They have a higher life expectancy because they have a lower infant mortality rate. They have a lower infant mortality rate because they record infant deaths differently. In the US, if a fetus is delivered naturally, and was not known to already be dead before labor began, it's counted as an infant death instead of a late term miscarriage. Thus skewing the life expectancy stats compared to nations that don't include infants that die during or shortly following birth. I'm not sure how Canada does it, but it's still apples to oranges.
No, you didn't address it. You need to show how they are different in Canada from the US, rather than assuming it is. Do the needful and back up this so far unsubstantiated claim.
No matter how you slice it, or how you spread the cost, the US system is ridiculously expensive while offering worse quality.
but the fact remains you have over 50 million people with no insurance and over 25 million with inadequate insurance. Thats 42% of your population under 65. Forty two %!
THirdly, about the right to access; it exists here just as well. Its not mutually exclusive with the right to provision, its a false dilemma. You are free to go to see any specialist you want. Depending on which type of specialist and the urgency of the condition, you might need to see a general doctor first. Actually, you dont even have to, but if you dont get a letter of referral, insurance wont pay the cost. If you pick a private hospital or a specialist that works outside the public system, the insurance may not pay or may pay only a small amount of the bill. Sounds imminently reasonable to me. You do have choice here as well. Its just that the public system is pretty darn good that hardly anyone feels a need to go outside of it.
So I have to support my claims while others do not?