The Greatest Canadian

The following is an article from Uncle John's Curiously Compelling Bathroom Reader.

Today, Canada has free universal health care. The man who made it happen: former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas. Here's his story.

LIFE AND DEATH

In 1910, when Tommy Douglas was six years old, he injured his leg and it never healed properly. Four years later he developed a life-threatening bone infection, and because his family couldn't afford a specialist to treat it, the doctors wanted to amputate the leg to stop the infection from spreading. Tommy's leg was saved only by chance -a teaching surgeon took an interest in the case and offered to operate on Tommy for free, provided that his students could watch the procedure and learn from it.

Tommy never forgot the experience. A medical crisis could affect anyone -what would happen to the people who weren't as lucky as he had been? His situation wasn't all that unusual in the early 20th century. In most industrialized nations, there were few options if you were poor and happened to get sick. Hospitals would occasionally admit "charity cases," but only rarely. For the most part, if you needed life-saving surgery and couldn't pay for it, you died.

HUMAN RIGHTS

After spending his teens at a variety of jobs (printer, whiskey distiller, actor, boxer), Douglas became a Baptist minister and in 1930 took a job as a preacher at Calvary Baptist Church in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. The rural, blue-collar town was devastated by both a drought and the Great Depression. Even if families had money for food, there was none left over for medicine. It reminded Douglas of his own near-tragedy from childhood. "I buried two young men in their 30s with young families who died because there was no doctor readily available and they hadn't the money to get proper care," he wrote. Douglas came to believe that medical care was a basic human right and should be available to everyone.

In 1934 Douglas realized that he could do more for the poor in politics than he could at a small-town church, and joined the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Like Douglas, they advocated health care access. (The party also agitated for social reforms to end the Depression, including workers' compensation and unemployment insurance.) Douglas ran on the CCF ticket for the Saskatchewan legislature in 1934 ...and lost. But in 1935, he won a seat in the national legislature, the House of Commons.

WINS AND LOSSES

Douglas served in the House for nine years but never got the support he needed to institute health care on the national level. The CCF wasn't well regarded in mainstream Canadian politics; their idea of tax-supported, government-run medicine was too reminiscent of the complete state control of the Soviet Union. But Douglas was no communist, and had no interest in totalitarian government. He just wanted universal health care.

Frustrated with the lack of progress at the national level, Douglas resigned from the House in 1944, returned to Saskatchewan, and tried to get his health care plan going on the provincial level. The voters were with him: In the 1944 election, the CCF won 47 of the 52 seats in the Saskatchewan legislature. And since Douglas was head of the Saskatchewan CCF, the election landslide made him premier (governor) at age 39. Now he'd have a chance to prove to the rest of Canada that his social welfare programs, especially universal health care, could succeed.

PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS



Douglas's entire plan for governing was built around the idea of universal health care, or "medicare." Seventy percent of the 1944 budget was allocated to health, welfare, and education. That year, Douglas's government passed 72 social and economic reform laws, most of them directly or indirectly related to health care:

* Douglas ordered the University of Saskatchewan to expand to include a medical school to create and train more doctors.

* Utilities, lumber, fisheries, and other corporations became state-run, generating substantial revenue to pay for health care.

* Douglas and his cabinet took a 28% pay cut.

* Retirees were immediately given free medical, hospital, and dental coverage. Treatment of cancer, tuberculosis, mental illness, and venereal disease were made free to everyone in Saskatchewan.

By 1947, Saskatchewan had one of the strongest economies in Canada. After just three years as premier, Douglas made the province financially stable enough to introduce universal hospitalization for all residents of Saskatchewan for an annual fee of $5.

Free hospitalization and surgery were in place, but drugs and doctors visits were not. There just wasn't enough money. Still, the rest of Canada was beginning to see how well Douglas's program was working and warmed to the idea. When new prime minister John Diefenbaker -a conservative- was elected in 1958, he offered matching federal funds to any province that started a free hospitalization program. The following year, Saskatchewan had a budget surplus, and in 1959, after 15 years of work, Douglas was finally able to introduce complete universal health care to the province.

