Vouchers are an ineffective substitute when health care is a "for profit" free market enterprise. We can't control costs with vouchers, and that would leave Medicare beneficiaries a very big hole to close over time. Competition does NOT drive costs down or keep them in check under the model. The article below is a really good window on the problems and speaks about the positive aspects of the model in Canada:<quoted text>
2009 data?? Ok let me know when the government plans to buy all the hospitals and hire all the docs and HC workers..
"In 2009, the U.S. spent $7,960 per person on health care, and the closest contenders were Switzerland ($5,144 per person) and Netherlands ($4,914)."
So at 8k a year what was your problem with Romney and Ryan on the 8k vouchers again??
Why Healthcare Costs Trillions Less in Canada
As always before a major election, there's the chorus of threats. "If so and so wins, I'm moving to Canada." (Groan.) "This country is broke, and out of control, and we're all going to hell in a hand-basket."
And so it went this year, except that in 2012, many a Twitter tirade blamed the healthcare reform law—aka Obamacare, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—now on its way to full implementation, for the urge among the electorate to flee the country.
I paraphrase, but some of the unenlightened comments went like this: "I'm moving to Winnipeg. Don't want the government controlling my life or my healthcare."
Here's the irony: The Maple Leaf nation's government-paid healthcare system, which requires few if any co-payments or deductibles, may provide much higher quality of healthcare services at a fraction of the spending compared with the Medicare program in the United States.
In a research letter in the Archives of Internal Medicine Oct. 29, Harvard physicians and professors David Himmelstein, MD and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, put the comparison into perspective for people 65 and older.
They used U.S. Medicare actuarial data dating back 30 years. They excluded payments for the disabled and patients on dialysis under 65, but included Medicare Advantage, and compared it with comparable Canadian Medicare healthcare cost data from three sources.
Here's what they found:
Between 1980 and 2009, Medicare spending per beneficiary in the U.S. rose from $1,215 to $9,446, which was a 198% increase after adjusting for inflation. But in Canada, comparable spending rose from $2,141 to $9,292, or an inflation-adjusted rate of 73%. Think of it this way: for every $10 spent on services in the U.S., Canada spent $3.36.
In Canada, government healthcare spending paid for a greater offering of benefits (which is why Canada's 1980 spending was higher than that in America), covering 80% of total healthcare costs for seniors. In the United States, Medicare pays for about 50% of seniors' healthcare expenses.
If Medicare costs had risen at Canada's pace, projected savings would have totaled $154.2 billion in 2009 and $2.156 trillion from 1980 to 2009.
I know what you're thinking. These two idealists are notorious and unrepentant single-payer advocates who founded Physicians for a National Health Program. But like it or not, these are the numbers they got.