American and Canadian health care compared by patients who know both

Summary: America pluses are quality and speed, minuses are cost and connection to work.

Here is a comparison by Americans living in Canada who are presumably famliar with both American and Canadian health care systems, one of which is slightly more socialistic than the other, both of which are heavily shaped by government intrusion. There are obvious problems with this kind of comparison; this is only one of the most meaningful comparisons that I have seen, which is saying little.

Americans living in Canada prefer the U.S. health-care
system for speed, quality and diagnostic technology, says a new study.
But they also applaud the equity and cost-effectiveness of Canada's
system. And in the final analysis, 40 per cent prefer the Canadian
system. [...]

Overall, the Americans said they preferred the U.S. system for emergency,
specialist, hospital and diagnostic services, and said they preferred
the timeliness and quality of the American system. [...]

In all, 260 [out of 310 total] of the Americans identified wait times as the most significant negative feature of the Canadian system, while 192 identified quality
of care as the most positive feature of the U.S. system.

In all, 196 of the Americans said cost efficiency was the best thing about the
Canadian system, while 223 said cost inefficiency was the worst thing
about the U.S. system. [...]

Meanwhile, 32 per cent also noted that while they lived in the U.S., health
insurance concerns affected their decisions about where to look for a
job, and 29 per cent said it influenced decisions about whether to
remain at a workplace.

Share this

It's probably fair to say

It's probably fair to say that Americans who can live and work in Canada don't have the types of worries that low-income folks in the US do, in regards to health care and access to it. Not a very accurate picture really. Title might better read, 'health care comparisions by those able to afford both'

Many low-income in US get free health care

It's called Medicaid. Now, there might be gaps or problems or whatnot in it, but your comment suggests that you are unaware of it, so I thought I would mention its existence. A lot of folks seem to think that the US has a free market in expensive health care, or that the rich do well while the poor are screwed. This is not the case. The poor are not screwed insofar as they get Medicaid (and that is substantial), and the rich are not doing all that well for a variety of reasons, like the tie the job (if by "rich" you mean reasonably well off, which many people mean).

There is, furthermore, Medicare for the elderly. As you probably know, the elderly are particularly vulnerable to illness and so Medicare is no small part of American health care.

As a poor person, I do not

As a poor person, I do not qualify for Medicaid. So it is not for everyone. It is very difficult to get. And being self employed vs having employee health benefits would make a big difference in how people perceive the US medical system. Work benefits have much better coverage than individual care plans. I wish I still had employee benefits.

About the only place I can get marginal health care at a decent cost in the United States is California.

This is a tough subject, and really cannot be looked at in terms of black and white.

I am of the cannon that believes in constant improvement through change. So - I pose to try and take the best from all different systems and make this one better.

I am not of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" group.

new proposed headline

Headline: "Desperate for any shred of a claim that the US has a passable healthcare system, Zealots cling to faulty study"

320 people? Who chose to write in based on a newspaper ad (selection bias anyone)? Who are abnormally rich and well-educated apart from the general population? I'm not kidding when i say that I would've been laughed out of Stats 102 had I presented a survey like this.

Incidentally, I have little doubt that the wealthiest Americans like our healthcare system and perhaps should even prefer it to a universal system (unless they own a labor-intensive business.)

I am not of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" group.

But it would be fine if you were, since it's defintitely broke.

 

Canadian zealots for America?

Before I could replace my headline with your suggested headline, I would first need to have ready an argument to demonstrate that the Canadians who conducted this study and published it in a Canadian medical journal, and/or the Canadian newspaper editors who saw fit to print an article on this Canadian study, are "zealots" who are "desperate for any shred of a claim that the US has a passable system."

If your meaning is merely that I am myself a zealot for mentioning this article, keep in mind that I am at most one zealot, so "zealots cling" should read "a zealot clings". Furthermore, while my supposed zealotry might explain to your personal satisfaction my mention of this article, it does not explain the actions of the various Canadians who worked together to bring this finding to my attention in the first place, nor does it explain the behavior of the Google News algorithm which brought the Canadian article to my non-Canadian eyes. The algorithm is not a human and is therefore probably not a pro-American zealot.

 

easy fella

Hey, take a joke- I was implicating the authors in the Jewish revolt of 66.

