Even if low wait times yield better health results than free access to testing (which probably can't be conclusively proven either way), you have to ask whether that faster care is worth paying 50% more. American health spending is way the hell up the diminishing returns curve. That's dangerous, considering worldwide problems of aging population, slowing population growth, and exploding health care costs.

The 2004 estimate of US health spending is 15.4% of GDP, projected to go up to 20% around 2015. That's another defense budget. The United States can't maintain its current health system without making some serious sacrifices.

So what are those enamored of this system willing to sacrifice? Do you think you should put a cap on the price of drugs and services, cut coverage to people who can't afford it, or cut out the inefficient bureaucracy of private health insurance and switch to single payer? Or maybe you'd just rather pay the bill and have less money to spend on other things.

You know, it'd be nice if the government had a symposium on health care reform, and invite all those involved - hospitals, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies to come, and lock the doors until they come up with a solid plan of action.

I don't think you should really change the inefficient bureaucracy of the private healthcare system to a governmental single payer system that's just as inefficient, famousringo. The US healthcare system is screwy, not who runs it. The auto insurance industry did just fine with regulations, and the HC industry can as well if it's given the right push. Letting Uncle Sam control who can go, and where they can go to is only going to invite failure into the equation.

Perhaps the governments in the US couldn't run it as efficiently as we do in Canada, but administrative costs is somewhere where huge savings could be made. And in my country, provinces with public auto insurance pay a lot less than provinces with private auto insurance.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Thank you for having faith that our government could run an efficient program. For the 300 million that live here, we have a different opinion.

What needs to happen in the industry needs to change if we are going to reach the prices you reach. If you require 65 year olds to wait 6 months for hip replacements, you can save a lot of money. We don't, so out system costs a lot more.

In the US, if a doctor thinks someone needs something, 99% of the time they get it, and they get it quick. People in the US expect this level of service, but it does not come cheep.

I think this latest economic crisis if nothing else, should show the rest of the world that we want to fix things, but are unwilling to give up a damn thing to get it.

funny, I just checked CNN to see what's new, and this is on there political home page.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/index.html

This is so sensationalistic it borders on parody.

I can choose the Hell out of my own physician while I stay in Canada, what are you talking about?

Everything else is just.... I don't even know. Why dismiss me as a liberal? Wow.

@mrstickball:

I'm from Louisiana.

That was a good, balanced article.

The Canadian system is no panacea. Like all systems, it fails some people.

One of the biggest challenges of our system is that we end up competing for specialized medical labour with American hospitals which are willing to pay far more for it. A shortage of that highly skilled labour is probably the main cause behind that woman's waiting list.

And the can gets kicked down the road. My health region recently poached a bunch of nurses from the Philippenes. I doubt they're up to their eyeballs in skilled nurses over there.

I'd really like to see some serious investment in training and attracting more medical staff on the part of our government. I think it would be money very well spent. I'm sure our overworked doctors and nurses would agree.

You should be one to dismiss my opinion, calling it nonsensical, sensationalistic, and bordering on parody. Once again, make an argument without attacking me, or my opinion. It's not parody to know that liberals think they know better than everyone else, and that the general public cannot take care of themselves, therefore they take from peter to pay paul.

You might be taken seriously if you didn't make a derogatory remark about liberals every other sentence.

What do I care about you taking me seriously? It's not derogatory to point out liberal ideology. Unless you have something to add that has anything to do with the issue, kindly butt out.