Perhaps a country in Europe, as developed as the US is. I mean, a country that we literally border with would be too much to ask for.
Perhaps some of us would be less amused by the concept of government-run healthcare.
Too bad we don't have the example of literally all of Europe, Australia, and Canada to kill that amusement vibe.
Having had a family member just go through the Australian health system for breast cancer, her treatment was on a time-scale of a few weeks, but she had the time and was being checked often. In the US, we'd be making funeral plans and bucket lists because they'd not be able to afford treatment.
To quote a famous movie: well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion.
Why would the wait time (and not treatment outcome, or rate of occurrence) for one group of diseases be a good metric for evaluating the overall performance of a healthcare system?
In my opinion, it's a horrible metric. To give a car analogy, the 0 to 60 time in snow while towing is surely a metric, but there are other things to consider as well when you are buying a vehicle.
>[Canadians] come to the US because they have an expensive potentially fatal medical condition, and they might not survive a six month waiting period for treatment.
A lot to unpack here! But, first, the TL;DR is no[1].
More specifically:
1)Cite sources on people and England and Canada having six-month waiting period on cancer treatments in cases where urgent intervention is deemed necessary ("might not survive").
2)Look at the number of those cases.
3)Compare and contrast with similar cases in the US when people don't get treated because they don't have the money.
4)Look at the numbers again.
5)Look at how many Canadians do come to the US (in absolute numbers, as a percent of the Canadian population, and as a percent of patients seeking the particular treatment).
6)Stop perpetuating misleading opinions.
I won't cite the numbers - that's your homework when making bold claims. I found the numbers hard to find, which means to me that your claims are likely not substantiated.
I'll be glad to be proven wrong here.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2019/03/05/what-soc...
Your source is wonderful. Here's my favorite part:
> In Canada, when patients see a doctor the visit is free. In the U.S., the visit is almost free
If someone can tell me how to move to that US, I'll be packing my bag right away!
I don't know who told you that about Canadian healthcare, but it's simply not true.
When my mom was diagnosed, she underwent surgery within days, and was getting chemo/radiation as soon as was medically safe.
Almost every developed country has a national system that provides excellent care for far more reasonable costs. Except the US, of course.
I'm starting to realize why America will never get its shit together. Too many people without facts in the debate, believing they are correct, without any evidence at all.
One thing that is unequivocally a mistake in healthcare in the US is making it a "free market" and then having employers pick the insurance for their employees.