right" then that person is being forced to provide that care whether or not he or she is remunerated for doing so.

Gee, almost makes one want to spend all that time in medical school, doesn't it?

If by "health care" the folks at PNHP actually mean "health insurance," then they're already behind the eight ball there, as well:

"Since the first private MRI clinics opened their doors in Canada 10 years ago, there has been a national explosion of private health facilities with little policing by the federal or provincial governments."

Ooops.

The fact is, Canadians want decent health care, it's just that their current system makes that difficult to obtain. So, the market has responded:

"Across Canada, there are 42 for-profit magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) clinics, 72 private surgical hospitals (excluding cosmetic surgery facilities) and 16 "boutique" physician clinics."

Sounds like a good start.

Oy Canada: Doc's Bailing, NICU's Missing

Even as we rush towards a similar model, it may be instructive to see how well nationalized health care's actually working out for our Neighbors to the North©. While in Chicago earlier this week (for our daughter's college orientation), my wife and I overheard a Quebecois gentleman, in the Windy City on business, telling his associates about health care, Canadian style. I was able to take some notes, which I'll share with you.

When asked about Canadian health care, he responded "when you can get it, it's pretty good." He went on to say that "if you can afford it, the best doctors are available." I didn't quite understand this at the time, since Canadian health care is, after all, "free." As you'll see in a moment, this isn't really true.

He followed up by observing that you "take what you get;" again leaving me puzzled: haven't we been told, ad nauseum, that health care is readily available Up North? And again, I later learned the bitter truth.

In his very next breath, he admitted that "care in Canada is not as good as what you get in the US." I should point out that he said he was from a city "100 kilometers from Quebec."

So what, exactly, is the truth here? Is he simply a dissatisfied Canuck, or does his opinion reflect reality?

You be the judge.

Is quality health care truly available in Canada? Well, it depends on where in Canada you live. The gummint-run health system is administered at the provincial level (as ours is regulated, for the most part, at the state level), so quality and accessibility of care can vary greatly. While critics of our system point to Canada as a role model, perhaps the tragedy of little Ava Stinson can serve as a useful rebuttal:

"A critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton is all alone in a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital after she was turned away for treatment at local facility and transferred across the border without her parents, who don’t have passports."

Turns out, there were no (as in: zero, nada, zilch) Neonatal Intensive Care Units available in the whole of Quebec.

Not. A. One.

So of course, they headed south (as have so many others before them), in order to save their baby's life. Thankfully, medics at Buffalo's (mmm, wings!) St. Joseph's Hospital will apparently be able to help, thanks to American medical technology and care. In fact, a (very) quick Google search revealed four NICU facilities in Buffalo alone.

Would it be presumptuous to ask the national health care proponents why they hate Canadians?

But certainly good quality care is available to all?

Not so much:

"Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada ... Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment."

As we've repeatedly pointed out, one of the problems with our own national health care system, aka Medicare, is that there are a lot of doc's who shun MC patients, and the concomitant reduced reimbursement rates. Looks like that particular virus has spread North; more and more Canadian physicians are opting out of the government-run system and (back?) into private pay, private practice. That was apparently what our Quebecois businessman meant.

Does this all sound familiar?

It should: the Canadian government does, indeed, spend less on health care for its citizens, proving the old adage about getting what one pays for.

Oy Canada: Insurance Insurance

A while back, we reported on one insurance carrier's unique (if odd) plan that essentially guaranteed that one could jump back onto an individual medical plan if one's group insurance was lost. The hook was that "(f)or a fee, one buys the right to purchase some kind of health coverage if one becomes at once uninsured and uninsurable." The idea was that one was essentially buying one's future insurability.

Of course, such a plan would be a waste of money for our Friends to the North©, right? After all, they already have free health care, and lots of it.

Or maybe not:

"A group in British Columbia has offered medical waiting-list insurance to members whose government treatment is on hold."

Yup. Although we've detailed Canada's major shortage of actual health care over the years, even we hadn't quite grasped just how little is actually readily available to the average Canuck. Much as our AAA offers roadside assistance to stranded motorists, the British Columbia Automobile Association wanted to offer its members bedside assistance to those stranded on the side of the rocky Canadian health care road.

