The Truth About Canada Read Free Page B

expenditure, in current dollars, was $131.4-billion in 2004, $139.8-billion in 2005, and $148-billion in 2006, and that total real growth after adjusting for inflation was around 3.7 percent in 2005 and 2006.
    Between 1990 and 2002, Germany’s public healthcare spending was the highest in the OECD, at 8.6 percent of GDP. Canada, at 6.7 percent of GDP, was in eighth place in public healthcare spending, behind Germany, Iceland, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Czech Republic.
    During these years, in terms of private healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP, the United States, at 8.1 percent, was far ahead of all other OECD countries. But Canada was up in sixth place as one of the top private spenders, behind only the United States, Switzerland, Greece, New Zealand, and Mexico. Or, to put it another way, 21 countries have higher public healthcare funding as a percentage of GDP than Canada, and 23 have a lower share of private funding than Canada. While Canada is at about 30 percent, 16 of the OECD countries have less than 5 percent of their healthcare expenditures privately funded.
    Looking at total health expenditures as a percentage of GDP, as indicated earlier the United States spends far more than any other OECD country, almost 16 percent. Switzerland in 2003 was next, at 11.5 percent, followed by Germany at 11.1 percent, Iceland at 10.5 percent, Canada and Norway at 10.3 percent, and France at 10.1 percent. The OECD average in 2003 was 8.8 percent. Some of the countries below the OECD average were Italy, New Zealand, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, Austria, Finland, and Ireland. Korea, at only 5.6 percent, was at the bottom of the list.
    Only the United States, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Iceland have higher per-capita health spending than Canada, while 24OECD countries have lower spending, including countries such as Japan and Korea, which nevertheless have so many impressive health indicators.
    LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH
    This is one of the most frequently quoted indicators when comparative health figures are measured. And it’s very revealing.
    In 1851, the average life expectancy in Canada was only 42.9 years. By 1951, that had increased to 68.7 years, and by 2004 it was 80.2 years. In terms of life expectancy at birth for the period 2005 to 2010, Canada is expected to be in eighth place in the world, at 80.7 years. Japan is forecast to be tops, at 82.8 years, followed by Hong Kong at 82.2, Iceland at 81.4, Switzerland at 81.1, Australia at 81.0, and Sweden at 80.8. The United States is well down the list in 29th place, at 77.9 years. So the average Canadian can be expected to live 2.8 years longer than the average American.
    In a list of 50 developed countries, the populations of 42 are expected to have shorter average life spans than that of Canadians, including such countries as Norway, Spain, France, New Zealand, Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark. 13 (In OECD countries, there is a “gender gap,” whereby women on average live almost six years longer than men.)
    Average life expectancy in the least developed countries is only 52 years; in sub-Saharan Africa it is just over 46 years.
    In Harlem, New York City, the life-expectancy rate is lower than it is in Bangladesh. Greece, with half of the U.S. per-capita GDP, has a longer life expectancy rate than the United States. While there are several hotly debated explanations for this, it’s interesting to note that so many of the countries with much longer lifespans than those of Americans spend a great deal less than the United States does on health care as a percentage of their GDP.
    The Economic Policy Institute, based in Washington, D.C., points out that Ireland, Austria, and Finland spend about half as much as does the United States on health care as a percentage of GDP, yet cover 99 to100 percent of their respective populations with health insurance. OECD figures indicate that life expectancy