I recently read a study that concluded that the US has the worst health care system amongst industrialized nations. This poor result was based on the rate of "preventable deaths" in the country. The US had more "preventable" deaths than other nations. The study, naturally, concluded that the reason for the poor performance of the US was the lack of socialized medicine. The key to the study is the definition of "preventable deaths." Death from heart attacks were defined as being "preventable." This puts the US at a severe disadvantage since the US has a much higher incidence of heart disease than nations such as France, Italy, Japan, and Great Britain. I take issue with death from a heart attack as being a "preventable" death. I had a major heart attack in 1997, shortly after a physical that declared me fit. And, I had none of the usual indicators of increased likelihood of developing heart disease. Just this past December I had coronary bypass surgery after it was found that I had a 99% blockage at the entrance to my left circumflex artery. The doctors said that with my condition , sudden death was imminent, so they recommended surgery immediately. (I asked the cardiologist how it could be that I was functioning normally with such a blockage in my heart: the answer, "that's a good question.") Had I lived in England I would have been put on the waiting list for surgery, since I have never smoked: at my age of 71, I would not have been eligible for surgery if I were a smoker. In Canada I would have been put of the list for surgery in a few months, or, maybe, sent to the US for surgery. Here is a piece from American Thinker about how Canada sends people to the US for treatment, despite having "the best care in the World available in Canada." Personally I think all of the studies that show how terrible healthcare is in the US, and how great it is in socialist nations are bogus.