Ok, I read the article, but couldn't find anything to indicate that she was receiving substandard treatment in Canada. Did I miss something? As far as the comments -- they were all just speculation.

Mishima666: I posted this article not about the quality of Ms. Richardson treatment, but about the fact that many Canadians are also not satisfied about their own health care system. One of the comments referred to the fact that some politicians sought treatment in the U.S. For instance, it was well known that the former Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa, went to the U.S. for his skin cancer treatment. When you have a person who is the head of the provincial government and goes outside the province for medical treatment, this does not look very good. He made many people among the medical profession quite upset at the time. I will make the point about Ms. Richardson treatment more obvious in a few minutes. Thanks!

People will complain about anything, and no system is perfect. But it's important to look at the big picture.

So a Quebec premier came to the U.S. for treatment. Balance that against something like two million Americans who order drugs from Canadian pharmacies because they are too expensive here.

Yes, I agree. It is important to look at the big picture and no system is perfect, as discussed in the first post. I also believe there is a problem with the preception of each other systems. As seen in the comments from the Toronto Star's website, some Canadians view the U.S. health care organization as better than their own. Interesting...

In the U.S. the health system is terrific -- if you have good insurance. But that "if" is the problem.

Most people here have insurance through employment. So if you lose your job you either lose your insurance or have to pay through the nose for it.

Also, some companies offer poor-quality insurance. I know of one place with an insurance plan that pays no more than $25K per year per person. Hell, that's not even catastrophic insurance. Other plans have very high deductibles and out-of-pocket limits, which means that people can be eaten up by deductibles and copays. My wife applied for one job in which the insurance for the employee was good, but the company paid nothing for spouse or children. For both of us to be insured would have cost us $700 per month. She was offered the job but didn't take it precisely for that reason.

To my mind, having a "great" health system that depends on the uncertain hope of having great insurance not a very great system after all. If some Canadians have enough resources to pay for care in the U.S. out-of-pocket, more power to them. But that can hardly be the basis for a rational system of health care.

My own view of the difference is that if you can pay or find a sponsor, you can get the most boneheaded treatment in the world in the U.S. of A., e.g. fertility treatment allowing a woman to bear a litter of children, extended life-support for the brain dead, organ transplants for centenarians... The key here is $$$$$ I have no respect for a medical "system" that preys on people in that manner.

If you are a luckless subscriber to an HMO, forget it. For instance, I wouldn't have lasted as long as I did as a healthy, productive member of the workforce, a contributing member of society, if I had had to pay for prosthetic joints under that kind of regime. Whereas here in Canada, even if I had to wait longer than I wanted to, and suffer more pain while waiting, at least it didn't bankrupt me. Nor was I denied coverage because of a "pre-existing condition".

There are some signs of Canadian insurers (particularly those who are affiliated with U.S. companies) to try the denial of claims route. Not a good sign. So far I've only experienced it with a dental insurance plan, but am watching my medical coverage carefully.

It should be added here that most Canadians don't rely exclusively on the universal health care systems, which have a means limit for things like prescriptions and level of hospitalization, so it's usual for either employers or professional or other associations to offer supplemental plans that provide coverage for "extras" for those who can afford to pay.

Timely discussion. Rated.

Sorry for the delay.

Mishima666: Yes, I was going to touch this subject in Part II. If you have a very good medical insurance company, as I have, you will have relatively good coverage and service (although it is more expensive than the other insurance companies or options). Under my plan, there is a maximum value, after which the insurance covers 100%. However, some of my friends have medical insurance via work (of course) that was so poor that they would have been better off not to have medical insurance at all.

Erikathegreen: Thanks for your thoughts. You made very good points, especially about the potential costs associated with joint prosthetics. As for pre-existing medical conditions, this will vary by insurance company or plan. For example, under contractual obligations with my employer, insurance companies cannot refuse pre-existing conditions for the primary employee (which actually applies to me), but they can refuse coverage for the spouse and other dependents. I obviously do not agree with this manner of doing things. In my case, I made sure I was covered before I moved to the U.S.