Quote from Random.Capital:
Having spent more than a decade under each of US and Canadian healthcare systems I greatly prefer the Canadian approach. In terms of overall efficacy the systems are approximately equal, the primary differences being (a) the US system costs twice as much for equivalent care and (b) what Canada gains with universal access it sometimes gives back with longer lineups.
The last personal experience I had with a major medical condition in Canada involved my mother - she went from ER admittance to installed pacemaker in ~8 hours - and this was being admitted on a weekend night. Exceptional care for no out-of-pocket expense.
The last personal experience I had with a major medical condition in the US was a birth, at Beth Israel in Boston (part of Harvard med school). The care was very good, absolutely nothing to complain about, and our first rate insurance plan took care of everything.
Through a spousal unit I also had a great deal of exposure to a major US research hospital that shall remain nameless. The difference in care between those who had "good" insurance and those who had Walmart insurance was incredibly stark and impossible to avoid noticing given our position (spousal was tenured researcher, I spent a lot of time inside the place.) I personally found it shocking that people could be treated that badly and their lives handled so cavalierly.
It is important to realize all health policies are effectively doing the same thing: rationing care in the face of essentially infinite demand. So they will all have shortcomings, and they will all lose a percentage of patients "needlessly". IMO it is important for a society to have a frank internal discussion about what exactly they want to accomplish with their health policy - and part of that frankness needs to be acknowledgement that (a) no matter what is done, and no matter how much is spent, people will still die "needlessly" and (b) we can only spend so much (*cough* medicare *cough*).