Folks who bought the policy and subsequently endured a 45 day wait for a covered expense were guaranteed access to a private clinic in BC, or even in the good ol' U S of A.

Or would have been:

"The program, which took two years to develop, never got beyond the pilot phase ... The association shut it down when critics howled and government officials checked to see if such a program was actually legal in Canada."

"Actually legal in Canada." If that doesn't send Arctic chills down your spine, then you're not paying attention: it is apparently illegal in Canada to actually try to help oneself gain access to health care. Yet that's exactly the kind of system that many proponents of a nationalized health care system want to impose on us.

Tell me again why that's a "good thing?"

Oy Canada?

Did Canada's National Healthcare System "kill" Natasha Richardson?

That's the question raised by the New York Post. For the record, let us note that we are truly sorry for her family's loss, and wish to score no "points" from this tragedy. Still, it may be worth examining the premise of the allegations to see if those who advocate that we should adopt such a system are justified.

First, Canada's gummint-run system isn't too keen on high tech health care:

"About three hours after the accident, the actress was taken to Centre Hospitalier Laurentien, in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, 25 miles from the resort ... But Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts is a town of 9,000 people. Its hospital doesn't have specialized neurology or trauma services. It hasn't been reported whether the hospital has a CT scanner, but CT scanners are less common in Canada [than in the US]."

I read some years ago that there were more MRI machines in Ohio than in all of Canada; I don't know whether that's still the case. But a system that relies on government largesse is unlikely to be profligate with "the tech."

And there's this:

"Quebec has no helicopter services to trauma centers in Montreal. Richardson was transferred by ambulance to Hospital du Sacre-Coeur, a trauma center 50 miles away in Montreal -- a further delay of over an hour."

That hour might have been key: after a certain interval, it seems that a less-than-optimal outcome is essentially inevitable. According to the Post, she didn't receive necessary care until some six hours after the incident, which drastically reduced her chances of survival.

For once, though, I'm willing to cut "CanCare" a break: it appears that, immediately following the initial incident, she was conscious and ambulatory, and appeared to be okay. I'm told that this is fairly common with this kind of head trauma (it helps to have a surgeon in the family). Obviously, just appearing to be okay was deceiving, but what else were those on the scene to do? She was a grown woman, not a child, and presumably able to make decisions regarding her own care.

Hard to believe, but I'm going to give Our Neighbors to the North© a pass on this [ed: how noble of you].

Oy Canada: Yer Outta Here! Edition

Ah, those Compassionate Canucks©. First, they leave patients in gurneys lounging around the hallways for a week at a time. Then, they fast-track Fido for cancer treatments, ahead of his owner. And now, it's so long, don't let the door hit ya...

"A live-in caregiver from the Philippines, the terminally ill cancer patient will be forced to leave when her work permit expires in two months, even though her period of service here as a nanny was supposed to be the gateway to permanent residency."

Seems that Ms Tejada was actually recruited to come to Canada as part of Canada's "federal live-in caregiver program." This is a deal where foreign nationals agree to come live and work in Canada, providing daycare for Junior Canucks. As long as they complete the three year program (and pass some background checks), they're fast-tracked to permanent resident status.

Unless, of course, they get sick. Then the Canadian health system is not so much "compassionate" as "stingy." This is pretty ironic, considering how much money we Americans are willing to spend on illegal immigrants. But our system is somehow "inferior" to theirs?!

Yeah.

Oy, Canada - Part 7,285

Previously on Oy, Canada:

"Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies."

And that's just to be seen and treated. But what happens next? Often, the provider prescribes a med (or meds) to help treat the issue.

That's the easy part:

I'm Canadian. I have universal healthcare. My oncologist prescribed Xeloda, an oral chemotherapy, to try to extend my life. In Ontario, oral chemotherapy isn't covered.

