Home | About | Donate

Trump Is Lowering the Bar for Canada's Healthcare System Too


Trump Is Lowering the Bar for Canada's Healthcare System Too

Julie Devaney

It's easy to laugh off the absurdity of Trump and his supporters' sentiments about the Canadian health-care system. But their ridiculousness doesn't make their impact any less dangerous. Canada is internationally viewed as a model of socialized medicine. So on October 9, 2016, when U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump mentioned Canada in the debate with Hillary Clinton, it was unsurprisingly in reference to the health-care system. He claimed, "the Canadians, when they need a big operation, they come into the United States in many cases, because their system is so slow."


It's interesting to have new perspectives, this one from Canada.

Thanks to Ms. Devaney and Common Dreams


For some time now, whenever I hear this kind of misinformation, that Canadians are dissatisfied with/hate the Medicare system, I ask them to name one, just one, mainstream Canadian politician would dare campaign on a plank of abolishing Medicare, or even float this as a trial balloon.

Ignorant bastards!


Although I have no idea if 52,000 Canadians really seek treatment in the US, I DO KNOW:

1) that when I lived in Arizona near the Mexican border during the 1970s and 1980s way more than 52,000 Murkins were going to Mexico to seek medical and dental treatment, and purchase medications, and

2) living near the Canadian border for more than a quarter century way more than 52,000 Murkins go to Canada each year to purchase medications.

Trump's real purpose in constructing the Mexican border wall is to keep Murkins from going to Mexico for medical and dental treatment, and purchasing medications.


Every civilized industrialized nation in the world have single payer health care systems with much greater outcomes for half the cost of what the US citizen pays. Why don't they mention France, Germany, Norway, Sweden etc, etc...whose health care systems are not FOR Profit like the US? Even the media never explains the difference, why? Because every news room in the corporate media have drug commercials funding their newscasts. Medicare for All is the only method for us. In Delaware we have 850,000 citizens and spend $8.5BILLION on medical alone. If we had single payer there is enough money to pay for dental, mental, drug treatment, long term care etc, etc and SAVE Delaware $2.5BILLION. We did a single payer bill here in the corporate state and had to use the states numbers to determine the facts above. We could only get 27 legislators to support. The new Gov. John Carney and Jack Markell the former governor refused to even hold a hearing where the proof of the savings could have been delivered. Single payer will come but only when the States are so bankrupt they wont have a choice..or a progressive president comes to office.


Problem is the issue of financing. The providers have to get paid for their services. So the patients are either paying money to an insurance company out of their own pocket or their employer is doing it for them (and perhaps taking part of what they otherwise would get paid) to pay for it. Regardless of "how" you do it, someone has to pay the doctor, the nurses, everyone else involved with care.

Where the problem comes is from those whose employers are paying for their health care coverage. They consider this a benefit that they are paying for in accepting lower wages or salaries. They feel that if they also have to pay a "tax" on top of their payroll and incomes taxes so that "others" can have health care that it is unfair as they are already paying for their own care. "I'm paying for myself and my family and now you want me to pay more taxes for other people?"

This is really "where" the problem is. They've "got theirs". So they see no reason to pay additional taxes so that others, not so lucky as they are, can have health insurance. Then too individual insurance is more expensive for the amount of coverage offered due to more "risk" for the insurance company. Effectively large group policies on a per capita basis are "cheaper" than individual policies can ever be due to the basic nature of insurance. The more "unknowns", the higher the price will be for coverage. Then when you tack on "no limits on coverage", the cost will be even higher. This is what the problem with Obamacare was. The insurance companies faced even more risk that someone might run up a six or seven figure bill at the end of their lives that the insurance company was expected to pay. Whenever you add to risk, the cost goes up a lot!


There is a wait problem in Canada in some areas. However, in all cases the problem has been created by governments denying the funding. In most cases the facilities & services are there. There is a lot of american influence being exerted on the Canadian system.


The Canadian politicians who allow this takeover by greedy American/Canadian corporations should be flogged in the commons, televised to be clear in the message!
How is it possible to have the steady deterioration of Canadas Health Care System, if Canadian pols respect the laws and will of the Canadian people? !

Let's get tough on ANY PRIVATE INCURSION on our health care system, and punish our politicians if they allow ANY private corporation to operate in Canada!


That every other industrialized civilized nation on the planet thinks that healthcare is so important that it should be provided by the state to all its citizens is sometimes reported by the US mainstream media. Of course, always with a baseless assurance that the people don't like the system and a clamoring for a US-style system. Even Americans are clamoring for universal health care.

The newscasters, the politicians, and their (mis-)representatives need to be called out on these lies, each and every time they tell them, until they're scared to open their mouths except to tell the truth.


I think the one phrase in this article that was overlooked was that Nordic countries address the causes of poor health more aggressively than we do, and in such a way prevent a lot of unnecessary costs.


Under a single-payer system, employer-provided medical "insurance" would come to and end - so they wouldn't "have theirs" anymore.