yet another fine example

[Nova_C]

On the second point, capitalism IS what made this society great. Period....and I'm glad you just came right out and admitted you were either a socialist or a communist...or is it a Marxist? It doesn't matter, you are a traitor to the constitution of these united states with either of those attitudes.

Curious.

I've never heard of the US constitution prohibiting socialism or communism. I also can't find the part of the constitution where it specifies the economic policies that are allowed or not, but I admit I'm no expert on the US constitution. Can you direct me to where it talks about that?

The fact that there IS a health care plan is bad. The constitution states that the government has no place in controlling health care.

This is another thing I haven't been able to locate in the constitution, Cornsnake. Mind pointing me to it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution

 

[RobbiesCornField]

Hi Nova! :wavey: How're you today?

Actually, I was kind of hoping you'd pop in on this one. If memory serves me correctly, you are from Canada, right? How does your healthcare system work up there? I'm interested to see the views of a local.

 

[KJUN]

Here you come again citing wikicrapia thinking it makes you the shining star to tell us how to vote and run our country. Took you long enough....but Ricky, at least, deserves the dignity of a response dialog from me. (That's a compliment to you in my eyes, Ricky - not an insult.) He's just idealistic. You, on the other hand, just choose to ignore what you don't like. That's about as productive as discussing light refraction with a brick wall.

 

[KJUN]

Hi Nova! :wavey: How're you today?

Actually, I was kind of hoping you'd pop in on this one. If memory serves me correctly, you are from Canada, right? How does your healthcare system work up there? I'm interested to see the views of a local.

So good that the rich Canadians that can afford it come to America for the best treatment. I think that speaks loads more than anything else s/he's said to run down the current American system.

 

[RobbiesCornField]

So good that the rich Canadians that can afford it come to America for the best treatment. I think that speaks loads more than anything else s/he's said to run down the current American system.

Yes, but the rich Americans go to Canada for the drugs. (And yes, I did mean prescription drugs)

 

[wade]

Nova, I'd like to see the source of the study you quoted saying the we were 72nd in overall health. I find that hard to believe.

 

[Michael823]

Well, actually, I had suggested putting a cap on their salaries and donating the money from their endorsements and whatnot to deserving charities. Not necessarily government programs, but programs like Big Brothers and Big Sisters, education, and the D.A.R.E. program. All of those programs are to the benefit of the younger generation to help educate and keep them off the streets and away from drugs and crime. :shrugs:

That's a good point, and good idea. That's what I meant by regulation too, not governmental regulation, but employer regulation, and salary restrictions. Hypancistrus calls it communism, I just call it encouraging opportunities for all.
I also agree that whether these people choose to be or not, they are still role models, and paid professionals. They really should cap off salaries a bit, even if just to provide little league sports in the inner cities, and other less fortunate communities. Many people prepare for a life in professional sports, and few don't prepare for rejection at the next level. The ones who are successful reap all of the rewards, encouraging those who should otherwise move on to focus only on football in hopes of that big contract.
At the end of the day sports are for enjoyment, and a building block for character development through dedication, teamwork, loyalty, and a way to use ambition in a constructive way. If there were more incentive opportunities for children to learn these skills, like through NFL, NBA, etc.. funded little league, or community oriented teams, than misguided children would have a fighting chance to stay out of trouble.
People are too quick to throw out the communism and socialist card. I can understand not wanting to pay for those abusing the system, but if it takes a little funding from the wealthy to invest in the future, I don't consider it a bad thing. Robbie has a great point about sports, and I don't find either of our opinions socialist, or communist. Why shouldn't there be funding from the highest paid leagues in the world to help educate the youth, and provide more than just big screen entertainment through their sports. You never see that child who kicks around a make shift ball become a criminal, and when they have the opportunities they tend to give back.
People were justifiably upset with the Donte Stallworth case, in which a DUI manslaughter resulted in a mild sentence. Rather than spending tax dollars incarcerating these guys, why not instead offer them an ultimatum in which they will stay out of jail only if they do every suggested public speaking, and give a sentence of a fully donated salary to programs that educate and prevent crimes. Stallworth could have a huge contribution in that way, financially, and through his status. Same as Michael Vick, what did his money go towards anyways... Right back to a system that would rather pay to lock people up for dog fighting, rather than constructive programs to educate the future.

