Edit: I want to apologize if I come across as harsh. This topic is near and dear to my heart. So, please understand that my tone is not directed at you.
> However it's worth noting that they cover everyone for the equivalent of what we pay in the US for Medicare and Medicaid alone.
Everyone is covered, but not all medical conditions are covered. Yeah, if you break your leg, it's great. Having a child? Peace of cake. You don't even see a bill. Things just happen. In that way, it's nice. But when it's serious? No. Serious conditions that require years of effort, or major surgery? It falls down.
And the quality of care is below what we've found in the US.
It looks pretty on paper. My wife was a big fan of the Canadian Health Care system, before she had to rely on it. She feared the US system, until she experienced first hand how it could help.
No system is perfect, but do not imagine for a moment that the Canadian system is in any way a better way. I am serious when I equate what Quebec did to my son as nothing other than pure abuse.
Ok, so here's what I mean by emulating the Canadian system:
You have some sort of a national commitment to fix the health care system. We can discuss the format of that national commitment and the role of the federal government (there would have to be some role particularly for the elderly who may retire somewhere other than where they worked). Then we leave it to the states to iron out the details.
That's what I want to see emulated. I think that most states will choose a single payer system like Canadas but probably with a bit more coverage. But states may try different things.
Two things I would like to see different though is that I would like to see less national government involvement than we see in Canada and even more local control. The federal government in the US should be there to address a few issues the states can't like folks from Minnisota retiring in Florida.
> Then we leave it to the states to iron out the details.
Yeah, that specific model doesn't work for Canada. It's a large part of why we left, and a large reason why my son was abused.
Letting the states handle it will be problematic. What happens then, when a state will not support certain procedures, but other states do? Following the Canadian model, your screwed if you live in the wrong state.
Sure, you can move, but then that becomes another issue entirely. You'll have doctors leaving states to move to states that can provide more jobs. Quebec is suffering this, and the left over doctors are overworked, and offer less than stellar service. And yes, you can incentivize staying all you want, and it won't happen. Or you might require they work X years in the state if they accept some funding for schooling, but then they'll leave when they can for better jobs elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but I've had to deal first hand with this model and the specific problems it causes, and I'll fight to prevent it from following me.
> However it's worth noting that they cover everyone for the equivalent of what we pay in the US for Medicare and Medicaid alone.
Everyone is covered, but not all medical conditions are covered. Yeah, if you break your leg, it's great. Having a child? Peace of cake. You don't even see a bill. Things just happen. In that way, it's nice. But when it's serious? No. Serious conditions that require years of effort, or major surgery? It falls down.
And the quality of care is below what we've found in the US.
It looks pretty on paper. My wife was a big fan of the Canadian Health Care system, before she had to rely on it. She feared the US system, until she experienced first hand how it could help.
No system is perfect, but do not imagine for a moment that the Canadian system is in any way a better way. I am serious when I equate what Quebec did to my son as nothing other than pure abuse.