Actually, Romneycare has increased patient wait times to 1.5 months.

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you opt for no control?

Nothing more than currently exists. I'd rather have a system where professional judgment takes priority over innumerable regulations.

 

[ShawnD1]

Nothing more than currently exists. I'd rather have a system where professional judgment takes priority over innumerable regulations.

professional judgment: I know this retard is not sick at all, but I should probably order a bunch of random tests anyway just so he doesn't sue me.

There are a lot of problems that need some kind of fixing. Malpractice lawsuits is one of them. A doctor who doesn't want to get sued (again) will order every test known to man just so it covers all bases. If the patient has insurance, he does every test recommended, and your insurance (or taxes if it were government operated) go up to pay for this bullshit. Doctors need to be protected a lot better against malpractice lawsuits. The loser-pays rule of lawsuits would really help (if a lawsuit is retarded, the case is thrown out and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the legal fees of the defendant)

The malpractice lawsuit thing also lowers the overall quality of care if you're one of the people who can't afford to do every test. The doctor might have a vague guess at something, and he would like to do a simple test. Of course he can't just give you a simple test, so he recommends 10 test and the cost of doing all 10 would be insane, so you don't do any of the tests. It turns out his hunch was correct, they would have found out you had a brain tumor if they did that 1 test, but they won't find it because you just decided not to do any of the recommended tests.


Of course it's never as simple as just blaming 1 thing but this one particular topic seems so interesting. Malpractice lawsuits are generally not a problem in Canada, UK, France, etc. At least 95% can be attributed to different laws and whether or not it's even worth suing, the other 5% is magic. Here's an interesting summary about malpractice in Canada; compare this to the US and see how it differs:
some canadian lawyer's website

Are Canadian Medical Malpractice Claims Different Than in the United States? yes

In Canada, most doctors are defended by a single organization, the Canadian Medical Protection Association (the C.M.P.A.).

The C.M.P.A. settled only 229 claims out of court (usually after several years of litigation and just before trial).

Of the 577 cases that went to trial only 121 resulted in a verdict for the Plaintiff victim. In other words, only twenty percent (20%) of medical malpractice plaintiffs actually won their trial.

For the few victims who won at trial, the median damage award was only $95,500.

Of more than 5000 lawsuits filed against doctors, only two percent (2%) resulted in trial verdicts for the victim.

In other words, ninety eight percent (98%) of Canadian medical malpractice victims never receive a penny in compensation!

It's a whole mixture of things that make a different lawsuit environment.
-All doctors in the country are covered by the same insurance group, CMPA.
-CMPA fights almost every case. They very rarely settle out of court.
-Canada has the loser-pays rule. Ambulance chasers go bankrupt in a hurry after the court orders them to pay the defendant's legal fees if the lawsuit is obviously a scam.
-Lawsuit payouts in Canada are much much lower than the US, so lawyers are not as eager to sue doctors. I have seen commercials on US television channels saying you should sue someone, but that's an extremely rare thing to see on Canadian television.
-Suing a doctor in Canada is almost never worth the effort because the healthcare itself was free. You can't sue the doctor for half a million dollars because you would need to show that the doctor being an idiot actually cost you half a million dollars, which is extremely unlikely.



tldr conclusion: There is always room for improvement. Cutting down malpractice is a good start. Many other things could be improved by tightening or loosening various laws.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Sounds great. Unfortunately, progressive ideas only work with the armed might of government enforcing them for everyone.

Honestly, I wish proponents of universal coverage would give off pretending it's going to be cheaper and quicker and admit that it will be more expensive and slower, but is morally the right thing to do. Then we could have intelligent debates about things like how to empower people below the lofty rank of doctor - with the understanding that some few people will die for an RN not picking up some obscure symptom that a doctor would more likely catch. Or how to determine the best and proper number of each level of health care provider, and how to reach those numbers, without driving the best and brightest out of medicine.

Well single payer can be and is cheaper in other places because they simply ration care. But I agree with your general point that the left is intellectually dishonest on the healthcare issue. I also agree that among the limited number of options for reducing healthcare costs having physicians assistants or nurses take on more responsibility is not a bad choice.