 

[Nova_C]

Hi Nova! :wavey: How're you today?

Actually, I was kind of hoping you'd pop in on this one. If memory serves me correctly, you are from Canada, right? How does your healthcare system work up there? I'm interested to see the views of a local.

I'm satisfied with it, but I do know that pretty much every country in Europe has done it better. That said, here's my admittedly anecdotal experience with Canadian health care and the myriad of health problems I've had the last two years.

Been to the ER four times with major chest pains in the last 1.5 years. Longest wait was 10 min while they cleared an ER bed for me. Shortest wait was none at all. Once to the ER with a kidney stone. They got me in after about 15 min. My four chest pain incidents were around midnight, 1am, the ER waiting room was pretty deserted, the kidney stone was around 9am, waiting room had 5 or 10 people in it.

I've been to a few different doctors over my heart. The doctor that I've been going to for years usually takes about 48 hours notice for a general appointment. I've moved a bunch lately so I'm about an hour drive from the doctor now, so I went looking for a new one. There were about four GPs in my area accepting new patients. Got in to see each and every one of them with about 3 days notice, didn't really like any of them, though.

I ended up seeing a cardiologist about my heart. That was my longest wait for an appointment at two weeks. He scheduled me in for some tests, an ECHO and a stress test. Both took place in less than two weeks.

For my kidney stone they hit me with two doses of morphine and the ER doc wrote me a prescription for some great opiates.

I've also had a lot of blood work done lately, which I can pretty much do as soon as I leave my doctor with an order for blood work. I literally go upstairs to the lab and it gets done. Results come back in about a week.

Alberta Health Care used to cost $44 a month for a single person, premium could be reduced for low income people. Alberta is a pretty wealthy province, so health care premiums were abolished in January of this year, so I don't pay anything for Alberta Health anymore.

I should note that on top of the Alberta Health Care, I was under extra coverage through my employer where I paid $30 a month.

Everything in the above was covered by Alberta Health with the exception of the prescription of pain killer. My extra coverage through my employer subsidized my prescriptions. I was prescribed a bottle of Tylenol-3 and 12 Percocet pills. I paid $6.

Here you come again citing wikicrapia thinking it makes you the shining star to tell us how to vote and run our country. Took you long enough....but Ricky, at least, deserves the dignity of a response dialog from me. (That's a compliment to you in my eyes, Ricky - not an insult.) He's just idealistic. You, on the other hand, just choose to ignore what you don't like. That's about as productive as discussing light refraction with a brick wall.

You obviously do think I deserve the dignity of a response since you took all this effort to write the above. Oh, and the only Wiki article I sourced was the one describing the American Constitution. Feel free to show me where Wikipedia is in error in the printing of that document.

 

[Nova_C]

Nova, I'd like to see the source of the study you quoted saying the we were 72nd in overall health. I find that hard to believe.

The WHO. The study I was linked was from 2000. I'm looking for more recent data.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

 

[Hypancistrus]

That's a good point, and good idea. That's what I meant by regulation too, not governmental regulation, but employer regulation, and salary restrictions. Hypancistrus calls it communism, I just call it encouraging opportunities for all.

So imagine that your summer job employer said to you "Michael, we love the work you do so much that we're going to take 1/2 of your earnings and give them to John. He doesn't work, but after all it's only fair. You're both really nice people. He deserves an equal opportunity this summer."

How would that make you feel?

Now imagine that you have spent hours, days, weeks, months and YEARS training to do the job you are doing, investing countless amounts of effort, and in some cases, cold hard cash, in learning how to do your job and becoming really good at it....

And imagine that same employer taking part of your income and splitting it among other non-skilled or lesser skilled workers.

Me? I'd be hella POed....

If you're all for that, then you're truly a "better man" than I....

 

[The_Thunderer]

Yeah... basically what you're talking about is the government determining how much a person can make and what jobs are important or not... and who wants that?

 

[Ricky87]

Currently, the US spends more of it's GDP on public health care (16%) than any other UN member, with one exception.

East Timor (WTF?)

The US was ranked as 37th overall in health care performance and 72nd by overall health. The US spends more, and gets less, than nations with UHC programs. Americans also pay more for prescriptions from American drug companies than do people from other nations, buying from those very same companies. According to a recent study, 60% of all bankruptcy declarations in the US were from medical related costs.

