Canada's so far has worked for me. I've never had a wait time in Emergency of more than an hour, for visits from broken bones, steel in an eye and cuts needing stitches. I've not had to test the system beyond that. There are some procedures that do have a fairly long wait, like Cat Scans. There simply aren't enough machines or technicians. This is one area that is supposed to be changing soon. Mistakes? Keep the politicians out of health care. They tend to use it as a bargaining chip. Pay your medical people well. It keeps them in your country.

In Australia, we have Medicare, some doctors bulk b ill which means patients do not have to pay anything to seea doctor. Some doctors charge all patients who then take the receipt to a Medicare office for a rebate, (or you can post it in and wait for a cheque your choice). Some doctors only bulk bill for patients in receipt of a government pension, but only charge the difference between the full cost and the rebate, that means you sign the form and the doctor gets the difference. You don't pay in hospitals but there is a long waiting list for surgery, you don't pay in emergency, and again it can be a long wait, and if you don't mind waiting then all medical can be free. However, things like physio, occ therapy, x-rays, scans, etc you pay for unless in receipt of a government pension. I think it has it's flaws and it is costly (government wise and therefore taxes, we pay a rebate on our income tax every year), but medical care is available when you need it and if money is a problem, then medical is still available. If you need a specialist, then you pay the full cost of the consultation, but around 70% to 85% can be rebated from the Medicare Office....works for us

Our National Health Service in the UK, for all its faults, provides decent healthcare for all citizens, free at the point of use. I'm very proud of it, and feel sorry for citizens of countries without any equivalent.

The biggest problem with the NHS (UK) is that despite being one of the largest employers in the world, a large proportion of the workforce is involved in bureaucracy. The hospital chief executive earn massive wages, compared to the junior doctors, nurses, physios, OT, HCAs etc who actually do the hard work. However, another large problem is lack of education/common sense on the users part. Many in this country complain about long waiting times in A&E, and to be honest it's not surprising. A triage system is set up in the department to allow those with more serious needs to be seen first, as makes sense. But when you start getting complaints that they've been waiting hours to see someone - well what did you expect? Your child has a tickly cough. In the meantime they've got one burns victim, a probable heart attack, three drunks who got into a fight with broken glass bottles and massive lacerations, and a car crash victim on the way. In the UK, as well as the hospital settings, we have general practice, classsed as primary care. If there is a problem that does not require a hospital admission, (i.e. most things) this is the first port of call. So intheory, this should limit the burden on hospitals and the system would work well. But agian, people abuse the system - you've got a viral throat infection, and you want antibiotics. ANTIBIOTICS - what the hell good are they going to do? But they insist on having some, and won't leave until they get them, therefore using up a valuable time slot, NHS drug resources and potentially putting themselves at more harm. The media doesn't do us any favours either. Measles rates are climbign to levels not seen for the past couple of decades, because of the MMR-autism speculation a few years ago, which will probably lead to an increase in child mortality if unchecked. However, for all the complaints about waiting times, and the fact that going private it the only way to get seen before the world ends (as many bitterly state), if you have a real medical emergency, the NHS cannot be beaten. The standards of care are the best, the level of treatment and diagnostic input are second to none, and follow up is superb. Like any organisation, it has bad and good points, and of course there are many users who are not totally satisfied. Yes, you do hear of horror stories, (pften blown out of proportion by the media). Yes int's currently in loads of debt. But when you need it, *really* need it, you get it. Immediately.

I live in the Uk. I wish I had the option of channelling my national insurance contributions into a private healthcare plan instead of the national health service. I have about £100 a month deducted out of my wage for my national insurance contributions, if this was going towards a private health scheme, then I would have some really good health care provisions. I have had mainly negative experiences of the national health service, worryingly so. They do a very good job in the main but it is a bit of a lottery depending on which area of the UK you live in, which isn't fair in my opinion. The wealthier counties tend to have better healthcare. I live in the Northwest of England, it is well known that the southern counties have better hospitals and more money. Our hospitals are dirty and for some reason cannot grasp the fundamental importance of basic hygiene. They say this is due to lack of money???? I hope to god that I never have to go into my local hospital. My mum went in with for one thing, and ended up with pneumonia, the patients on her ward were dropping like flies. My sister went into the same hospital to have her baby, and there was blood on the toilet seat for 4 days, despite her complaints it did not get cleaned until she cleaned it off herself. This is not right. Documentaries have been televised highlighting the lack of cleanliness and also the hospital employees lack of understanding of how important it is not to use the same cloth for cleaning round the toilet bowl and then the door handles. Universal healthcare is a very good concept, but if it is the only choice you have you need to make sure it's working properly. Otherwise people lose their lives through other peoples incompetence.

I think free healthcare in Canada is being taken advantage of; I've been to the hospital and children with minor coughs, colds, scrapes or bruises, and minor things that aren't urgent fill up the hospital and anyway my friend mike and I had to wait over 3 hours for them to repair his broken fingers and tendons and i think his wrist I don't remember but we were young. I don't think it's fair that everyone has to pay a bunch of taxes because some people choose to do drugs, smoke, drink, or do stupid stunts. I live in America now and I love it. Back where I lived in Canada the tax rate was 15% on everything except food at a grocery store which in my opinion is too much, which makes free healthcare an illusion because you are really paying for it anyway (taxes, cigarettes(which are like 8$ a pack there), gaz is about 5bucks a gallon)...