 

[PokerGuy]

So your solution for wait times due to the physicial shortage caused by the AMA is for some people to not get healthcare?

Isn't that called rationing?

You say the shortage is caused by the AMA, it's actually caused by systemic disincentives to becoming a GP. Why would you become a GP when you can make so much more money becoming some sort of specialist?

Simple logic dictates that you MUST address issues such as a supply-side shortage of doctors BEFORE you take actions that will dramatically increase demand, or you'll end up with a situation where demand far outstrips supply, with all the problems associated (bad care, lengthy delays, high costs).

Funny how the lefties rage on, but in this thread have actually admitted what they lied about when they were busy shoving the crappy health care bill down our collective throats: we will all be forced to accept longer delays, less access to doctors, higher overall costs, and a lower level of overall care in order to add coverage for a small group. That's the trade-off.

MA is a little microcosm of what we can expect for the US as a whole, whether anyone will admit it or not. Skyrocketing costs, long delays, less healthcare, crappy access to doctors, even longer ER wait times, that's what everyone is going to get.

 

[PokerGuy]

Malpractice lawsuits are generally not a problem in Canada, UK, France, etc.

Sure, that's one side of the coin, and the other side of the coin is that people wronged by doctors and negligence in those countries pretty much have no recourse and are generally just SOL.

It's a very fine balance, trying to make sure you protect patients and allow them recourse if they are harmed, but at the same time protecting doctors and preventing stupid suits over just about anything.

Reform is definitely needed, the lawsuit jackpot mentality in the US has to be stopped.

 

[Vette73]

You say the shortage is caused by the AMA, it's actually caused by systemic disincentives to becoming a GP. Why would you become a GP when you can make so much more money becoming some sort of specialist?

Simple logic dictates that you MUST address issues such as a supply-side shortage of doctors BEFORE you take actions that will dramatically increase demand, or you'll end up with a situation where demand far outstrips supply, with all the problems associated (bad care, lengthy delays, high costs).

Funny how the lefties rage on, but in this thread have actually admitted what they lied about when they were busy shoving the crappy health care bill down our collective throats: we will all be forced to accept longer delays, less access to doctors, higher overall costs, and a lower level of overall care in order to add coverage for a small group. That's the trade-off.

MA is a little microcosm of what we can expect for the US as a whole, whether anyone will admit it or not. Skyrocketing costs, long delays, less healthcare, crappy access to doctors, even longer ER wait times, that's what everyone is going to get.

If that were the case then there would be to many specilist.

As already said there is no shortage of people that want to become doctors. But there is a shortage of schools to train new doctors. Take a guess who controls that number.

 

[PokerGuy]

If that were the case then there would be to many specilist.

There are. The ratio of specialists to GP's is higher than it's ever been. Don't have a link for you right now, I'll see if I can find it again.

As already said there is no shortage of people that want to become doctors. But there is a shortage of schools to train new doctors. Take a guess who controls that number.

That may or may not be true (I don't know), but that doesn't change the point: no matter what the source of the supply side problems (AMA, schools, incentives, lawsuits, whatever), the issue needs to be addressed BEFORE dramatically increasing the demand side. In MA they didn't do the former, but did the latter, and <shocker> we're seeing the results.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If that were the case then there would be to many specilist.

As already said there is no shortage of people that want to become doctors. But there is a shortage of schools to train new doctors. Take a guess who controls that number.

Of course there are. Submarine captains and astronauts. Hell we could use more of those SEAL guys. Damn, right there is the solution to terrorism. Let's have all the military be those. Then we could use people like Einstein. Yeah, a bunch of them would be great.

Well maybe that was a little harsh, but I think you've hit on something. Medical schools are clearly evil so in your healthcare system you can create your own more compliant educational system. You can then guarantee a starting salary of 20 bucks per hour. That's cheap. You order your schools to graduate thousands. That's plentiful.

Put it together and you have fast and cheap medicine, and I guarantee you can have as many doctors as you want. Of course you will have to alter standards, but it's cheap and there would be a lot of it.

Go for it, but don't ask those who opt out to change or pay for your plan. In return well let you run your program without interference.

