Or how about this?
Excerpt from here:http://www.marketmed.org/gov_payer.asp?fmmfont=fontsml
The Canadian Experience
Programs such as Canada's national health care plan can do nothing to check the demand for medical services. In order to keep such a system from hemorrhaging, administrators must limit the type and quantity of health care available to individuals, which inevitably leads to long waits for treatment and restricted access to medical care. In 1991, the Fraser Institute in Vancouver conducted a study of patient waiting covering five Canadian provinces, 10 medical specialties, and 333 physicians (representing 20% of all practitioners in each of the 10 fields). The study showed that waiting time ranges from 2-5 weeks (for Internal Medicine) to 10-42 weeks (for Cardiology). In an article for Reason magazine, Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute, described Canada's system this way:
The total cost of health care is controlled by arbitrarily limiting the number of procedures of certain types, by limiting access to technology and diagnostic machinery, and by compensating physicians so that they are discouraged from responding to the demands of their patients. There are measurable consequences of this supply limitation in the form of queues or waiting lists for surgery.
In a series of articles for the Boston Globe, Colin Nickerson has chronicled the steady disintegration of the Canadian system:
April 1996: Canadian doctors are moving to the US to practice in record numbers, complaining that their country's national health system denies them the freedom, technological resources and funding to provide top-notch medical care. The system is desperately strapped for cash and is a constant target for politicians seeking to reduce state spending. Things taken for granted in the US, such as ordering CT scans, MRIs (magnetic resonance images), or securing operating room time, are a constant struggle. People needing surgery for conditions which are not immediately life threatening, such as hip replacements, cataract surgery and removal of certain tumors, often wait for months or years. More than 70 communities in Canada's richest province, Ontario, do not have access to basic medical services.
October 1996: Obstetricians in southern Ontario, angered by health spending cuts, are refusing to take on new patients, including women about to give birth. As a result health officials are making deals with US medical centers to allow Canadian women to deliver their babies in the US.
February 1999: Cuts in Canada's medical system combined with the seasonal arrival of broken bones and pneumonia cases are transforming hospitals into disaster areas. Emergency rooms in major urban centers are headed for meltdown, with insufficient doctors, nurses and technicians to handle caseloads. Ambulances in Toronto were told to take patients to less crowded hospitals in the suburbs. In Quebec, emergency room patients were parked on gurneys in hallways and supply closets because of a bed shortage. A Montreal hospital is a scene out of a Dickens novel, "with bleeding patients screaming for attention in jam-packed facilities reeking of urine and vomit." Patients have died waiting for surgery and other services. The shortage of general practitioners forces more Canadians to head for emergency rooms to receive basic care.
January 2000: A flu epidemic, along with a shortage of doctors and nurses, has tranformed emergency rooms across Canada into disaster areas. In Montreal, people with non-critical problems, such as broken bones and serious flu, are waiting up to 48 hours to see a doctor. The city's 17 emergency rooms are staggering under a patient load that is 209 percent in excess of capacity. There are dangerous shortfalls of beds, equipment and, in some cases, medicines. In Toronto, radio appeals from ER staff to ambulance drivers to stop delivering patients are ignored. In Winnipeg, fire inspectors say jammed hospitals have become a fire hazard, with stretchers blocking corridors and exit doors. Canadian health professionals describe their system as "reeling from budget cuts, bureaucratic interference, and political indifference." Government officials have closed scores of hospitals in recent years and reduced health care programs by millions of dollars. Health care bureaucrats blame vacationing doctors for the overflowing emergency rooms.
January 2001 (Reuters): New Brunswick's 1300 doctors closed their offices on January 8th to protest slow negotiation with the provincial government over wage increases and better working conditions.
The Last Word
In describing government-run health care systems, Goodman and Musgrave note:
In Britain, with a population of about 57 million, the number of people waiting for surgery is more than 1 million. In New Zealand, with a population of 3 million, the waiting list is more than 50,000. And in Canada, with a population of about 25 million, the waiting list is more than 250,000.
Runaway costs associated with the Medicare program in the US belie the notion that government-funded plans are the answer to the health care crisis. The single most important factor in controlling medical costs is the presence of financial incentives for health care consumers to seek cost-effective care. Yet, Medicare officials fail to take action against hospitals which routinely waive co-insurance and deductibles for their patients.
Moreover, government programs are not particularly efficient. The low administrative costs claimed for the Medicare program do not take into account the billions of dollars spent each year for unnecessary medical treatment (See A System Out of Control and Studies on Avoidable Medical Care). And Medicaid is notorious for being a procedural nightmare: "The complexity of this particular (New York State) Medicaid system is reflected in the huge procedure manuals sent to physicians: the instructions for filing a one-page billing form run for 135 pages, followed by 260 pages of procedural codes."
A national health system is not the answer to the health care crisis. Any government health care program is inconsistent with limited government and respect for individual liberty and would simply be a massive wealth re-distribution scheme.
As a practical matter, whom would you rather have building your house, supplying the grocery store, teaching your child and treating your illnesses?: A government worker whose pay is only loosely tied to performance or a market player whose next paycheck depends on providing you with high quality, reasonably-priced goods and services.
Don't go there with the oil thing,
Unless you bicycle your way around Canada,I think you're using it too.And I do not believe Canada is 100 percent self sufficient in energy.I've been to Canada and I see cars at gas pumps there.Where does that come from?
Middle East I bet!Or Venezuela.
And do you think for a minute If the US pulled everything back to the good old homeground the world would be at peace?
I think you would see China pulverizing Taiwan,move onto Japan and take over the Latin Americas and possibly all of South America. Then Canada would be next in the conquest to surround the US.
And don't think for a minute Russia would not retake all it has lost in the last years.
Goodbye Germany,Poland France Spain,Welcome to the USSR!!
Not to mention the economic setbacks from the loss of our military base closures.
And since all will be better at home without our vast military spending we can bring the jobs back here we exported to Canada!!
That would be the frosting on the cake!!