First, to Heather, my apologies for my mistake re: Mrs vs Ms. No offence was intended.
To Mishu re: costs – I assume you didn’t open the attached file I provided. I breaks down a comparison of nations with costs and outcomes. RE: Tax Rates – Don’t forget that your current tax rates are based on running deficits that average in excess of $1,000.00 per citizen while Canada’s current tax rates are based on running surpluses of about $400.00 per citizen. In short, our nation on its own balance sheet is generating a net difference of about $1,400 per citizen per annum of net wealth which in our case turns into debt servicing savings, and yours turning into new debt servicing costs. If we chose to run the deficits you’re willing to, actually our tax rates would be very similiar. I should add that if you haven’t actually read your own budget (I have and compared it to both Canada as well as Australia’s budget documents, in addition to the IMF database which tracks national financial stats), you would be aware that your manditory spending including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security has just surpassed the $1.2 trillion per year level (out of a total budget of $2.1 trillion). In comparison, your defence budget is only $400 billion. And the CBO going forward is predicting your numbers get downright ugly to the point that a number of your Republican Presidential Candidates have said outright that in their current form your entitlement programs will bankrupt your country (Fred Thompson is one, I’m blanking on the other I’ve heard describe it in interviews). Bottom Line: I find it interesting that you’re willing to bag on the Canadian system (as well as Australias, NZ’s, France’s, Germany’s, etc.) which are all sustainable based on our current tax rates without recognizing the fact your model is fundamentally unsustainable without increasing yours, or cutting your benefit model dramatically.
To pixologic,
Your comment re: not being profit-driven and employing amateurs demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt you don’t have a clue about which you speak.
To Darryl from Canada,
Totally agree. I’m in favour of user fees for services to eliminate that type of abuse. Part of that problem also comes down to the “for profit” model of doctors offices. For those Americans who don’t know, doctors offices are for all intents and purposes private businesses trying to maximize revenue and minimize expenses. The services they provide are then billed back to the various provincial insurance programs on a “fee for service” basis. Although this should maximize efficiency and generate the maximum number of visits possible, what ends up happending is that doctors tend to create a repeating book of business where in particular retired seniors are scheduled for repeat visits every 2-weeks or so, thus guaranteeing them a base level of revenue. Obviously on the downside because the schedules are always “stacked” it provides many fewer slots available for people who actually are sick and need immediate assistance. Add user fees, and this repeat senior citizen repeat business very quickly thins out. I should add newer doctors look at themselves far more a professionals instead of healers and because of that behave like lawyers trying to maximize their billing hours rather than healers who strive to heal those who need help. In short, it is the prioritization on a for-profit model that in cases creates this problem, as opposed to providing the solution. The other component which often draws comparison is the time to get a non-emergency quality-of-life surgery like a knee or hip replacement. Again, this is a huge entitlement issue. When you’re talking about $10,000 per surgery plus, the out of pocket cost of taxpayers providing several of these surgeries in a lifetime to retirees who want to continue to play golf, tennis, etc. is incredibly expensive. For this reason, user fees should be absolutely required with minimum patient contributions being 10% and maxxing out at 35% based on a means test, again with the objective of reducing unnecessary surgeries and the huge cost impact they make.
My final note is (and I’d like Heather to respond to this) if provinces dramatically ramped up med school enrollement and instituted the user fees described in order to thin out the unnecessary service abuse primarily by seniors, I think the measured outcome of the Canadian healthcare system would improve a minimum of 30% with no substantial increase in taxpayer costs (and again I state this having worked in the for-profit medical industry in Ontario for a number of years and with family, having no less than 4 friends in the healthcare industry and with family who sit on Hospital Advisory Boards).
P.S. Some of you may find the following interesting. My father as a semi-retired professional now sits on the local hospital oversight board. About a year ago they instituted a new patient satisfaction program. The program is based on EVERY patient who receives treatment now receives a follow-up call from a member of the treatement team (this includes doctors, nurses and admittance staff). The primary impetus of their questions is “If we could change one thing to improve your overall experience, what would it be?” The teams then meeting weekly to review those responses and adjust accordingly. Given the general disdain Canadian healthcare is viewed with south of the border due to what I see is intentional misrepresentation, I hope knowledge of such a program starts changing views from the current black&white to accept there are many shades of grey when discussing this topic.
Cheers all. I’ll be back later to reply to any questions anyone has. 
