Future of EM IF universal healthcare took place?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

WiscDoc

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
280
Reaction score
0
Curious to hear the thoughts of those in EM or aspiring to go into EM. On the one hand, less people will use ER's as their primary care center since they now have insurance (less volume = less pay maybe?), but on the other hand those that do come will have insurance (more reimbursment?). How will the long waiting times to see a primary care doc/any doc come into play? Will more people go to the ER? Will the government pay for all these visits? I know UHC might NEVER take place or might be in the FAR future, but then again those of us in school now, we won't be practicing anytime soon. Thoughts?

Thanks.
 
It would be interesting to hear from some of our Canadian colleagues in this respect.

There are some salary survey sites that would give us some input:

http://www.payscale.com/research/ca/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_/_Doctors/Salary

Per this site the MEDIAN salary for a Canadian EP is about $104,000 CD. Essentially half of what we make on average now.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not willing to take a 50% pay cut to fulfill some socialist ideal.
 
Keep in mind that Canada is a single payor system.

Neither of the 3 democratic candidates are promoting this system in the US. Hiliary's plan merely mandates coverage, which I believe, is just that a mandate. I think this puts a considerable onus on employers. Its more complicated than that, but it is certainly NOT a single payor system.

So, I don't think you can look to Canada for what future salaries will look like.
 
Teachers strike, bus drivers strike, coal miners stroke, auto workers strike, writers strike, professional ball players strike.... what would happen to America if all doctors went on strike for a week?


That would teach 'em.


Of course, there would be billions of dollars worth of lawsuits all over the nation.....
 
In the UK there is no want for patients. Because it's free and society is moving to instant gratification you will always have a ED full of patients. Over there if you call for an urgent appoint with you primary doc they have 24 hours to fit you in. If the patient doesn't want to wait they go the the A&E (ED) where they can be seen within four hours. No copay, no out of pocket money; big strain of the system.
 
Edwards is proposing that Medicare cover everyone and that taxes be raised to pay for it. However, he's the only major candidate proposing a single-payer style system. All of the other candidates (both Republican and Democratic proposals are very similar) are proposing universal coverage that uses private health insurers. That's good for doctors because the government won't be in a position to dictate prices. It also means that every patient walking through the door will be covered, so reimbursements should increase.

Even in the event of a single-payer system developing in the US, I would predict a fracturing of the system into a public system for the poor and a private system for the wealthy. Obviously, the docs working in the private system would make more. You can debate whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would happen.
 
Keep in mind that Canada is a single payor system.

Neither of the 3 democratic candidates are promoting this system in the US. Hiliary's plan merely mandates coverage, which I believe, is just that a mandate. I think this puts a considerable onus on employers. Its more complicated than that, but it is certainly NOT a single payor system.

So, I don't think you can look to Canada for what future salaries will look like.
None of the candidates are supporting a single payer system, but there is such a system that has been proposed in the House of Representatives this year. Check out HR676.

HR676 would establish a single payer system, make all healthcare organizations that wish to participate declare themselves as non-profit organizations, eliminate insurance companies, and provide "free" (well, taxes pay for) healthcare. It would amount to a 2-4% income tax with the rest coming from pre-existing Medicare taxes and payroll taxes. Businesses would also have to contribute more. Medicare would be eliminated.
 
It depends entirely on how the system is set up. If there is no co-pay for ER visits that don't result in admission, people have an incentive to go to the ER. If people have coverage for primary care but no primary care provider is available, they have incentive to go to the ER.
 
National healthcare is bad...

thanks..
Fetus
 
Speaking of HB676, I didn't know anything about it so I googled it. This is from Rep Conyer's web site (the sponsor):

"Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement
The USNHI program will negotiate reimbursement rates annually with physicians, allow for Aglobal budgets @ (monthly lump sums for operating expenses) for hospitals, and negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment. A “Medicare For All Trust Fund” will be established to ensure a dedicated stream of funding. An annual appropriation is also authorized to ensure optimal levels of funding for the program"


I like that. "Negotiate" reimbursement rates with physicians. Sort of like how Medicare currently 'negotiates". Doesn't bode well.

