Hating on America’s health care system has become all the rage. And with good reason. Health care inflation is in the triple digits, US taxpayers are forced to subsidize insurance companies, and medical debt is a leading cause of bankruptcy. Some say the answer is to mirror Canada and the United Kingdom by adopting their single-payer models. But is this even a viable solution?
Tallying America’s Health Care Dollars
Total national health expenditures exceed $5 trillion a year. Health care accounts for about a fifth of the gross domestic product. Medical spending is growing at an alarming 7% annual rate. The $5 trillion is dedicated to hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid, pharmaceuticals, and private insurance. Wasn’t Obamacare supposed to make health care affordable?
The United States must be getting the best bang for its buck, especially considering that spending outpaces the rest of the world, right? Like education, allocating more dollars and cents does not equate to better outcomes.
Of course, this does not mean that America’s health care system is producing results comparable to those in places like Cuba. The United States leads the world in health care innovation, research output, and the development of advanced treatments. But for common ailments, surgeries, and baby deliveries, it is expensive with or without health insurance – and it is frustrating Americans.
Data from the People’s Voice Survey (2025), conducted by Washington University’s QuEST Center, found that almost nine in ten respondents said the US health care system is worsening or staying the same. Eighty percent agreed that it needs an overhaul. However, what does major reform even look like? Canada? The United Kingdom? Italy?
Before demanding change, it would be a responsible endeavor to see what others have to offer.
Be Like Canada, They Say
This past summer, Statistics Canada published comprehensive 2024 data that revealed some unflattering truths about the nation's medical care system. Nationally, 36% of the country waited three months or longer to see a specialist. Thirty percent waited between one and three months. The numbers varied across the country. For example, Canada's most populous province, Ontario, had wait times of 30 weeks for otolaryngologists and 20-plus weeks for ophthalmologists.
A CBC Marketplace investigation found that about half a million Canadians left emergency rooms before seeing a doctor because of long wait times and overcrowding.
For surgeries and replacements, the numbers are eye-opening. Only 68% of Canadians had hip replacements within the recommended six months. Cataract surgery? Just 69% within the recommended 112 days. Median MRI wait times climbed by 15 days, while median wait times for prostate cancer surgery jumped by nine days.
So-called hallway health care, in which patients are treated in break rooms, hallways, and supply closets, has become common in the Great White North. This is most pronounced in Ontario due to its surging foreign-born population, aging demographics, and persistent bed and staffing shortages.
This does not mean Canada is spending very little. Total consolidated government health costs will be about $400 billion this year, accounting for about one-quarter of nationwide spending.
Is it any wonder why Ottawa keeps pushing Medical Assistance in Dying? Canada cannot afford to take care of the living.
NHS, Innit?
If Canada's single-payer model is a laughingstock, then you need to drop Tim Hortons’ Double-Double and have a cup of tea in Great Britain’s National Health Service.
This year, only 59% of patients were treated within 18 weeks, which fell short of the government's 92% target. Twenty-two percent of Britons waited more than six weeks for tests and imaging, far higher than the goal of 5%. Here is a statistic that summarizes how bad the situation is: The National Health Service accomplished a 0.1% reduction in wait times, well below the 25% target.
.jpg%20SPLC&w=1920&q=75)
