rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

The facts on Canadian health care can't be Trumped

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca for as little as $5 per month!

Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Of all the outrageous things U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said this summer, trust the Fraser Institute to single out his only accurate observation, that "single-payer [health care] works in Canada."

In an August 11 op-ed in National Newswatch, the institute's Jason Clemens and Baccus Barua argue Trump got it wrong. Canada's health-care system is "middling at best," they say, and "among the most expensive among the OECD countries." Is this true?

The authors cite two sources to try and trump Trump. The first is the OECD, which publishes an annual report with comparable statistics on health spending across its 34 member countries. The second is the Commonwealth Fund, which also publishes an annual report comparing quality, access, value for money, and equity among 11 countries including Canada.

Let's examine their claims on the data in the same order, starting with the OECD.

In the category of public health expenditures as a percentage of GDP, Canada ranked lowest of the top 11 spenders in the OECD in 2013, even below the United States. However, Canada was in the top three in terms of spending on private health expenditures, a category that includes out-of-pocket spending for things like prescription drugs, home care, physiotherapy and routine eye care. We are also spending more public money for services provided by for-profit companies that siphon off a percentage for their shareholders instead of for patients.

The Fraser Institute has consistently called for more, not less, private spending by Canadians who need health services, a position that would knock us even further behind our counterparts in the OECD and impose hardship on those who are ill.

Our low public and high private spending patterns go some way to explaining why we are experiencing some of the problems identified in the second study cited by Clemens and Baccus, the Commonwealth Fund.

Most experts recognize that international comparisons of wait times are difficult since half of the countries in the OECD, including Switzerland, France, Germany and the United States, do not regularly monitor or collect data. But that shouldn't prevent us from identifying where the problems are and taking steps to reduce the amount of time we spend waiting to see a health professional or a doctor, or to obtain surgery.

In some parts of the country, changes in both professional practice and public policy have cut months from wait times, reduced lengths of stay in hospital and increased patient satisfaction. These should be adopted as national strategies and applied across the system.

We also have to move medicare beyond the scope of doctors and hospitals, something that has been on the public agenda since Saskatchewan introduced universal health care in 1961. The divide between public and private health care fragments the entire system and undermines efforts to build a continuum of care at every step along the road between sickness and health.

Long-term care and outpatient rehab services, for example, are two necessary health services that should be, but are not, included in the medicare basket. Last year, researchers called on all provinces to increase funding for outpatient rehab therapy so that patients who had suffered a stroke could recover without going bankrupt. "It is not that expensive to provide therapy in a person's home or have them come to an outpatient clinic, relative to if they get re-hospitalized," said one researcher.

Long-term care also receives inadequate public funding, imposing mounting hardship on Canadian families. In 2010, we spent $20 billion on long-term care, split among federal/provincial/territorial governments and private payers. While $14.4 billion was public, the remaining $5.64 billion came out of the pockets of some of Canada's most economically vulnerable and oldest citizens.

One result of the exclusion of just these two services from medicare is that an estimated 7% of acute care beds are occupied by patients awaiting rehabilitation or placement in a long-term care facility, unnecessarily raising costs and creating a backlog that increases wait times for people who need a hospital bed.

The cure for wait times lies within the public health-care system. Publicly funded universal health care systems are the fairest and most cost-efficient way to provide patients with access to services. But Canada also has to reduce its reliance on for-profit providers such as surgical clinics, which international evidence (cited by the Clemens and Baccus in their op-ed) clearly shows do not reduce public sector wait times, but are associated with lower quality and higher costs.

It is truly odd to see the Fraser Institute fretting over what the next candidate to represent the U.S. Republican Party might think of Canada's health-care system when we're in the middle of our own election. Canadians would do well to ask the parties seeking to form the next government what they plan to do about expanding medicare, increasing the role of the federal government in establishing and enforcing high national standards, and developing a more stable and cost-effective (i.e., more public) way to make sure the provinces have sufficient funding to meet them.

Colleen Fuller is an independent health policy researcher and a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

This piece was originally published on National Newswatch.

Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.