My insurance has been dragging their heels and just today declined coverage. #ThisDoesntSeemUniversal

— Katie Davidson (@LovlyKatieLumps) July 19, 2018

That's right: in at least one province CanuckCare© doesn't cover oral cancer treatment.

And if one follows the comments, one is reminded of this dirty little CanuckCare© secret:

"[P]rivate insurance is responsible for oral chemo (different from province to province"

That's right, our Neighbors to the North© recognize the devastating limitations of "free" health care, and have developed (and market) supplements, much like our own government-run health care system (Medicare).

The more you know....

Oy, Canada (Part 2,740)

It's been a while since we've checked in on the health "care" system of our Neighbors to the North©. It appears that things haven't improved. Take, for instance, the case of Stefan Molyneux:

"Canadians know how awful socialized medicine is, and Canada is plagued with immense wait times and a strained system, which Stefan’s recent experience illustrates."

Here's his story:



"Average wait time for MRI in Canada is 101 days. I got one the next business day."

Coming here soon (the 101 day wait, that is).

Oy Canada (Part ??)

What if you were an expectant mother, covered under Canada's much-vaunted national health care system? Everyone's covered, the care (according to Michael Moore, et al) is excellent, what could possibly beat that?

"I'm a born-bred Canadian, as well as my daughter and son, and I'm ashamed," Jill Irvine told FOX News. Irvine's daughter, Carri Ash, is one of at least 40 mothers or their babies who've been airlifted from British Columbia to the U.S. this year because Canadian hospitals didn't have room for the preemies in their neonatal units.

Ooops.

Anyone who's ever bought those "one size fits all" gloves knows that the copy is missing a key word: "one size fits all, poorly."

And that seems to be the problem with nationalized health care systems, such as the one in place for our Neighbors to the North:

"Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births."

Say it with me: Ooops.

Does this mean that our system is perfect?

Of course not.

But it's kinda like saying "well, the police don't catch every crook, or solve every crime, so we should scrap the entire justice system willy-nilly." That's obviously silly.

But then, so is nationalized health care.

Yay Canada!

Folks who've been following our Oy Canada!© series know that we're not enamored of our neighbors' health care system (such as it is). Now comes word of an opportunity for young people to help chart a new direction for Canadian health care:

"The Fraser Institute is hosting a new Student Video Contest and students are eligible to win $10,000 in cash and electronics prizes. The topic is: Incentives Matter - Fixing Health Care in Canada."

According to email I received today from Director of Student Programs Vanessa Schneider, students who submit a short concept paper by the end of September (and post their videos by the end of October) are eligible to compete for the cash (no word yet on whether that's Canadian or real money). For details, click here.

Oy, Canada!

Sorry for the pun, but I couldn’t resist. The last few postings here have dealt with some of the shortcomings of our health care delivery and finance system, and the temptation is to look northward at “free” healthcare.

As the saying goes, though: “TANSTAAFL” (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). While our system definitively needs work, our brethren to the north have some problems of their own:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance in a decision that represents an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system."

The reason that this is significant is that Canada’s much-vaunted nationalized health care system has quite a few problems, not the least of which is long waits for even simple procedures, and often fatal waits for more critical ones. The problem is exacerbated by a law which made it illegal for desperately ill patients to seek care outside the system, even if they could pay for it themselves.

Sometimes, it helps to put a human face on the problem:

Baruch Tegegne, now 61, has advanced kidney disease caused by diabetes. He undergoes dialysis four times a week, and is deteriorating. He's on a waiting list for a kidney transplant, and a private donor has been found. The problem is that the Montreal hospital which would do the actual procedure is refusing to do so, on "ethical grounds." But that's a subject for another post. The point here is that another hospital, in Toronto, is apparently willing and able to do the transplant.

But in Canada, the "free healthcare" isn't portable across provinces, so the system won't pay for the procedure if it's done in Toronto. The implications of such a system here are pretty scary.

An Israeli hospital has offered to do the surgery, at a reduced rate, and fund-raising efforts are underway to make this happen. But the real tragedy here is the impersonal and unbending system that has placed someone in this position. And I’m sure that Mr Tegegne isn’t the only Canuck who faces this problem, but his story is illustrative of a system which is not, IMHO, an appropriate replacement for our own.

