I think the answer is again complicated....
A larger country by population, with similar economic resources, will be able to afford at least some more advanced healthcare, insofar as the cost of that care is distributed across a much larger population.
However, a larger geography also creates impediments to accessing that care. This is true in the U.S. and Canada. Is advanced care in NYC or Cleveland or Minnesota available to you if you live in Washington or Hawaii or Alaska or Fla?
Your insurer may pay for the procedure, but probably not the flight, and maybe not the hotel for days required beyond the medically essential care in a hospital.
Its blurry.
***
Likewise, in Canada we have world-leading care in a small number of centres. Example, double-lung transplants at UHN; but while, generally various provincial insurance schemes will cover the procedure should you need it; whether they cover travel and non-medical accommodation is a different question.
***
Put simply, comparisons are hard. Outcomes are somewhat easier to measure as opposed to procedure counts or even wait times...
But even there, there are limitations.
What role do does acute-poverty play; or extraordinary wealth, not just in ability to access care; but in the conditions one may be likely to have in the first place?
***
The important thing to understand is that neither 'system' is in fact a 'system'........and neither system is perfect.
Canada tends to produce fewer terrible outcomes; the U.S. tends to provide more 'excellent' outcomes.......
But even both of those are not universally true.
Bookmarks