Couldn't be fairer.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

That's the whole point: the US as a whole also has a physician shortage now. Imagine how wonderful that will be when you add millions of new patients without doing anything to increase the supply of doctors. Yep, you guessed it, you get extremely long wait times, more people going to urgent care and the ER for things that don't currently require urgent or ER care because it's the only way they'll be able to see a doctor. In other words, you get exactly what we've seen in MA.

It will also be a lot more expensive, and the care will be of a lower standard because the doctors will be overworked. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Thanks once again dims for your dose of stupidity.

On a related note, if we kill all the poor people, well eliminate poverty!

 

[IBMer]

I haven't seen a specific breakdown for MA, but I know from personal experience with a close family friend from NZ who was in Canada that he ended up having to wait 6 weeks before they could even see him to evaluate the cancer. He came here to the US, paid his own way and according to his doctor had he waited 6 weeks he would have had a much smaller chance at successful recovery. He's in remission now.

This is bullshit. There is a guy on these boards who got in for his cancer immediately and started treatment. Why do people keep bringing up anecdotal evidence as the norm.

 

[Vette73]

Of course there are. Submarine captains and astronauts. Hell we could use more of those SEAL guys. Damn, right there is the solution to terrorism. Let's have all the military be those. Then we could use people like Einstein. Yeah, a bunch of them would be great.

Well maybe that was a little harsh, but I think you've hit on something. Medical schools are clearly evil so in your healthcare system you can create your own more compliant educational system. You can then guarantee a starting salary of 20 bucks per hour. That's cheap. You order your schools to graduate thousands. That's plentiful.

Put it together and you have fast and cheap medicine, and I guarantee you can have as many doctors as you want. Of course you will have to alter standards, but it's cheap and there would be a lot of it.

Go for it, but don't ask those who opt out to change or pay for your plan. In return well let you run your program without interference.

Couldn't be fairer.

Where did I say Medical schools are evil? Oh yea you just making BS up to fit your little minded view.

But hey, if we have more people that can’t hack school and become medical doctors, they can always fall back and become pharmacists. Thats one way over paid group.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Where did I say Medical schools are evil? Oh yea you just making BS up to fit your little minded view.

But hey, if we have more people that can’t hack school and become medical doctors, they can always fall back and become pharmacists. Thats one way over paid group.

I think you should have your own completely separate educational systems and resources. I want you to have what you are asking for, very much so.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Nothing more than currently exists. I'd rather have a system where professional judgment takes priority over innumerable regulations.

Professional judgement?? Like being told there is nothing wrong with you and being accused of being a hypochondriac, only to find out two months later you have leukemia. Btw, this happened to my (now deceased) wife in 2003.

Doctors don't spend enough time with patients to make an educated decision. This thread is essentially about a shortage of doctors, that is where the emphasis should be.

 

[ShawnD1]

You say the shortage is caused by the AMA, it's actually caused by systemic disincentives to becoming a GP. Why would you become a GP when you can make so much more money becoming some sort of specialist?

Hey man, don't knock specialists. Having lots of specialists is a good thing.

Up in Canada, GPs are a dime a dozen but specialists are in short supply. If you want to see a doctor for some general thing, you go to any walk in clinic and wait an hour. If you want to see a doctor who specializes in foot surgery, holy shit, try like 6 months to a year wait. What sucks is that those special procedures are usually more important too. Having a doctor put his fist in your ass to check your prostate is nowhere near as important as having hip surgery or stomach surgery that allows you to work or not die.

Sure, that's one side of the coin, and the other side of the coin is that people wronged by doctors and negligence in those countries pretty much have no recourse and are generally just SOL.

In places like Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc doctors are just regular professionals and they follow the same rules as any other profession. If your house builder does a shitty job and the house foundation is cracked, they fix the foundation or you sue them for the cost of fixing the foundation. That's generally how lawsuits are supposed to work - you sue for money that is rightfully yours.
In the US, healthcare plays by totally different rules. If a doctor incorrectly diagnoses something, the patient sues for hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of just suing for the cost of a refund.

