What is most troubling to me regarding this article and most of the comments is the fact that the author and posters seem to only want to listen to one side with a goal of besmirching anyone that is not consistent with their ideals. Unfortunately, what should be an issue that only deals with patient care has become completely politicized. The whole problem with media over the last decade and the advent of the internet, is that there is just so much misinformation that goes around. Information is twisted every which way that fit both sides of an argument (if you've never read the book "Freakonomics", I suggest you do). Unfortunately I can point to a source that totally debunks this article and the arguments of the posters here also...

http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20081020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

However, after reading articles on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (it's just too bad people can't open their minds a bit more). Similar to the debate on Global Warming, there is a tremendous amount of info that supports both sides of this argument. I hope the ultimate plan that comes out in the U.S. is a compromise, taking into consideration all arguments instead of just the "my way or the highway" attitude I see with most people. I certainly never raised my children to be as biased as some of the posters here are. To those that think their stats are the only that are truthful, I will simply say that you show everyone how close minded you are.

For those who don't believe that Canadians wait for serious stuff, see today's news article on Cancer waits in Ontario (one of Canada's largest and most populace provinces)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iC083ZpOwqLESRuLvkp5SwUc_NFg

As a Canadian, a nurse and researcher in the area, I can tell you that the article "Debunking Myths of Canadian Healthcare" is unfortunately not accurate. With a population of only 33 million, we still have over 700,00 people waiting for healthcare. The waits are for serious matters. Just check youtube and Canadian healthcare. These stories are real and righteous. I have interviewed many of these people. Many Canadians do go to the US and elsewhere to pay to get the care that they cannot get here. Provincial governments send hundreds of patients. See Dr. David Gratzner of the Wall Street Journal (June 9). People who pay for private medical care are not rich. The estimate of leavers is about 60-80 thousand a year. See the Fraser Institute reports (recognized leader in tracking Canadian healthcare policy). The Canadian system is unsustainable. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (national industry association) just called it so. See their press release last week. For the actual number of billions of dollars of unfunded liability, see Fraser Forum, Jun 2009. One past minister of health calls our system "A noble experiment going wrong. Badly wrong". See the book, Canada: Is Anyone Listening? by Rafe Mair. There are not enough doctors in Canada. Simple research confirms this. The Canadian Medical Association estimates that there are more than 4 million Canadians without family doctors. Newspapers are full of stories of communities and families that can't get a family doctor.
Doctors are self employed, but they are paid only by the government. They negotiate their compensation much like a union. Fee schedules are set by the government. For example, the charge for an amniocentesis (invasive test of a pregnant woman) has been less than most women pay to get their hair cut.
Hospitals do have boards, but they are accountable to the regional healthboards that are part of the government. Hospital Boards and regional healthboards spend much of their time pleading for more money to provide the care that is needed.
It is true that all Canadians can be "covered" for care. But the care is often not there when it is needed as documented by many people who had cancer, could not be treated here and had their lives saved by going elsewhere. If Americans are considering the entire Canadian system,
I want them to at least have the correct information and information that is verifiable.
Thank you.

Excellent article and many great comments.
The more we examine how U.S. workers and their money are parted, the more astounding our predicament appears. Our representatives in government sell us out to their corporate campaign donors. Many streams of money pour out of our pockets to serve profiteers of one species or another. We work long, productive hours, often in jobs we cannot stand because we fear losing health insurance. Health care, education, public services, and environmental protection are all undermined so we can pay utterly senseless profits to insurance, pharmaceutical, banking, credit, and energy industries. The thieves who deify the unfettered private market system pretend that it is somehow beneficial to the average person. It does huge damage.
Health care streams out of our pockets include:
>>direct premiums; deductibles;
>>co-pays (per family member no less!);
>>health care/injury portions of automobile and home insurance;
>>higher prices to subsidize businesses' costs for health care premiums for their employees;
>>local, state, and federal taxes to pay for government employees' premiums;
>>ditto to pay for those unable to pay;
>>medicare payroll deductions;
>>extra insurance for fear that there will be none when it is needed;
>>lost pay that is bargained away in negotiations in favor of health care insurance;
>>higher healthcare costs because insurance companies have charged doctors unwarranted premium increases for malpractice; The insurance companies made huge increases in malpractice premiums in 2001 to cover their own losses in Wall St. investments. They then falsely claimed that medical errors and frivolous lawsuits were on the rise when they were not. Result: doctors have left the profession.