JUST THE BEGINNING

Seeing how well Saskatchewan did with health care, legislation began in 1961 to expand it to all of Canada, and by 1966 it was in place, paid for by the provincial and federal governments, each contributing 50%. His goal reached, Douglas returned to national politics in the early 1960s. He led the New Democratic Party, a new version of the CCF, and held seats in the House of Commons off and on before retiring from politics in 1979. In 1988 he was elected to the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. He's one of the few non-doctors honored, but without Douglas's efforts, the Canadian medical -and social- landscape would be far different today.



Some other Tommy Douglas facts:

* In a 2004 poll conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadians were asked to name "the greatest Canadian." Tommy Douglas was voted #1.

* Douglas's daughter, Shirley Douglas, was arrested in 1969 for ties to the Black Panthers -they had helped Douglas organize a free breakfast program for African-American children living in poor sections of Los Angeles. Following her arrest, Tommy Douglas said, "I'm proud that my daughter believes that hungry children should be fed, whether they are Black Panthers or white Republicans."

* Actor Kiefer Sutherland is the grandson of Tommy Douglas. (His mother is Shirley Douglas.) As a boy, Sutherland asked his grandfather what defined a Canadian. Douglas's response: the harsh winters and Medicare.

Mouseland

(YouTube link)

____________________________________

The article above is reprinted with permission from Uncle John's Curiously Compelling Bathroom Reader, a fantastic book by the Bathroom Readers' Institute.

The 19th book in this fan-favorite series contain such gems like The Greatest Plane that Never Was, Forgotten Robot Milestones, Ancient Beauty Secrets, and more.

Since 1988, the Bathroom Reader Institute had published a series of popular books containing irresistible bits of trivia and obscure yet fascinating facts.

If you like Neatorama, you'll love the Bathroom Reader Institute's books - go ahead and check 'em out!


"But in the end, I don’t want my medical care determined by pandering politicians of entirely ill motivation. Period."

i, on the other hand, don't want my medical care determined by someone who puts profit ahead of my life and health. period.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I understand that over half the personal bankruptcies in the U.S. can be attributed to medical bills. I realize that this is hardly a scientific survey, but I've never encountered anyone who has been forced into that situation here in Canada.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"You are at the mercy of a corporate drone whose career depends, not on the quality of medical care provide to the patient, but on the amount of profit generated for the insurer."

HAHAHA give me a break. As opposed to the drone who processed my car registration at the DMV? Or the drone who won the "not my job" award at tax & revenue? Or any number of other bureaucratic drones that someone with actual employment is forced to deal with?

Face it--there are good workers on both side of the debate with both good & ill motivation. But in the end, I don't want my medical care determined by pandering politicians of entirely ill motivation. Period.

*And your mom, PJ, is the only claptrap. Someone I know spent 7 months waiting for a scan that revealed a cancerous tumor--and who had to go to Michigan to get it removed because they were making her wait another 7 months to schedule the "elective" surgery. It's great that some get quick treatment--but it's sure as sh!t not most.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
To further Matt's point, the job title for insurance company employees tasked with the job of denying claims -- is just that -- CLAIMS DENIAL SPECIALIST. 70% of Americans favor single-pay. 70%! Oh Bama? Why didn't you dance with the people who took you to the party? Rather, you've catered, hat in hand, to the insurance industry. And, indeed, the right wing. When all they really want to do with your ass, is to tar and feather it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Craig you really need to spend more time in the USA if you really believe that. I'm writing this as someone who has lived in Alberta and New Jersey.

You need to realize when something is a private entity its only goal is making money. That is the only thing these companies care about. They have employees with the job of finding reasons to deny people.

Also whether you believe it or not the American system is significantly more expensive. A simple wiki/google/anything shows this much better then I ever could.

