Bleak Reality of ‘Free’ Healthcare: Canadian’s Two-Year Wait Time for MRI

Internet denizens brought representation to a grievance shared by Canadian national Glen McGregor this week, who discovered the pitfalls of ‘free’ and ‘universal’ health care systems firsthand. McGregor suffered a knee injury during a sporting event and was told he would need an MRI scan. However, the Ontario local legislation insists that an ultrasound examination must be undertaken first. The astonishing revelation that McGregor then had to digest was that the waiting period for an ultrasound could extend to a staggering one to two years.

This extended waiting period served as a stark reminder to commenters on McGregor’s post of the true price of ‘free’ and ‘universal’ health care. The strain on the resources from the large influx of unauthorized immigrants only exacerbates the issue. In a grim instance of irony, some mentioned that the swift option for medical relief available in such circumstances is Canada’s Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID), should one be unable to bear the waiting time or denied care altogether.

The drawback of such a healthcare system presents a glaring contrast to the American health care, often criticized for its high expenses, but scores on nearly immediate accessibility. Although critics often point out the high costs associated with the U.S. system, the story of McGregor highlights the other side of this comparison: the potential pitfalls of a system where care is ‘free’ but inaccessible due to extended wait times.

My corpus of writings frequently includes the adverse outcomes of central economic planning, with healthcare being a considerable part of that discourse. During the days when Obamacare was making headlines, topics that concerned the merits of ‘free’ and ‘universal’ health care services were on everyone’s lips. As it so happens, availability of MRI facilities was a notably recurring subject.

During these debates, a supporter of the Canadian system expressed vehement displeasure at the abundant MRI facilities in the United States. She audaciously claimed that Canada, despite its limited MRI facilities, functioned perfectly fine. Hospitals in her vicinity, she complained, were equipped with MRI machines and were even expanding to incorporate more beds.

She grumbled, ‘Who needs an MRI unit in every town?’ and hastily dismissed the need for numerous hospital beds. Although she lacked the credentials of a healthcare professional or an expert in healthcare management, she firmly believed the government had the higher wisdom to determine which medical amenities were essential in any given area.

Fast forward to 15 years after that discussion, we see McGregor grappling with the bureaucratic red tape of the Canadian healthcare system. Forced to wait one to two years for an ultrasound, he would then presumably be placed onto another protracted waitlist for his necessary MRI. Would the proponent of the Canadian system stand by her assertions now, witnessing the condition of McGregor?

The phrase ‘Health care is a human right’ has a certain universal appeal. However, the juxtaposition of this motto with the realities faced by individuals like McGregor under a government-controlled healthcare system dispels its charm quickly. The concept of a ‘right’ to healthcare gets diluted in such scenarios, often leaving it as a barely viable option.

Devotees of such systems will contend that a government-controlled approach—managed by them and their associates—would be more effective and equitable in distributing resources and goods than private enterprises. Such a narrative, however, falls apart under the weight of historical evidence.

Critics of communism and socialism primarily highlight the political repression that is a hallmark of these ideologies. However, it’s crucial to remember that the millions of lives lost under these regimes were not all due to wars, concentration camps, politicized ‘purges,’ or the whims of despotic leaders. The grim reality is that the majority met their fate through starvation.

Moreover, these numbers do not take into account millions more who endured but managed to survive harsh conditions and severe deprivation of basic human needs. One might imagine that repeated instances of such historical lessons, marked by the suffering of countless individuals, would illuminate the harsh truth of these ideologies.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not), a candidate in the race for the New York City mayor’s office proudly declares socialist inclinations, attempting to convince the citizens of the advantages of government-owned grocery stores among other policy proposals.

Cities like New York should heed the warnings embedded in these real-life accounts from nations like Canada, Venezuela, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Zimbabwe, or the erstwhile Soviet Union. Handing over the reins of any economic aspect to the government paves the way for inefficiency, inaccessibility, and expense – unless one is flush with cash or political influence.

The concluding message is unambiguous – avoid granting any form of power to individuals or organizations inclined towards communism, socialism (‘democratic’ or otherwise), or central planning. However, idealistic they may seem in theory, their practical applications have consistently resulted in systemic failures and widespread suffering.

Invariably, such a government-controlled approach leads to dire outcomes that far outweigh the glossy, appealing theoretical narratives. An elucidated look into history and real-time instances like McGregor’s ordeal can aid societies in making informed choices, avoiding the repetition of past mistakes.