Reply #20: There's already some great responses here:

[devilgrrl]

http://buffalonews.typepad.com/inside_the_news/2007/07/...

People in Canada compalin about the long waits and that they want provate health care. Pirvate health care will mean less doctors in the public system which is already short on them. It also means that people with the means to pay for the service will get bumped ahead of those who can't. That doesn't seem fair either.
Posted by: Mike Ventresca | July 29, 2007 at 12:39 PM

============

Way to push the HMO's agenda, adopting exactly their lobby's post-SiCKO response. Me, I'd rather wait 4 months than wait forever, because I don't have any coverage. Once again, the News shows which side its bread is buttered on.
Posted by: BS | July 29, 2007 at 11:46 AM

============

It seems we concentrate on Canadians who are unhappy with the system. Meanwhile, it is easy to forget how unhappy Americans are with our scattershot coverage.

Who enjoys arguing with an insurer about payment or seeing a specialist? Who wants to wait for hours at your emergency room? Lets not forget about the 45 million Americans who have no insurance. Then there is the dirty little secret of universal health care, ITS CHEAPER!

Now no one is claiming that the Canadian system is better in every regard. The Canadian model is just one here way in dozens of approaches to administer National Healthcare.

We have the luxury of selecting characteristics from systems around he world to tailor the best fit for us.

We can’t continue to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, while millions are uninsured or under insured.

Posted by: al-alo | July 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM