Some facts about US/Canadian systems


  • Specializes in Acute post op ortho. Has 32 years experience.

Canada's health care costs for 2007 were 172 Billion but that only represents 72% of the total cost of health care. The remaining 67 billion was unfunded and passed off to annual deficit. Total cost for 2007 was 239 billion to provide health Care to 32.8 million Canadians. Now if the US is spending 721 billion for only Medicare and Medicaid to cover 94 million people, then the cost to cover 297 million is 2.28 Trillion per year, which means an increase of 1.559 Trillion PER YEAR to the US budget, and that is to provide health care to all Americans under a single payer plan. Keep in mind that this 2.28 Trillion would cover everybody and replace medicaid/medicare at the same level that medicare/medicaid provide coverage.

The original mandate for Canadian health care required that the Provinces pay 50% and the Feds paying the remaining 50%. Seemed like a good idea, the Feds mandate requirements in health care coverage, the Provinces and Feds split the cost evenly. Problem is, the Feds at best have only ever paid 38% of the bill instead of 50%, but because of the Fed mandate, the remaining cost was dumped onto provincial budgets. Unfortunately, the provinces can't cover approx. 65% of the bill on their own, so then we have rationing. By the way, plan on seeing this if the Obamacare plan runs for 3 years. From the bill, the government will mandate coverage, but at NO point in the bill is there a guarantee that the Feds will cover their share of the bill, but they did put in that the States CAN NOT cut back on the State’s share of the bill. In other words, large cost means feds don't cover their full share, but the States must meet federally mandated requirements and cover 50% of bill, but, with no lessening of coverage.....hmmmm... sounds slightly impossible to do, doesn't it.

Why does it work in Alberta but not in other Provinces so well? Simple answer, they cheated and legislated in some private health care counter to government mandate. i.e. government health care, plus a $120/month additional health coverage with 80 - 100% drug coverage (depending on drug type, cheaper drug = lower coverage), private rooms, free ambulance, free optometry, 80 – 100% coverage on eye-glasses, extended physiotherapy past government coverage, basic dental 100% coverage, and 80% coverage on additional dental for a total cost of $1440/yr out of pocket, that's on top of the taxes paid into the system.

Unfortunately, we won't have this option in the US. As soon as the Health Bill takes effect, you can NO longer purchase private health insurance. So if you leave, change, or quit your job, you will not get new private coverage with a new employer, because you can't purchase private health care once the Health Bill takes effect. The President said you will keep your coverage and Doctor if you want and this is true. BUT, if you change jobs (each person usually has 5 careers in their lifetime), you lose your coverage because of finances, move to another state, or do anything that causes you to lose coverage, then you are stuck with only the Public option.

Does it now make sense why the democrats don't want inter-state competition or mandating coverage to all Americans and removing the employers from the equation? With interstate competition, if you move, you would still keep your coverage, if you owned your health care instead of the employer you would always have coverage, employed or not. Instead, by keeping the rules as they are, but bringing in new rules, legislative proponents for the bill guarantee that all private health care will cease to exist within 10 years with the public option as the only option. Good luck on keeping your coverage and your Doctor under those conditions.

Why 10 years? Because once the insurance companies can't sign up new members under the mandate, their paying clientele will either slowly die off, move out of state, lose their jobs, and the insurance company will go out of business because it can't keep its insurance pool deep enough with new clients to supplement sick peoples care. The absolute biggest companies are predicted to fail within 8 - 10 years with no new clientele to keep them in business. Smaller companies will be gone within 5 years. One last note: that additional 1.559 Trillion/yr cost would require ALL 200 Million Working Americans making 24,000/yr or more to pay a minimum 14% Federal income tax (Health tax) just to get BASIC coverage as exists in Medicare/Medicaid and pay each year’s cost.

Is the left willing to pay this for single payer national health care? If you say yes, please realize the "Rich" (top 5%), can't afford the entire cost, but the poor and middle chipping in a fair share, then costs could be met. Are you willing to force ALL Americans to pay, or just the rich? If you want only the Rich, then your Single Payer Health Care will fail. If you want the middle and poor to chip in also and not just the "rich", then you have a chance for national health care. Good luck convincing the remaining 95% of the country to pony up more dough.

Hawaii tried it......bankrupt in 7 months.

As for "Canadians live longer"....send them 10 million illegals and you'd fix a good portion of that slight of hand accounting.

This topic is now closed to further replies.