So, what’s the connection? Well, a clue is found in this passage from the Times article: “But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either sought care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.”

Once there’s rationing, then the system itself encourages folks to seek alternatives. As it stands, those best able to afford treatment get it, somewhere. And those least able to afford such alternatives languish or, in many cases, die in line.

Something to consider when our political class – of either stripe – propose drastic governmental solutions.

For a somewhat different perspective, I recommend Dr John Ford's take on this over at California Medicine Man.

Welcome Grand Rounds visitors! Glad you dropped by. Please take a look around, and feel free to leave a comment.

Oy Canada: Make mine a double

Shot (courtesy Surgery Center of OK, about which we've posted):

"Family frustrated with lack of bed at Halifax hospital for mother with cancer"

One of the major problems with nationalized health care schemes is that the law of supply and demand is immutable. That is, there will always be a (growing) demand for health care, but there is also a limited (or at least finite) supply. We've seen what happens when you make health care a "right," and it's not pretty:

"Vowing to maintain public dental services in the province, Quebec’s health minister said Thursday he would sign a ministerial decree to block dentists from withdrawing from the public health system." The case at hand, though, is far more serious, since it involves a potentially life-threatening condition, and the patient suffering even more damage as a direct result of the system.

But then, these systems are also capable of turning out world class meds, which brings us to...

Chaser (via Ace of Spades):

"It is one of this country's great scientific achievements. The first drug ever approved that can fix a faulty gene ... But most Canadians have never heard of it."

Yup, that's right: Canadian researchers at the prestigious University of British Columbia "spent decades developing the treatment for people born with a genetic mutation that causes lipoprotein lipase disorder."

Decades, and tonnes of dollars loonies.

The condition, more commonly known as LPLD, is the result of a genetic mutation, and causes ones blood to thicken with potentially deadly results. It also renders females who suffer from it barren (due to the high risk of miscarriage).

The med, called Glybera, promises to fix all that. The problem is that it was just too expensive, and thus was allowed to whither away on the vine.

To be fair, this isn't the fault of Canada's health care system, but one of simple economics:

"Van Deventer says the company never considered lowering the price ... Why would we? Pricing shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a rational decision based on merits and values.'

Which is contra what a lot of folks here say about "Big Pharma."

Interesting dilemma, no?

Bonus:

Canadian Hospital Urgent Care Waiting Room To Patients: Kill Yourself https://t.co/Q9lwPzlPVS from The Political Hat Blog

— Political Hat Blog (@PoliticHatBlog) November 27, 2018

Oy Canada, Part #786 (more or less)

One of the problems with gummint-run health care is that it tends to hurt most those whom it was designed to help. Case in point: Edmonton resident Debbie Trelenberg had a rather large tumor growing in her abdomen, to the point that she had difficulty dressing. And worse yet, it was diagnosed as a "high-grade ovarian cancer." With prompt treatment, this particular condition was survivable, but of course health care systems run primarily by government employees aren't really interested in speedy treatment (well, unless you're in Oregon, but that's another story).

So Ms Trelenberg waited, and waited, until she (like so many of her fellow countrymen) headed south, to the "broken system" called American health care. Once in Texas, she spent almost $80,000 of her own money to pay for neeeded surgery and follow-up. The good news is that, thanks to her prompt action (and deep pockets), she has an excellent prognosis. The bad news is that her bank account may have suffered a critical injury: she "has twice been refused reimbursement by the Alberta government, most recently in June, when the Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel said a wait of about four weeks was not found to be unreasonable by the surgeon who initially saw her."

Did you get that last?

"(A) wait of about four weeks was not found to be unreasonable."

That may explain why Canada's cancer survival rate is so much lower than ours, and it certainly explains how such systems actually work. I'm thinking here of the first rule of holes.

Both the surgeon who operated on Ms Trelenberg and her own family physician wrote detailed letters to the gummint bean counters, explaining in detail why speed had been so critical, and asking for them to reconsider their refusal to reimburse her. Regular readers can already guess the response:

“There is no reason that we would send patients out of province just for faster access.”