Can you imagine how bad everything would suck if every profession had to deal with shit like that? You take your car to the mechanic because the brakes feel weird and the car shudders when stopping. The experienced mechanic looks at it and thinks the problem is caused by a malfunctioning hydraulic thing, and he recommends you do that repair. You authorize him to do the repair. He does it and the car still shudders when stopping; he diagnosed it incorrectly. You then sue him for 20 million dollars instead of suing for a refund.

 

[werepossum]

So your solution for wait times due to the physicial shortage caused by the AMA is for some people to not get healthcare?

Isn't that called rationing?

Everything that is valuable and costs time or treasure to provide is inherently rationed. That is simply a fact of life, there can never be enough of everything for everyone to have all he wants. The question is how it is rationed. Clearly the most fair way to ration anything is for each of us to earn our own money, allocate our own resources, and pay for our own health care, buying insurance to cover us against very high charges. Arguably this is not the most moral way, or the most useful to society, as some people will be too stupid, too useless to society, or simply too unlucky to pay for the health care they need. So as both a moral and a societal issue, one can make a strong case for universal health care access. My own preference would be for the federal government to mandate that each state implement plans for 100% coverage, whether that be Romneycare, or Hilarycare, or subsidized insurance pools, or whatever. However, this concept that turning it over to the federal government is going to make our health care system cheaper, better, and available to more is simply asinine. There's a reason that Medigap insurance policies prosper and Blue Cross-gap policies don't exist. There's a reason that the wealthiest people come to the USA for medical care. There's a reason that most new drugs come from American companies. Right now doctors and medical researchers are trained from our best and brightest, and personally I do not trust the federal government to not end that in the attempt to protect the lazy, the lame and the luckless from their lot.

 

[werepossum]

Hey man, don't knock specialists. Having lots of specialists is a good thing.

Up in Canada, GPs are a dime a dozen but specialists are in short supply. If you want to see a doctor for some general thing, you go to any walk in clinic and wait an hour. If you want to see a doctor who specializes in foot surgery, holy shit, try like 6 months to a year wait. What sucks is that those special procedures are usually more important too. Having a doctor put his fist in your ass to check your prostate is nowhere near as important as having hip surgery or stomach surgery that allows you to work or not die.



In places like Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc doctors are just regular professionals and they follow the same rules as any other profession. If your house builder does a shitty job and the house foundation is cracked, they fix the foundation or you sue them for the cost of fixing the foundation. That's generally how lawsuits are supposed to work - you sue for money that is rightfully yours.
In the US, healthcare plays by totally different rules. If a doctor incorrectly diagnoses something, the patient sues for hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of just suing for the cost of a refund.

Can you imagine how bad everything would suck if every profession had to deal with shit like that? You take your car to the mechanic because the brakes feel weird and the car shudders when stopping. The experienced mechanic looks at it and thinks the problem is caused by a malfunctioning hydraulic thing, and he recommends you do that repair. You authorize him to do the repair. He does it and the car still shudders when stopping; he diagnosed it incorrectly. You then sue him for 20 million dollars instead of suing for a refund.

Very good points.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Professional judgement?? Like being told there is nothing wrong with you and being accused of being a hypochondriac, only to find out two months later you have leukemia. Btw, this happened to my (now deceased) wife in 2003.

Doctors don't spend enough time with patients to make an educated decision. This thread is essentially about a shortage of doctors, that is where the emphasis should be.

I'm sorry for your loss, but there are many who have no concept of health care whatsoever who have the solution. They can't even define issues properly. It took a personal tragedy for you to gain an insight. The others? Well I believe people ought to get what they deserve. They know just what the problems are and how to fix them without the slightest clue. They certainly should get what's coming to them.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Hey man, don't knock specialists. Having lots of specialists is a good thing.

Up in Canada, GPs are a dime a dozen but specialists are in short supply. If you want to see a doctor for some general thing, you go to any walk in clinic and wait an hour. If you want to see a doctor who specializes in foot surgery, holy shit, try like 6 months to a year wait. What sucks is that those special procedures are usually more important too. Having a doctor put his fist in your ass to check your prostate is nowhere near as important as having hip surgery or stomach surgery that allows you to work or not die.



