From the Fraser Institute

By Yanick Labrie

Switzerland’s universal health-care system delivers significantly better results than Canada’s in terms of wait times, access to health professionals like doctors and nurses, and patient satisfaction finds a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian policy think-tank.

“Despite its massive price tag, Canada’s health-care system lags behind many other countries with universal health care,” said Yanick Labrie, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Building Responsive and Adaptive Health-Care Systems in Canada: Lessons from Switzerland.

The study highlights how Switzerland’s universal health-care system consistently outperforms Canada on most metrics tracked by the OECD.

In 2022, the latest year of available data, despite Canada (11.5 per cent of GDP) and Switzerland (11.9 per cent) spending close to the same amount on health care, Switzerland had 4.6 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.8 in Canada. In other words, Switzerland had 64.3 per cent more doctors than Canada (on a per-thousand people basis).

Switzerland also had 4.4 hospital beds per thousand people compared to 2.5 for Canada—Switzerland (8th) outranked Canada (36th) on this metric out of 38 OECD countries with universal health care.

Likewise, 85.3 per cent of Swiss people surveyed by the CWF (Commonwealth Fund) reported being able to obtain a consultation with a specialist within 2 months. By comparison, only 48.3 per cent of Canadians experienced a similar wait time. Beyond medical resources and workforce, patient satisfaction diverges sharply between the two countries, as 94 per cent of Swiss patients report being satisfied with their health-care system compared to just 56 per cent in Canada.

“Switzerland shows that a universal health care system can reconcile efficiency and equity – all while being more accessible and responsive to patients’ needs and preferences,” Labrie said.

“Policymakers in Canada who hope to improve Canada’s broken health-care system should look to more successful universal health-care countries like Switzerland.”

Building Responsive and Adaptive Health Care Systems in Canada: Lessons from Switzerland

• Canada’s health-care system is increasingly unable to meet patient needs, with wait times reaching record lengths—over 30 weeks for planned care in 2024—despite significantly rising public spending and growing dissatisfaction among patients and providers nationwide.
• Swiss health care outperforms Canada in nearly all OECD performance indicators: more doctors and nurses per capita, better access to care, shorter wait times, lower unmet needs, and higher patient satisfaction (94% vs. Canada’s 56%).
• Switzerland ensures universal coverage through 44 competing private, not-for-profit insurers. Citizens are required to enroll but have the freedom to choose insurers and tailor coverage to their needs and preferences, promoting both access and autonomy.
• Swiss basic insurance coverage is broader than Canada’s, including outpatient care, mental health, prescribed medications, home care, and long-term care—with modest, capped cost-sharing, and exemptions for vulnerable groups, including children, low-income individuals, and the chronically ill.
• Patient cost participation (deductibles/co-payments) exists, but the system includes robust financial protection: 27.5% of the population receives direct subsidies, ensuring affordability and equity.
• Risk equalization mechanisms prevent risk selection and guarantee insurer fairness, promoting solidarity across demographic and health groups.
• Decentralized governance enhances responsiveness; cantons manage service planning, ensuring care adapts to local realities and population needs.
• Managed competition drives innovation and efficiency: over 75% of the Swiss now choose alternative models (e.g., HMOs, telemedicine, gatekeeping).
• The Swiss model proves that a universal, pluralistic, and competitive system can reconcile efficiency, equity, access, and patient satisfaction—offering powerful insights for Canada’s stalled health reform agenda.

Yanick Labrie

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The HHS under RFK Jr. concluded that ‘continued investment in Moderna’s H5N1 mRNA vaccine was not scientifically or ethically justifiable.’

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has canceled a $700-million contract with Moderna for the late-stage development of an mRNA bird flu “vaccine” over safety concerns.

“After a rigorous review, we concluded that continued investment in Moderna’s H5N1 mRNA vaccine was not scientifically or ethically justifiable,” HHS Communications Director Andrew Nixon said in a statement.

“This is not simply about efficacy—it’s about safety, integrity, and trust. The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration, which concealed legitimate safety concerns from the public.”

Moderna announced the cancellation of the HHS contract on Wednesday, after the Biden administration had awarded over $700 million to the pharma company for the development of the mRNA injection, prompted by reported concerns over the spread of new bird flu strains to humans.

In a recent blog post, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA shots, named Kennedy as the mRNA lobby’s most feared opponent. For years, Kennedy has been one of the country’s most prominent critics of vaccines, a stance he adopted after the mothers of vaccine-injured children implored him to look into the research linking thimerosal, a mercury-based component of vaccines, to neurological injuries, including autism.

The dangerous, even deadly track record of mRNA injections raises serious safety questions about the planned mRNA bird flu shot. After the mRNA COVID shot rollout, the injections were linked at least a reported 38,615 deaths and 2,669,318 adverse events in the U.S. alone (with an unknown additional number caused by the mRNA shots but attributed to the virus); and they have been linked to an explosion in cancer.

It is infrequently mentioned that before the COVID outbreak, not one Moderna mRNA treatment had been brought to market, with StatNews noting that Big Pharma companies such as Novartis, Merck, and Roche had “abandoned” mRNA work “over concerns about toxicity.”

Eleven states have thus far pursued bans on mRNA-based “vaccines” due to their well-documented dangers.

Bird flu panic 

In June 2024, ​​the World Health Organization (WHO) said that a new strain of bird flu detected in humans for the first time had a “potential for high public health impact.” They logged the death of a 59-year-old man in Mexico with “multiple underlying conditions” as a “confirmed fatal case of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N2) virus,” despite the fact that Mexico’s health ministry said the death was due to underlying conditions that led to septic shock, Reuters reported.

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most highly published cardiologists in history, has pointed to gain-of-function research as a likely explanation for a “jump” of bird flu from animals to humans, alluding to the fact that it has long historically only been detected in animals. He called for a shutdown of U.S. gain-of-function labs and warned that animal culling and bird flu vaccines would only create “more resistant strains.”

Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci have also spent years funding research to “develop a bird flu pathogen capable of infecting humans,” as Alexis Baden-Mayer showed in an article published in 2023 year. Some of this gain-of-function research has taken place in U.S. Department of Defense-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

Christian Westbrook (the “Ice Age Farmer”) detailed in one video Gates’ funding of Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Wisconsin to identify mutations in various bird flu strains that could have pandemic potential. Fauci has also funded Kawaoka’s activities since 1990.

Such funding of gain-of-function bird flu research is especially significant considering that people like Dr. Robert Redfield, former director for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have for years warned of a dangerous impending bird flu that will devastate humans despite the fact that it has historically been detected only in animals.

In a March 30, 2022, CenterPoint interview, Redfield stated, “I believe the great pandemic is still in the future, and that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic for man. It’s going to have significant mortality in the 10 to 50% range. It’s going to be trouble.”

Remarkably, Dr. Michael Gregor, a scientist and vegan who once testified on behalf of Oprah Winfrey in her “meat defamation” trial, has repeatedly claimed that chicken farms will trigger an apocalyptic virus that will threaten half of humankind. In 2006, he published a book called Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, in which he asserts that “leading public health authorities now predict as inevitable a pandemic of influenza, triggered by bird flu and expected to lead to millions of deaths around the globe.”

In Westbrook’s words, this could result in “a controlled demolition of the protein supply,” with elites using a bird flu to devastate traditional farms and promote synthetic food.