"Canada's Healthcare Disaster"--By Dick Morris
Crap Detector
nationaized healthcare system. California and
Massachusetts experienced similar misfortune when they imposed state-
run health-care systems within the U.S.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/11/04/canadas-healthcare-disaster/
David Deilley
> Morris gives a very objective and factual analysis of the Canadian
> nationaized healthcare system.
HE LIES!!!!
Crap Detector
Prove that he does, dingbat Deilley. Remember he once worked for the
Democrats; he saved the Clinton presidency in 1995.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Gawd, Dick Morris is such a fucking sleazy little whore...
Betelgeuse
> Morris gives a very objective
"objective" You have just proven that you are gullible and mentally
ill.
Dick Morris is supposed to be a balanced source of information for you
morons?
He has no qualifications whatsoever to comment on Canadian health
care. How can he possibly be objective when but an ignorant rightist
shill who never gets anything right?
Are all your decisions made on propaganda? Is that why you're a
proven idiot? You don't have the brains to question the veracity of
your sources and it exposes you as an unintelligent and gullible oaf.
If you actually believe what Morris says, WHY IS IT THAT YOU REFUSE
TO LEAVE CANADA AND IT'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM and immigrate to the
USA? Your argument is as weak as you are.
M I Wakefield
"Crap Detector" <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:0e36f04f-793b-44fb...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
If Canadian health-care is so bad, why won't you move away from it?
Ed
> "Crap Detector" <cicer...@rogers.com> wrote in message
(snipped)
>
> If Canadian health-care is so bad, why won't you move away from it?
Considering how Canada's system beats the shit out of the USA's hands
down by all accounts that are scientific and not right wing spew and
bull shit like what Morris says, what kind of a disaster have the
people supported by Crap Emitter and Dick Morris created?
They have nothing to brag about and need to worry about their immense
load of problems, not Canada's relatively few.
It's so transparently pathetic how the ignorant US right thinks they
can divert attention away from problems of their own making by
pointing fingers to a superior system in another country and then
telling the same old urban myths.
M I Wakefield
"M I Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4b0c8e05$0$25753$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Face it Lambourn, you're more firmly attached to the teat of Canada's health
care system than a priest on an altar boy.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Yeah, and got fired in disgrace when caught sucking the toes of a
prostitute.
Charles
> in t
>
There is no doctor shortage in Canada. The Doctor / Patient ratio in Canada is
almost identical to that of the USA and the USA has more cosmetic surgeons and
others performing lucrative elective surgeries, which makes them of lesser
value to the health of the population.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_health_care_better_in_canada.html
It is true that wait times for physician appointments and non-emergency surgery
tend to be longer in Canada, which has a government-funded, universal health
care system, than in the United States. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a
nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and
quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist
said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23
percent who said so in the U.S. For emergency physician visits, 23 percent of
Canadians and 30 percent of Americans said they could get in to see the doctor
the same day, but 23 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Canadians waited
more than six days. Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even
more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more
than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In
another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their
biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of
Americans. In October 2007, the Fraser Institute, a Canada-based libertarian
think tank, reported that Canadians waited an average of 18.3 weeks between
seeing a general practitioner and getting surgery or treatment.
However, on most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canada comes
out slightly ahead of the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund report shows somewhat
fewer reported physician errors, lab errors, medication errors and duplicate
tests north of the border, and Canadians report more satisfaction with their
doctors. General health is also better up north, according to the World Health
Organization: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are both higher in
Canada; infant mortality is lower, and maternal mortality is significantly
lower. There are fewer deaths from non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular
diseases and injuries in Canada, though marginally more deaths from cancer.
It's not clear how much of the divergence is attributable to medical care,
rather than other standard-of-living differences between the two countries.
(For instance, according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, Canada
has a much higher school enrollment rate than the U.S., though it also has a
lower GDP per capita.) But these statistics simply don't support the notion
that universal, single-payer health care is crippling the health of Canadian
citizens compared with that of U.S. citizens.
