O Canada!

I felt that the interview with Ms. Holmes, as well as the other related clips recommended on the site, were quite revealing.  While in the past I have heard that national health systems had their problems, this was the first time I had heard such vehement opposition.  Granted, just as Michael Moore cherry-picked people’s stories to reinforce his argument, I imagine BigGovHealth.org did the same for theirs.  As is generally the case, I’m sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

 I did think the videos were beneficial in highlighting some of the main problems that can occur with nationalized health care systems such as long wait times or simply unavailable procedures.  I was particularly struck by the older gentleman with macular degeneration in one eye that was told he would have to wait for the problem to occur in his other eye before he could seek treatment.  Ms. Holmes case was intriguing because of her use of both the U.S. and Canadian systems to resolve her condition.  It would be easy to assume that there is simply a trade-off between quantity over quality (Canada) and quality over quantity (U.S.).  However, then one has to take other socialized health care schemes into consideration, as Alia mentioned, France and Japan, which are not so easily lumped with Canada.  Though these two countries seem to face their own major issues, primarily massive deficits.  I am by no means an economist, but all of this makes me wonder:  is it actually possible to provide truly universal coverage in a timely manner without running up huge budget deficits?  The more I learn, the more I feel the answer is no and that there are only different degrees on the quality versus quantity argument.  Attempt to cover everyone and you run the risk of effectively disenfranchising people through wait times or bankrupting the system.  Yet endeavor to provide quick, efficient, and all-inclusive procedures and you exclude a huge portion of the population.  The U.S. aside (because it aggravates my argument since the U.S. excludes many AND is neither particularly quick nor efficient), perhaps it is up to each individual society to decide through their particular values/identities/cohesiveness, which system performs best?

 To actually answer the question posed, I think we play into the consumer idea because that is what our society is based upon.  Consumerism is our modus operandi, so why would we treat healthcare any differently?  I think it would not be wise for either country to adopt the other’s healthcare system, as there are far better examples out there to emulate.