Add to all that the unfathomable amounts wasted in credit card interest on medical bills. Don't forget the stress on budgets that results in bankruptcy and mortgage default. 70% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

In Canada you get sick, you get care. In the U.S. you get sick, your fellow workers' premiums rise and they know you or your sick kid caused it. You lose your job, you lose your insurance. Then it is over the cliff with you! Your life becomes a nightmare as you struggle with sickness and financial disaster simultaneously: Lost savings, reliance on credit cards, bankruptcy, mortgage foreclosure... and throwing fund-raisers to pull together money for the cancer treatments.

All the above is what elected officials are trying to preserve because they want to preserve power. They fear nasty corporate donors turning sour more than they fear millions of overworked, cash-strapped, misinformed, exhausted, distracted constituents who are distraught that their children will not be going to college and their parents are splitting their pill doses. We need collective psychological help for doormat syndrome. We need to demand single payer. It works and is sustainable. We pay for the gold standard and are getting the shaft. HR 676 & S703! We don't need health insurance. We need a government payer program, no middlemen.

By Mike Corbeil:

"When I worked in Ottawa, Ontario, the capital of Canada, from 1989 to 1994, it was generally understood that the total Canadians paid in taxes amounted to around 75% of their total income, and I know that when I went from Ottawa to work in Mass., I saved several thousand dollars in income taxes alone (besides the other considerable savings as per what's described above) and this was on an income of over $2,000 more per year obtained in Mass. Even with the slightly higher income there, I saved several thousand dollars in income taxes."

Mike - Canadians paid 75% of income in taxes??? Quite a stretch - got any links to back this up? In 1994, probably the highest tax year for the averge Canadian family, the total tax burden was 48% - it has retreated ever since then. The Fraser Institute had tax freedon day in '94 at June 23, in 2009 it was June 6, or about 42.6%. By contrast the U.S tax freedom day in 2009 was April 13 with a rate of 28.2%. One has to look at what one receives in return for their taxes. Canada is in pretty good shape in this regard.

When i was taking the Health Organization Management (MBA) course at Texas Tech, it was inferred that, thanks to their single-payer health care system, Canadians in were virtually dropping dead in the streets of Vancouver and Ontario.

No specific reason was offered.

Well said, the last paragraph shot it out of the park!

Well said, the last paragraph shot it out of the park!

Do you think Rush L. and his pals have seen this information and are just lying ? An insurance companies most important job is make a profit . This means pay less for health care . Profit is more important than life to an insurance company and payola is more important to our members of Congress . Bribery is not legal anywhere except with our Congress .

I had to have a biopsy, which- thankfully- turned out to be benign, but in the meantime now the doctor tells me I need to have mammograms every year. But the free cancer screening program for uninsured women doesn't work that way; no matter what the doctor says, they will only cover them every two years. So, at least in this instance, you can see the difference in the quality of health care for the poor/uninsured vs. everyone else. Women who can't afford to get a mammogram every year are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer that has already spread; therefore, they're more likely to end up needing disfiguring surgery and chemo--and their fatalities from breast cancer are higher. That's just for one disease. Now examine every possible health condition, injury, and disease and the problems with late diagnoses and waiting for treatment (or never getting it), and it's easy to see why we lose 20,000 Americans every year.

I lived in Canada when the socialized health care system was passed. Before passage the media broadcast a deluge of dire predictions that would occur if it passed. All the good doctors would move to the US. There would be long lines. The quality of care would fall drastically. But after passage not one of the predictions came true. It was all lies. The only people who lost were the rich who were earning windfall profits at the expense of everyone's health. Before socialized health care I always worried about what would happen if I fell sick. After socialized health care passed I never worried. Indeed, basic health care that was previously denied to me because of the excessive complication of qualifying for it was for the first time routinely available. It was as if all the dishonest people in the health care profession suddenly disappeared. Glory to God. All the crooks were gone. Finally, we had fair and honest basic health care for everyone.

Americans are indoctrinated fools who, for reasons I do not understand, prefer to have their basic right to health care denied by the ultra rich CEOs of insurance companies and HMOs who make a profit out or their sickness. Americans are idiots. Their government squanders the national wealth by committing war crimes for profit while America's ordinary citizens die in poverty due to lack of health care. I laugh at their stupidity. I am disgusted by their lies.