US health care is anything but universal. Prescription medication and affordable coverage are big problems. Its not universal health care that is needed in the US its universal insurance.

I live in the UK, where we have a National Health Service, free at the point of need for everyone. Currently it has many problems, of funding etc, and is under attack politically. But I would not swap it for a privatised system EVER. I think it is a sign of a civilised country that it looks after it's citizens should they become sick. Refusing someone essential treatment because they can't afford to pay is in my humble opinion, inhumane. The ideal of Universal Health Care is noble and fantastic, in practise it can be costly and unwieldy, but the benefits far outweigh the costs. For instance, both my parents owe their lives to the National Health Service...

The National Health Service here in the U.K is second to none. The problem with it is , is that it is free at point of need to everyone within the U.K and so is abused by 'Healthcare Tourists' at the cost of U.K resident taxpayers.

No. It will result in FAR greater abuses than are currently experienced. This will ultimately result in rationing of services and lower quality of healthcare.

Although i am not American, but suggested web page http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

Yes, the US is the only advanced country in the world that does not provide health care for it's citizens. The US also has one of the highest stillborn birth rates in the developed countries because of the poor health system.

I don’t live outside the US now, but I lived in Spain for two years and would be happy to share my experience. First of all, the universal health care system in Spain has discouraged many of the most competent people from going into the medical field. Much like many of the US’s most competent would-be teachers opt for other, better-paying professions (and that’s coming from a guy whose parents, wife, and mother-in-law are all teachers, so I certainly believe that there are *some* competent ones out there), so it goes with the medical profession in Spain. To cite an example: while in Spain, one of my friends went to the doctor with severe back pain. The doctors diagnosed him as having a slipped disc, and took action to correct the problem: THEY REMOVED THE DISC. This friend has lived with back pain ever since, due to this ridiculous “treatment.” Is it any wonder that, when he broke his toe, a few months later, he just stuck a splint on it instead of entrusting it to a Spanish doctor? * * * The second thing I noticed is that prescription medication does not exist: anyone can walk into any drug store and purchase any drug, for a very reasonable price—no questions asked. While this sounds like a great thing (and for me personally, it actually was), it also leads to widespread prescription drug abuse and little legal recourse, to stop it. Furthermore, I would think this system of low-priced drugs to be an impossible dream, without high-paid (mostly American) drug companies’ R&D, to create the drugs in the first place. While I do think that a *lot* of prescription medication is severely overpriced, the drug companies have to have *some* way of recouping their costs, or they won’t be able to stay in business. (The same goes for medical technology, which is also fairly lacking, in Spain. Another friend, whose father is a doctor, pointed out some fairly antiquated equipment in an obviously underfunded hospital he wound up needing to visit.) * * * In short, it might be good to help people that fall below a certain income level, or something like that, but I personally think that having the US switch to universal health care would bring about widespread unemployment and a rapid decline in worldwide health.

I'm an Englishman living in Spain, so I have some experience of each country's health care systems. My father had a triple heart by-pass operation about ten years ago and had various heart-related problems from then on. The treatment he received was always promptly delivered and excellent. A friend who was staying on holiday with us on the island of Lanzarote collapsed and was rushed to hospital where he received excellent treatment, marred only by the fact that neither he nor his wife spoke any Spanish. When it became apparent that he needed treatment that was not available here he was air-lifted to the superb University Hospital on Gran Canaria. For major ailments the health services of the two countries are simply superb. The main criticism I would make is that non-serious conditions can involve being on a waiting list for some time. Having said that, a friend of mine in England was told in August that she needed a knee replacement operation and she had the operation 6 weeks later.

There's no singular definition of what "universal healthcare" is - but most countries do a far better job than the US at making sure people have access to at least basic health care, spend less, and get quality results. Many countries recognize public health as a public good - like parks, roads and police departments, it's a shared resource that makes everyone's lives better by being there. It's likely the US will be moving in the direction of a single payer program over the next years, and in the big picture that's probably a good thing. The current system is too costly and too many people fall through the cracks.

I live in Canada and I thank god for our system, the rhetoric by the right wing Amearicans make me want to puke. I have never had a problem with the system ,or know any one who has, and I have not had the best of luck on the health side really

I live in Canada and i and my faimly of 5 have had nothing but great care, and I dont know anybody who hasent, its not even an issue to us, only americans

I live in Malta, where we have free universal health care. It's a brilliant system. Of course it does have its flaws, but they're not so bad. Over here you get free health care by virtue of being a citizen, which means you can't be struck off simply because you had a stroke in the past, or because your mother's side of the family has a history of cancer. On the other hand, if you can afford it and wish to, you can also opt for private health care, where you get a private suite instead of a ward, more choice in the menu and usually shorter waiting times. It's not like you can't get private health care if there's a universal health care system in place. They merely have to come up with some good reasons to justify their prices. Not only is the free health care good in itself, but it also keeps the prices of private health care down too, because they have to compete. The fact that they manage to compete and still turn a very good profit is an indication how much they're shafting people in other places. Also, thanks to mutual agreements between my government and those of other countries with similar systems, I also get health coverage if I happen to be travelling in any of those countries - and vice versa.

I’m not currently someplace with a national health plan, but I have been. Here’s my thoughts, in response to a similar question: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/4758574 HTH!