Your point really isn't valid. The questions in this debate are quality of care and and cost. People against systems like the one in Canada claim they will cost too much and be of a poorer quality than what the U.S. has now. So ease of use doesn't invalidate anyone's point
The argument you make is like someone claiming McDonalds is better than a Fine Restaurant for the diner. Because you can swipe your card at the counter in Mcdonalds where you have to get a pen and fill out the receipt at a Restaurant.
>People against systems like the one in Canada claim they will cost too much and be of a poorer quality than what the U.S. has now.
They might claim this, but they would not have the data to back the claim up.
* Canadian health care costs less than half the money, per capita, as American health care.
* Median wait times in Canada are the same as or better than in the US.
As someone who lives in Canada and has had many opportunities to experience Canadian health care - from head injuries to electrocution to infected burns to pneumonia - I can state anecdotally that the publicly funded, single payer medical care I and my family have received has been uniformly timely, professional, skillful and professional.
I'm not disputing your number per se in the I think the U.S. system is too expensive and I suspect the system in Canada is cheaper than the ugly hybrid the U.S. has. But having said that, as someone whose looked at the numbers, the facts you quote are largely bull (sorry)
If you look at the breakdown of things you'll see that a lot of the cost difference is because people in the U.S. have a choice and they choose the more expensive option. There are also issues of tort reform which the U.S. desperately needs. Because the current system leads doctors to order thousands of dollars in additional treatments to rule out things that Canadian doctors don't have too (and while the actual suits themselves are a relatively small portion spent on health care it should be mentioned that the U.S. pays 4 times more per capita on malpractice suits)
As for wait times it's true but the base line number doesn't take into account the fact that many don't have health care. Again I reiterate the U.S. system is screwed up. But the fact is people with insurance in the U.S. tend to have shorter wait times and it's only when you factor in things like free clinics and government programs that the wait times rise above those in Canada.
Doctors don't need the threat of tort to have an economic incentive to oversupply health care, while consumers of health care have a significant asymmetric information disadvantage, so they cannot necessarily contradict their doctor's advice.
Meanwhile, non-mandatory health insurance, in the absence of other factors, is a recipe for adverse selection.
If you're going to take the point that doctors are dishonest than pretty much anything goes so I don't see your point as being valid. But assuming doctors are professionals with a degree of integrity the only reason they'd over treat is if they felt they could lose their practice for not doing so (and if they knew other doctors felt the same way and would over treat in the same way)
As for your last point i can't really refute it because you didn't really back it up and if it were obviously true than the health debate would be settled already.
If you're going to take the point that incentives don't matter, you're going to have to back it up, because it sounds like you're saying that capitalism - the profit motive - doesn't work. Is ordering an extra test - just in case - malpractice? Is not doing another scan, because it's expensive, morally superior? Are you saying that we should expect economically efficient care from doctors out of their benevolence?
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Are doctors different?
Adverse selection is also a pretty basic economics concept. You can read more about its applicability to health insurance here - and cites more:
There is a slight problem, in the US a botched operation leading to death can result in the victims's family getting compensated. In canada you're told to shut up.
Also the banning of private care and noninclusion of drug benefits in most of canada is draconian and half assed at the same time.
Being a Canadian expat in the US, and having experienced both health care systems, I'll throw in my data point: US care is not significantly better quality than Canadian care, and costs a ludicrous amount more (I know a couple of doctors in Canada and have an idea of the rates they bill the government).
Heck, last time I was in the ER the wait times are just as bad as they are in Canada (4 hours in my case), and one of the primary arguments for privatized care is that it reduces wait times for urgent care. Er, not so much.
This is again the problem with anecdotal evidence. Everything I've seen points to costs and care being relatively similar between insured U.S. people and Canadians. At least those in good health who have occasional mishaps.
The question is in the specialized medicine. When you have Canadian officials flying to the U.S. for heart surgery and cancer you start to wonder. The same can be said for the relatively large industry of U.S. insurers who sell policies to Canadians.
Again, that stuff might not mean anything but it points out the problem of anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, but the problem with that claim is that it's provably false, based on statistics from every single OECD country. It's not like one of them happened to make it work in spite of it being such an awful idea -- it works for all of them.
In fact I'd put the people in the U.S. against single payer a step above advocates only because at least they realize their system isn't working while many single-payer advocates refuse to look at the flaws in their own system.
"The reality is these systems are bankrupting themselves in almost every country that has them"
All those countries with exception of greece and the uk are less "bankrupt" then america. None of them spend even 10 percent of their economy on healthcare.
If it is bankrupting them, for arguments sake, what is the alternative? Let individuals bankrupt themselves over healtcare bills or die from nontreatment. There really is no "civilized" choice except universal care.
The argument you're basically making is "Our system doesn't work but your system works less so use our system". The problem with that argument is it doesn't change the fact that your system doesn't work.
As for a solution my personal preference is for a baseline supported free market. I face the reality that no society will ever let people die on the street (most single payer advocates ignore the fact that it's illegal for a U.S. hospital to turn away a sick person regardless of whether they can pay). So I have no problem with the Government providing health care for debilitated people.
I also have no problem with free preventative care because it's in society's best interest (being we'll have to provide for the person if they become debilitated).
But I'm for the free market providing those services to the Government. Beyond that I endorse a free market system for individuals in regards to the in-between stuff (broken legs, cosmetic surgery, etc...)
"""The argument you're basically making is "Our system doesn't work but your system works less so use our system". The problem with that argument is it doesn't change the fact that your system doesn't work."""
Isn't that the standard argument for capitalism trotted by free marketsrs. If it's OK for them, why isn't OK for socialized services.
Tangent: I've never seen a free-marketer say the market doesn't work. Doesn't always work, sure. Isn't a magical fairy that makes everything perfect, absolutely. But not work at all? I'm fairly sure you have to think that markets work to support free markets.
The argument you make is like someone claiming McDonalds is better than a Fine Restaurant for the diner. Because you can swipe your card at the counter in Mcdonalds where you have to get a pen and fill out the receipt at a Restaurant.