One more thing. I lived in Quebec's Eastern Townships (Sherbooke). I had no problem obtaining health care in that region. Anyone who says they are denied health facilities in that region is a liar.

Response from my congressman regarding single payer universal health care, he is republican:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding H.R. 676, the United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act.

While I agree that health care reform needs to come about, I do not think it is the federal government's job to regulate it. I think with any health care reform it needs to be patient and doctor oriented. The federal government already has proven it can not handle something as critical as health care. One needs to only look at FEMA and how the government runs the Veteran's Affairs health care system to know that this will not work.

I am a Canadian male, 65. I've had more than my share of visits to Canadian hospitals and one in Florida for nearly a month after a serious accident. My "free" Canadian coverage paid for the Florida stay as well.

People can and will make up their own minds. I can only tell you the best thing about our health care system is the people -- not the fact it is free. That is nice, though. I've not heard an angry or belittling word to a patient. The staff I've encountered -- while busy and professional -- have alway had time to stop with someone who was worried, or afraid.

I've had waits for procedures, never what I considered to be unacceptable. Not once.

Would I like to see improvements? Sure. I'd like to see the people paid more (I'm not one of them so that means from MY taxes and contributions). I'd like to see sprucing here and newer equipment there. And I'd like to see all we Canadians stop to thank all of our health-care providers the way they deserve. Quite frankly, I sometimes wonder if we deserve them.

Best wishes with whatever you decide to do with your system, and with your health.

>>100% of the part of the population that gets healthcare! In Quebec, certainly in the Eastern townships anyway, but probably more general than only this region of Quebec, it's virtually impossible to get a family doctor any longer. The provincial government disgustingly pushed many nurses and doctors into flight, leaving for places like the U.S., where they'd get fairer compensation for their work and studies to be able to do their work

Small towns always have a probelm attracting Doctors. Even in the United States. Most Doctors want to work in the city . That said...

In the mid 1990's a committee determined Canada was training too many Doctors. They decided to implement policies that would slow that growth so as to keep the supply of Doctors more Limited.

This is the single largest factor In Canadas Doctor Shortage.

zmann June 8th, 2009 11:55 am,

OKAY; accepted. It's just the way you started the second sentence, "And no, ...". It was, logically, like inferring that I had written the contrary to the "..." part of that sentence. And logic is to always be applied when reading, including when reading or considering our own words. It's why I sometimes revise my wording.

Guapo June 8th, 2009 11:58 am,

I agree about Cuba and I wouldn't worry about the government monitoring me through doctors because it's a government that's done the best that it could for the population during all of these decades of rogue, criminal sanctions against the Cuban government and therefore population.

This continues from my first post in this CD page, continuing with the fifth of what the author calls myths.

"Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care."

The author is perhaps considerably right, but she isn't totally right according to what I've learned of health care obtained by Canadians going abroad. I recall having been told and having read that for Canadians who are traveling or who believe they may need to obtain health care in another country when not otherwise traveling there, it's recommended or even important to buy health insurance, because the Canadian government did and possibly (or likely?) still does not cover the full costs of the medical care obtained outside of the country. What cases of health care or concerns this involves is something I don't know, not knowing the details, only knowing as already stated though. And I doubt that the Canadian government would've changed or improved in this regard.

If recalling correctly, from vague memory of what I think to have learned years ... enough ago, the Canadian government only guaranteed to pay for as much as it'd cost to have the same health or medical care in Canada; that people needed insurance to cover the balance. But, again, I don't know if there are cases for which the Canadian government would, or not, pay the full costs of the medical care; only the medical care costs, for perhaps never the travel costs, ever (maybe?).

When I worked in Ottawa, Ontario, 1989-1994, the employer where I worked from 1991-1994 recommended buying additional health insurance through group policy reduction in cost available to employees and this cost $75 a month. I'm not sure if this was for only when traveling outside of the country or even only the province of Ontario, or if it was insurance that covered costs the provincial government did not cover for care received within the province, also. It did at least include when we'd be outside of the country or else province, while the latter case would mean covering additional costs of care in other Canadian provinces, when there would be higher costs.

Canada certainly does not have a uniform national health care system. The federal government kicks in (taxpayer dollars) for some health care, but the system varies from province to province.

