The author makes the disingenuous claim that America is "rushing into a system of government-dominated health care" to make his case. The likely outcome of health care reform will combine public and private insurance options. Some of his points are compelling -- cancer survival rates in the States and Canada -- but others are the exaggerations we see from single-payer opponents.

The problem with this piece, which looks at the evolution of the Canadian system, is that it's main argument is a strawman. Obama isn't proposing a single payer system, but rather a public/private hybrid model, as far as I can tell.

Little more than a hack opinion piece; sure the Canadian system is light-years from perfect, but their life expectancy is still longer than that of the US (ditto for all the other industrialized nations).

The central point of this story--that government meddling leads to rationing of healthcare, which causes unacceptable delays--is a good one. The author spotlights the Canadian and British healthcare systems to prove his point. What is lacking is proper perspective; the two national healthcare systems that are top-rated by the WHO are the French and Japanese systems, neither of which feature government rationing of heathcare and both of which offer comprehensive on-demand care that ... More »

Anecdotal, and no experts cited. So many lies have been told about the Canadian system that the little boy who called wolf comes to mind when another monologue says Canada is awful. Independent views and opinions from a range of Canadians are needed to evaluate Canada. That does not even include the need to evaluate other developed nations and their systems.

This story equates Canadian health care with "government-dominated" health care with no attempt at discussing the different systems available around the world and with no attempt at analyzing the reasons for its problems.

This is a good opinion piece, but should not be confused with careful journalism. The author clearly articulates one critique of the proposal to reform healthcare in the U.S. This is not a fair assessment of alternatives -- for example, it does not consider counterarguments -- but the view is clearly spelled out and it is supported with a reasonable body of evidence.

Cuts through the propaganda and lies concerning how wonderful the Canadian system is.