Manitoba is sending 300 spinal surgery patients to North Dakota because they can't clear the backlog any other way.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-surgeries-n...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/patients-liv...
"Bennett was referred for surgery on her right hip in November of 2013 and said she’s been told she won’t get in until early in 2016. She said her joint has deteriorated so much she is unable to work or even function without strong narcotic painkillers."
And you don't think the Canadian Medicare system denies coverage? Or second guesses doctors? It does.
"despite a six-year span of growing literature and updated policies, nearly 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with FAI would still potentially be denied coverage. This highlights a continued divide between surgeons and insurance companies."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8259176/
US insurance will also make you wait, mandating less costly treatments first, or have you go through a lengthy & convoluted appeals process to finally get covered.
I didn't say Canada's health system doesn't have delays or rationing of care, only that the US health system is not superior, suffering from exactly the same concerns you bring up about Canada's health system, yet costing the US like 200% more, while chaining people to their employer.
You realize the private US insurers say “yes” to things the Canadian government says “no”?
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4495123
"Then I found out that this other country — which I thought had a healthcare system that was so superior to the U.S. — doesn't test for the tumour marker that saved my life, and doesn't cover this drug that is responsible for pushing my cancer into remission after traditional chemotherapy failed to do that."
And your example is at a single point in time. At one point in time, no US insurer covered that procedure (before it was standardized) and eventually if it actually does affordably improve outcomes, it will be covered by NHS.
For me, the most valuable feature of CA's system is that its incentives are at least mostly aligned with your long term health interests. Only HMOs and active duty soldiers (covering maybe 15% of Americans at most) in the USA are mostly aligned this way. The remainder of US health care is minimally aligned, so costs are outrageous and long term outcomes are sometimes good, but sometimes terrible.
I could reduce the demand for anything if I'm allowed to arbitrarily raise its price.
You assume that Medicaid is accepted. It's increasingly difficult to find providers that will accept it.
From 2015:
> A 2011 nationwide survey of doctors found 31 percent were “unwilling” to accept new Medicaid patients, with acceptance rates across states varying widely. Across the nation, the study estimated 69 percent of doctors were accepting Medicaid, but state acceptance rates ranged from a low of 40 percent in New Jersey to 99 percent in Wyoming, according to the study published in Health Affairs. This was pre-ACA expansion and prior to any reimbursement fee changes.[1]
> When comparing reimbursement rates among health insurance plans, Medicaid is the lowest payer, meaning it’s not a moneymaker for doctors’ offices. Paired with the administrative requirements of accepting public insurance, doctors sometimes just don’t want the hassle.[1]
[1] https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/artic...