Well said sir, well said.

Oy, Canada (Again!)

Thank goodness for medical tourism:

"Inside Sylvia de Vries lurked an enormous tumour and fluid totalling 18 kilograms [almost 40 pounds!]. But not even that massive weight gain and a diagnosis of ovarian cancer could assure her timely treatment in Canada."

So she did what an increasing number of ailing Canucks are doing, and headed for the border: Pontiac, Michigan. There, she had the foot-long tumor removed by a skilled American surgeon, and just in the nick of time: a few more weeks, and she faced the failure of multiple organs. Yikes!

But it gets worse: because she didn't cross all the t's and dot all the i's, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan refuses to cough up the $60 grand to cover the potentially life-saving procedure. The result is that her life savings are now depleted, and she faces huge medical bills and further treatment.

But hey, it's free!

Right?

Oy Canada: Dog Pound Edition

Ah, it just doesn't get any better than this:

"Need to see a specialist fast? Too bad you're not a dog."

Our Neighbors to the North© have apparently outdone themselves. As we've repeatedly noted here at IB, that "Free Health Care" comes at a steep price: actual, you know, care. If you're a Canuck with cancer, you'll likely wait well over a month to see an oncologist.

But if your Siberian Husky has a suspicious growth, he'll be seen in a few days. I'll let Barbara Righton and Nicholas Kohler (who co-wrote the linked article) have the last word:

"Trouble is, when it comes to medical care in Canada, our pets are often getting what we get — and a whole lot more besides. And they're getting it faster too."

[Hat Tip: RWN]

Feeling sick? Feel lucky?

Oy Canada, indeed. In the town of Norwood (Ontario, Canada), they've got a pretty interesting little health care deal going on. Seems the town's health care providers, chafing at limits set in stone by the Canadian Health Service, have devised a little end-run to get around the problem that there's a five year wait to see a doc:



But remember, Canadian health care is free!

[Hat Tip: Hot Air]

And speaking of waiting: Oy, Canada!

"At some point in time, every Canadian will be placed on a medical waitlist."

Says whom?

Says the folks who actually market "wait list" insurance to our Neighbors to the North. And they should know, since they actually live it, literally putting their money where their mouth is.

But wait, health insurance in Canada is free!

Indeed, and worth every penny (or is that loonie?).

The truth is, some lucky Canadians can skip the lines and head for the border; those left behind face often excruciatingly long wait times for treatment. Which is where the clever folks at Acure [ed: get it? "A cure"] come in:

"Medical Access Insurance provides Canadians with expedited access to specialist consultation, diagnostics and surgery for over 135 treatments and conditions. Medical treatment for covered conditions will be provided in weeks – not months or years."

One wonders about franchise opportunities as ObamaTax comes to fruition.

Oy Canada! (Part 2,739)

Two years ago, we noted that "Canada's Supreme Court has ruled that under the "law of the land" in Ontario, a government board, not the family or doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug on a patient."

On the one hand, this is pretty scary; after all, it's what will happen under the IPAB. On the other, at least one knows the score, and can (try to) plan accordingly.

On the gripping hand:

"Canadian Medical Association considering allowing doctors to LIE about patients death to cover up euthanasia."

Wait, what?!

Oh, it gets worse:

The Quebec Medical College is already doing this:

"The physician must write as the immediate cause of death the disease or morbid condition which justified [the medical aid in dying] and caused the death. It is not a question of the manner of death (cardiac arrest), but of the disease, accident or complication that led to the death."

So if one has cancer, or some other fatal disease, and one is euthanized (perhaps under government orders) the cause of death won't be listed as the lethal injection, but the cancer itself.

"The deceased died of a sudden and severe influx of electrons."

Sure, go with that.

[Hat Tip: The Political Hat]

Oy Canada (Again)!

