OCR Text |
Show Your Man jk In Washingtony 5 By U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE CANADIAN STYLE Recently this space was used to explain Great Britian's 30 year experience ex-perience with National Health Insurance. In-surance. The statistics were startling. There is, however, more bad news to report in the National Health Insurance In-surance debate from our good neighbor to the north. Canada's federally operated health service began 20 years ago and its experience hasn't been much better than Britian's. It all began with the government covering hospital costs - doctor's bills were added in . 1968. . Between 1960 and 1978 hospital costs increased 424 percent and the cost of a doctor's care increased in-creased by 71 percent, despite a promise pro-mise from the Canadian government that hospital costs and physician care would naturally go down with National Na-tional Health Care. The law makers in the Parliament also promised a halt to over-utilization of medical services but Canadians now spend 1.8 days per year in a hospital compared to 1 .2 days for Americans. One of the most common promises pro-mises heard in the debate on National Na-tional Health Insurance in the U.S. is that maldistribution of doctors will be corrected and citizens will soon find adequate health services within easy access of their homes. The Canadian experience would dictate something different. Rural doctors are still hard to find and inner cities remain physi-cianless. physi-cianless. There is an over-abundance of high priced specialists and a shortage shor-tage of general practitioners. Doctor migration to the U.S. is an increasing national problem for the Canadians. , A recent survey shows that Canadians now pay more for "free" , government sponsored health care than they would pay under a free market system. The analysis is based, not only on the taxes they pay for health care, but on the dollars lost in excessive waiting to receive that care. Another study by UCLA shows that low income groups in Canada get somewhat better health care than their counterparts in the U.S. This increased in-creased service, however, is offest, according to UCLA, by cutbacks in funds for aid to the blind and disabled, workman's compensation, family allowances and other welfare programs. The money for the Canadian National Na-tional Health Insurance program comes directly from general : revenues in the treasury based on a 2 percent income tax surcharge which was added in 1968 with the doctor bills. In spite of this, one out of every two Canadians still buys private health insurance to supplement the government's program, according to the Chicago Tribune. Consistent analysis shows that in spite of its few failings, the free enterprise delivery of health care is superior, both in low cost and better more timely service. National Health Insurance is not free. It will cost every Utahn dearly both in service and in dollars and cents. History proves pro-ves it. |