So the US spends more than any one else, has mediocre at best health care performance, and people are regularly bankrupted by the costs related to being injured or falling ill. Clearly the system isn't working as is and yet there is mass criticism for the cheaper, better alternatives implemented in other countries. What makes US health care so much better?

Also, Cornsnake124, you called the Health Care system in Canada a disaster. How do you figure?

Nova C, what's up!?. You always bring it, and you have my respect 100%. One thing's for sure; "I love me some Nova C". Smart and cleverly funny!.

Curious. I've never heard of the US constitution prohibiting socialism or communism. I also can't find the part of the constitution where it specifies the economic policies that are allowed or not, but I admit I'm no expert on the US constitution. Can you direct me to where it talks about that?

Hey we know how upset KJUN get's over unanswered questions. He better be just as quick to aim that at himself, or he might appear hypocritical or worse; a traitor to the US constitution!. Nova C, did I mention you were "smart and cleverly funny"!.

 

[Nova_C]

Nova C, what's up!?. You always bring it, and you have my respect 100%. One thing's for sure; "I love me some Nova C". Smart and cleverly funny!.

I'd take a bow, but I wouldn't want to hurt my back and make someone who works hard every day, and loves their family, to pay my way since I'm lazy, no good, socialist layabout.

Hey we know how upset KJUN get's over unanswered questions. He better be just as quick to aim that at himself, or he might appear hypocritical or worse; a traitor to the US constitution!. Nova C, did I mention you were "smart and cleverly funny"!.

Ultimately it doesn't even matter. Posting in topics like this in this forum is like walking in a minefield. Not because I'm worried about offending people who disagree with me, because I'm really not, but because I get so frustrated when someone's argument boils down to pure rhetoric and nothing else.

 

[Michael823]

So imagine that your summer job employer said to you "Michael, we love the work you do so much that we're going to take 1/2 of your earnings and give them to John. He doesn't work, but after all it's only fair. You're both really nice people. He deserves an equal opportunity this summer."
How would that make you feel?
Now imagine that you have spent hours, days, weeks, months and YEARS training to do the job you are doing, investing countless amounts of effort, and in some cases, cold hard cash, in learning how to do your job and becoming really good at it....
And imagine that same employer taking part of your income and splitting it among other non-skilled or lesser skilled workers.
Me? I'd be hella POed....
If you're all for that, then you're truly a "better man" than I....

My post was simply ideas, and alternatives to the down falling system in place. It would actually benefit all players in the long run, so it's not as simple as taking from Joe and giving to John.
The way it works in the NFL now won't hold up, the first overall pick is cumulatively growing each year, and is actually detrimental to the hardest working. Your analogy is actually the system in place, and my idea is to change that. Right now John is not only getting 1/2 of the earnings of the hard working players, he is getting sucking more and more out of the system each year, which will eventually leave Joe, John, and everyone else out of a job. So my proposal was to offer league funded youth programs as an alternative and antidote for the ever growing salary disaster.
It is not only a plan that helps those on the opposite end of the financial spectrum, but it will also keep the league from going through a salary disaster, preventing capitalism altogether.
I just got word as I'm typing this that the Arena League Football is bankrupt, my exact point for this idea. Let's not twist this into a communism symbol, or any other rhetoric, it is a strict idea pertaining only to professional sports. Now if there were more localized leagues, preferably for the youth as a means of education through dedication, responsibility, and hard work, none of these disasters would happen. It would not only provide a system for misguided youth, but it would equalize the salary disparity in the NFL, as well as open up jobs all over America, like youth coaches, counselors, and educators. It is necessary, and without a reversal of the snowball rookie salary, more blackouts and bankruptcy will occur.
So you start now with the league offenders spreading the word, and creating programs in the communities which cultivated the issues they faced such as alcoholism, drug dealing and addiction, dog fighting, etc... That will be the grass routes foundation to build on, and then it will provide an opportunity to legitimately reverse the outrageous salary. Players want more money because they make their earnings and then some, and want to cash in before the owners do. So if they offer a system in which this excess money can be placed in the communities, for a system to help the youth, then the players will most likely be more than willing to adjust their contracts. The greed won't be as viscous, and the system will most likely pay for itself in the long run.
Most likely my idea will be overly simplified, misquoted, etc.. But I know it's a good idea, and won't be convinced otherwise, or accused of socialism or communism!

