An oft-repeated theme here at IB is that Coverage ≠ Care. That is, having insurance (or Medicaid) is no guarantee that one will successfully obtain the care one needs. To wit:
"Twenty percent of Ohio adults reported that they or a household member go without medical care because of the cost even though more than 90 percent of them have health insurance"
So that's half of the puzzle.
We also know that all of the current crop of Democrat-party Presidential contenders favor some form of "universal" health care (be it Single Payer, a Public Option, or some other variation on that theme), often citing CanuckCare© as a model.
And of course, we've demonstrated any number of ways that the Canadian model does not, in fact, actually deliver on its health "care" promise:
"Rationing—in the form of waiting lists—has left hundreds or even thousands of Canadians to die without surgeries."
So we can safely put that little gem to bed.
But what about the idea that our Northern neighbor's health care scheme saves money? This claim, by the way, has been made by several of the aforementioned front-runners (at least as regards to nationalized health care schemes in general).
Well, as it turns out, not so much:
"Canadians spend less on health care than Americans mostly because they are not allowed to use as much — not because they are getting a better deal."
But that was then (last Spring). Surely this is a one-off?
Um....no. As co-blogger Bob V informs us:
"[I]n Ontario, the country’s largest province, the cost of nationalized health care took up 46% of its entire budget in 2010. By 2030, that number is projected to be 80%."
But hey: Canadian moolah.
"Twenty percent of Ohio adults reported that they or a household member go without medical care because of the cost even though more than 90 percent of them have health insurance"
So that's half of the puzzle.
We also know that all of the current crop of Democrat-party Presidential contenders favor some form of "universal" health care (be it Single Payer, a Public Option, or some other variation on that theme), often citing CanuckCare© as a model.
And of course, we've demonstrated any number of ways that the Canadian model does not, in fact, actually deliver on its health "care" promise:
"Rationing—in the form of waiting lists—has left hundreds or even thousands of Canadians to die without surgeries."
So we can safely put that little gem to bed.
But what about the idea that our Northern neighbor's health care scheme saves money? This claim, by the way, has been made by several of the aforementioned front-runners (at least as regards to nationalized health care schemes in general).
Well, as it turns out, not so much:
"Canadians spend less on health care than Americans mostly because they are not allowed to use as much — not because they are getting a better deal."
But that was then (last Spring). Surely this is a one-off?
Um....no. As co-blogger Bob V informs us:
"[I]n Ontario, the country’s largest province, the cost of nationalized health care took up 46% of its entire budget in 2010. By 2030, that number is projected to be 80%."
But hey: Canadian moolah.
Posts
