To Hoads: Actually the Massachusetts plan has turned out to be more successful than planned – the state has the highest rate of insured residents, which was the basic idea. The minuses has been that the unexpected success of the plan, which is partly subsidized by the state, has turned out more expensive than planned, and the subsequent falling economy hasn’t helped. There have been more people added to doctor’s rosters, which has caused long waits for visits, but the odd doctor shortage was a trend already in place outside of the Mass plan (it was caused by a decision in the 1980′s by the AMA and others to not open up any more US medical schools for fear of a future doctor surplus.)
The main drawback to the plan is that it didn’t really address any of the core reasons for escalating health costs and doctor shortages, but as a state plan, it really couldn’t. A national health care plan can, though, if implemented properly.
As far as the quality of this country’s health care compared to other countries, I have no idea personally how good or bad Canada is, but a WHO ranking had it at #30 compared to #37 for the US, so the care level would probably have some plus/minus advantages for each. From personal experience, though, European health care treatment is across the board better, especially for the elderly, and generally more advanced.
