Transparency is good and all, but there is anther way. In most advanced economies professional bureaucracy figures out the costs. Ordinary folks focus on getting healthy, not on costs.
This works terribly for most advanced economies, Britain and Canada in particular.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-care-wait-times-hit-20-...
The official government figures, where about half of patients get care within 24 hours, and about 90% within 48, are much more in line with my experience.
When you look at the stats aggregated by OECD, Canada is indeed among the worst public health services in the developed world, but it still provides better care to the median earner than the US health system, at half the aggregated cost per capita.
I'm sorely disappointed in your arguments so far. Your stats support your point and are legitimate but mine are not. Typical liberal nonsense.
Combine that with multiple agencies such as Health Canada and OECD which have measured wait times an order of magnitude lower than you cited, I am not sure what else to say.
The stats you provide are collected by an institute looking to further their ideology. They come from a far smaller data pool,and their collection method seems rather suspect. For example, they're asking the actual practitioner rather than anyone involved in scheduling.
Proof?
> The governments stats basically have to be kept. Running the system requires all of the necessary data to already be collected for other purposes, and their stats are drawn from that.
You trust a government entity to accurately report data that's not in it's best interest? When has that ever happened?
Can you explain what your criteria would be for a trustworthy source?
That's essentially the definition of a think tank. This one was founded by a libertarian and considered by many to be libertarian. Certainly cause to question their stats, and I didn't like what I saw.
>You trust a government entity to accurately report data that's not in it's best interest? When has that ever happened?
This is probably enough for you to question their stats, but you've done nothing to show they are wrong.
I challenge you to find a second source that is both consistent with your article, and breaks down the waiting times by type of treatment, including treatments that do not need follow ups with specialists.
Why not?
Most people are in serious pain and have their mobility severely compromised while they wait - I know from personal experience.
As to the invalidity:
The fact that I have never waited for more than a couple of days for treatment in over 25 years, and neither had anyone I know (with 2 exceptions, both of which were for elective surgery like breast reduction surgery) does imply that, at best, their median measurement is measuring a specific niche, rather than general treatment.
Combine that with the fact that multiple agencies have measures wait times as being an order of magnitude lower than your source, and yes, I do think your numbers are invalid.
Nobody's stupid enough to believe that one doesn't imply the other.
> The Fraser institute, which published this study, has a right wing bias and is funded by the Koch Brothers. It seeks to displace the public system in Canada with private healthcare modelled after the US. While they claim independence and give their research away freely, one should be aware of their interests.
You requested "proof". Given that the only quantifiable claims which could possibly be proven is that they are funded by the Koch brothers, and would like to replace the public system with a private one, I assumed you were asking for proof of that.
Now, if you were not asking for proof of that, can you quote the section of the above you did want proof of?
Can you point me to where I say that? You've just killed any potential discussion by arguing in bad faith. Why should I listen to anything you have to say on the subject now that I know your intentions are hostile and that you're not open to debate?