In places like Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc doctors are just regular professionals and they follow the same rules as any other profession. If your house builder does a shitty job and the house foundation is cracked, they fix the foundation or you sue them for the cost of fixing the foundation. That's generally how lawsuits are supposed to work - you sue for money that is rightfully yours.
In the US, healthcare plays by totally different rules. If a doctor incorrectly diagnoses something, the patient sues for hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of just suing for the cost of a refund.

Can you imagine how bad everything would suck if every profession had to deal with shit like that? You take your car to the mechanic because the brakes feel weird and the car shudders when stopping. The experienced mechanic looks at it and thinks the problem is caused by a malfunctioning hydraulic thing, and he recommends you do that repair. You authorize him to do the repair. He does it and the car still shudders when stopping; he diagnosed it incorrectly. You then sue him for 20 million dollars instead of suing for a refund.

Wow lots of right wing fear mongering, very little fact in your post. This is all easily refuted by a quick google search.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2010002/article/11144/findings-resultats-eng.htm

Nearly half (46%) of the patients had waited less than a month for their initial specialist consultation (Table 2). Anadditional 40% waited one to three months, and 14% waited more than three months. The percentage who saw the specialist within a month varied from 37% in Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba to 51% in Quebec. Just under half (49%) of those who required a consultation for a new mental health condition waited less than a month.

The length of the wait depended on the nature of the new condition. Not surprisingly, patients with potentially life-threatening illnesses were the most likely to have seen a specialist within a month. Almost 60% of those with a heart condition/stroke or cancer waited less than a month for their initial consultation, compared with 29% of those with arthritis/rheumatism (Table 3). Just under half (49%) of those who required a consultation for a new mental health condition waited less than a month.

86% of specialist referrals received their appointments in 1-3 months. Nearly half in under one month and that number goes up in relation to more serious conditions.

But fear away.

 

[ShawnD1]

Wow lots of right wing fear mongering, very little fact in your post. This is all easily refuted by a quick google search.

I googled for "canada wait for hip replacement" and this is the first result:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2384274/

2007 Canadian Medical Association

Results
The median wait from surgical consultation to decision to operate was 0 months. There was no difference between age, sex or occupation. The median wait from decision to operate to the date of surgery was 6 months and did not differ by age, sex or occupation. However, subjects with more severe symptoms (WOMAC) underwent surgery earlier than did those with less severe disease.

My mom was on disability for about 6 months because she couldn't effectively move around with a bone growth in her foot. Apparently her experience is average, not a rare case.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I googled for "canada wait for hip replacement" and this is the first result:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2384274/

My mom was on disability for about 6 months because she couldn't effectively move around with a bone growth in her foot. Apparently her experience is average, not a rare case.

Perhaps for that one procedure. That can't be expanded to cover all specialist surgical procedures in Canada. The same Health Canada report I posted showed that average surgical wait times were four weeks with 82.2% having their procedures done in less than 3 months. So the average experience as you put it when looking at the entire spectrum is significantly less time.

I am always amazed when I see Americans telling how bad the Canadian system is. Yet poll after poll consistently show that over 90% of Canadians reject the idea of an American styled system. You would be hard pressed to find where over 90 percent of a population agree on anything. There aren't that many who believe Obama was born in Hawaii or that bin Laden was killed Monday.

 

[ShawnD1]

A few google results lower down explains more of the problems orthopedic surgeons (foot doctors) face.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC490059/

2004 Canadian Medical Association

A national shortage of at least 400 orthopedic surgeons is compounded by greater demand from an aging population and a “critical” lack of orthopedic resources, such as operating room time, that is steadily worsening, concludes a Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) study.
The national median waiting time from referral to treatment by an orthopedic surgeon increased 65% between 1993 and 2003, from 19.5 weeks to 32.2 weeks.
According to the report, Canada is nearly last among Western nations in terms of the number of orthopedic surgeons per population (3.1 per 100 000). In 2002, there were 1126 orthopedic surgeons practising in Canada. Each year, about 45 new orthopedic surgeons graduate and another 9 immigrate. However, an average of 28 orthopedic surgeons leave Canada, often due to a lack of access for their patients. In addition, about 35 reach retirement age each year. The end result is a net decrease of 9 orthopedic surgeons annually.
..
Restricted operating-room time means less than half of Canada's practicing orthopedic surgeons work at full capacity.

