Life expectancy is a factor of much more than health care. So, it's not the best measure to compare developed countries to each other. I think Canada has a lot more Asians and the U.S. has a lot more Mexicans. Mexicans tend to be prone to chornic illnesses like obesity and diabetes while Asians aren't and tend to live longer. I'm not being racist, but there are important genetic and lifestyle differences between racial groups that effect life expectancy and propensity for certain diseases. Also, Canada's life expectancy is not higher by a statistically significant amount. The two valid criticisms are pretty big criticisms. Those are two big problems. I'm very uncomfortable with doctors having that much power and limited liability. That's a bad combination. Malpractice is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, if a doctor cuts off the wrong limb or forgets to take of a clamp on your last good kidney after the surgery to remove your bad kidney (two cases I'm personally familiar with), you don't want to limit his liability for that kind of negligence. It must be expensive to be THAT much of an idiot. On the other hand, lawyers will sue over any and every thing. It's very easy to get into court and very expensive for doctors to hire lawyers and go through the malarky even when the case is thrown out. We have to make it more difficult to get into court or cheaper to defend oneself against spurious accusations.
He was incompetent and corrupt, hopefully the worst person I will ever encounter in my life. Everything he did was wrong and he had almost no patients. My perspective is that most American DRs are either spineless or incompetent, and whores of the drug companies. I sincerely believe that every DR in America should be sent to prison, and only released if they can prove they have cured one patient. 25% would never see the light of day. Ok,,,that was an exaggeration, but barely. Do not let your family members become typical American DRs.
Nobody was arguing about the quality or speed of care. I was just pointing out that you were wrong to say all facets of health care in Canada could be obtained in the private sector. Try reading what I wrote with the blinders off.
Canada has lots of indians, so there goes that arguement. And what about high infant mortality rate of 7/1000? Sweden, Norway and Finland all have rates of ~3/1000 and they have socialized medicine. I agree that birth rates, life expectancy stats have alot more factors, but doesn't that mean the US is failing in more ways than one?
As a Canadian, I can tell you that yes, Canada does have a great healthcare system (I sure wouldn't want to be at the mercy of the US system). However, we spend TONS of money on it. Also, the wait lists for certain services are so long, that some people go to the US to get them done. There's a little bit of communism involved. Any private healthcare or anyone with some money willing to pay extra for a service is absolutely demonized. The healthcare system in Canada is a monopoly, and of course, monopolies are very wasteful and inefficient. One night in a hospital costs $1100. That is way too expensive. So for dollar for dollar, I don't know if Canada's system is that much better than America's. We need to look to some of the European models for good healthcare. The best healthcare has some government run and some private run services.
Way to sit on the fence and not take a position! lol Seriously though, which European countries should us North Americanites look to for guidance and why? I'm not being facetious it is a genuine question as I am not familiar at all with European healthcare systems/standards.
It has to be an exaggeration or we'd all be dead by now. You should have gone to another doctor. I've had the misfortune of visiting loads of doctors all over the world. As in any profession, there are many incompetent fools everywhere. All of my American doctors are excellent.
There are very long waiting lists in some countries and most European countries are moving toward a private model. My biggest problem with socialized medicine is 1.) the lack of incremental cost to the patient encourages over use of the system. 2.) The health care decisions are no longer in the patients hands since the patient is not paying out of pocket. 3.) Rationing and 4.) the inability to opt out of the system. IMO, the best system is a private health care system where insurance companies are not regulated by the state and must provide a variety of policies that people want to gain customers. This means that people who can only afford and who judge that they only need catastrophe insurance are able to buy just that and those who want more comprehensive policies can choose to buy those policies. I do understand the adverse selection issue with this but I prefer the adverse selection problem to government making health care decisions for individuals.
IMO, the best system is a private health care system where insurance companies are not regulated by the state and must provide a variety of policies that people want to gain customers. This means that people who can only afford and who judge that they only need catastrophe insurance are able to buy just that and those who want more comprehensive policies can choose to buy those policies. I do understand the adverse selection issue with this but I prefer the adverse selection problem to government making health care decisions for individuals. I don't think you fully appreciate the adverse selection issue. If a healthy person such as myself with a catastrophic plan gets sick, I won't get wiped out by the sickness itself, since I can afford my deductible. What will get me is the ensuing tsunami of premium adjustments as the insurance company jacks my rates due to my new risk factor. They will continue to do this until I am either profitable to them again or driven out by the cost. But in the end it is still financial ruin for me. So in reality as an individual, it is practically impossible to protect myself with health insurance. For me the bare minimum of any healthcare system is will it protect me from financial ruin if I get sick. Under your system, the answer is an emphatic no. The only workable solution requires 100% participation and generally equal premium costs through the entire pool. Yes, the healthy subsidize the sick, but isn't that how insurance is supposed to work?