Of course not. But the Canadian system, and its similar systems in the UK and Europe, also have much longer average wait times, lower quality of care, shortages of doctors, etc. The problems seen with the US system (namely "it costs a lot") are almost entirely due to government interference in the system reducing competition between insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies, etc. through expensive-to-comply-with regulations, and even worse, direct market control (like limiting insurance markets to in-state companies that only provide a limited choice of coverage levels).Jamie Bond wrote:overall economic efficiency is important, but it is not the only attribute to look at.
On the other hand, the private sector, through Wal-mart and its competitors, has brought Americans the wonders of $4 prescription drugs. Not to mention the modern medicinal industry in its entirety. (But, hey, at least a socialized medical care system 100 years ago would have paid for lots of brandy.)
I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of the flaws with the socialist system - and have overestimated the flaws of the private one. Sure, it's great to say "look, everyone is covered", but the reality is not so simple. Doctor's shortages, dangerously long wait times, and ever-increasing costs to the point of government bankruptcy (or currency worthlessness) are much greater dangers, especially in the long run. Because the truth of the matter is that, while it may have worked for you and your family, it certainly doesn't work for everyone:Jamie Bond wrote:I will take a system with its flaws to ensure this.
But, hey, at least he's insured. I'm sure that will help him get his care... eventually. Someday, John Goodman will be able to get a cholesterol test done in Canada. Someday.