Editorial: Look north to see ‘reform' at work

In Canada, where government considers health care a right, a law called the Canada Health Act forbids health care providers from charging for medically necessary services. Instead of doctors charging patients, the government allocates a specific budget each year for clinics and hospitals to operate and serve the needs of patients.

To America’s uninsured, this may sound like Nirvana. It means anyone in any financial condition can walk in off the street for treatment of any condition, with government paying the cost. Coverage, however, doesn’t always result in care.

Some believe Tuesday’s election indicates the American people don’t like the bigger government Democrats have foisted upon them in these past 10 months. You’d think that would give some voice to Republicans who have been pushing for actual reforms: the ability to buy insurance across state lines or tort reform, as a couple quick examples Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, has pushed for these things, but Democrats, might be more interested in going out in a blaze of glory, insist forcing their version of “reform” on taxpayers.

So let’s look at our neighbor to the north.

“The Canada Health Act is responsible for more pain, suffering and death than any other legislation in Canadian history,” Rick Baker, a Canadian who helps patients find timely and affordable care in the United States, told our sister paper The Colorado Springs (Colo.) Gazette.

In the United States, most medical consumers are paying customers. Census data show 80 percent of U.S. adults have insurance, a number that goes slightly higher in Allen County and Ohio. The patient pays out of pocket, or pre-pays with fees to an insurance pool.

Either way, a patient generates cash for the hospital or clinic. The cost of serving those with no ability to pay is typically included in the prices paid by those who are able to pay.

In the United States, the average medical consumer is an asset to the medical provider. Because the consumer is an asset, in the form of a paying customer, he receives quick and professional treatment. To attract more customers, a clinic or hospital must develop a good reputation through customer satisfaction. It must invest in top-of-the line diagnostic and surgical equipment. In the United States, where medical consumers are assets to providers, medical care and equipment is abundant.

In Canada, each medical consumer is a liability. The patient is not a source of income. Instead, the patient is a drain on a fixed amount of financial resources provided by government. Diagnostic equipment, such as state-of-the-art CT and MRI scanners, are not good investments. They are costs that draw down on limited government funds, and do nothing to generate income. As a result, they are scarce.

There’s still a difference between the U.S. and Canadian levels of care, as Baker’s line of work shows. If Democrats have their way, that won’t be the case.