Myth 6:

"... Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. ..."

True enough, certainly in the province of Quebec anyway, but the Quebec government has a serious say nonetheless. After all, it's the government's bogus changes in the health care system, bogusly refusing to provide fair, equitable compensation to both nurses [and] doctors that many were pushed into fleeing from the province; many of them having fled for the USA.

The doctors here are accountable to patients, but what kind of accountability is it when patients who deserve to legally pursue doctors for malpractice, f.e., get little more than synical justice from the legal system?! Also, the government sometimes, or too often, makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for doctors analyses, etcetera, to hold real weight, the government often countering with clobbering, impeding, ... what doctors say patients need and should receive. The latter perhaps happens mainly with the poorest members of the province of Quebec, but it happens and it shouldn't happen regardless of a citizen's or resident's economic status.

"Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada."

That's evidently the case in the province of Quebec, and, again, Canada does not have any uniform national health care system that permits a truthful analysis to be omissive of the fact that each province has its own twists, caveats, pluses, etcetera. The health care system in Ca has some national aspect to it, but there're also some serious differences on a provincial basis.

The Quebec province lacks both doctors and nurses. This has been reported many times, and it's been recently reported, perhaps as a repeat of earlier reports I hadn't seen, that it's very, very difficult to get family or personal physicians in Quebec. Extremely few students in medical school in this province, today, are interested in studying to become family physicians, general practitioners, ... (whatever they're variably called).

The author of the article says she's been in the USA for 17 years and she clearly wrote based on the myth that Canada has a single, uniform health care system; and, redundant as I am, she omits plenty of details. Perhaps she wrote based on how she used to know of the Canadian health care system(s) when she was much younger, but that's long ago and there have been changes since. The system never has been a uniform national kind as long as I've lived in Canada, which began in 1973, though. Quebec even back then had its own provincial system and health card (id. card). Ontario had a provincial health care card in 1989, but this was paid by both employees and employers when I first arrived there in July 1989. By the end of that year the card was fully paid by the employer at (I believe) a cost of either $250 a year or else month. We never paid for the card in Quebec, although we do need to pay $10 or so every five years to renew the card. Otoh, we also have to pay around the same amount to first obtain the card, initially; and then a renewal fee every five years.

Etcetera.

Why not try the Cuban health care system? Everyone in Cuba has it and its paid for by the government.

Of course, the U.S. makes certain under threat of death with their warship blockades, that Cuba has little access to all the equipment that is taken for granted in rich countries.

In Cuba, they don't wait for you to get sick. A local health care worker monitors the health, immunizations, etc., of citizens in their sector.

Yes, of course its a way of keeping tabs on the population. All we have to do is read CD to find out how the U.S. monitors communications, phone calls, with the assistance of the corporations, like AT&T, etc., in order to know what we're doing. (Orwell)

The author of this article should definitely provide links for supporting resources, for she evidently is omissive of [details].

Myth 1:

On the first myth she refers to, she doesn't detail how she arrives as Canadian taxes working out to to leaving a net of 82%, for what she refers to in this evidently are only payroll income taxes and Canadians pay much more in other taxes. Sales taxes applied to most things used to be nearly 15% between federal and Quebec sales taxes, while clothing and many other items people could buy either in Canada or in the U.S. are often two to three times more expensive in Canada, certainly in Quebec anyway, and this is 2x to 3x besides the additional sales taxes (combined), which now amount to around 12.5%, having been dropped under, I believe, the present federal government of PM Harper and the Conservative Party. Fuel tax is considerably more expensive here than in the USA, and property taxes even in the tiny city of Sherbrooke, Quebec, are high enough for the very little this tiny city offers for economy, jobs, job outlooks.

When I worked in Ottawa, Ontario, the capital of Canada, from 1989 to 1994, it was generally understood that the total Canadians paid in taxes amounted to around 75% of their total income, and I know that when I went from Ottawa to work in Mass., I saved several thousand dollars in income taxes alone (besides the other considerable savings as per what's described above) and this was on an income of over $2,000 more per year obtained in Mass. Even with the slightly higher income there, I saved several thousand dollars in income taxes.

I was and still am single, and other people can focus on families because it's what they have for their lives, or for othe reasons, but I don't focus on families because I don't have one and every worker has a right to be justly compensated and not overtaxed.

Myth 2:

"Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population."

