Canada. Theirs. ONE read-through before you post would suffice, Josh.

We are Canada's mexico, Wisconson is the upper penninsula's Mexico

The linked editorial gives no clue as to how the plan works. If the proponent can't explain it, how can we support it?

And it's sad to see our legislators distancing themselves from Canada or any type of national health care plan.

We need to be more honest and direct and say national health care basically works in all the countires that have it. That they also pay far less for health care than we do -- and have better outcomes.

You hear a lot of talk about unfair trade, too, and losing jobs to trade.

But the biggest subsidy other industrialized nations give to the companies our companies are competing with is other countries' nationalized health care.

We're not going to make them stop. So, until we have national health care, we are saddling our businesses with a huge cost their competitors don't carry.

This is like a plan to destroy jobs and our economy, cause shorter lifespans and less health, make us pay more for health care, and enrich insurance companies.

@3 I've talked to people from Canada and they don't like their health plan so much as it takes forever to see a doctor. It's to the point that those who can afford it (which is much easier now with our weak dollar) fly down to the states to have any expensive surgery done.

I don't have a problem with modeling our system on one from another country, but I don't think Canada's the right one. I've heard that France has a very good system, but I'm sure it won't be long before someone comes along to prove otherwise.

Isn't Washington state kinda close to Canada?

Shouldn't this read, as a matter of style, "Sen. Mike Carrell (R-Lakewood)" to give some meaning to his location, rather than just the district?

@5: Well, yes.

But we certainly don't share a border with Wisconsin!

The plural of anecdote is not data.

That said, here's mine: US citizen, recently moved to Vancouver to attend UBC. Getting in to see a doctor was fast and easy. Getting in to see a specialist for a non-urgent condition that was being adequately treated with drugs took several weeks, and getting an appointment for gastroscopy is taking forever. For comparison, a friend had kidney stones and was in an MRI the next day.

For $45/month, I can accept the trade off for non-urgent care. Particularly if I think about all the people whose option wouldn't be slightly better medical care, it would be none at all.

If the American right wing hates Canada they must be doing something right up there. I have lived in the States for most of my adult life but I am still proud of my (ex)home and native land.

Both the US and Canada ration health care, but Canada does it much more intelligently than we do.

Among the first world nations, We are at the bottom of the heap for everything but arrogance. We rely on sound bytes and heresay and internet emails to form our opinions. How did we get so stupid so quick?

@10 the two-party system, or high fructose corn syrup I can't decide which

Imagine just for a second that we had the Canadian system but funded it at the level we currently spend on health care (i.e., all the money we spend went to doctors instead of to pharmaceutical advertising and insurance companies)--probably about twice what the Canadians spend. Don't think there'd be a lot of waiting under that system.

@4 "It's to the point that those who can afford it (which is much easier now with our weak dollar) fly down to the states to have any expensive surgery done."

Batcrap. Urban legend spread by big health and the insurance companies.

I've both worked and traveled extensively in Canada. I've rarely met an actual live Canadian who complains about their system. The overwhelming majority react in shock and horror at ours.

@13

Exactly. Living in Canada, talking to Canadians, they have some complaints about their health care. They wish Harper would take more action on it. Some more funding, some more work with the provinces on reducing wait times.

They see their system as requiring tweaks. They see the US system as a freakish Social Darwinian experiment that should have ended in the 30's along with forced sterilization.

As an exercise, find Canada and the United States this chart of medically preventable deaths per 100,000:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_img/Nolte_ITL_Chart2.gif

I also hear a lot about consumer choice and how "socialized medicine" limits that choice.

What kind of choice does someone have when you can't afford any of the options?

Donolectic @ 15

I also hear a lot about consumer choice and how "socialized medicine" limits that choice.

What kind of choice does someone have when you can't afford any of the options?

Plus there's the fact that we really don't have consumer choice in the US. Most of us who are fortunate enough to have health care have it through our employers, our only "choice" is from a variety of plans with different provider networks and co-pays. And if my employer decides to save money and change health care plans to an insurance company that sucks I can't do a damned thing about it other than find another job.