So hardcore rationing in Canada is caused by a lot of things
-number of surgeons is decreasing
-population that needs surgeons is increasing
-lack of operating room time
-lack of hospital bed space
-lack of government funding to fix the above problems
-lack of private funding because retards in some parts of canada fight so hard against two tier healthcare (two tier means government and private care are both available and you can pick which one you want)

 

[ShawnD1]

Perhaps for that one procedure. That can't be expanded to cover all specialist surgical procedures in Canada. The same Health Canada report I posted showed that average surgical wait times were four weeks with 82.2% having their procedures done in less than 3 months.

No, that is not what your post said. This is the exact quote you posted:

Nearly half (46%) of the patients had waited less than a month for their initial specialist consultation (Table 2). Anadditional 40% waited one to three months, and 14% waited more than three months.

CONSULTATION. The patient talked to their family doctor, the doctor gave them a referral to a specialist, and that consultation with the specialist took less than 3 months. So it took less than 3 months to talk to the surgeon who agreed that surgery is required. Now you go on the waiting list and wait anywhere from 3 months to a year to get the actual surgery. If you need "elective" surgery like a hip replacement that allows you to work or take care of your kids, the time from seeing your family doctor to getting the actual surgery could easily take a year.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No, that is not what your post said. This is the exact quote you posted:

CONSULTATION. The patient talked to their family doctor, the doctor gave them a referral to a specialist, and that consultation with the specialist took less than 3 months. So it took less than 3 months to talk to the surgeon who agreed that surgery is required. Now you go on the waiting list and wait anywhere from 3 months to a year to get the actual surgery. If you need "elective" surgery like a hip replacement that allows you to work or take care of your kids, the time from seeing your family doctor to getting the actual surgery could easily take a year.

Yes i posted percentages for specific time frames but I'll take it further. The average wait for a specialist was just over 4 weeks. The same for surgery. Thus a total of 8 weeks (let's say 9 given both were just over). So two months. Referral to surgery completed. The kicker? Every damn Canadian has access to it without fear of cost, denial of coverage or bankruptcy.

 

[fskimospy]

As a Canadian who has had several friends and family members require varying levels of medical attention due to cancer matters in te last 5 years, some terminal, I have yet to have one suffer any kind of delay. My own cancer scare was addressed tested and resolved in a matter of a two weeks.

Guess how many of them went bankrupt due to their treatments or had to worry if they could afford to be treated at all? The fact remains preventable deaths are highest in the US due to the lack of access and affordability of everything from treatment right down to medications for chronic conditions.

People frequently see wait times for elective procedures in Canada and other countries with socialized medicine and think that they are wait times that apply across the board.

You would think that these people who oppose socialized medicine would stop, do a gut check on that, and ask themselves 'would people really stand for a health care system where the average wait to be treated for cancer was months and months?'

I've said it many times. Imagine if we currently had a socialized system and all other countries had private health care systems. If you took the exact disparity in % of GDP spent and health care outcomes that exists today, but instead gave the advantage to private systems as opposed to public ones, these guys would be climbing all over each other praising the efficiency of the free market, how much better it was, etc, and would be insisting that these numbers required action. Since it's in fact socialized systems that kick ass, they must vehemently oppose it till the end.

They aren't opposed to it because it's less effective, because the evidence shows that socialized medicine is vastly more efficient for similar outcomes. They are against it because it means admitting that their ideology might be wrong on this one. It would be funny if it weren't killing and bankrupting people.

 

[fskimospy]

While the health care debate is a very complicated one, if you need to break it down into two things it should be this:
1.: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1 This study compared health outcomes in the US and Canada. It generally found the differences in outcomes to be small, with the overall edge to Canada by a small amount. Most of the areas they studied did not have significant differences between the two. (If you don't like this study, there are plenty more that have broadly similar conclusions)

2.: Canada spends approximately 10&#37; of its GDP on health care. The US spends about 15% of its GDP on health care. We spend 150% of what they do, and our outcomes are between equivalent and worse.

Their system protects the health of their population to generally the same extent as ours does, for about 40% less money. Socialized medicine wins.... again. (and again, and again, and again.) It has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with reality.