"Proposed Funding For USNHI Program
Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
Close corporate tax loopholes
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners"

Sounds like, in addition to repealing Bush's tax cuts, he'll be adding between a 5 and 10% income tax. According to his site, the top 5% of earners make $184K and the top 1% earn $280K. If this includes taxable benefits, that would increase almost all doctors' taxes by 5% and many by 10%.

Oh, BTW, he'd outlaw private insurance.

While there are 88 cosponsors in the House, it appears the bill is going nowhere. It looks like it is being referred, in a hot-potato-step-wise fashion, to every subcommittee in the House. If my experience in the Texas congress is any indictation, this is a great way to say you're for something and, at the same time, ensure it doesn't get enacted. My guess is it will die a slow death after being ignored. In an election year with none of the presidential candidates supporting it, it ain't gonna happen.

If anyone's interested, here are the links:

Conyer's site on the bill: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

Library of Congress Bill Summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00676:

Take care,
Jeff
 
It depends entirely on how the system is set up. If there is no co-pay for ER visits that don't result in admission, people have an incentive to go to the ER. If people have coverage for primary care but no primary care provider is available, they have incentive to go to the ER.

No government would ever mandate co-pays for ED visits. The rationale I've heard over and over is that if you told a poor person they had to pay $5 to go to the ED, then they would not go. If they have an actual emergency it could result in a potential bad outcome.

The key is to expand primary care and make it easier to get into see a PCP. The government should expand medicaid payments for PCP visits. I'd even make them on par with Medicare to encourage more primary care docs to take on these patients.
 
None of the candidates are supporting a single payer system, but there is such a system that has been proposed in the House of Representatives this year. Check out HR676.

HR676 would establish a single payer system, make all healthcare organizations that wish to participate declare themselves as non-profit organizations, eliminate insurance companies, and provide "free" (well, taxes pay for) healthcare. It would amount to a 2-4% income tax with the rest coming from pre-existing Medicare taxes and payroll taxes. Businesses would also have to contribute more. Medicare would be eliminated.

I would place the odds of that passing (considering all the lobbyist money in those industries) at 1 : 1,000,000
 
Conyers is a socialist *****. Wow what an idea? Raise taxes.. uhh yeah ill pass. They can come and pay my loans.

Speaking of HB676, I didn't know anything about it so I googled it. This is from Rep Conyer's web site (the sponsor):

"Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement
The USNHI program will negotiate reimbursement rates annually with physicians, allow for Aglobal budgets @ (monthly lump sums for operating expenses) for hospitals, and negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment. A “Medicare For All Trust Fund” will be established to ensure a dedicated stream of funding. An annual appropriation is also authorized to ensure optimal levels of funding for the program"


I like that. "Negotiate" reimbursement rates with physicians. Sort of like how Medicare currently 'negotiates". Doesn't bode well.

"Proposed Funding For USNHI Program
Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
Close corporate tax loopholes
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners"

Sounds like, in addition to repealing Bush's tax cuts, he'll be adding between a 5 and 10% income tax. According to his site, the top 5% of earners make $184K and the top 1% earn $280K. If this includes taxable benefits, that would increase almost all doctors' taxes by 5% and many by 10%.

Oh, BTW, he'd outlaw private insurance.

While there are 88 cosponsors in the House, it appears the bill is going nowhere. It looks like it is being referred, in a hot-potato-step-wise fashion, to every subcommittee in the House. If my experience in the Texas congress is any indictation, this is a great way to say you're for something and, at the same time, ensure it doesn't get enacted. My guess is it will die a slow death after being ignored. In an election year with none of the presidential candidates supporting it, it ain't gonna happen.

If anyone's interested, here are the links:

Conyer's site on the bill: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

Library of Congress Bill Summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00676:

Take care,
Jeff
 
I would place the odds of that passing (considering all the lobbyist money in those industries) at 1 : 1,000,000
This year, yes. I don't think we're near a socialized health or single payer health system anytime soon. I think we're probably ten years away from it. John Q. Public isn't ready for it yet.

