Collection of Letters
6 December 2004
Examining Healthcare: A Comparison between the United
States and Canadian Systems
By Marilyn Galindo and Kimberlee Collins
This collection of fictional correspondences between
medical professionals illustrates a few key points in the debate between the
American and Canadian healthcare systems.
Dear
Dr. Pain,
Currently, there are about 40
million United States citizens without any type of medical insurance. This number is staggering for such a well
developed country like the United States. Although every year politicians
promise to make reforms to the United States healthcare system, little progress
is ever made.
I think that it is time that the
United States completely restructures the healthcare system. The new healthcare system should be modeled
after Canada’s. Canada has established
a universal healthcare insurance system.
It is the most effective system of its type in the world. Under this system every citizen is
guaranteed free healthcare and the freedom to choose their physician.
As of result of this free
healthcare system, Canada has one of the highest life expectancy rates in the
world. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, the average Canadian is expected to
live about 79.3 years. On the other
hand, the average America is expected to live about 77 years. Statistics also show that the percentage of
government revenues spent on health insurance in Canada is less than in the
United States. The United States spends
about 17.6 percent while only 16.2 percent of the revenue goes to healthcare in
Canada. All these statistics prove that
by providing healthcare to everyone life expectancies increase and also that it
is not necessary to spend that much money on healthcare.
I really think that the United States should establish
a new healthcare system. It is time
that every citizen of this country has healthcare regardless of their financial
situation.
Sincerely,
Knot S.O. Well, MD
Letter 2
Too Good to be True: The Flaws of Universal Health
Care
Dear Dr. Well,
An all too common misconception
exists that Canadian socialized health care is vastly superior to the United
States system of privatized insurance.
Canada pioneered universal public healthcare in the 1960s. In principle, government funded health
insurance in which every citizen’s health care needs are met, seems almost too
good to be true. Realistically,
Canada’s system does not suit all its citizens’ health care needs.
Firstly, not all major medical
services are covered under Canada’s Medicare.
These include pharmaceuticals, dentistry and home care. The increased use of pharmaceuticals as
treatments coupled with the rising costs of prescription drugs adds to the
financial burden of Canadian families.
Dentist bills can also pose a significant financial burden, as can the
costs of home care for the elderly and the disabled. Consequentially, many Canadians purchase privatized insurance to
meet their needs anyway.
Secondly, time spent waiting for
medical care results in perhaps the most vocal protests against the Canadian
system. The problem stems from the fact
that the profits of health care providers are not affected by patient
satisfaction. Patients are not
customers, so they have no influence.
The result is often indefinite waits in line for services.
Thirdly, limited funding has lead to drawbacks for both doctors
and patients. Doctor’s salaries are
lower than comparable physicians in the US.
Also, the doctor to population ratio is low; only 2.1 practicing
physicians for every 1000 in the population in 1996. Furthermore, Canadians’ access to progressive medical
technologies as compared to US citizens is inferior. All of these can be attributed to limited funding.
These are only a few of the
major problems facing the Canadian model of socialized health care. Even considering these few examples it is
clear that the Canadian system does not meet the needs of the people.
Sincerely,
Lots O. Pain, M.D.
Letter Three
Dear
Dr. Pain,
Well, I must admit that the Canadian system is not
perfect. There are some flaws in the
system such as not everything being covered by the universal insurance, longer
waiting periods, and drawbacks caused by limited funding. However, despite these flaws I still believe
that it is better to have everyone insured rather than just a few. In the current American system, issues such
as lack of insurance for a large portion of the population and lack of coverage
for pharmaceuticals have caused greater problems in the United States than
Canada.
For instance, most of the working class in the United
States is uninsured. They make to much
money to be covered by Medicaid or Medicare.
However, they do not make enough money to pay for private
insurance. Therefore, approximately 40
million individuals have to suffer the consequences of living in a free-market
economy without any type of medical insurance to protect their families’
well-being.
Another major problem with the United States
healthcare system is lack of coverage for pharmaceuticals. This is caused by
the high price of medication in the United States. The United States does not regulate the price of
pharmaceuticals. Therefore,
pharmaceutical companies are allowed to raise the prices as much as they
want. So even if you have insurance,
you might not be able to afford the medication necessary to cure your
disease.
Overall, I think that the
Canadian system with its imperfections is still more effective than the United
States system. I would much rather wait
a couple a days for medical treatment than not get any at all simply because I
cannot afford it.
Sincerely,
Knot
S.O. Well
Letter 4
The Value of Quality: A Positive Outlook on American
Healthcare
Dear
Dr. Well,
You raise some good points,
which I will now address.
It is true that not everyone in
the United Stated has medical coverage, but even uninsured individuals can
receive hospital care. I agree that the
American system needs refining to increase the amount of citizens with health
insurance, because the financial burden on such individuals can indeed be
substantial. Nevertheless, Government
programs do exist to aid some needy Americans.
Medicare cuts health-related costs for citizens over 65, and similarly
Medicaid helps the disabled.
Individuals in the United States
may spend more on the average than Canadians for healthcare, but the quality of
care is superior. The free market leads
to higher salaries for doctors and better service for patients. High salaries attract bright students to the
medical field. Patients are treated
like customers, so time spent waiting for care is less. Better funding brings in superior medical
technologies. All these improve the
quality of patient care received in the United States.
Overall, the importance of
quality must not be ignored. Having
government-funded health insurance does the patient no good if they cannot
receive the care they need.
Doubtless neither Canada nor the
United States has a flawless healthcare system. The best system may be some combination of the two, in which
every citizen has access to quality healthcare. This notion, while ideal, does not seem to be practical due to
cost. Hence, I personally believe that
quality care, which arises from the higher funding generated by a free market
economy, renders American healthcare superior.
Sincerely,
Lots O. Pain, M.D.
Works Cited
1.
Crowley, Brian Lee. “The
Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health
Care,
But Shouldn't.” Nov. 2004 Heritage Lecture #856 29
Nov. 2004 < http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm>.
2.
“Healthcare
System: Canadian and American healthcare systems compared.” Nov. 2004
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 29 Nov. 2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_system>.
3.
Crowley, Brian Lee. “The
Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health
Care,
But Shouldn't.” Nov. 2004 Heritage Lecture #856 29
Nov. 2004 < http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm>.
4.
“Healthcare
System: Canadian and American healthcare systems compared.” Nov. 2004
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 29 Nov. 2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_system>.
All works contained herein are copyright their respective owners.