Some of my other posts on the topic, that I\'ve linked to here in the comments, address this idea.

The CoyoteBlog's Uncovering some really bad science debunks some of the recent methodology used to arrive at the low life expectancy figures.

He's also discussed infant mortality rates, which are not uniformly measured across the world, there are no rules about how to count live vs. stillborn, etc. Many infants that die shortly after birth in the U.S. would have been counted as stillborn in other parts of the world. One idea is that the success of our system allows many infants to survive childbirth that otherwise wouldn't have. Also, many infants die in utero in other countries, which our system would've given at least a chance at life. Some of them eventually die outside the womb.

And I wasn’t accusing you of making the same lifestyle choices as the young Canadian with whom I spoke, just using him as an example.

Obviously your mind is closed on the single payer option … so to each his own.

Now, this is insulting. The problem with a single-payer system is that it doesn’t allow “each” to have “his own.” That essential point, that’s the locus of my entire argument set forth in the post above (and reiterated in comments, etc.). So yes, my mind is “closed” to the single payer option in the exact same manner that my mind is “closed” to the slavery option.

Look, don’t berate me for using the anecdotal evidence at my disposal. You say “I have anecdotal evidence that Canadian system works” and I have anecdotal evidence that it doesn’t work. Anyone who spends his money on $5 beers while complaining about how he can’t afford insurance is flat-out ripping you off (and the rest of taxpaying Canadians). He’s not the only one, I can guarantee it.

How Good Is Canadian Health Care? This good:

When compared to other Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries that have publicly funded, universal access health care systems, evidence suggests that the Canadian model is inferior, say the authors of a new Fraser Institute study.

Consider:

* Estimates indicate that Canada spends more on health care than all OECD nations with “universal access” health care systems save Iceland.
* Canada does not rank first in any of the seven health care outcome categories or in any of the comparisons of access to care, supply of technologies, or supply of physicians.
* Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that outlaws a parallel private health care system for its citizens.

On an age-adjusted basis, Canada has among the fewest number of physicians in the OECD:

* Canada ranks 24th out of 28 countries with 2.3 doctors per 1,000 people for a total of 66,583 doctors; only Turkey, Japan, the United Kingdom and Finland have fewer doctors.
* To be comparable to first-place Iceland, Canada would need 57,071 more doctors than it had in 2003.
* In 1970, when public insurance first fully applied to physician services, Canada placed second among the countries that could be ranked in that year.

The overwhelming evidence is that, in comparative terms, the Canadian system produces longer waiting times, and is less successful in preventing death from preventable causes, and costs more than almost all of the other systems that have comparable objectives. To improve on this underperformance, say the authors, the system needs to emulate the more successful models of universal care — such as allowing privately funded purchases and private medicine.

Source: Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker, “How Good Is Canadian Health Care? 2006 Report,” Fraser Institute, December 2006.

You're probably the same people who think if we run out of oil, the world will end. People will find a way to make it work.

Another interesting thing I concluded; obesity rates in children had a high (more than 70%) correlation with family income. THe lower the income, the more likely the children were to be obese and the more likely the parents were obese. I wonder why they need to see a doctor so much?

Basically, the answer isn't universal healthcare. If anything, it should be universal PREVENTATIVE care which costs practically nothing except time & education. You kill weeds at the root, not at the surface.

A very small percentage of people end up with diseases/issues/etc that require significant amounts of funding…hence the relatively cheap cost of catastrophe insurance that Brad is so fond of. Other than that, let me toss my "tax money that goes to the national healthcare" in an interest bearing account for all those little trips to the doc for the sniffles…and if i get cancer, etc, hey i have the $50-$100 bucks a month i'm paying towards catastrophe insurance.

Just b/c people can't seem to budget their money properly to fund their basic needs doesn't mean the answer is the government should horde my money for me.

I talked to a Canadian about their health care system a few months ago. He couldn’t afford private insurance. But he could afford to sit at the bar next to me and drink $5 Molsons. And he could afford to go to the Burning Man Festival, halfway across the continent. He said in a nutshell, that the Canadian system was “better than nothing” but that if you have any money, and you really need a procedure, you go somewhere else where you don’t have to wait for it.

But don’t take my word for it. Read David Gratzer’s The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care. (He’s also a Canadian).

It’s not socialism, because it’s voluntary. I don’t understand why this part is so hard for people to get through their thick skulls.

In any event, there are a number of contributing factors to the high cost of health care, not the least of which is the AMA which functions as a cartel to artificially restrict the supply of MDs, and to keep the price of primary care service artificially high. Since they are a state-licensed cartel, it is illegal to compete with them. The net result is that they get nice salaries and relatively easy working hours, and we pay more, and receive less.