Regarding physician salaries, I cannot comment on salaries in Canada, but current GP salaries in the UK are £110,000/year. That's a little less than US$220,000/year.

I give it another ten years and the bill will be ready to pass.
 
This year, yes. I don't think we're near a socialized health or single payer health system anytime soon. I think we're probably ten years away from it. John Q. Public isn't ready for it yet.

Regarding physician salaries, I cannot comment on salaries in Canada, but current GP salaries in the UK are £110,000/year. That's a little less than US$220,000/year.

I give it another ten years and the bill will be ready to pass.

I still don't think it would ever happen. Too many rich suits in the big time insurance and pharma companies and too many politicians with their hands in their pockets. It will take more than John Q Public changing his sentiment about it (which, to a degree, is already happening). The whole damn system will have to be overhauled and entire industries will have to go under/take a significant hit.

"Universal" coverage, on the hand IS a real possibility and could only mean good things for you guys (EM physicians / Med studs going into EM), IMHO.
 
It depends entirely on how the system is set up. If there is no co-pay for ER visits that don't result in admission, people have an incentive to go to the ER. If people have coverage for primary care but no primary care provider is available, they have incentive to go to the ER.

I agree...in essence this is the old debate about providing not only health coverage, but also access to healthcare.
 
If we succumb to socialized health care it will be "managed" like HMOs are now. They won't let people just go to the ED for whatever they want. EDs will triage people away to primary care clinics. Payor mix will be 100% but the volume will drop significantly. I expect that the overall effect would be about a wash but I'm sure we'll take a 50% pay cut because the system will have to cut across the board to be even temporarily viable.
 
If we succumb to socialized health care it will be "managed" like HMOs are now. They won't let people just go to the ED for whatever they want. EDs will triage people away to primary care clinics. Payor mix will be 100% but the volume will drop significantly. I expect that the overall effect would be about a wash but I'm sure we'll take a 50% pay cut because the system will have to cut across the board to be even temporarily viable.

I don't get it. If everybody has insurance, including people who didn't have insurance before buying from a private company at a government negotiated rate (and the people who did have insurance just keeping theirs), wouldn't it be like all EDs suddenly having a great payor mix as Goose suggests? 😕 Unless PCPs suddenly became more available, it still wouldn't keep most people out of the ED. According to the stuff I have read, only 10% or so of visits to the ED are due to lack of insurance.
 
Given that there is inevitably a change on the horizon (although it what way is anybody's guess), is there anyway that we come out of this on the winning end? Or, is it inevitable that physician income is one of the expendable aspects of any plan?

Our bargaining power is pretty poor in this whole debate. I mean, how can you negotiate anything when everybody knows you will work for whatever they pay you because you are legally obligated. As already pointed out, we can not strike. I wonder if we could just all retire for a week...I would think that would absolve us of any wrong doing.

Another quetion- how badly would a drop in physician salaries change the landscape of American medicine? Lets face it, with 100,000 or greater in school loans and some pretty painful delayed gratification, if we are not getting compensated there would have to be some type of mass exodus. Granted, most of us young physicians are slaves to the loan holder and will work for pennies on the dollar to pay back our loans, unless you have a plan B.
 
Another quetion- how badly would a drop in physician salaries change the landscape of American medicine? Lets face it, with 100,000 or greater in school loans and some pretty painful delayed gratification, if we are not getting compensated there would have to be some type of mass exodus. Granted, most of us young physicians are slaves to the loan holder and will work for pennies on the dollar to pay back our loans, unless you have a plan B.

One only has to look to Canada for the answer. They're having a hard time keeping Canadian-trained doctors in the country, so are forced to import doctors from India, Pakistan, and many other countries. These doctors are a mix between excellent and dubious in terms of their training and ability.
 
One only has to look to Canada for the answer. They're having a hard time keeping Canadian-trained doctors in the country, so are forced to import doctors from India, Pakistan, and many other countries. These doctors are a mix between excellent and dubious in terms of their training and ability.
Canadian Press
August 26, 2005

TORONTO (CP) - When Dr. Kellie Leitch returned to Canada from the United States a few years ago, she joined a growing number of Canadian physicians choosing to come back home to practise. And now, the country's medical brain-drain has been reversed for the first time in 30 years.