The last benefit is one that most people never see. In the USA companies cover 2/3 the cost of medical insurance. This causes a difference in actual pay vs what an employer pays. If I'm paying you 500 a month I also have to pay another 100 month on top for your health care. This causes employers to look to hire undocumented workers that they don't have to pay this medical fee for.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Craig, @Chuck

The real advantage to Universal Health Care is this: you cannot be declined.

My Aunt, several years ago, suffered a minor injury to her ribs when she fell while gardening. She got checked out at the hospital, and everything was fine.

Four years later, she had a heart attack in Florida. She had purchased private traveler's insurance, and underwent a bypass operation.

About 4 months after the bypass, she received notice from the insurance company that her coverage was declined. It seems that when she injured her ribs, a notation was placed on her file that she was "complaining of chest pain", and that was enough for the insurance company to declare it to be a "pre-existing condition".

They are now disputing a bill for $170,000

This, Chuck and Craig, is where private, for-profit insurance falls far short of the mark. You are at the mercy of a corporate drone whose career depends, not on the quality of medical care provide to the patient, but on the amount of profit generated for the insurer.

You can keep your cost analysis. I really don't care if it's free, or if I pay for it. If I can have complete, 100% confidence that the care I need will be there when I need it, it's worth every penny.

And don't give me that claptrap about wait times. My Mom got a plastic knee within three weeks, and when they discovered an abdominal tumor she was in the OR within days. And they are retirees on an extremely limited fixed income. Not rich.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Sounds like someone has an axe to grind.

No, it's not free. It's paid for through taxes. "At the point of a gun" is a little dramatic, don't you think?

Also, I don't buy your numbers.

The Ontario Health Premium on the Income Tax ranges from $0 for people who make under $20K to $300 for people who make more than 25K, and continues in stages up to $900 for people who make over $200,600.

$900 / 12 = $75 per month. I bet you can't find individual health care for less that than in the US. But if you made $200K, you wouldn't be too worried.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Well, the fanatics are in fine form today.

Having lived in the US as well as Canada, I will put forth my opinion and just say that I'd never go back to the US, even if I had no foreseeable reason to require medical care.

Not only has the care in the US been more expensive in every case in my experience, the quality of care and treatment is far superior in Canada.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Alice - off the top of my head, no. Though feel free to show me up on your googlefu skills. Or else, just put it to commonsense, do those at the top ever get in line behind everyone else? Despite all the impassioned speeches and rending of garments, when it comes down to the crunch, they are always at the head of the queue.

As to how much you pay privately, I imagine that would be a sum dictated by individual health/age circumstance. As I said already, I am not against semi-socialization provided a bit of honesty is employed. That being that Health Care is not free. And when socialization is brought into play, far greater demand is placed upon services, for after all, if a trip to the Dr costs you nothing, why not go? As I asked already, why does it have to be one or the other?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Craig -

I missed the italicized words at the beginning. That should probably be corrected.

Do you have a citation for your statement about Obama? Given that his family was covered by the subsidized healthcare provided by the federal government, that seems untrue.

I can only speak of my own experience living in the UK with my husband. We were well taken care of. I had a great local doctor, cheap prescriptions, and even had a visit to the A&E (ER). All were really quite good. On par with all the the PPO and HMO experiences I've had here in the states. The difference is that my taxes covered my care in the UK, while I'm currently over $3000 in debt here in the US, even though I have what's considered very good coverage through my husband's employer.

I can tell you what system I would prefer ...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Quick, cheap & correct--you can always have one, possibly two, but never all three. Guess which one (two if you're very lucky) you get in Canada.

That makes a difference when time is crucial and you need imaging. And it's not just advanced technology like MRIs, but something as simple as a doppler to locate blood clots. I know from personal experience.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Alice - The very article begins such:

"Today, Canada has free universal health care. The man who made it happen: former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas. Here’s his story."

There are heavy problems with full out socialization of medicine. As should be apparent when Obama himself states that while he is for such a system, he would not subject himself, his children or his wife to it. The age old story, all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
More or less than $25 a month both sound like a bargain. The last place I punched a clock, family coverage was over $800 a month. No, I couldn't buy it. That was six years ago. Now, the same coverage for just me would be at least $500 a month.

