It’s no secret that the Canadian population is aging. The massive influx of baby boomers entering their senior years is quickly creeping up like a tidal wave. While such a massive population swell was great during their working years, the years ahead are casting a bleak shadow on Canada’s much-lauded free healthcare.
I won’t lie; the gist of this editorial will be blunt. There’s just no getting around the fact that soon there will be too many seniors needing healthcare and too few taxpayers to supplement their medical costs. In 2012, nearly one in seven Canadians were senior age. By 2030, that number is expected to jump to one in four. That’s a quarter of the population that will hit senior age in just 15 years.
It doesn’t help that the population is living longer and yet suffering with more chronic conditions like diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure, etc. Put together, this means that many aging Canadians are going to need more medication for a longer period of time. The older the patient, the more the financial burden shifts to a younger taxpayer. It’s beginning to look like a dam that’s trying to hold back too much water.
We’ve already seen the early signs of cracks in the foundation in the case of Margaret Warholm and the ensuing ombudsman’s report. Her situation showed signs of neglect and resulted in her death after a fall. The report that was prepared by the ombudsman prompted 89 other families to step forward with similar concerns for their loved ones in care homes. So how did it happen?
According to the ombudsman’s report, the system is under strain. There were 19 recommendations in total that focused on solutions such as better communication with families and better reporting on the quality of care being met in facilities. All of that’s fine and dandy, but it requires more personnel. Where’s the money going to come from to pay the number of staff required to adequately staff these facilities? The majority of these costs come under the umbrella of healthcare. The Saskatchewan government mentioned that it’s not just them; the whole country is feeling the strain and it’s true. With citizens clinging to the belief that healthcare should always remain free, there isn’t a lot of recourse.
There’s another reality to consider: in the current economy, a two-income household is almost a requirement if a couple wants to raise a family. The effect of this is twofold. One, that means adult offspring can no longer stay at home to care for aging parents and two, the average family size is decreasing.
With a smaller family size, that means a smaller population size, which means fewer taxpayers. Simply put, this means that more seniors will have to go into care homes and there will be fewer citizens to support their medical costs.
There is a possible solution, but not many people are going to like it. We saw the first hints of it with the opening up of the privatization option for MRI scans. The provincial government has said that it has no plans of opening up privatization in other areas of healthcare, but truthfully, what other options are there? The money has to come from somewhere. Yes, there are moral issues with potentially creating a two-tier system, but the benefit it provides by easing the strain on healthcare should also be considered. Take, for example, this recent MRI situation. Yes, the rich will be able to pay for a scan faster than those on the public wait list, but they will also shortening the wait for everyone by paying for an extra one.
I’m not saying privatization is the answer, but if the government doesn’t find a way to ease the healthcare strain, it will be seniors and taxpayers that will suffer in the end. Seniors are already beginning to see it with reductions in pensions and senior support. Old Age Security will come under fire, as will another social program: medicare. Innovative solutions need to start being considered by everyone, not just the government, before the strain becomes too much.
