what you don't know about the canadian health care system could fill a err um... world class canadian hospital. your statement has so many factual errors, i won't even bother to point them out. 

and of course there is the famous "put words in my mouth" strategy. "so perfect", "sleepless"? puh-lease.

since i sit on a board as a director for one charitable community organization (my wife on another), my time is well booked.

the initial commentary indicated canadians head to the US and didn't mention the volume of americans who head north not only for health care but also for drug purchases. the omission is dishonest.

i am well versed on this subject. not only do i have health care professionals and clinics as clients, but i have family and friends who work in the health care industry on both sides of the border.

so... take back of hand, wipe foam away from mouth, untwist your knickers and do a bit more reading. doctor's orders. 

anuglysocialist, I know that you think that even the act of putting on your clothes in the morning is too stressful and that the State needs to do THAT for you, and that your life's dream is to be a ward of the State, but allow me to break out some very cold water.

then why are canadians healthier and live longer?  Maybe they make healthier decisions.  This can be explained by a vast number of reasons.  But of course you ascribe this to The State, as you do EVERYTHING.  By the way...back this up.

Two, Canada contributes NOTHING to the world of medical advancement.  For virtually all medical research, they look south.  They have to.  You gush so endlessly about the greatness of Canada.  If they are so great, how come one puny hospital in Houston - MD Anderson - has a greater research budget (you know, research into saving and improving lives that Canadians will parasitically live off of later) that ALL of Canada? 

Three, I don't think Canada's government can be sued when they screw things up.  So there is less legal liability to spend on.

Four, there are plenty of people who blow lots of money in this country on all sorts of voluntary and preventative treatments, second opinions and so on - many of which are not available in your happy little Socialist paradise. 

Five, labor costs are cut way down - to the point where doctor's and nurses strikes are frequent.  But they are all happy little employees of The State, unaware of their true worth, because the market doesn't set the price for their labor. 

Six...

Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."  It will merely delude people into thinking there is one.  To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now?  Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now.  If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving?  No, because there would be no incentive to.  But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do.  Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves?  Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts.  This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage".  The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only.  In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system.  (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care.  France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time!  This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.)  Take a look at this passage from The Struggle For Europe (pages 55-56) on the mess Britain created for itself by giving away the store.  The book is authored by William I. Hitchcock:“Alongside his heavy responsibilities for housing, (Ernest) Bevan also crafted the centerpiece of the Labour government’s social policy: the National Health Service.  The Churchill coalition, in 1944, proposed a National Health Service based on the twin principles that every citizen in the country had a right to the best medical facilities available and that these services should be free.  Bevan started by proposing the nationalization of all hospitals, which gave the government total control over the system and brought them into one unified structure.  The real problem was with the doctors and their lobbying arm, the British Medical Association.  They feared a loss of autonomy, a weakened relationship with patients, and of course, the inability to charge fees to paying customers who wished to have special treatment.  Bevan wisely decided to give the BMA what it demanded, but not before a great deal of invective from the doctors, who accused Bevan of seeking dictatorial control over the profession.  “Bevan took immense pride in the fact that ‘despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilized thing in the world – put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration’.  These were noble words, but very quickly it became clear the government underestimated the cost of the NHS.  Bevan assumed that free health care would mean a healthier public, and therefore fewer trips to the doctor.  He did not consider the natural human impulse to take full advantage of a free service. (Italics courtesy of Unsane) Consider the testimony of Mrs. Claire Bond of Leeds, recorded by the historian Paul Addison: “When the National Health Service came along, it was fantastic.  My mother and dad had been having problems with their teeth for ages, and I think they were the first at the dentist, as soon as it was opened, they were there for an appointment.  And instead of having just a few teeth out, they had the complete set out.  And free dentures.”  They were not alone.  In the first year of operation, eight and a half million people sought free dental treatment, and over 5 million pairs of free spectacles were dispensed.  Doctors wrote 187 million prescriptions in the first year alone.  Overnight, the NHS overran its budget by more than 50 million pounds.  By 1951 it cost more than 400 million pounds a year to run.  The chancellor of the Exchequer, then Hugh Gaitskill, insisted that a small charge be imposed on prescriptions for teeth and glasses; Bevan refused, saying it would undermine the principle of free service that lay at the heart of his Health Service.  On 23 April 1951, Bevan resigned in protest.”   Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south.  Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program.  (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.)  But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them.  While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy.  And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity.  The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor.  The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200.  The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south.  I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.2004: U.S.2003: U.S. /U.K.2002: U.S. /U.K.2001: U.K.2000: Sweden/U.S. 1999: U.S.1998: U.S.1997: U.S.1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)1995: U.S./Germany1994: U.S.1993: U.S./U.K.1992: U.S.1991: Germany1990: U.S.1989: U.S.1988: U.S./U.K.1987: Japan1986: Italy/U.S.1985: U.S.1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark1983: U.S.1982: Sweden/U.K.1981: U.S.1980: France/U.S.1979: U.S./U.K.1978: U.S/ Switzerland1977: U.S. Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined.  To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries.  This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American.  I wonder what motivated all of these doctors.  Pure altruism?  The commitment to doing work for free?  Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States?  Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here?  (And rewards such innovation?)  Why do I not see any Canadians listed here?  Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980?  Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. 

"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!!  A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)

I sat in an emergency room in Ontario this summer with my four year old son who became ill on a trip to visit family.  As I sat  listening to the conversations going on in the curtained rooms around me, I heard multiple people around me explaining to the examining physician that they didn't have a primary care physician, and thus accessed their health care through the emergency room (oh heck, why not -- it's free isn't it?).  One man had high blood pressure and was told his medication was seriously below therapeutic levels.  He described how he was hopeful, since a new doctor's office was opening in town, that he would be one of the first in line at the clinic's opening, that he would get a doctor soon.  I heard similar conversations more than once in the half day or so that I spent waiting for my son's treatment.   I know this is not uncommon (at least in the area where my family lives).  

My father-in-law was diagnosed several years ago with congestive heart failure.  At the time he didn't have a primary care physician, so his treatment was given through the emergency room.  He spent three years being treated this way (and suffering from medication errors), until a doctor actually accepted his "application".   The doctors in their town don't want sick patients, so they have prospective patients fill out applications and submit to an interview to determine whether they want them or not.  They ended up getting kind of the last guy to come into town, who accepted them because there weren't any other choices.  In the meantime, my husband and I begged him to come here for a consult, as he was so weak that he could barely move around. 

My mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer last year (and later, lung cancer).  Her breast cancer wasn't detected on a mammogram because, as she explained, she hadn't had a mammogram since she was 69 years old (the age at which the government says you don't need them anymore).  This, despite the fact that her sister had breast cancer twice, so the likelihood of breast cancer would maybe be higher for her. 

I could give you so many examples of things that I just don't think Americans would be willing to compromise on -- surgery wait times, rationing of care, choice of care, etc.

America defends Canada! America! 

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...