Yeah... basically what you're talking about is the government determining how much a person can make and what jobs are important or not... and who wants that?

No, not government, the leagues themselves. And there already is restrictions to an extent, but only to prevent teams becoming overly dominant with the highest payed talent, ex. the Yankees.

 

[Ricky87]

I'd take a bow, but I wouldn't want to hurt my back and make someone who works hard every day, and loves their family, to pay my way since I'm lazy, no good, socialist layabout.

Then pat yourself on the back instead!. Anyway, you should get payed by the people to speak your "No good, socialist" ideals. It's poetic justice, and I for one appreciate all the hump-backed, two-toed, one-eyed people who are willing to speak their mind - and the truth of it more importantly. Besides, our government would fix your back and stick "Joe the Plumber" with the bill anyway. That's not Socialism, but the definition of Capitalism, right?!.

Ultimately it doesn't even matter. Posting in topics like this in this forum is like walking in a minefield. Not because I'm worried about offending people who disagree with me, because I'm really not, but because I get so frustrated when someone's argument boils down to pure rhetoric and nothing else.

Agreed!. Especially when it turns personal. I loved your reference to military spending a few weeks back as well. I'm thinking the same thing, which is how come we can afford an entire fleet of test stealth bombers, but we can't heal the sick or feed the starving. If the average American today is suffering it's because of the lingering effects of the last administration, and unlike Obama's stimulus package, Bush's "Warfare package" isn't going to find it's way on these here streets anytime soon. Unless, of course, we get invaded and need some Panzer's patrolling the streets for protection along with a few pretty F-16's. Just one war is enough to deplete a country of it's resources and now we're fighting two wars with no real end-game. That's what I find to be most destructive to the welfare of America!.

 

[tsst]

Currently, the US spends more of it's GDP on public health care (16%) than any other UN member, with one exception.

East Timor (WTF?)

The US was ranked as 37th overall in health care performance and 72nd by overall health. The US spends more, and gets less, than nations with UHC programs. Americans also pay more for prescriptions from American drug companies than do people from other nations, buying from those very same companies. According to a recent study, 60% of all bankruptcy declarations in the US were from medical related costs.

So the US spends more than any one else, has mediocre at best health care performance, and people are regularly bankrupted by the costs related to being injured or falling ill. Clearly the system isn't working as is and yet there is mass criticism for the cheaper, better alternatives implemented in other countries. What makes US health care so much better?

Also, Cornsnake124, you called the Health Care system in Canada a disaster. How do you figure?

Way over simplified but hey if that's what works for you. :shrugs: Interesting how many of the factors in the WHO report you cite are monetary and distribution based. (yep Yugo makes a cheaper car with better mileage that more people can afford than a BMW so it must be a superior automobile)

Prescription costs are cheaper in Canada because the Canadian gov mandates it. Do you actually think the major drug companies just adsorb the cost reduction? Really? Or would it be more feasible to believe that cost is absorbed by say the USA where they can charge more? Do you believe that telling a drug company we will only pay $x for your drug that they will continue massive research for new drugs? Or is it more feasible to believe those costs are absorbed elsewhere? I know the socialists belief is that the company would just do whats right for the betterment of the country and the people but your naivety abounds if you believe a multi-billion dollar drug company is doing what it does because it's what's best for Canadians. :shrugs:

I live in Ohio. Here we have the Cleveland Clinic. You may or may not have heard of it. For 15 years it has been #1 in the USA and in the top two or three in the world for cardiac care (more often #1). That rating is not based on being free for everyone. It is not based on it's Yugo cost structure. It is based on the fact that they are the cutting edge and that they save lives that would not have been saved elsewhere. When my father had his heart problems he was admitted the same day to the Cleveland Clinic. He spent 3 weeks in ICU before receiving a transplant. After which he lived another 8 years. I have no doubt that had he been in a system like Canada's I would have had 8 years less time with my dad. Was it all free? Were his prescriptions free? NO. Were those costs worth the 8 years I shared with him (if I could spout an explicative here without bringing down the wrath of the mods I would) YES!!!


