This cato institute doesn't have some sort of political agenda, does it?

Actually, dentistry is at third world level in this country. Medicare doesn't cover dental, 108 million Americans don't have dental insurance and 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients.
People are actually dying from untreated tooth decay in the U.S.

Health care in america is only the best if you can afford it, regardless of whether insurance is available. In most cases the taxpayers are footing the bill of health care and the medical industry knows this. The health care industry in america is escalating cost not because it cost more, its because they can, knowing the taxpayer will pay it. The insuracne company is loving and probably lobbying our government leaders for a national insurance plan with little to no changes in how the system works. Instead of funds going to the medical care corporations it will also go to the national insurance exchanges. Now we are paying 2 corporations for the same thing instantly doubling cost of health care. When that happens, the age thing will be irrelevant, deniabilty by insurance to pay will be the issue, or I should say non-issue. Insurance companies prevail in lenghty court battles on plan coverage, with death of insured resulting. We will still be faced with unpaid medical bills and no medical coverage. Nationalized health care also means nationalized medical facilities, doctors, and drug companies, its the only way nationalized health care can work and be affordable to taxpayers funding it.

This column is right on the mark. Medicine in socialized systems is rationed. I have seen it myself. I read an article about a year ago where there was a debate in Canada about waiting lists. The issue was how to make them fair. How to decide if my chronic pain made me a higher priority patient than someone else's. Which of us could wait longer? I thought the psychology of the debate was interesting. It was about "fair rationing", but it was still about rationing. You would have thought someone would have asked the question, "These long waits are unacceptable, how do we reduce, or eliminate them?" But no, the debate was about managing the lines, not providing better service. The socialist mind does not reason that way. Which is precisely the reason we must avoid going down the same path.

Wow, this article is so poorly reasoned, I don't know where to start! Let's just say that it is obvious from his writing that the author doesn't spend a lot of time with any of the 47,000,000. people in this country who are not covered by our sterling health care system.

Jay - In all the discussions about the U.S. healthcare system, I've never heard anyone complain that the available care is anything but the best. Indeed, when the city of Boston boasts more MRI machines than the entire nation of Canada, one could say that the market system has made healthcare available in the U.S. in unprecedented ways.

But the only complaint being raised loud and clear is that 15% of our nations citizens do not have access to healthcare, primarily because of the cost. Consequently, many of those individuals use emergency services only, for which they often don't have to pay anything, and that situation drives up health care for everyone. And so it doesn't seem appropriate to claim the U.S. system as best when it only serves a portion of the citizens.

I'm curious...
How long ago did his parents live in England?
What kind of dental help did his father need?
If "several years ago" translates into "thirty years ago", it's hardly right to compare that system with our current one.
How are things in England now?
Not to mention France, Germany, and Scandinavia.
And while the US may have some of the best hospitals, millions of Americans can't afford decent health insurance.
Me? I'm a healthy man in his early twenties who pays (or my company pays) over $10,000 a year for a $1500 deductible plan (and that's just for me).
Health care in the US has problems. Time to pull our heads out of the sand, acknowledge it, and find a solution.

I read somewhere that the majority of health care costs are spent at the end of life. Perhaps the new model for turning the elders in a family over to costly medical strangers at the end has driven this immense expenditure.

I knew this article would bring out the socialists, who think that health care is best when sombody else will afford it for you.
Why does the U.S. insist on following the lead of Europe and others who wait on a list for proceedures and appointments that, sometimes never come. The grass always seems greener on the other side!

Our health care system is inefficient and mediocre. While we have some of the best trained and skilled practitioners, many can't afford the price of entry into the system--that is especially true in dental care. We spend 1 1/2 to 2 times more on health than other industiralized nations and have unacceptable health outcomes.

We already use tax dollars to pay for the care of the indigent, many of the uninsured, the elderly, those without insurance when they have medical emergencies, the military, government employees, those with permanent disability, those with certain types of cancer and kidney disease. Why not the rest of us.

Our non-system needs help and unfortunately free market driven approaches are doomed to fail.

Were you aware that although the U.S. does spend the the largest portion of its GDP on healthcare out of any other country, it still ranks 37th out of 191 countries overall in the world? 37th! This is really something to be embarrassed about. We are behind countries such as Morrocco, Cypris and Costa Rica, while France took first place overall. I'm sure that ought to really cause some of you Republcan's blood to boil.

Exactly where in the Constitution does it mention healthcare or Government provided healthcare? All of you Socialists need to remember that we do have a Constitution.

Saying US health care is the best is a little like saying that a room which has Bill Gates and five homeless families is the most well to do room on the world.

Yes US health care is the best for those who can afford it. What about those who can't. What about those who can't get insurance. The fact that the well to do have the best is no reason to not try to improve the system so that the rest of the people can get what everyone else already has.

We can afford to give the CEO's millions whether or not they do a good job, why not tax them to help their workers be able to afford decent health care?

If you read your constitution you will see a part in their about the general welfare.

Even if the constitution didn't have this clause though, just remember slavery was allowed under the constitution. Therefore although the constitution has its good points, I wouldn't hold it up as the ultimate decider of what is good or the thing that we ought to follow.

if the govt or your employer is paying for your health care you may think the US system is great. If you pay for your own healthcare and/or buy your own insurance (small business, self employed, etc) you find the system terrible. you don't utilize this GREAT healthcare system because you (alone) realize that there are no free lunches. they will raise your insurance if you dare use it (they actually will raise it anyway), you get to pay taxes to pay the healthcare of the old and poor, when you patronize big business you get to pay for the gold plated plans those companies offer their employees. until the cost of the system is spread more evenly THE SYSTEM STINKS

Why do you say socialism is bad, is this what Rush told you? Did you ever stop to think that without any socialism we wouldn't have public schools, defense, desease control, law enforcement, or roads?

So it isn't that socialism is bad, but that too much socialism or socialism in the wrong ways is bad.

Just as too much capitalism is bad.

We need a mix

It's unfortunate that a topic as important as the failures with the US health care delivery system was so poorly thought out and researched. This article does a disservice to both the DMN and uts readership who look forward to being educated.

It is easy enough to cherry pick the subject to show the excellence that is available, but overall this country ranks 37th nationally in measurable outcomes of medical care. Much need to be improved.

Mr. Evenson, please do you homework and write a better editorial.

always using britain as an example with bad facts.

here's one: you do not wait more than 4.5 (max) weeks for any operation in this country. and you do not wait if it is life threatening. infact 97% of all non emergency treatments were carried out on time last year.

i have never ever in my life thought about being ill and money in the same sentence, and i wouldn't change it for the world.

FACT. US Health Care is not the best in the world, so some of you need to put away your little American flags and get a grip!

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

daphnee,

You did not list the criteria which put the U.S. at #37 on the WHO list. What is likely not surprising is that the WHO used as one of its primary criteria whether or not there was universal coverage. In other words, the fact that the U.S. does not employ socialized medicine was a big reason the U.S. is so far down the list.

It is not a perfect answer, but one answer that we SHOULD be willing to ask is, between the top 37 countries listed on the WHO list, where would you want to go for health care? I certainly wouldn't choose Morrocco, Costa Rica, on almost any other country on the list over the U.S. In fact, even daphnee and liberal larry probably don't fly to those countries when they need health care, so their complaining about health care in the U.S. sounds a bit hollow.

I would also point out that the 47 million uninsured are not all poor people who can't pay. A lot of them are fairly well off, younger Americans who have made a conscious choice that the premiums aren't worth the benefit they get.