On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:43:34 -0400, Peter A >
wrote:

>In article >, Goomba38
says...
>> But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
>> they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
>> factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
>> the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
>> which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
>> necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
>> managed to combine the best of each into one program.
>>
>>
>
>The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
>about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
>and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
>system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
>market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
>other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
>health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
>their socialized system would likely be better than ours.

and if you look at stats like infant mortality or life expectancy,
u.s. health care is not better than canada, britain or france.

your pal,
blake