Being Healthy and Wealthy, But Not Wise

So . . . one of the reasons I started this blog is that occasionally I read something in the newspaper that just makes me want to throw it across the room.  In fact, this is a primary reason why I still read paper newspapers - it would get very expensive if I threw the computer screen across the room every time something ticked me off.  Well, anyway, today was one of those days.  Find out what's peeving me today after the jump.

Health care in Canada is a sensitive issue (well, it is in most countries - the past few months have given Americans a sense of the role that health care constantly plays in the Great White North).  A vocal segment of Canadians are so ferociously attached to our single-payer health care that no politician can even insinuate reform without being labeled a traitor.  For heaven's sake, Tommy Douglas was even named "The Greatest Canadian" on the TV show of that name, solely because he is seen as the father of our health care system.

So when someone openly advocates reform, I am usually happy about it.  The fact is, the health care system in Canada is unsustainable.  Health care costs currently approach 60% of government revenues, and people still can't get timely care.  The average wait time in hospital emergency rooms is over six hours.  One recent newspaper column advocated making ER wait times longer, so that fewer people would come (while I'm all for people not unnecessarily going to the hospital, such a move would ignore the variable nature of arrivals and would lead to disaster).  The right to health in Canada is, as one friend puts it, the right to die on the waiting list (some surgery waiting lists are 18 months long).  Something has to change.

But the change advocated in today's opinion piece by Michael Bliss (a historian, so he's clearly qualified to make suggestions on this issue - as qualified as I am) moves beyond ridiculous to offensive.  The central argument he makes is that while the ideal of health care for all should be protected, the idea that the government pays for everyone's care should not.  Specifically, he is advocating that the rich should have to pay for themselves.  Why, according to Dr. Bliss, should the taxpayer be subsidizing the care for people who can afford to pay it themselves?

I'll tell you why - because the rich are the taxpayer.  Approximately 60% of income taxes are paid by the top 20% income earners (according to Statscan).  This means that the same people who would be paying their own way for medical care would also be subsidizing two-thirds of everyone else's care.  I know that Canada has socialist leanings, but this is too much. 

But that isn't the worst part.  What the esteemed professor is saying is that the wealthy not only have to pay for themselves, but also would need to do so just to get on the waiting list!  I can almost understand if people are denied coverage based on income as long as they are also allowed to use that wealth to purchase an advantage.  But this idea is predicated on the notion that the wealthy somehow deserve to be punished.  Where is John Galt when you need him?  Furthermore, this idea would only alleviate some of the costs, and would not address the core issue that people are not receiving the care they need when they need it.

I understand the people have strong opinions on this issue, and do not intend to say (here) that there is one right answer.  But this answer is wrong.  And so is continuing with the current system as is, because doing so ignores the reality of our current health situation.  So to borrow from Ron Burgundy, stay healthy, Canada - because if you don't you'll regret it.