[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]


You can get rare and expensive procedures, but you have to wait, as you point out. But you can also get any procedure that can be done in a an emergency room or a general practioner's office much faster than you can in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I'd like to see proof of this, particularly for people with private insurance. (Not trying to be snarky or insulting here, I would be genuinely interested. I just have my doubts.)

[ QUOTE ]

As for the US, I don't know if people would describe waiting five hours in an emergency room, or a month for a check-up with their family doctor as "immediate care".


[/ QUOTE ]

You think this is bad now? Do you think that utilization of these services will go down after health-care costs are subsidized? People on public aid are often the worst in terms of abusing the system at the moment, since they don't have to care how much their care costs. Emergency room and appointment waits are standard these days. Very few people are dying because they wait too long (and the ones that do are highly publicized) so I don't see the problem. Clearly it would be better if people didn't have to wait but just because it's inconvenient doesn't mean it's terrible.

[ QUOTE ]

One of the biggest problems with the free-market structure of the US system is that it encourages doctors to go into specialties where there is a lot of money, but not necessarily a lot of patients.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the socialized aspect of medicine that has caused this problem. Insurance companies take a lot of cues from Medicare - Medicare is what decides reimbursements, and curerently primary care is devalued compared to specialty care. The government not really knowing what they are doing has been the problem, and I don't see that getting magically better if a universal health care system is put in place.