There are two parts of this piece: the Anecdotal and the Macro.
Anecdotal evidence seems irrelevant to me. My experience with the U.S. system is completely different from his. I've never wanted to go to a Doctor that was "out of network", I can always get an appointment next day, my co-pay is $10, meds are never more than $20 or so and my insurance company has never come back wanting money from me. Does that make me right? Of course not.
On the macro he's still against France's system for it's "punitively high tax rates that will have to increase unless benefits are cut" and he still endorses a free market system so I don't see this piece proving anything in that regard.
Well what it does prove is that the European system isn't the unmitigated disaster that conservatives and libertarians here claim it is. I'm personally all for a free market system, but I think it's counterproductive to be in denial when the other side brings up a damning data set.
Pardon me for quoting from something I wrote above but I didn't want to retype. The bottom line is Data Sets can lie (though I agree single-payer is certainly not the disaster some make it out to be). The quote...
If you look at the breakdown of things you'll see that a lot of the cost difference is because people in the U.S. have a choice and they choose the more expensive option. There are also issues of tort reform which the U.S. desperately needs. Because the current system leads doctors to order thousands of dollars in additional treatments to rule out things that Canadian doctors don't have too (and while the actual suits themselves are a relatively small portion spent on health care it should be mentioned that the U.S. pays 4 times more per capita on malpractice suits)
As for wait times it's true but the base line number doesn't take into account the fact that many don't have health care. Again I reiterate the U.S. system is screwed up. But the fact is people with insurance in the U.S. tend to have shorter wait times and it's only when you factor in things like free clinics and government programs that the wait times rise above those in Canada.
He's still against France's system on a macro level vs a true market based system... which seems like an unachievable alternative, unfortunately. It sounds to me like he thinks "Free Market" > France > UK/Canada/etc > ... > Current US system.
And the macro level influences your anecdotal experience too. Will you still have that same care you're happy with if you lose your job?
I'll have the same care for at least 18 months after losing my job and even after that I'd have a variety of government programs that would provide for me. But the main point is that no one in the U.S. thinks our system isn't screwed up. The question is whether single-payer is the solution or not.
Anecdotal evidence seems irrelevant to me. My experience with the U.S. system is completely different from his. I've never wanted to go to a Doctor that was "out of network", I can always get an appointment next day, my co-pay is $10, meds are never more than $20 or so and my insurance company has never come back wanting money from me. Does that make me right? Of course not.
On the macro he's still against France's system for it's "punitively high tax rates that will have to increase unless benefits are cut" and he still endorses a free market system so I don't see this piece proving anything in that regard.