100% of the part of the population that gets healthcare! In Quebec, certainly in the Eastern townships anyway, but probably more general than only this region of Quebec, it's virtually impossible to get a family doctor any longer. The provincial government disgustingly pushed many nurses and doctors into flight, leaving for places like the U.S., where they'd get fairer compensation for their work and studies to be able to do their work.

Now, the present Quebec government is working in ways that are frightening all other provinces by pandering to profiting Big Pharma. and therefore driving up prices of medications. The other provinces fear that this action of the Quebec government will cause medication prices to rise across Canada and to therefore be problematic for people across the whole country.

Some information on this latter topic should surely be available at CCPA, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, www.policyalternatives.ca , based in Ottawa, Ontario.

Also, emergency room health care is not readily available in Quebec; there are plenty of walk-in clinics, but waits are often hours, sometimes whole days. Or at least this is the case in Sherbrooke, Quebec, anyway. Emergency room or walk-in clinics seem to be the "primary care" providers today in Quebec anyway. I called plenty of family physician clinics and NONE are available to take new patients.

In theory, 100% of Canadians are covered, guaranteed health care, but this is the [theory]. Perhaps the problems in Quebec, because the health care system has considerably declined here, and making it worse is that very, very few people going into medical studies to become MD's care to become family physicians; by far most want to specialise and this isn't going to be of much help for the general population.

To be wholly fair about Canada's health care, nationally, each province's system need to be considered in adequate detail.

Myth 3:

"While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians."

NOT in the province of Quebec; as explained, above. The government here doesn't say who can get care, versus not, but the government of Quebec is an example of one that ends up making such decisions through the whacking-away, dwiddling down, ... of the health care system through the actions of the government.

I think the author is otherwise right, but there are details lacking in what she or he says, and these details provide the [fuller] picture.

Myth 4:

"There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada."

NOT TRUE. As already said about Quebec, there are long waits here. The greater the urgency the faster the health care should be provided, but people who can't get access to family physicians, f.e., need to go through walk-in clinics and if you arrive early in the morning, then you may still be waiting in the afternoon. If you come a little later in the day, then you may be required to return the next day. These clinics have hours during which they're open and closed every day. They're not 24-hour-a-day clinics, and many people here are unable to get family physicians.

Etcetera.

I'll terminate this post now, because the 1,000 word limit will soon be used up. However, it seems evident that the author of the article omits plenty of details and I don't think we can truthfully claim that health care is uniformly provided across Canada, neither in terms of availability nor cost.

The fundamental problem with the Canadian system is that it leaves doctors in the private sector. They should all be public employees. This would eliminate all sorts of costly duplications in health care delivery and allow the system to plan for health care across the nation including those areas where services are more limited. Presently doctors bill the system based on the number of patients they attend to. Patients are run through the private doctors' offices like a conveyor belt. If doctors were employees of the system, they'd receive a fixed salary, and actually attend to their patients' needs rather than trying to raise their individual profits based on running visits through their offices. Bonuses could then be provided to those doctors based on the actual results they achieve in making their patients healthier.

Although the Canadian system is so much better than the US system as the author suggests, it still isn't there yet. It needs to be a totally public system.

Love this article. I'm going to print this and hand it out.

The battle for changes in the U.S. healthcare system is about to take place over the next few months (thru August I believe). There are two things I know; this battle will (and should be) fierce and, reform is long, long overdue. When looking at life longevity and infant mortality rates (two measures widely used to define the state of a nation's healthcare system) the U.S. numbers are surprisingly bad. If you can afford it the U.S. offers the very best healthcare in the world, the problem is a minority of the population can afford it OR have access to it.

Whatever happens I do hope Americans can get a system better than what is currently available for the entire population. The current system is an economic nightmare and leaves far too many without access.

For at least 20 years now the most important reason why the Canadian health care system is better than the American one is simply that the Canadian system is far cheaper. It's not only prescription drugs (that many Americans import from Canada) but numerous other health care goods and services that are far cheaper in Canada as well. Obviously, the huge private insurance companies in the US have not only directly and indirectly denied health care to tens of millions, but they have also ballooned the costs of goods and services to the point where today it's more the cost itself rather than who pays which is ruining health care in the US and, by hogging resources, the economy as a whole.