As has become fashionable, there's a lot of talk about the wonderful world of gummint-run health care. As I mentioned the other day, though, one should treat such wishes most carefully, because "free" things often end up costing a lot. Anyone who's ever adopted a "free" pet knows exactly what I'm talking about. As does Canadian citizen Shona Holmes, whose three year health care horror story began with a brain tumor:

"No one should be forced to travel thousands of miles to obtain quality care. Yet that exactly is what I was forced to do after being diagnosed with a brain tumor three years ago. After my government told me that I'd need to wait four to six months to see a neurologist and endocrinologist, and with my eyesight rapidly deteriorating, I decided to seek a diagnoses at the storied Mayo Clinic."

We've discussed Canadian med-shopping habits before, but these have typically been short jaunts "just south of the border." Ms Holmes had a bit further to travel (Scottsdale, Arizona, to be exact), where she was informed that immediate treatment was necessary. This meant an immediate return to her native land, where she anticipated her "free" national health care system to be waiting with open arms, eager to remove the offending and dangerous growth.

Regular IB readers already know what happened next: she was put on a waiting list and urged to "hope for the best." While that's a wonderful thought, it doesn't typically translate to an actual cure. So, she hopped another flight and flew back to Arizona, where she underwent surgery that successfully removed the tumor and restored her sight. But don't just take my word for it, here's Shona herself:

Shona Holmes (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) from BigGovHealth on Vimeo.

While policy wonks and candidates talk about the idea of government run, free health care, very few (I daresay none) actually address the reality of such systems. And while we see Canadian politicos eschewing the free health care to which they're entitled, and traveling thousands of miles inside the good ol' USA for actual care, I haven't read any stories lately (or, indeed, ever) about folks flying out of Washington National en route to Vancouver for that extra special medical attention.

[Hat Tip to BigGovHealth]

Oy Canada (Again)!

From time to time, we like to take a look at our Neighbors to the North(tm), to get a sense of how well their health care system, so often touted here in the 'States as "health care nirvana," is faring.

Alas, not so good.

When even the president of the American Medical Association (AMA) finds major fault lines, it's time to reevaluate how much stock we should put in that kind of system. Less than a month ago, his Canadian counterpart opined that their "system was built to meet the needs of the underprivileged. It is now failing both them and everyone else, because it has not adapted to the times."

Ooops.

What could have gone so drastically wrong?

Well, for starters, Michael Moore's fantasy about the bullet-proof Canadian health care system turns out to have missed the target, by a wide margin:

"Annual survey data for the past four years indicate that these perceived access problems have worsened or remained about the same, with no significant improvement for any single service. Moreover, about half of the respondents believe that health care services will get somewhat worse (34%) or much worse (15%) during the next two to three years."

That doesn't portend well for a system which stateside advocates fervently wish for us to emulate. In fact, the leadership of the Canadian Medical Association is now on record as recommending "that Canadians be entitled to obtain government-funded treatment outside their home jurisdiction or within the private sector," if those who run the system don't find a way to effectively rectify its many failings, including rationing and excessive waiting times for services.

And for those who think that the future of nationalized health care is all sunshine and flowers, consider this:

"Among the 800 physicians participating online, 39% said that Canada's health care system should allow for an increased role for private financing and delivery of health care services. A rather low 63% said they would recommend medicine as a rewarding career to aspiring young people."

That defines a vicious cycle; is that really the kind of system we want here?

Oy Canada (Part XII)

It's been a while since we last looked in on our Friends to the North©, but Bob sent this along earlier today:

"In the survey of more than 20,000 doctors and doctors-in-training from across the country, 75 per cent reported that inadequate funding of the health-care system and an undersupply of physicians and other health professionals, along with paperwork and bureaucracy, are curtailing the amount and level of care they want to provide patients."

But wait, it gets better (or worse, depending on one's perspective):

"(W)e have community after community with patients who are unable to access a family physician for themselves or for their families."

Ooops.

Turns out, Canada would have to come up with over 26,000 new physicians to meet "global standards" (whatever they are), which doesn't seem, um, likely. Of course, they could simply "import" a few more, but the health system's certification process apparently makes that quite challenging (which may actually be a good thing).

But hey, it's free.

[H/T: Don Surber]