Why We Can’t Have a System Like Canada’s

At The Conversation Simon Haeder outlines why state-based single-payer systems are impractical in the United States. The reasons boil down to three:

  • Health care is too expensive in the U. S.
  • Our political system is only conducive to adopting such a system under rare circumstances.
  • We don’t have enough social cohesion.

Here’s his statement of how Massachusetts managed to pull off their system:

First, there was bipartisan cooperation at both the state and federal level.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, President George Bush and Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt, all Republicans, were able to come to an agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy (Democrat of Masachusetts) and Democrats in the state legislature.

Bipartisanship also meant that everyone was invested in the project, at the state and federal level, and sought to make a success.

Second, the federal government was willing to foot most of the bill and provided regulatory support for the state’s effort.

Third, Massachusetts is a relatively wealthy state that already covered a large percentage of its population.

A confluence like this appears highly unlikely under current political realities.

Let me translate that. It took political moderates on both sides of the aisle at both state and federal levels. Somebody else had to pay for it. And Massachusetts is 83% white.

Mr. Haeder’s explanation doesn’t simply explain why a state-based single-payer system like Canada’s is impractical for the United States. It’s evidence that any single-payer system for the United States is impractical.

Ultimately, more people will reach the conclusion that I have. Health care administration won’t be rendered less costly in the United States via a single-payer system any more than educational administration is less costly in the United States because we have a mostly government-based system of education. U. S. attitudes towards government and government benefits are different than in the Canada, the UK, France, or Germany. The costs of health care and health care administration need to be reduced first. Then we might be able to afford a single-payer system.

2 comments… add one
  • walt moffett Link

    This law suit, where is alleged low medicaid payments (and therefore fewer providers) are discriminatory to Hispanics, shows the path may not be so simple.

  • Jimbino Link

    “The costs of health care and health care administration need to be reduced first. Then we might be able to afford a single-payer system.”

    Right, and the way to reduce costs is to require all drug and healthcare providers to publish all their prices on the Web, as do Walmart, Home Depot, Harbor Freight and Lowe’s for their products.

    An alternative would be to enlist Amazon to take over Amerikan health care, publishing ever-diminishing prices and product reviews and delivering in 2 days.

Leave a Comment