Now along comes O'bama, who is apparently reneging on his pledge to not require people to buy grossly overpriced insurance. So now residents of the US are facing massive unemployment from a depression (or at least a massive recession), lower real incomes every year, and a new, completely unprecedented requirement to buy an overpriced private product. Obviously, at least two thirds (and probably much more) of the current uninsured can not afford to buy it even at a 20% discount.

Any mandate will create a very large new enforcement bureaucracy which, you guessed it, would make the US system even more expensive still. If the poor are exempted from buying insurance, you have to ask: Can the US afford to, without greatly reducing the costs themselves, pay for tens of millions of people to buy insurance? Or, to pose the question more accurately, will the Chinese and other funders of the US debt sign on for this new burden?

So what is going to happen to the already forsaken poor in the US? Do they get shuffled off to jail if they can't pay for private (or public, for that matter) health insurance? I mean, the US already won the sweepstakes for most people in jail than any other country, so where does that insanity end?

At this point, anything less than full single payer AND big cost reductions will be a hopelessly inadequate attempt to “reform” the health care system. It is already too late to save either the health care system or the US economy as a whole with just single payer alone. Because the cost of health care is one of the things that is eating the economy alive.

Excellent article and discussion. Mark me down as another Canadian who is very satisfied with the Canadian health care system and who has no objection to paying my fair share of taxes. Let me add another consideration to the discussion. I have never worried a single day in my life about whether I could get health insurance, whether it would be enough, whether an insurance company would authorize a procedure or whether I would ever have to take out a mortgage or go in bankruptcy for a medical reason affecting me or my family. In fact, I can't even imagine living with that kind of worry. Not only does the Canadian system give excellent care at reasonable overall cost - it gives us peace of mind.

I'm certainly glad to have the Canadian system, since in the US I'd be likely either bankrupt or dead. Life expectancy with my chronic cancer was 5 years when I was diagnosed. Fortunately drugs that were developed since then seem very effective. Although I did not respond to the traditional treatment when I took a course, I am now into my 11th year post diagnosis using newer therapy. Now 65 and if I can keep the disease under control I hope to die of "old age".

Great article. To bad these kinds of testimonioals will never be aired in the U.S. where BIG Vampire care and BIG Pharma and BIG DR, (AMA) will never allow it. The MSM is owned by these among other huge Corps.

Another advantage of the Single Payer Health Care is that our government would run it.
When a corporation like W.R. Grace or Union Carbide wants to poison an entire town for profit
it is our elected officials that must bury the dead and heal the maimed.
They are the ones explaining to the voters why they approved lifethreatening polution and poison.

Most of the information you get from the mainstream media and our elected officials is misinformation that is intended to support the corporate machine that protects the monied elite, not the general public.

Our health care system is a disgrace, but it is a financial windfall for our elite, and isn't that what the United States is all about?

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

Now we're getting to it.

Hey, we're Americans and don't need to learn anything from anyone cause we're Number 1.

To those who say the USA has the best medical care:

#1 - April 2008, my sister had a brain aneurysm blow. She was rushed to Pomerado Hospital, San Diego. ER doctor said "you're fine" and sent her home. She contacted her physician who rushed her to get brain MRI/MRA: 2 brain aneurysms, one blew, one didn't. She had them both repaired. Some brain damage, resulting in great difficulty focusing. 2 of her friends who work @ Pomerado told her "if you were a white male, you would have been admitted immediately."

#2 - My sister in Ohio, told by a doctor she had systemic hepatitis, put onto steroids for 18 mos, lost 2 years employment, health worsened. Turns out she has nonalcohol cirrhosis of the liver & her Cleveland Clinic hepatologist reviewed the 1st doc's reports and tests and said there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for hepatitis. Two months ago she landed in the hospital for a week, result of a Columbus hepatologist overdosing her on diuretics. She'd complained for 6 months that he didn't seem interested in her symptoms of feeling worse and worse.

Good goddess it can't get any worse than this.

This is a great "feel-good" article from a Canadian perspective, and I have observed that Canadians get a quiet satisfaction in the belief that they are better than the Americans in many ways. And the overall situation in the US is such that no one should have any difficulty in feeling that they are better, and better off, than the Americans. But there are certain facts that Canadians conveniently forget - and I'm pretty sure what I write below is going to provoke a whole lot of them. But I have to say this:

Canada is the second largest country in the world, in terms of land area (even granting that large parts of it are too cold to build cities), with an enormous amount of natural resources - in terms of forestry, oil and gas, coal, all kinds of minerals, metals and other ores, even diamonds...and fisheries and so on...