Both countries, however, score low on health measures compared with other
industrialized nations. In the Commonwealth Fund’s overall ranking of health
system performance, Canada came in fifth and the U.S. came in sixth, out of six
countries. On the other hand, the WHO's 2000 World Health Report gave Canada a
slightly better review, ranking it 30th for overall health system performance –
above three of the other countries from the Commonwealth study (Australia, New
Zealand and the U.S.) but below the other two (the U.K. and Germany). All of
these countries, except the U.S., have publicly funded health care, as does
every major country in the WHO's top ten.
Update, Oct. 21, 2009: The 2000 WHO report has been questioned as out of date,
ill-conceived and not always based on reliable data. See our Wire post on the
criticisms for more.
- Jessica Henig
Sources
Davis, Karen et al. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the
Comparative Performance of American Health Care." The Commonwealth Fund. 16 May
2007.
Shea, Katherine et al. "Health System Performance in Selected Nations: A
Chartpack." The Commonwealth Fund. 16 May 2007.
Blendon, Robert et al. "Common Concerns Amid Diverse Systems: Health Care
Experiences In Five Countries." Health Affairs 22:3. 2003.
Esmail, Nadeem, and Dr. Michael A. Walker. "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting
Lists in Canada, 17th Edition." Fraser Institute. 15 Oct. 2007.
World Health Organization. World Health Report 2000. "Annex Table 1, Health
system attainment and performance in all Member States, ranked by eight
measures, estimates for 1997." 2000.
World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2007. "Health Status:
Mortality." 2007.
Canuck57
Good read, accurate and just what Americans can expect as government
skims the money fot more corruption like GM & banks.
Too bad Americans don't ask one simple question. Why does government
want this revenue into general revenue and not in a 100% at arms length
fund.
Here is the answer. This isn't about quality health care, it is about
government raising revenue by skiming health care.
Too bad more would not listen to Dick Morris.
Art Brand
> Good read, accurate and just what Americans can expect as government
> skims the money fot more corruption like GM & banks.
>
Strange that you perfer the Canadian system then, or else you would have moved
to the USA by now. Aren't you a self proclaimed "capitalist"? Or are you
just another right wing blowhard whose afraid to put his money where he mouth
is? Your blind ideology will only carry you so far, and apparently it hasn't
carried you anywhere. What is it with you Wanabe Americans? If you don't
like Canada why not move?
Health outcomes often better in Canada than U.S.: review
The Canadian Press
The death and disease rates for patients in Canada are the same or lower than
those for people with similar diagnoses treated in the United States — even
though per capita health-care spending is higher south of the border, a study
suggests.
The findings — from Canadian and U.S. researchers who crunched data from 38
studies — were published in the inaugural edition of Open Medicine. The online
medical journal launched Wednesday in the aftermath of a rift last year between
some editors and the publisher of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
'What it shows is that despite an enormous investment in money, we do not
see better health outcomes [in the U.S.]' — Study author Dr. P.J. Devereaux
"In looking at patients in Canada with a specific diagnosis compared to
Americans with the same diagnosis, in Canada patients had at least as good an
outcome as their American counterparts — and in many situations, a better
health outcome," said one of the 17 authors, Dr. P.J. Devereaux, a cardiologist
and clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.
"And that is important because in the United States, they're currently spending
a little over $7,100 per individual on health care annually, whereas in Canada
we're spending a little over $2,900 per individual annually," he said in a
telephone interview from Brantford, Ont.
The study covered data on patient populations in the United States and Canada
from 1955 to 2003. To conduct their meta-analysis, researchers identified
almost 5,000 titles and abstracts. Of these, 498 appeared potentially eligible
on initial review. Eventually, 38 studies were deemed to be eligible.
"Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant
five per cent mortality advantage [of survival] to people with diagnoses in
Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States," Devereaux said.