For decades, Canada experienced more drain than gain when it came to doctors departing for so-called greener pastures in the United States or countries overseas. But last year, that trend was reversed for the first time, with more doctors returning home than waving bon voyage to the country's shores, a new report shows.

The report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), released Wednesday, shows that 317 physicians returned to Canada last year compared to 262 who left.

The net surplus is the first since the institute began collecting this data in 1969, and is "a continuation in the trend we have seen since the mid-1990s of a decreasing number of doctors leaving Canada for opportunities in other countries," said Steve Slade, co-author of the report.

"That's not happened once on record with our database, and it's a first, a historical year for Canada," he said from Ottawa.

The number of doctors who left Canada stood at 420 in 2000; and in 1994, a whopping 771 physicians crossed the border south or left the country's shores.

Meanwhile, a 24 per cent rise in the number of doctors returning home in 2004, compared with five years earlier, gave Canada's physician workforce the net gain.

Leitch, who attended the University of Toronto's medical school, went to California in 2001 to complete her training in pediatric orthopedic surgery.

There were lots of opportunities in the United States, but Leitch said she jumped at an offer from the University of Western Ontario and returned to Canada in late 2002. Since then, she has been named chair chief of pediatric surgery at the Children's Hospital of Western Ontario.

"The primary reason I returned to Canada . . . is that the Canadian taxpayers paid for my education," Leitch, 34, said from London. Ont. "There is a huge investment in educating, in particular specialist physicians . . . and it only made sense to me that the people who had made that huge investment should benefit from that specialty they've invested in."

Leitch said there are only about 60 orthopedic surgeons for children in Canada, and even one leaving would have a huge impact on patient care.

But she doesn't think returning home makes her unique.

"I think there are a lot of Canadian physicians who were trained in Canada who've gone to the United States and are looking for a reason to come home. I think it's because we have a better quality of life in Canada, I think they see there are opportunities here that weren't available to them in the United States or elsewhere abroad, and that we are a well-supported community."

The report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), released Wednesday, shows that 317 physicians returned to Canada last year compared to 262 who left.

The net surplus is the first since the institute began collecting this data in 1969, and is "a continuation in the trend we have seen since the mid-1990s of a decreasing number of doctors leaving Canada for opportunities in other countries," said Steve Slade, co-author of the report.

"That's not happened once on record with our database, and it's a first, a historical year for Canada," he said from Ottawa.

The number of doctors who left Canada stood at 420 in 2000; and in 1994, a whopping 771 physicians crossed the border south or left the country's shores.

Meanwhile, a 24 per cent rise in the number of doctors returning home in 2004, compared with five years earlier, gave Canada's physician workforce the net gain.

Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said the return of some physicians may be related to Canada luring back doctors to head or staff high-profile research institutes at universities across the country.

"I guess we're somewhat relieved to see there's a net increase in physicians coming into Canada, although it doesn't really help us in overall numbers," lamented Collins-Nakai. "We are more or less treading water in terms of our overall physician supply."

The CIHI report shows that the number of doctors across the country rose by five per cent between 2000 and 2004 - to 60,612 from 57,803.

But growth in the country's population kept pace during that period, leaving the number of doctors per 100,000 residents relatively stable - a status quo that has not made it easier for Canadians to find a family physician or get access to a specialist.

Collins-Nakai said hundreds more medical school entry positions are needed - and professors to replace those retiring to teach them - if Canada is to even approach self-sufficiency in achieving a physician workforce large enough to serve all Canadians in a timely fashion.

"In order to accomplish that, the medical schools, which are currently bursting at their seams, are going to need increased resources," the cardiologist said from Edmonton.

Complicating efforts to ramp up the number of doctors to meet an aging population's growing demand for both family practitioners and specialists is the concurrent greying of health-care services.

Baldly put, Canada's doctors are getting older. In 2000-2004, the average age of physicians increased by one year, to 49 from 48. During the same period, the proportion of physicians under age 40 dropped by 13 per cent.