That's in the U.S.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Craig -

I don't see anywhere in comments, or in the article, where anyone said it was free. Of course it's not free. However, many people (myself included), believe the taxes are worth the reward.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
We pay far in excess of $25. And having researched the cost of private health insurance can state that it would cost our family far less to insure privately.
Abandon the moral self aggrandizement which you adopt in relation to money taken off you at the point of a gun, and recognize that the fantasy of a free medical system is exactly that. Whether you go private, or socialize, the little guy pays. The idea that by being intellectually honest on this point you have no empathy for children or the elderly is fatuous.
Here's an idea, why not adopt the Australian model whereby those who wish to ensure privately, may do so, and those who do not, but have the monetary means to do so, are taxed in accordance to their income? Seems to make the best of a hopelessly bad situation.
To reiterate, the money has to come from somewhere. Healthcare is NOT FREE! Government bureaucracies are legendary for their inefficiencies and the limited services and long waiting lines they produce in relation to health care. So man up to a little honesty on these points. We all want to help the less fortunate, but seldom is Big Gov the best solution. Of course, those who would actually be in power under such a system would disagree with me on this. But never because they would lose out otherwise, perish the thought!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Craig: "Craig - May 7th, 2012 at 9:10 am"
"Speaking as one who lives in Canada, WE DO NOT HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE! You pay an arm an a frigging leg, it is taken in dedicated tax off of your pay cheque. Earn over $500 a week, and you pay far more in this health tax than you would if you privately ensured yourself. Without receiving the benefits of choosing how you wish to be covered."

Nonsense! Stop making things up. Speaking as someone who does make over $500 a week, the amount taken off my paycheque is almost exactly $25 a month. I don't consider this excessive by any means. Paying both for myself and also for anyone who isn't employed, such as my children or anyone unfortunate enough not to be working so they can get their health care for free is one of the things I like about this country.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
America had its chance right after WWII to enact this policy. Instead we chose to put profit in front of the health and well being of our fellow citizens.

Take the profit out of healthcare and you can have universal healthcare.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Chuck - If it weren't for the Canadian health care system, I'd have never had access to the treatments I needed when I was young and the surgeries to correct my feet in the last few years. They would have been prohibitively expensive without taxpayers like my mum, a registered nurse, who pays 35% of her paycheque in taxes. I am currently in school to be an MLT, another hospital position that pays similar taxes, and I'm proud to pay them so that others can have the access that I did.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Chuck -

For Canadians (and most of Europe), it's not involuntary. They're happy to pay their tax into is a system that provides healthcare for ALL PEOPLE. The fact that everyone can be treated, regardless of income or class, is considered a virtue, and outweighs any flaws. As crazy as it sounds, a lot of people in the world care about the health and wellbeing of their fellow humans.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
You forgot to mention his interest in eugenics (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/tommy-douglas/) and his stance on homosexuality (http://queer-liberal.blogspot.ca/2008/04/tommy-douglas-on-homosexuality-in-1968.html).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
You say "free", I say "involuntarily funded by taxpayers who are then left at the mercy of bureaucrats to decide what care is available to whom".

To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Speaking as one who lives in Canada, WE DO NOT HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE! You pay an arm an a frigging leg, it is taken in dedicated tax off of your pay cheque. Earn over $500 a week, and you pay far more in this health tax than you would if you privately ensured yourself. Without receiving the benefits of choosing how you wish to be covered.
I'll grant you, it is a lovely fantasy that all these free health services exist, and can be provided if only the Gov sends men with guns after the uber rich. But a fantasy is all it is. History is 100% unequivocal, Socialism does not work!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Its too bad that Obama couldn't have made more progress on a Medicare style system in the US. As a Canadian from Saskatchewan I have to say that Medicare is great system.
If you are sick you get care. No insurance company to deny you or Visa card to produce.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 26 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"The Greatest Canadian"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More