Canadian survival advantage
Devereaux said the Canadian public is barraged by people who argue that the
solution to problems in the health-care system is to move toward two-tiered
medicine and for-profit health-care delivery.
He said the researchers in the meta-study wanted to provide facts that can be
used to make decisions about the system, instead of the debate being steered by
beliefs and ideologies.
'The medicare system allows us enormous efficiencies in terms of cost-
saving relative to private insurance.'—Dr. P.J. Devereaux
Researchers began by asking the question: Are there differences in death and
disease rates in patients suffering from similar medical conditions treated in
Canada versus those treated in the United States?
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while five
favoured the United States. The other 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed
results in the two countries.
"What it [the study] shows is that despite an enormous investment in money, we
do not see better health outcomes [in the U.S.]," Devereaux said.
"And importantly, where our two systems do diverge is that America has a
mixture of private insurance in terms of the funding for health care whereas in
Canada we have medicare system for hospital and physician services.
"The medicare system allows us enormous efficiencies in terms of cost-saving
relative to private insurance."
Some explanations for the results include the fact that U.S. health care has
administrative inefficiencies that public funding — without multiple competing
insurance companies — eliminates. Canadians also save on prescription drug
costs because drug prices are controlled.
Few uninsured patients in the United States, who probably suffer the worst
quality care, were included in the studies examined.
Devereaux said the Canadian health-care system has problems and needs
improvement, "but certainly using medicare funding and not-for-profit delivery
is the best way to actually maximize health outcomes and in a cost-effective
manner."
© The Canadian Press, 2007
David Deilley
> On Nov 24, 8:24 pm, David Deilley <david.deilley....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 5:21 pm, Crap Detector <cicer...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > Morris gives a very objective and factual analysis of the Canadian
> > > nationaized healthcare system.
>
> > HE LIES!!!!
>
> Prove that he does, dingbat Deilley.
The proof is in studies cited elsewhere in this thread by others who
are responding to your lies.
Eddie Haskell
"5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:JdGdnYGKqPPjF5HW...@posted.carinet...
Pathetic DNC shoot the messenger tactic noted.
-Eddie Haskell
Canuck57
> Canuck57 wrote
>> Good read, accurate and just what Americans can expect as government
>> skims the money fot more corruption like GM & banks.
>>
>
> Strange that you perfer the Canadian system then, or else you would have moved
> to the USA by now. Aren't you a self proclaimed "capitalist"? Or are you
> just another right wing blowhard whose afraid to put his money where he mouth
> is? Your blind ideology will only carry you so far, and apparently it hasn't
> carried you anywhere. What is it with you Wanabe Americans? If you don't
> like Canada why not move?
LMAO. I know a twit would fall into that one.
I tried for 10 years, in on a TN-1 and H1, at the rate I was going
perhaps in 20 years. But I gave up after 10 years. Being white,
educated and from Canada, no immigration category. Dad was even an
American citizen. But years after I started that journey I found out my
Dad hadn't filed income tax and basically shelved my application not
once, but twice. I tried, believe me, all I didn't do was suck a civil
servants dick. INS is about burocracy not effectivenes and since I
wasn't going to get divorced as to knock up an American woman, I figured
10 years was enough.
Be easier if I was a Mexican jumping a fence...
INS is a mess.
> Health outcomes often better in Canada than U.S.: review
Depends, are you measuring quality of service or paperwork?
Canada has very little paperwork, it comes off the income tax at a much
higher rate than USA. Everything costs more here to factor in the high
taxation. But very little paperwork.
US, lots of paperwork, but very little waiting. Doctors have more and
better equipment. When you are hurting, the wait is minutes not many hours.
But statism government supporters choose not to take an objective look.
If government here gave me back all the taxes collected in the name of
health care, I would be happy to shop private and save a bundle.
You should get a better news reader, your posts mess up the headers.Or
is that a new liberla-statism trick that does not work?