Ricky87, maybe you should have had your surgery in Canada's great healthcare system. But on second thought you would have waited for an average of 9 1/2 months from the time it was determined to be necessary. Nova_C feel free to tell us your waits have not been that long. The scary part of that is if someone gets in right away and the average is 9 1/2 months that means some poor sap waited a year and a half. :shrugs:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

Do I think the US system is perfect noway. Do I want to take a step back to a socialist system run by the gov that has proven time and time again they can't do it? No.

 

[Ricky87]

Way over simplified but hey if that's what works for you. :shrugs: Interesting how many of the factors in the WHO report you cite are monetary and distribution based. (yep Yugo makes a cheaper car with better mileage that more people can afford than a BMW so it must be a superior automobile)

Prescription costs are cheaper in Canada because the Canadian gov mandates it. Do you actually think the major drug companies just adsorb the cost reduction? Really? Or would it be more feasible to believe that cost is absorbed by say the USA where they can charge more? Do you believe that telling a drug company we will only pay $x for your drug that they will continue massive research for new drugs? Or is it more feasible to believe those costs are absorbed elsewhere? I know the socialists belief is that the company would just do whats right for the betterment of the country and the people but your naivety abounds if you believe a multi-billion dollar drug company is doing what it does because it's what's best for Canadians. :shrugs:

I live in Ohio. Here we have the Cleveland Clinic. You may or may not have heard of it. For 15 years it has been #1 in the USA and in the top two or three in the world for cardiac care (more often #1). That rating is not based on being free for everyone. It is not based on it's Yugo cost structure. It is based on the fact that they are the cutting edge and that they save lives that would not have been saved elsewhere. When my father had his heart problems he was admitted the same day to the Cleveland Clinic. He spent 3 weeks in ICU before receiving a transplant. After which he lived another 8 years. I have no doubt that had he been in a system like Canada's I would have had 8 years less time with my dad. Was it all free? Were his prescriptions free? NO. Were those costs worth the 8 years I shared with him (if I could spout an explicative here without bringing down the wrath of the mods I would) YES!!!


Ricky87, maybe you should have had your surgery in Canada's great healthcare system. But on second thought you would have waited for an average of 9 1/2 months from the time it was determined to be necessary. Nova_C feel free to tell us your waits have not been that long. The scary part of that is if someone gets in right away and the average is 9 1/2 months that means some poor sap waited a year and a half. :shrugs:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

Do I think the US system is perfect noway. Do I want to take a step back to a socialist system run by the gov that has proven time and time again they can't do it? No.

Fair points!!!. Though as for my surgery, it was funded by private donors and I would have had to wait until it was too late myself if their wasn't private organizations. It scares anybody to think of surgery, but it scares them even more to think that they can't afford it. My mom had very many sleepless nights, because of the insurance agencies choice to not fully cover the surgery. In most cases spinal fusion isn't a life or death case, and that's how they judged it, even though the doctor who's seen me since birth said that I did need it, because my muscular disease prevents my back from ultimately supporting my spine. Eventually the curvature would be so bad that it would extend into my heart, lungs, etc. For me that could have been fatal, and yet things like that still go on everyday. I don't know what the best ultimate scenario is for health-care, but I think we should leave all doors open, and government funded health-care is still just a proposal. Still, I like the post!.

 

[tsst]

Fair points!!!. Though as for my surgery, it was funded by private donors and I would have had to wait until it was too late myself if their wasn't private organizations. It scares anybody to think of surgery, but it scares them even more to think that they can't afford it. My mom had very many sleepless nights, because of the insurance agencies choice to not fully cover the surgery. In most cases spinal fusion isn't a life or death case, and that's how they judged it, even though the doctor who's seen me since birth said that I did need it, because my muscular disease prevents my back from ultimately supporting my spine. Eventually the curvature would be so bad that it would extend into my heart, lungs, etc. For me that could have been fatal, and yet things like that still go on everyday. I don't know what the best ultimate scenario is for health-care, but I think we should leave all doors open, and government funded health-care is still just a proposal. Still, I like the post!.

Chances are very high if it was deemed in someway elective here it would be as difficult or more so in a socialist gov run system where elective proceedures are the lowest priority if offered at all! :shrugs:

 

[Hypancistrus]

Chances are very high if it was deemed in someway elective here it would be as difficult or more so in a socialist gov run system where elective proceedures are the lowest priority if offered at all! :shrugs:

Good point, I think in Canada things like knee surgeries are considered "elective" and the wait can be quite long. Then again, this is only something I have heard, so I will defer to our Canadian members on this.