"That's like our window into the future, where we see a decrease in the number of really quite recent graduates in Canada," said Slade.

The report also shows that the doctor supply is made up increasingly by women: in 2004, females accounted for almost one-third of physicians, a 10 per cent increase since 2000. Among doctors 40 and under, women made up nearly half in 2004.

But with more female doctors working shorter hours, access to care is not improving for patients, but declining, experts says.

Making matters worse for patients is the expected retirement of more than six per cent of physicians in the next two years, said Collins-Nakai. "And we expect up to one-third of all physicians to be decreasing hours of work.

"Many physicians over the past half or (full) decade have been doing excessive hours of work to provide access to patients," she said. "And we know we've got increased burnout levels among physicians."

- Here are some highlights from the CIHI report on doctors:

-In 2000, 420 Canadian physicians moved abroad compared to 262 in 2004, a 38 per cent decrease.

-In 2000, 256 physicians returned to Canada compared to 317 in 2004, a 24 per cent increase.

-For the first time since 1969, when statistics were first compiled, more physicians returned to Canada than left the country.

-Between 2000 and 2004, the number of doctors in Canada grew by five per cent, a rate that kept pace with population growth.

-Among the provinces, Alberta and P.E.I. had the largest percentage increase in the number of physicians in the five-year period - up by 19 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively.
-In 2000, there were 188 physicians per 100,000 population; in 2004, there were 189 per 100,000.

-The proportion of family physicians to population rose slightly, while the proportion of specialists dropped between 2000 and 2004.

-During 2000-2004, the number of international medical graduates in family medicine in Canada rose 12 per cent, while specialist graduates numbers fell 9.4 per cent.

-The average age of physicians increased by one year from 2000-2004, to 49.
 
That's an interesting article, however I don't think it represents a long-term trend for Canada. The medical practice environment in most of the country (with the exception of Alberta) has not changed significantly. The small positive influx of doctors probably relates to the weakness of the American dollar. When my father left in 1997, the Canadian dollar was $0.67 USD, but now it's on par. That makes a huge difference, and for primary care practitioners, it means they will be making the same amount in the U.S. as in Canada. The weakness of the U.S. dollar won't be permanent, and I'd expect the Canadian dollar to decrease in value over the next few years.

EPs in Canada will still make 1/3 to 1/2 of what they do in the United States. Similar salaries exist for EPs in Britain and Australia. If salaries were on par, I'd be practicing in Sydney right now.
 
We would all benefit if our system was managed in any sense of the word. If we are going to stabilize healthcare spending at something less than half our gross domestic product, we are going to need to rein in spending on MRI's for knee pain whose indication is "I want one" and ICU admission and dialysis for 95 year olds who haven't held a meaningful conversation with anyone in 5 years and will never go home again.

If we succumb to socialized health care it will be "managed" like HMOs are now.
 
...and ICU admission and dialysis for 95 year olds who haven't held a meaningful conversation with anyone in 5 years and will never go home again.

Hey - that's half of my patient population - not admitting them to the ICU would open sooo many beds :laugh:

BTW - aren't we as emergency physicians already practicing univeral healthcare?
 
From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_10_28/ai_108994048:

"Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein have joined forces with Terry Campbell, MHA, of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, to conduct a comparison study of the costs of health care administration in the U.S. and Canada. They wanted to see whether the introduction of computers, managed care, and more businesslike approaches to health care delivery have decreased the administrative costs in the U.S. The results, published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine (August 21), were not encouraging. In 1999, health administration costs in the USA were $1,059 per capita, as compared with $304 per capita in Canada. As for individual doctors, their administrative costs were far lower in Canada.


Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and colleagues concluded, "The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $755 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the U.S. if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system."

More on that here: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

"August 21, 2003
The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said.

The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that.

The study by Dr. Steffi Woolhandler of the Harvard School of Medicine found that Americans spend more on administrative costs because of the many private companies supplying insurance coverage. The multitude of companies create increased paperwork while Canadian doctors send their claims to a single insurer, the government."

Considering how much money would be lost if your country switched to a single-payer system, health care corporations in the US are going to spare no expense in a propaganda war against such a system.
 