But the population of Canada is, what, around 33 million? Roughly one-tenth that of the U.S. This is not due to some magical planning and discipline - it is simply due to extremely restrictive immigration policies over the last 200-odd years. I'm sure immigrants of Asian descent would know what I'm talking about.

Then there's the geography. After working out a boundary with the US on the south, there's pretty much nothing to worry about - in terms of illegal immigrants and such - there's sea on the east and the west, and ice on the north.

Contrast this situation with affluent nations in Europe - they are relatively small, have a higher population density (despite sending ship loads of people to other continents), and there is little protection on their borders to stop illegal immigrants. Same with the case in the U.S. - on the southern border.

So, essentially, there's plenty to go around for a very small population. This is the ONLY reason that Canada can be a part of the G-7 (or G-8) nations, because historically, they did not hold colonies such as Britain and France did (because they themselves were a colony), was not a world power (like the U.S. and Soviet Union/Russia), and certainly nowhere near as efficient as Japan in terms of industrial productivity.

So, what I'm saying is that when you have all these resources, you could do certain things and feel good about it - as long as no one pays close attention to the numbers and what it takes to maintain a 'system' that you're so proud of. According to Wikipedia, "health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007" (I don't have current numbers - but they cannot be lower). $160 billion is about the ENTIRE GDP of countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Israel, Czech Republic, etc. Sure, if anyone can spend that much on a 33 million population, they're gonna get a pretty decent system.

Don't believe me? Do your own search for per-capita greenhouse gas emissions and the ecological footprint of Canadians - the numbers are in the top-7, top-5 or top-3 depending on how the calculations are done.

What's the connection between this and the health care system, you ask?

Well, unless there are all these resources that can be spent on such a small population, I guarantee that there's no way that such a system can be maintained - because there's no way that so much taxes can be collected from such a small population, while also running a tax surplus frequently.

I'm not even talking about the economy - or the condition of the immigrants (I've seen documentaries of engineers driving taxis and working as security guards, and doctors working as medical assistants and nurses - if they are lucky - because the medical association has put all kinds of stumbling blocks for immigrant doctors to start practicing).

Because health care is such a politicized issue, governments are bound to keep spending, even while cutting corners elsewhere - such as in public transportation, or even new bridges - because there's simply no money to go around. And teachers do get laid off (or more like, the temporary teachers contracts are allowed to lapse, not renewed) - because there's not enough on the budget of local governments.

The current economics of the Canadian health care system are NOT sustainable if money is to be found for things like transit and meeting their climate change obligations. One way to make it more sustainable is by encouraging people to become more healthy - by avoiding preventable diseases (mostly by changing the diet and lifestyle). Another way is to let qualified immigrant doctors to get employment as doctors - sure, that would eat into the salaries of "Canadian" doctors - but it's a small price to pay. Most importantly, to become conscious of how much it takes per person to maintain the current health care system. As more jobs are lost, less would go into the tax pool (and more would flow out as unemployment benefits) until there's an economic turnaround - so it's not a bad idea to talk about money here.

Before anyone attacks me for saying these things (or for rambling on like this), here's my empahatic disclaimer:

I AM IN NO WAY EVEN IMPLYING THAT THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS IN ANY WAY SUPERIOR. THAT WOULD BE THE MOST ABSURD CLAIM. I'm just pointing out the unsustainable nature of the current Canadian system.

Great article--just exactly the kind of info needed in this debate.

One question I keep coming back to: What polls have been conducted by major polling organizations as to the overall satisfaction of citizens with their respective healthcare systems in Canada, the US and other countries?

I found it remarkable that as even-handed as Ms. Hackett tried to be in her discussion of Canadian healthcare, she still ended up savaging of the US health care system.

Ms. Hackett forgot this comparison:

Number of excess deaths per year attributed to lack of medical insurance:

1. Unites States - 22,000 (1)

2. Canada - Zero

Personally, all the other arguments pale next to this. Even if single payer did cost more, and subjected people to paperwork burdens, (instead of the opposite) the above statistic would still compel me to support single payer!

