Yay for the human race. 
Apparently, that number is actually pretty small.
The statement: " During the health-care policy portion of the debate, Trump attacked Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan and said it would end up in a “disaster, somewhat similar to Canada.” He called the Canadian health-care system “catastrophic,” and said that in “many cases,” Canadians are coming to the United States to receive operations because their system is so slow. We checked out whether this was accurate."
The rating: three Pinnochios (out of four, with four being 'completely untrue" ). It is, in other words, mostly false - some Canadians do travel, but not nearly as many as are claimed. It isn’t widespread.
"Three Pinocchios
pinocchio_3
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.” But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three."
The article goes into the “why”.
In short, while it tends to be a big talking point in healthcare, the actual numbers (insofar as they are actually known) are relatively small.
Plus, there’s the number of Americans who travel abroad to get health care as summarised in this Mother Jones article from a couple of years ago:
“The campaign pointed out that 52,513 people in 2014 represented a 25.5 percent increase over the 2013 estimate of 41,838 people. For context, 52,513 people represent 0.15 percent of the country’s population of 35.5 million in 201”
Meanwhile
“an estimated 1.4 million Americans will leave the country for a medical procedure, according to Patients Beyond Borders.”
But you can be pretty certain that Magiver’s going to clutch at any straw he can to criticize the Canadian system, while ignoring any comparable figure that show the US is doing much worse.
Canadian doctors work hard and are remunerated well. In Quebec, doctors used to be paid less than many other provinces. Specialists were always paid much more than family doctors there (as a recent Andre Picard column describes). Many doctors have some social conscience, but most who “complained” were residents (student doctors) not yet making money commensurate with their worth.
No, the cases are different:
The UAW were desperate not to lose their jobs. So they took pay cuts only because it’s in their self-interest.
These Canadian doctors seem to be doing the opposite: they were willing to take pay cuts because they have a social conscience and want to help others.
(Plus, they are also young interns,with a bright future of good job security and high pay guaranteed----it’s easier to be idealistic that way 
)
But good for them!
YES! THIS! This is what I find so remarkable. The Canadian health system is not the point of my posting this. They might be plumbers or pilots or pea pickers. It’s that they are asking for LESS PAY because of a social conscience.
Nothing to contribute on the topic.
I just had to respond to this entry by praising this evocative phrase.
–G
EOM
Yet, you never see him paying extra into the system, even though he can.
Warren Buffett is always claiming that he and other people like him are paying too little in taxes. He could voluntarily increase the taxes he, personally, is paying. But that won’t be enough to make a difference, without also increasing the taxes paid by Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers and all the others whom you’ve never heard of.
or giving it to his employees like other companies did. Heck, he donated 37 Billion to Gate’s charity in the past so it’s not like “doer of good deeds” is a new idea to him.
We have a bridge we’d like to sell him in Cincinnati (seriously). Buy us one and we’ll even name it after him. The Warren Buffet Memorial Bridge.
Maybe I’m weird, but I would not want the name “memorial” in anything named after me as long as I’m still alive. I cannot shake the association that this word means that you are dead. It just implies “we’re remembering you after you’ve passed” to me.
I don’t mind. They can name it after me.
That’s not necessarily true. They’re experts in their medical fields, not in the administration of hospitals and the provision of services. Those are different fields and I think it’s a mistake to assume that doctors know best how a health care system should work, any more than one would say that nurses know best how a health care system should work, or that radiologist techs know best, etc.
I once heard an interview with former Premier Alan Blakeney talking about Cabinet formation after an election, and the interviewer suggested that a doctor would make a good Minister of Health. Blakeney responded by saying he would never put a doctor in the Health portfolio, because ministers aren’t supposed to be experts in the field of their ministry. They’re supposed to bring good judgment to what should be done, among the range of options that are available.
He also said that as soon as there was a strike by doctors or nurses, or some sort of disagrement between doctors and other participants in the health care system, having a doctor as Minister would undermine the credibility of the government in trying to settle the dispute: is the Doctor Minister acting for the best interests of the people who are served by the health care system, or for the best interests of the doctors?