Canadian health care

David Gratzer on health care in Canada:

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

That last paragraph makes an essential point: resources are finite. Money is not unlimited to serve people. If demand exceeds supply you have to ration care somehow, either through denial of service or waiting lists.

Now, both sides of the health care debate can trade horror stories and there is truth to each. Advocates for the big government approach can point out numerous problems with the current system while those who oppose socialized medicine note the many flaws inherent in such an approach. Reform is needed, but it should be towards a competitive, capitalistic model rather than one driven by increased regulation and government intervention.

Update: Meanwhile, despite the Obama Administration's promises that expanded government health care coverage will help lower costs Michael Tanner notes that the opposite seems to be taking place in Massachusetts after that state moved towards a universal coverage model:

In reality, since the program became law, insurance premiums have been increasing by 10 to 12 percent per year, nearly double the national average. On average, health insurance costs $16,897 a year for a family of four in Massachusetts, compared to $12,700 nationally. Meanwhile, total health-care spending in the state has increased by 28 percent.

New regulation and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to costs. A new mandate for prescription-drug coverage was added, and high-deductible policies were restricted. Some Massachusetts residents who were happy with their old insurance policies have had to change their coverage in order to comply with the mandates.

This doesn't reflect too well on Mitt Romney.