Hah. The last time I tried to use WHO data on these forums to debate health care, it got summarily dismissed because the UN hates America and all that it stands for. Pretty convenient, since there aren't a whole lot of organizations doing comparative research on the effectiveness of national health care systems.

Funny fact: US public spending on health as a share of GDP is actually higher than Canada's.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_exp_pub_of_gdp-health-expenditure-public-of-gdp

And private spending is almost three times as high, all to achieve results which are quite comparable.

The US spends more of its GDP on health than any other country. If the US could streamline their health spending down to Swiss levels (the #2 spender amongst OECD countries), it would save enough money to double its defense budget.

I don't know enough about the WHO to formulate an argument that would be either well-informed or particularly well-reasoned, but that doesn't take away from the rest of my post.

Seems like famousringo might be more on the up and up in that respect I guess?

Point being that Canada's healthcare is better than ours! There! I said it!

You can tell this article is very biased against the US, but facts are facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

"Canadians, when asked about their wait times^[46], reported that the median wait time to see a special physician was a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less then 3 months. The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans ^[47] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months. The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months."

I don't know about you, but I have never had to wait more than a day or two for an MRI or to see a doctor, and never waiting more than a week for surgery. Funny that the only US stats is Medicaid.

"For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery"

So basically, if you’re one of the 75-90% of Americans who can get healthcare, you’re probably better off in the US. If not, Canada is better.

And I say “can get”, because a large percentage of the 25% that don’t have it, chose not to get it and spend their money on things more important to them, like Internet, Cell phones, and Cable TV.

I call Bullshit. You speak middle or south bavarian. And that's fine for me^^. So if we in Bavaria speak German, you do as well. Never listen to the mean Prussians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Bavarian_language

(note, that the german translation skips the Austro)

But btt, I still wait for idiot quotes of Obama. The opening posts fails, but I'm always there to make fun of a politician. If I got the "upcoming: is Austrian a language?" right, communisthater himself shows some lack of understanding.

Decent facts, incorrect conclusion. The only metric you'e using here is time taken in order to get treatment for specific problems! Is that not too narrow a set of criteria for saying where a person is better off? What about the ability to get normal checkups at all? Or not having to worry about paying for the cost of surgeries, or ambulance bills? There are too many people who don't seek out medical care just because they think they can't afford it. Hell, my own father isn't seeking out surgery that would improve his health immensely because he doesn't think he would be able to afford it, regardless of whether or not he actually could.

That's not a worry in Canada. That counts for a lot.

I guess it all boils down to what you want out of a system. The US, if you can afford it, offers much better health services then Canada (or anywhere else in the world for that matter). If you can't afford it (or don't think you can), then the piece of mind of socialized medicine is best for you.

I prefer to live in a country will a much higher upper bound, that you have to work to achieve. It's why I like what the US used to be all about. Nothing is given to you, and it's hard work to get what you want, but the possibilities are endless.

What metric do you use for determining that (ignoring the fact that certain people being unable to get healthcare automatically takes us out of the running in this sort of thing)?

Probably the quality of what's offered, Khuutra.

If you have a horrible illness or disease, your best chance of survivability is in America.

Don't put words in my mouth, another liberal tactic. Canada was an example of geographic proximity. Countries involved are having a tough time affording it, and are pulling back on benefits. A great example of it's flaws are wait times for care, and the inability to choose your physician. Giving an example that other countries use it does not mean it is not flawed. Government was never meant to be this large. I hope you enjoy the future utopian society with cameras on every street corner, let alone your bedroom; as well as chips under your skin to trace everywhere you go. Just remember what Big Brother tells you. "It's for your own good, for your safety".

Khuutra -

Also, remember: healthcare in the US is a right. Everyone can have it. There is no debtors prison, nor will anyone be denied medical care if they cannot afford it.

However, that doesn't mean that a healthy black guy subsidize an obese, chain-smoking white woman. There's a difference in that, I must say. That may be the norm in your country, but not ours.