Chom Noamsky
Isn't that pretty much his standard operating procedure? Demand
refutations from his detractors, then when he is provided with facts and
evidence... just ignore it.
Chom Noamsky
Private nursing homes in the US run about $70,000/year. Homecare
support workers $29/hour. If he lived in the US he would be faced with
spending every penny on old age life support. If he doesn't have the
money... tough luck. He'll die swimming in his own shit as by that time
the challenge of changing his Depends will be too much for his poor wife.
I imagine, s1itting in his own feces all day is what made him such an
expert "Crap Detector".
Chom Noamsky
The analysis you're responding to was made from the systemic
perspective. There are areas where the Canadian system DOES do better.
This is a fact. Then you counter with some anecdotal commentary based
on personal perceptions and bias.... If you don't want to be seen as a
complete oaf at least compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
Outcomes are the most relevant measure of any health care system. By
that measure Canada is doing no worse than the US, but at considerably
less cost with UNIVERSAL coverage. We are doing something right, not wrong.
I admit our system is far from perfect, having had to seek diagnostic
work and consulting stateside in the past year, but I will give credit
where credit is due. The biggest complaint with Canadian healthcare is
the time it takes to progress from initial consultation to diagnosis to
treatment. It takes way too long. Eventually it does happen, and the
delay in timeliness doesn't seem to impact outcomes too severely. It
would be MUCH BETTER if we matched per-capita spending dollar-for-dollar
with the Americans. We do more with less and we've proven that.
I recall Harper promising wait time guarantees and the money to fund
them, then the little prick of a coward ran away from that one. Why
would any politician promote the American way, when you get worse
results but for higher cost? Solutions require careful analysis and
clear, unbiased thinking... not petty partisan ideology like Shit Dick
Morris and Crap Emitter.
Market-based medicine works great for everyone who is able to
participate in the market, but not everyone is able to participate in
the market. Canuck57, do your values exclude humans who are unable to
participate in the market? You certainly give that impression, which
makes you somebody I don't want to know.
I really wish your immigration plans had succeeded.
Pete
>
> The Canadian Health Care System certainly has its faults, but it beats
> the hell out of anything South of the Border.
>
I agree. But I see it this way. Perhaps you might agree.
We need some fixing, but fixing our system is easy, compared to what the USA is
facing.
Jerry Okamura
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
news:zwYPm.53737$Db2.32880@edtnps83...
It is a question of how important your freedom and independence is. You
have more freedom and more independence when you do not depend on someone
else to pay your bills.
Sid9
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wYBQm.49391$%j4.3...@newsfe18.iad...
Strange that you say that!
Those on Medicare and with Medigap supplementary insurance have both freedom
and independence.
Yet this is a single payer public system with a private option.
Jerry Okamura
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:heuqb3$r6e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
No they do not. They are betting their life, when they depend on someone
else to pay for their healthcare needs. Because when you depend on someone
else to pay for their healthcare needs, they have also given them the right
not to pay for their healthcare needs.
>
> Yet this is a single payer public system with a private option.
>
yes it is.
Chom Noamsky
> It is a question of how important your freedom and independence is. You
> have more freedom and more independence when you do not depend on
> someone else to pay your bills.
Isn't that exactly what any medical insurance is -- private or public --
depending on others to pay your bills? Insurance is essentially the
socialization of costs, and if the ability to pay for medical services
out of pocket is the criteria for being 'free', then there are very few
'free' people in the US.
Bill Murray
From an economic stand point, single payer or a government option has been
proved to be a sound economic idea in other countries. And it has given
corporations that operate out of those nations a competitive advantage over US
based businesses.
I think that, if it's true, the idea that Americans who don't have health
coverage will be fined, is a massive mistake to get it passed. It's
unrealistic.
