Canada vs USA, Public vs Private Healthcare – Mario Seccareccia

https://vimeo.com/430151302 The Canadian public healthcare system has not been perfect, but it's the privately owned facilities that have failed badly. Mario Seccareccia on theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay. Transcript Paul Jay Hi, I'm Paul Jay, and welcome to theAnalysis.news podcast. Mario Seccareccia is an emeritus professor at the Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, where since 1978 he taught macroeconomics, monetary theory, labor economics, and the history of economic thought. He's also the editor of the International Journal of Political Economy. Paul Jay We're going to talk about the Canadian mostly public health care system. I say mostly because there is a public health insurance plan. The hospitals almost entirely with a very odd and very small exception are publicly owned. So this is more than just public health insurance. This is a public hospital system. Look at that to some extent compared to the American almost entirely, either, for profit or big non-profits like a Johns Hopkins, which actually operate as if they were for profit. Paul Jay And there's also some state publicly owned hospitals. But the big players are the for profits and the not profit, not for profits, which act and operate in a very uncoordinated manner, the way all for profits do. And we're going to have some comparison to that to Canada. Then we're going to look at the economic side of things. So, Mario, thanks for joining me.  Mario Seccareccia Glad to be on. Paul Jay So start with comparing how Canada has responded to the Covid pandemic. As I say, a mostly public system as compared to a mostly private system in the United States. Mario Seccareccia Well, it responded in a way, which I would argue was correct. In what sense? In the sense that what our political authorities did, which is not quite what happened in the U.S., at least, is that they decided that they would let primarily the experts in this case, you know, the medical profession, that the experts, the epidemiologists and so on to, you know, to not dictate, but obviously advise and ultimately follow on what they were suggesting to do. Mario Seccareccia So in that regard, what we had. It is a certain respect for those who knew something about what was going on and to follow on that rather than to lead. You know, as I think in the case of the U.S., what happened where you get all these mixed messages coming from the various authorities and conflicting ones at that. There was a sense of unity here. I would argue that was not quite the case in the US and more like what was, let's say you would find in some of these other countries like New Zealand that did so well, for instance, or Australia. Mario Seccareccia There was a sense of unity there. And, in fact, a sense of purpose. And even all political parties to a large extent, they tended to support the government without really questioning anything. I mean, also the government, which is in a rather protectionist position politically because it's been a minority government. You know, we have a parliamentary system here. And as a minority government, they could you know, if there's any, you know, let's say unity within the opposition that could bring down the government. Mario Seccareccia So in that regard, it was in a difficult position to be able to impose very much. So it had to be done by consensus, largely with these other parties.  You know, whether it be on the right, which would be the Conservative Party or on the left, which would be the new Democratic Party. So in that regard, as I said, there was something good about that. Mario Seccareccia I think most Canadians appreciate that. Paul Jay  In terms of the ability of the public system to respond in a way that the private more private system didn't. Did that really express itself and if so, how? Mario Seccareccia Well, it expressed itself pretty well. And in what sense,