Scott asks:
==============
But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by
priority
is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please
whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?"
===============

Just think about that for a moment will you. A "national" system, I
mean.

This is a HUGE country. How do you suppose that would work?!

Suppose I need heart surgery in Vancouver, and a surgeon happens to be
free in Toronto. Do you suppose that somehow a government bureaucrat
orders or directs me to Toronto to be serviced by this available
surgeon. Of course NOT!

The whole notion of a "national" directory or system or whatever for
establishing medical priorities is ludicrous. That's something even
Stalin would not have tried. You're guessing about what happens in
Canada, and in this case your guess is so impractical no
central-planning communist would even dream of trying it.

The experience of my father-in-law shows that he made the choice to be
operated on by a surgeon with a good reputation in a hospital which
specializes in heart surgeries. This meant he had to travel (including
taking a ferry) for his examinations and, eventually, for his surgery.
He could also have had it done in his local hospital. We have no way of
knowing what the differences in the relative waiting lists may have
been. Suffice to say, the surgeon he chose established the severity and
hence the priority of his case, and called him in, by helicopter, when
he could fit him in.

Again, I suspect this is not different than for surgeons in high demand
in the USA. Waiting, I mean.

And, Scott, it is YOU who calls our system "socialized", not us. We
talk about universal (insurance) coverage. What that means is, when my
father-in-law arrived at the hospital, he handed over his medical card
(like a cerdit card), it was swiped, the data was entered, and the
"billing" was taken care of, and he put the card back into his wallet.
End of story!

frtzw906