A Zealot on Those Infant Mortality rates

You know how the leftist are always on about the high infant mortality rates here in the U.S.    Well, some other zealot bothered to research it a little.  Turns out that it's based on different criteria being used in the US vs. elsewhere.   I guess that's the problem with using induction to come to a conclusion when instead you should be using critical rationalism.   The "observational facts" turn out to be based on false theory.  In this case the theory that the measurements were commensurate.

Incentives under national health care

At that link I found the interesting comparison:

In the Canadian system, or any nationalized health care plan, how much money something is going to cost comes first. When you are paying for your own health care, your satisfaction comes first. This is why there are countries that won't try to resuscitate a 25 week old baby--it costs the government too much money.

 

infant mortality

You know how the leftist
are always on about the high infant mortality rates here in the U.S.
Well, some other zealot bothered to research it a little.
Turns out that it's based on different criteria being used in the US
vs. elsewhere.

It depends on how broad your elsewhere is- are there some countries who use different standards? Yes there are- but that guy stopped well short of demonstrating how those differences would impact the data and how common those differences are. His "research" was little more than anecdotes about 1 or 2 countries which use slightly different methods which might change the comparison.

 

I guess that's the problem with using induction to
come to a conclusion when instead you should be using critical
rationalism
.

Oh slam. I think I just got served.

In the Canadian system, or any nationalized health care plan, how
much money something is going to cost comes first. When you are paying
for your own health care, your satisfaction comes first. This is why
there are countries that won't try to resuscitate a 25 week old
baby--it costs the government too much money.

Right, whereas magnanimous insurance companies love to just shell out dollar after dollar. That is one of the least convincing quotes I've ever read, honestly.

Incentives

Right, whereas magnanimous insurance companies love to just shell out
dollar after dollar.

You're completely missing the point of the quote. It specifically says, "when you are paying for your own health care." It doesn't involve magnanimity. When the state pays for something and does so using money it taxed from you, your satisfaction counts much less than it does in a market.

Car analogy: would you rather have a system in which you buy your own car, selecting from among the models available in a market such as we have now, or would you rather have a system in which cars are identical, are built by the government and are handed out to everyone (who is, of course, taxed to pay for them)?

Clothes analogy: would you rather have a system in which you buy your own clothing, selecting from among the clothes available in a market such as we have now, or would you rather have a system in which clothing is identical, is manufactured by the government, and is handed out to everyone?

I leave the food analogy and the music analogy to the reader as exercises. The toilet paper analogy can be done for extra credit.

When the state provides something, the individual's satisfaction takes a back seat, far back, the back seat of a city bus.

Of course in the US we have something very close to state provision of medicine. It's not universal - that is, you have to pay for it - but it's far from being a free market in medicine. In being not-for-free while still being very much under the thumb of the state, it somewhat resembles the Post Office.

That is one of the least convincing quotes I've
ever read, honestly.

Nobody expects you to be convinced by something you don't even understand.

 

quick question before I respond

You're completely missing the point of the quote. It specifically says, "when you are paying for your own health care."

Oh, I see- so it's discussing the wonderful healthcare that the uninsured receive? As silly as that point before was, this is 1000x sillier. The people without government or private insurance, who pay or all of their healthcare out of pocket... we think they are the model? I didn't realize that my employer paying my insurance was harming me so. Why, I'd be so much better off if they simply didn't pay. I can pretend like it's a serious enough argument to make more points, but I can't lend it that level of credibility quite yet. First, I've gotta know- is that your serious interpretation?

Infant Mortality

Another important contributor to high infant mortality rates in the US is the fact that black women have very high rates of infant mortality, and no one really knows why. Poverty, education, and consumption of health care matter, but the differences persist even when controlling for SES.

The high infant mortality

The high infant mortality rate among black women is directly linked to poverty, lack of education and appropriate prenatal resources, and for the simple reason that they are more likely to birth in hospitals. Hispanic women who also live in poverty, and lack education differ in one regard from their black sisters, in that they are more likely to use midwives and birth out of hospital. The Hispanic infant mortality rate is even lower than their more affluent white sisters. I think it's halarious that you guys are arguing about the Canadian and American health care systems when quite frankly they both suck shit, and are more likely to do you harm than good.