Posted by
Curt Day on Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:23:17 PM
One major concern many Americans have regarding socialized, and even universal, health care is the time one must wait for medical services. Those who wish to play upon those fears often give nightmarish anecdotes implying that the worst case story is the norm. And thus we might hear of a person having to wait for years for a surgical procedure that can cannot benefit the patient by the time the procedure can be done. And thus, those advocating America's current health care system conclude that the lack of waiting is another way to show that American health care is the best in the world.
Unfortunately for such advocates, using the wait time for medical services as a way to rank health care between countries that provide universal care for its citizens and those that do not is not valid. One reason is obvious. Whereas countries that provide universal care, often through Socialized Medicine, will care for all who desire services while countries that do not provide universal health care have a financial filter that reduces the wait time. For example, in the USA, there is an estimated 45 to 47 million people who have no health insurance. [1] There is an estimated 25 million, though the figure could be much higher, who are underinsured. [2] It is common for those who are underinsured to delay seeking medical care because of finances. These delays, all too often, carry fatal results. Since there are approximately 300,000,000 people in America, that means almost 25% of all Americans will either not seek or delay seeking health care.
One could ponder what would happen to wait times in Sweden, Canada, or other countries whose universal health care has been sneered at by those who use wait times as a measurement if they could deny care to almost 25% of those seeking services.
Conversely, what would happen to wait times here in the USA if our medical providers had to provide care for almost 25% more patients. An indicator of how wait times are affected by universal care can be seen in Boston where the average time it takes to see a doctor is 49.6 days whereas the second longest time is 27 days in Philadelphia. We should note here that the difference could be explained by Massachusetts 2006 health care initiative that requires almost all residents to have health insurance. [3]
What must be added about the wait times in countries that provide universal care even when that includes socialized medicine is that wait times vary according to service and are not constants consisting of the worst case scenario. For example, when one researches the wait times for essential medical services such as cardiac procedures in Ontario Canada, one easily sees that the wait time for such procedures is measured in days. [4] And the wait time for cancer surgeries can vary from hospital to hospital and over time. [5]
Perhaps, another wait time that might be a better measurement of the quality of health care that is available in a country is the amount time one must wait until one dies. We can see that, as in the other wait times, some countries that provide universal care make their residents wait longer than America does. Some of those countries include Canada (81.2 years), Sweden (80.7 years), and France (80.9 years) while Americans must only wait 78.1 years. But there are countries that provide universal care for its citizens that do not make their citizens wait as long as Americans have to wait. Cuba, for example, despite its vast economic resources, makes it citizens wait 77.3 years to die.
One of the most important factors regarding wait times for health care is a financial one. Can a capitalist system provide more health care facilities than a socialistic one? Should a hybrid system be used to expand and improve health care? In our society, the answer depends on the priority that we put on health care as opposed to profit margin. If capitalists are saying that we can't build the facilities that we currently enjoy unless people of greed can profit from such facilities, then who will benefit from those facilities?
There is a hidden cost to our current American health care that has parallels in other parts of American society. To leave a significant part of our society without health care is to leave people in deprivation and families vulnerable to serious upheaval. Both deprivation and family insecurity are significant factors in crime and abuse. Our society exposes its own citizens to these factors when it makes them financially vulnerable through job loss, economic distress, and the disabling or loss of family providers. Sure we might have some mighty fancy medical buildings and facilities, but for as long as we have 2 America health care systems, one having a relatively short waiting list while the other makes people wait for an infinite amount of time to receive help, we create long terms societal problems that puts everyone's health at risk.
[1] http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
[2] http://www.alliedquotes.com/Resources/Underinsured-Medical-Insurance.html
[3] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm
[4] http://www.ccn.on.ca/3_1_1a.php,
http://www.ccn.on.ca/3_1_2a.php,
[5]
http://www.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one.aspx?pageId=37493,
http://www.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one.aspx?pageId=37520