Those studies may be true, but the lower administrative cost in Canada does not result in EPs making more.

If we cut administrative costs in this country, it's doubtful that the money would go to physician reimbursement.
 
Our patients think they have to wait a long time to be seen now...try waiting 7 months to see a specialist or even worse try waiting 6 months to have a CABG, but oops u never made it because u died in the interim. Just one of many reasons that Americans, even if they don't know it yet, would HATE a universal health care system. Just go talk to the Canandians and they will tell u how much they "love" it.
 
Oh, in case I wasn't clear in the last post socialized medicine sucks a$$
 
Oh, in case I wasn't clear in the last post socialized medicine sucks a$$
:laugh:
Well put!

In case I wasn't clear in my previous post I think that UHC would probably improve EP's working conditions (wouldn't have to wheel and deal for admits or consults on uninsured patients, volumes would drop due to deferral of care to clinics) but the pay would be cut drastically.
 
:laugh:
Well put!

In case I wasn't clear in my previous post I think that UHC would probably improve EP's working conditions (wouldn't have to wheel and deal for admits or consults on uninsured patients, volumes would drop due to deferral of care to clinics) but the pay would be cut drastically.

I'll take the extra hassles if it means I get paid more. Either way I'm still working the same number of hours in a 9 hour shift.
 
thats right, keep 'em sick and piling into the ED.


I don't think our government is capable of fixing this mess well the first time around. There are just too many varied problems at play here (uninsured, reimbursement rates, malpractice, etc etc). All of these need to be fixed at the same time to make a mandated health care system work. ("universal" health care will not ever fly, I'll riot if it ever seems like a real possibility)

I am quite confident that whatever happens will suck for quite a while, until they finally make it down the list and fix all the issues at play.

however, I wonder, if a mandated healthcare system passed, how long would it really take for EP salaries to drop as patients begin to make use of primary care?
 
$141K to $169K for that job. It's an underserved area, and typical jobs in the U.S. would pay 300K or more.
I think some of your links are a bit off. That link says it pays $125.00/hour, which would net you a lot more than $169k unless you were only working 20 hours a week. At 40 hours/week, $125.00/hour is $260,000. That reference also seems to be for 3 year EM trained physicians from the US, which I do not believe qualifies the physician for the pay rate of a board-certified EP in Canada, as it is a 5 year program here. The EPs I know here in Metro Vancouver are getting 200-250k/year for their services, and that is of course much higher in rural areas.

Also bear in mind that the tax rates and cost of living are MUCH higher in Canada.
This is true.

Our patients think they have to wait a long time to be seen now...try waiting 7 months to see a specialist or even worse try waiting 6 months to have a CABG, but oops u never made it because u died in the interim. Just one of many reasons that Americans, even if they don't know it yet, would HATE a universal health care system. Just go talk to the Canandians and they will tell u how much they "love" it.
There is not a 6 month wait for CABG surgery in Canada. 😉 Elective surgery is the only area that takes a huge hit here, but as we are NOT a single-payer system, you can get them done at private surgical clinics.
 
Socialized medicine (in Mexico) is a direct cause of my grandfather's death. So I would agree that it sucks. They don't have a single payer system, so if you are wealthy enough or have a long standing, large enough complaint you can pursue care in the private sector. Too bad renal cell carcinoma doesn't wait for the bureaucracy to get it's stuff together. Multiple complaints of flank pain getting treated with pain meds is par for the socialized medicine course.
 
Socialized medicine (in Mexico) is a direct cause of my grandfather's death. So I would agree that it sucks. They don't have a single payer system, so if you are wealthy enough or have a long standing, large enough complaint you can pursue care in the private sector. Too bad renal cell carcinoma doesn't wait for the bureaucracy to get it's stuff together. Multiple complaints of flank pain getting treated with pain meds is par for the socialized medicine course.

A 3rd world country like Mexico is not the best example of socialized medicine to compare to the United States. I treat Mexican patients all the time, and the kind of stuff they do down there is scary. Canada is a little better than the example of your grandfather.
 
Top