I am a student who has recently begun studying the American health care
system.  So far,  I am undecided on my feelings toward a government-run
health care system.  I would like any feedback regarding the following
exerpts from a column by James Frogue which appeared in the Commentary
section of the Washington Times.  I realize this article portrays the
Canadian and Britain health care systems as being inferior to the American
system and I would love to hear any rebuttals to this argument.  Thanks!

> "Several hundred members of the American Medical Students
> Association (AMSA), many of them representing the country's finest medical
> schools, gathered in white coats on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on March
> 16 to rally for government health care.  To anyone familiar with what
> socialized medicine inevitably brings -- long lines, rationed care,
> frustrated doctors -- it was like watching prisoners rally for more jail
> time........."
> "Consider Canada and Britain, both of which are often cited as
> 'models' for American health care by supporters of a government-run
> system.  Canadians wait a median of six weeks to see a specialist
> following a referral from their family doctor.  They are then forced to
> wait about another seven weeks to receive the treatment the specialist
> recommends.  Should they need a CAT scan, the median wait is five
> weeks; for an MRI 11 weeks.  In America, you can get an MRI for your
> family pet within a day or two.
> Indeed, among the 29 countries that belong to the Organization for
> Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada ranks 21st in availability of
> CAT scanners, and 19th in availability of MRIs.  In availability of
> overall medical technology, only three countries consistently rank  below
> Canada:  Mexico, Poland and Turkey.
> In Britain, survival rates for cancer rank far below the average
> for an industrialized country.  The World Health Organization estimates
> that 25,000 people in Britain die unnecessarily of cancer every year
> --people who would likely have survived had they been in the United
> States.  For a British man with colon cancer, the five-year survival rate
> is 41 percent; in the United Stated, 64 percent.  For lung cancer, the
> survival rates are 6 percent and 13 percent, respectively.  Women with
> breast cancer in Britain survive in 67 percent of cases after five years,
> compared with 84 percent of American women.
> The structure of the British system is rigged so that the
> authority of government bureaucrats to limit spending undermines the
> ability of doctors to deliver care.  The health service is divided up into
> 115 local authorities, with each one  given a fixed budget.  It is up to
> these local authorities to determine how to spend the money, and -- more
> ominously -- who to spend it on.  It is not uncommon for elderly patients
> requiring expensive care to be left untreated so that budget targets can
> be met.
> So the question arises: Do AMSA members know what they're asking
> for?  I spoke with several students at the rally to find out if these
> doctors-to-be truly understood the implications of government-run health
> care.  No one I encountered had the foggiest idea.  I asked Ron from
> Emory University if he thought the switch to a single-payer system would
> negatively affect patient care.  "I don't see why," he said.  Laura from
> the Medical College of Georgia told me, "I don't know much about [a
> single-payer system], I just support it."
> ".....Despite its good intentions, single-payer, government-run
> health care does not come close to delivering what Americans have come to
> expect from the best health-care system in the world."
>
Thanks for your insights.
-Ashley Slagle