 

[Nova_C]

So the closest thing I can find to comparing wait times directly between the US and Canada is this:

http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/the-waiting-game-er-wait-times-in-canada-vs-us/

However, when reading that article, watch the language. The US data is "The average time that hospital emergency rooms patients wait to see a doctor..."

The Canadian data is: "...before being discharged or admitted to another ward in the hospital."

So the US data is how long before you see a doctor in the ER. The Canadian data is how long before you leave the ER, either by being discharged or by being admitted to a different wing of the hospital. In fact, these are two totally separate issues and are non-comparable.

That said, wait times in Canada are higher than in the US, but according to this article: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_health_care_better_in_canada.html, Canadians, by average, are healthier with longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality and lower maternal mortality.

The thing is, Canada doesn't score much better than the US on the WHO's reports. Canada's implementation of UHC isn't very good. The Swiss have a system of mandatory insurance - that is, health care is privately insured, but the industry is regulated and everyone is required to buy insurance. People on low incomes are subsidized to ensure that premiums don't hurt the poor. It seems like a good compromise between the US and Canadian systems and the Swiss system is pretty widely regarded as one of the best in the world.

Anyway, to respond to tsst's post directly:

Prescription costs are cheaper in Canada because the Canadian gov mandates it. Do you actually think the major drug companies just adsorb the cost reduction? Really? Or would it be more feasible to believe that cost is absorbed by say the USA where they can charge more? Do you believe that telling a drug company we will only pay $x for your drug that they will continue massive research for new drugs? Or is it more feasible to believe those costs are absorbed elsewhere? I know the socialists belief is that the company would just do whats right for the betterment of the country and the people but your naivety abounds if you believe a multi-billion dollar drug company is doing what it does because it's what's best for Canadians.

The government does not mandate prices. They negotiate them with the pharmaceutical company. If you really think a company is going to agree to a contract with the Canadian government that has them selling at a loss to Canada you're out of your mind. They simply don't have as large a profit margin in Canada as they do in the US. So yeah, Americans are making up some of the difference by paying more, but it's a difference in profit margin only.

Also, I don't believe for a second that a business would do what's right for the betterment of a country. Of course they wouldn't. Businesses are driven by the profit motive and that's the way things should be. However, people don't always have a choice when it comes to health care and government oversight prevents profiteering from desperate people, something that is absolutely going on in the US right now.

I live in Ohio. Here we have the Cleveland Clinic. You may or may not have heard of it. For 15 years it has been #1 in the USA and in the top two or three in the world for cardiac care (more often #1). That rating is not based on being free for everyone. It is not based on it's Yugo cost structure. It is based on the fact that they are the cutting edge and that they save lives that would not have been saved elsewhere. When my father had his heart problems he was admitted the same day to the Cleveland Clinic. He spent 3 weeks in ICU before receiving a transplant. After which he lived another 8 years. I have no doubt that had he been in a system like Canada's I would have had 8 years less time with my dad. Was it all free? Were his prescriptions free? NO. Were those costs worth the 8 years I shared with him (if I could spout an explicative here without bringing down the wrath of the mods I would) YES!!!

If you want to compare the single best clinic in the US with the whole of the Canadian system, you go right ahead, but it's ridiculous. A single clinic rated as the #1 in a nation is of course going to be better than the average. That's what above-average means.

Although, I'm curious. How many people can afford to go to that clinic? Is the Cleveland Clinic something that most cardiology patients go to? I'm sorry your father had to go through something so scary and it's reassuring that he was able to see the best and brightest to improve his quality of life, but does that clinic see anyone regardless of ability to pay?

Way over simplified but hey if that's what works for you. Interesting how many of the factors in the WHO report you cite are monetary and distribution based. (yep Yugo makes a cheaper car with better mileage that more people can afford than a BMW so it must be a superior automobile)

This analogy is pretty flawed since health care performance can't really be compared to cars, but okay, let's run with it. Since Canadians are healthier, live longer, and have broader access to health care, it's more like a BMW being cheaper than a Yugo since the Canadian system costs less. (I don't even know what a Yugo is. )