(1) http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/make_that_22000_uni.php

Another difference that l do not know how to factor in; Canada population (apx) 33,213,000
vs USA (apx) 304,060,000. That is almost 10 X more people.

The US has become nothing more than a selfish self-centered laughing stock. Last night, I received yet another email, this time from my shitty representative Frank Wolf trying to lecture me about "business competition". According to him, single payer healthcare will supposedly "interfere" with business. In his letter, he makes it look like companies that do not subscribe to the biggest health insurance fraud companies are "losers". In other words, drown your company into deep debts with big insurance fraudsters and you're a "winner" whereas if you don't do business with such money grubbers, you're a "loser" !

Most small businesses can't afford to stay afloat with those big insurance companies as it is and even some of the big companies are finding their profits eaten by the big insurance companies and will use that as an excuse to lay off employees and cut their pay significantly rather than shut off the money guzzling health insurance fraudsters.

recent OECD report on the relative health of OECD countries
http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_34637_2671576_1_1_1_1,00.html
from
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/2009_05.html
may 11:
Here are the US rankings out of the 30 OECD countries (1 is best; 30 is worst -- worst as in Somalia-like). The names of the countries even more Somalian than the US appear in parens.

Infant Deaths: 28 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey).

Life Expectancy: 24 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Czech & Slovak Republics).

Health Expenditures: 1 out of 30.

Poverty Rates: 28 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey).

Child Poverty: 27 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Poland).

Income Inequality: 27 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Portugal).

Obesity: 30 out of 30.

Incarceration: 30 out of 30.

Work Hours (ranked in ascending order): 30 out of 30.

Height (women): 25 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Korea, Portugal, Japan).

Height (men): 24 out of 30 (Italy, Spain, Mexico, Portugal, Korea, Japan).
-------------------------------------------------------------
the shortest, fattest, most overworked, most underpaid, most incarcerated. life is nasty, brutish, and short. i'd bet we also have the most homeless, the most hungry and suffering from malnutrition, the most mentally ill, the most drug addicts, and the most religious.

the US is #1.
in sucking.

the US health care system can be described simply:

"it has the most advanced technologies but the moSt ROTTEN application".

I read these comments and it is quite clear that the health care we have in the US is substandard in many ways mostly being in a economic question of which is better. So it is not the health care that is in question but the Canadian idea of capitalism and The US idea of capitalism. Canadians have what could be called a semi social capitalism and the US has a corporate capitalism. The US corporatism is starting to break down and will out of necessity turn more to the Canadian social capitalism. Maybe.

the article confirms what my own sister and her family in canada have told me. they are immigrants from asia ...and years ago went "shopping" to compare which country to eventually settle in after their early retirements and where to bring up their children .

the entire family collectively decided -- canada.

the children themselves were smart enough to see that there was nothing the USA offered them for their adulthood or as they were growing up worth the packing.

they are CERTAINLY very happy being in canada - notwithstanding the daily challenges that are common to all families anywhere.

Health Care concerns don't even become a discussion for them. any of them feel ill or something -- they have no worries that they will get the treatment without bankrupting themselves or even wrapping their entire existence on trying to be "secure" about "coverage" as americans are driven to .

it's really very simple:

a society that is advanced has NO EXCUSE to have such a POOR application of health care by turning it into a monetized function for the sake of upholding the concept of "profit" as its reason for existence.

that is tantamount to BARBARISM.

even poor countries that really can't afford a pittance of health coverage for their citizens STILL at least STRUGGLE to ensure that their own citizens have SOME measure of relief from what NATURE dictates to us as living beings -- that we GET SICK sooner or later --

and we will need care as a reflection of our individual worth as human beings and living creatures, regardless of status in life.

against THAT contrast with poor countries that at least TRY despite their limited financial resources -- that they RECOGNIZE that health is really a RIGHT , not a privilege, no matter how much they can barely manage to help provide that RIGHT --

the USA really should be ashamed of itself for promoting and maintaining BARBARIC PRACTICES:

profiteering upon human weakness and suffering....because that is ultimately what getting sick is about...

our human weaknesses, our human vulnerability....which is part of our existence.

but the USA - JUMPS WITH GLEE on the chance to MAKE A PROFIT on it!!

does one call THAT a real society worth being called CIVILIZED?.

EVEN animals in the wild, such as lions, or whales , or ants

show more CIVILIZED behavior than the USA does in these terms.