However, once the legislation passes (and several Congressmen insert bills into
the three telephone books of words that call for subsidies of everything from
factories that produce bowling balls made in Wabash to insisting that versions
of the popular TV show House has Hugh Laurie speak in his original Oxford
tongue when shown in Idaho) that it will pass without such things as
criminalizing behaviour.
By no means is offering a public option an attack on capitalism. In fact, it's
a benefit to SMB's. Small and Medium businesses, who are the core of North
American capitalism in the 21st century. They can't afford to pay the
premiums with the group plans that are out there today. That's why the real
problem in the USA is also with the under insured, not just the working poor
and the unemployed who can't afford to go it on their own.
The US system has been based on people working and their employers providing
group coverage, but that is an outmoded idea with the changing times. Look at
GM. Their pension plan was one problem, but the main issue was covering
current workers with health care. No such issue existed in Canada with GM or
Ford and it saved $8.00 an hour per worker in Canada. Which in the USA would
translate to far more because the system in the US is a lot more costly per
insured. And Canada's net payoff is a healthier workforce, corporations who
don't fork over massive amounts to cover them, and because of single payer,
it's less costly. 35% lower per patient in Canada versus the USA according to
the OECD.
The hideous fallacies about Canada's health care system told by the proponents
of private insurance in the USA are just absurd. They say the same about the
UK's NHS. And nobody is saying that Obama or the Democrats want a Canadian
system or a NHS.
Jerry Okamura
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
Well, that is a true statement, i.e. there are very few "free" people in the
US when it comes to healthcare. But there is a difference when a person
decides on their own to buy insurance of any kind, vs. when the government
"forces" people to buy insurance. In the first case, each individual is
making that choice. When the government "forces" the people to buy
insurance, they are infringing on your freedoms and making you dependent on
insurance, even if you don't want to be dependent on insurance. But the
question should be, can the government give us more freedom and make us less
dependent on some insurance company, or for that matter the government to
pay for our healthcare. The obvious answer is yes they can do that. And
there is a big benefit when you are able to pay for your own healthcare
needs. First of all, when you pay for your own healthcare needs, you
control you destiny. When you depend on someone else to pay for your
healthcare needs, your destiny rest with the person paying the bill, and you
are in great shape if they pay for your needs, when you need it, but you are
in deep trouble if they do not pay for what you want or need, when you need
it. And when you allow the government to pay, they can pay or may not pay,
and if they do not pay and you depended on them to pay, you are shit out of
luck. But the other benefit is that medical inflation will be less of a
problem, then it is today, "if" the person who wants the service is paying
for their own care. Because when all is said and done, the reason we have a
cost problem, is because of the high level of medical inflation. Medical
inflation even makes any insurance scheme not affordable. Think of it this
way. Medical inflation is running at or above 8% per year. That means the
any medical insurance policy will increase in cost by at least the medical
inflation rate. At 8% per year, that means that every nine years or less,
the insurance premiums will double in cost, and double again in each
equivalent period of time. That is simply not sustainable.
Max Stein
> Well, that is a true statement, i.e. there are very few "free" people in the
> US when it comes to healthcare. But there is a difference when a person
> decides on their own to buy insurance of any kind, vs. when the government
> "forces" people to buy insurance.
>
There is no definite proof that what you claim will be true. It's more fear
mongering if you ask me.
And the US isn't free at all. Wire tapping without warrants, the patriot act.
More people in prison per capita than the old USSR and modern day dictatorial
China. Smoking marijuana gets you as much time as armed robbery or felony
assault.
You assholes have criminalized living. Yet you claim to be the bastion of
freedom.
You're a joke.
Governor Swill
The biggest difference is single payer being the government and
multipayer for profit through private enterprise. All those guys
living on bonus money from customers renewing their policies will be
out of their very remunerative jobs.
It's going to be difficult to produce a hybrid system.
Swill
--
In the exam room . . .
Doctor: "Public Opt . . ."
Elephant: "SOCIALISM!"
Doctor: "Reflexes good."
