I am going to contact a friend in Canuckistan about this. He's got a story to tell, and if he OK's it I'll put bits of it up.

But, but, but that's unfair! If our insurance companies have to compete with a system that provides health care without paying stockholders and executives, they don't have a chance!

This is what they need to do-- get a bunch of scary talking points together like --

DO YOU WANT A BUREAUCRAT BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR?
-never mind that an insurance company paper-pusher is in that role now

ALL PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WANT HEALTH INSURANCE ALREADY HAVE IT!
- anyone want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

OUR HEALTH CARE IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD!
- uuuurrrrrp!

IF EVERYONE GETS HEALTH CARE, THEN THE LINES WILL BE TOO LONG GETTING IN TO SEE THE DOCTOR!
- so, it's better to have people going to the emergency rooms with complications rather than getting preventive care in the first place?

````and my personal favorite``````

CANADIANS HATE THEIR HEALTH SYSTEM. THAT IS WHY THEY ALL COME HERE FOR CARE!
- you know, it's true. The last time I went to the doctor I had an hour's wait in the waiting room just so they could treat all the Canadians who got there before I did! Lame!

I think this experiment is a good idea and will be interesting to see the results.

Here's a comparison of the US and Canada from two years ago that people might find interesting.

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html

And here's another article from the New England Journal of Medicine on private healthcare in Canada.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661

Here in St. Louis, which has two major medical schools (Washington University and St. Louis University), you can wait for three months to see a neurologist at one of them. I'd be curious to see something systematic on wait times. The NBER article cited by MiddleClassBill does some of that, but there are some odd claims there. In particular, why should youth mortality data be adjusted on the basis of differences in accident rates (excluding homicide rates is more defensible)? All of the adjustments the authors do to the data make the U.S. look better.

I am not surprised that higher income people in Canada get better results out of the health system. My first wife was doing research on this issue at the time of her death, and I am aware through her that the same is true in the U.K., too. Of course, the NBER authors, by including only whites, understate the income/care "gradient," as they call it, for the U.S. Having insurance is not enough to get better results, but it's a big first step.

Finally on the NBER study, the authors omit any discussion of the financial benefits that accrue to individual Canadians from their system, such as not going bankrupt due to their health care expenses, one of (if not the) the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.

I'll also point out that the New England Journal of Medicine has long favored health care reform in a manner most people on this website would support. You can read all their columns on health policy at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/collection/health_policy

And I thoroughly recommend this experiment. Tell your friends and relatives who are iffy on the issue!

O¿O dude, here's one they can do while sitting on their couch scarfing down a table full of munchies while channel surfing.

Call a couple of well known insurance providers, like CIGNA and ATENA for example and act as if you're looking for health insurance for only yourself. When asked your age, tell the first one your actually age and the second one you just turned 50 this week. It's the best example to find out how the insurance companys operate using a subtle deception without the insurance company realizing they're being tested. Those who can't understand this debate will hear what we're all talking about straight from the horse's mouth.

Since health care insurance costs are controlled through state governments, not the feds, many lobbyist find state legislatures easy pickings to get state laws favoring their industry for a few shiny pennies in campaign donations. These health insurance lobbyists have convinced state governments that once a person reaches 50, their health problem begin to rise to the top and costs more money to treat. The only way for them get health insurance at that age would be for the carrier to raise their premium rates to offset the additional cost of coverage. And we're not talking a few dollars here or there. It's more on a scale of 3 to 4 times more than the pre-50 premium rates. What's missing from the equation is the public's input and a realization by the state legislature that insurance is a pooled resource of all participating clients, not just the individual.

By the way O¿O, while you claim to be indistinguishable in the crowd, do you know you bear a striking resemblance to Harry Potter?

All I hear is everyone talking about health care Canada and Britain as if they're the only countries that have socialized medical coverage. I'm in Germany at the moment and I have a few interesting tidbits to toss out.

First, when I left the US company that brought me over here, I elected to continue my health coverage via COBRA. That cost me a whooping $275 a month. If I had returned to the US, it would have been closer to $700 a month.

Second, my COBRA has ended and I picked up a US private insurance that covers American traveling, studying and working through the world. It's pretty much the same coverage I had and costs me only $350 a month.

Third, concerning the medical treatment I've received on the local economy, the costs of treatment and drugs are God Awfully Cheap! when compared to costs through HMO's in the US. The only real cost to me is the exchange rate - converting worthless dollars into euros. That's a 25% increase in my costs, but it still is within my budget and cheaper than US.

Fourth, the service I receive is very similar to the US. Old magazines (in German), clean, modern, but uncomfortable seating and sometimes waiting for up to an hour to see the doctor if I go the hospital for a specialist.

Fifth, the prescriptions I've been given for pollen allergies work much better. In the US, I was always given Claritin, but the drugs here worked faster and was more effective. Seems all medications I have been treated with work better than the standard US fair. And no, I haven't started squealing like a guinea pig yet.

Sixth, if I go to one doctor and my problem is not within his specialty, he contacts the right specialist and gets me a same day appointment within the local area - usually in the same facility of city, but no more than 25 miles/40 kilometers if outside the local region/county.

Perhaps I'm just lucky that all my medical problems are simplistic in nature and doesn't require much effort on the part of the doctors to ease my discomfort. Perhaps. But the impression I have is WOW !!!!

By the way, the dental service is just as easy to use too. I had a complication occur after an root canal on a Saturday morning. I noticed there was people at the dental office that morning. I walked in described the problem and the dentist on duty squeezed me in to his schedule. They just happened to be opened that morning for American family that came in from eastern Europe for dental work.

So as long as the issue is a contrast and comparison between English-speaking medical coverages, the debate will be flat. If you want a robust debate, someone needs to put more participants in the discussion pool, like the Germany, French and a few others.