[ori_b]

Again, I have lived there, and the numbers seem on the upper end of plausible for non-essential surgery like breast reduction, but extremely bogus for anything important. A day or two was normal for routine treatments.

The official government figures, where about half of patients get care within 24 hours, and about 90% within 48, are much more in line with my experience.

[lj3]

I know someone personally who had to wait months to see somebody. He said screw it and came to the states for care instead (dual citizenship). He was able to see a specialist immediately and found out he was grossly misdiagnosed.

[ori_b]

And I know people in the USA who have gone to Canada or India for medical tourism because they could not get good care at an affordable price in the USA. But these are anecdotes.

When you look at the stats aggregated by OECD, Canada is indeed among the worst public health services in the developed world, but it still provides better care to the median earner than the US health system, at half the aggregated cost per capita.

[lj3]

Never once have I heard of an American going to Canada for medical tourism. I live on the Ontario/NY border and have my whole life.

I'm sorely disappointed in your arguments so far. Your stats support your point and are legitimate but mine are not. Typical liberal nonsense.

[boomboomsubban]

The governments stats basically have to be kept. Running the system requires all of the necessary data to already be collected for other purposes, and their stats are drawn from that.

The stats you provide are collected by an institute looking to further their ideology. They come from a far smaller data pool,and their collection method seems rather suspect. For example, they're asking the actual practitioner rather than anyone involved in scheduling.

[lj3]

> The stats you provide are collected by an institute looking to further their ideology.

Proof?

> The governments stats basically have to be kept. Running the system requires all of the necessary data to already be collected for other purposes, and their stats are drawn from that.

You trust a government entity to accurately report data that's not in it's best interest? When has that ever happened?

[ori_b]

> You trust a government entity to accurately report data that's not in it's best interest? When has that ever happened?

Can you explain what your criteria would be for a trustworthy source?

[boomboomsubban]

>Proof?

That's essentially the definition of a think tank. This one was founded by a libertarian and considered by many to be libertarian. Certainly cause to question their stats, and I didn't like what I saw.

>You trust a government entity to accurately report data that's not in it's best interest? When has that ever happened?

This is probably enough for you to question their stats, but you've done nothing to show they are wrong.

[ori_b]

I agree, my stats are in line with what I and my family have experienced, and yours are not.

Combine that with multiple agencies such as Health Canada and OECD which have measured wait times an order of magnitude lower than you cited, I am not sure what else to say.

[Latteland]

Just search for it on Google, you'll find dozens of news articles.

[r00fus]

He has data you have an anecdote. Guess which one is worth more?

[lj3]

And why is his data more legitimate than my data? And don't bring up the so called "bias" because of factors unrelated to the study. Every study has bias, including the numbers ori_b is touting.

[ori_b]

Because one does not measure the quality of health care by the amount of time spent waiting for non-critical treatments such as hip replacements or breast reduction surgery, which is the only thing that your numbers are vaguely consistent with across about 10 different sources I've looked at by this point.

I challenge you to find a second source that is both consistent with your article, and breaks down the waiting times by type of treatment, including treatments that do not need follow ups with specialists.