Neil K
==========================================================================
Is it possible to be as stupid as you and still know how to take a breath
...... you're not on a respirator are you?
I suppose you paid for your own grade school education ....... obviously you
were broke
Jerry Okamura
"Neil K" <spri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4b13decb$0$5336$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
Eddie Haskell
"Neil K" <spri...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4b13decb$0$5336$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
>
You're holding up public education as an reason we should adopt Obamacare?
You're joking, right?
-Eddie Haskell
Neil K
"Eddie Haskell" <fg...@eeaeae.com> wrote in message
news:4b142b2f$0$10874$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
====================================================================
I tried joking to you ..... the result ...... Wooooosssh
Everything is over YOUR head
Roy
> "Eddie Haskell" <f...@eeaeae.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b142b2f$0$10874$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Neil K" <spring...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:4b13decb$0$5336$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
>
> >> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>news:V8EQm.21711$cX4....@newsfe10.iad...
>
> >>> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:heuqb3$r6e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eddy is a grade three drop-out...take it easy on him.
==
Eddie Haskell
Didn't get it, huh?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Roy" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5a0183a-4b99-4997...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Damn, what a dumb thing to say.
-Eddie Haskell
Glenn Beck
Health outcomes often better in Canada than U.S.: review
The Canadian Press
The death and disease rates for patients in Canada are the same or lower than
those for people with similar diagnoses treated in the United States ? even
though per capita health-care spending is higher south of the border, a study
suggests.
The findings ? from Canadian and U.S. researchers who crunched data from 38
studies ? were published in the inaugural edition of Open Medicine. The online
medical journal launched Wednesday in the aftermath of a rift last year between
some editors and the publisher of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
'What it shows is that despite an enormous investment in money, we do not
see better health outcomes [in the U.S.]' ? Study author Dr. P.J. Devereaux
"In looking at patients in Canada with a specific diagnosis compared to
Americans with the same diagnosis, in Canada patients had at least as good an
outcome as their American counterparts ? and in many situations, a better
health outcome," said one of the 17 authors, Dr. P.J. Devereaux, a cardiologist
and clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.
"And that is important because in the United States, they're currently spending
a little over $7,100 per individual on health care annually, whereas in Canada
we're spending a little over $2,900 per individual annually," he said in a
telephone interview from Brantford, Ont.
The study covered data on patient populations in the United States and Canada
from 1955 to 2003. To conduct their meta-analysis, researchers identified
almost 5,000 titles and abstracts. Of these, 498 appeared potentially eligible
on initial review. Eventually, 38 studies were deemed to be eligible.
"Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant
five per cent mortality advantage [of survival] to people with diagnoses in
Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States," Devereaux said.
Canadian survival advantage
Devereaux said the Canadian public is barraged by people who argue that the
solution to problems in the health-care system is to move toward two-tiered
medicine and for-profit health-care delivery.
He said the researchers in the meta-study wanted to provide facts that can be
used to make decisions about the system, instead of the debate being steered by
beliefs and ideologies.
'The medicare system allows us enormous efficiencies in terms of cost-
saving relative to private insurance.'?Dr. P.J. Devereaux
Researchers began by asking the question: Are there differences in death and
disease rates in patients suffering from similar medical conditions treated in
Canada versus those treated in the United States?
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while five
favoured the United States. The other 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed
results in the two countries.
"What it [the study] shows is that despite an enormous investment in money, we
do not see better health outcomes [in the U.S.]," Devereaux said.
"And importantly, where our two systems do diverge is that America has a
mixture of private insurance in terms of the funding for health care whereas in
Canada we have medicare system for hospital and physician services.
"The medicare system allows us enormous efficiencies in terms of cost-saving
relative to private insurance."
Some explanations for the results include the fact that U.S. health care has
administrative inefficiencies that public funding ? without multiple competing
insurance companies ? eliminates. Canadians also save on prescription drug
