Killing me softly
October 29, 2007 · By Marsilio Facino
Fine, critics might say: Canadian patients don’t get as much high-tech care for cancer, but at least every Canadian, regardless of income, has equal access to health care, right? Wrong again. When it comes to this relationship, called the income/health gradient, the O’Neills found that, after taking into account America’s greater income variation, the U.S. actually did somewhat better than Canada among 18–64 year olds. In other words, income is probably a proxy for education and other social advantages that make it easier for wealthier patients to navigate any health-care system. In Canada, where care is rationed, poorer patients have fewer connections and less ability to “jump the queue†to get needed care abroad or from private (and often questionably legal) clinics.
Isn’t >64 where the majority of healthcare is used though? That seems like an awful cherry picking of data to support a point.
I propose a compromise. I am willing to let those that want the current system to keep it if they will let me take my tax money and buy whatever health care I want. It’s supposed to be a free country. Why don’t we act like it?
Freedom of choice? In Canada? What about our Sacred Cows?! What about socialist ideals of ensuring everyone suffers equally?!
So you are arguing that the American system isn’t broke. Our may not be perfect and need reform, but to look up to their system? That is great about the 18-64 year olds who are in a position to get care, but anyone above or below that are really those who are being neglected by the American system. Was that 18-64 year old range all white as well? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Kevin’s theory is flawed in that if those who can take their tax money elsewhere do, what happens to those who are either past or before the tax-paying years. Or those who are out of the system altogether due to disability or such? I guess we send them to America where they can suffer with people in similar circumstances.