Anyone who thinks that the Canadian system is better than America’s is woefully ill-informed.[/size]
.
No health-care system is without its flaws. For procedures which requires specialized equipment or technicians, there is indeed a long wait so many Canadians come here. However, for routine care as well as preventative care, the Canadian system is cheaper and you are guaranteed care.
Fun fact: The U.S. and Canada used to have roughly the same statistics in terms of average life span and infant mortality rates. Canadians started becoming healthier and longer-lived in the seventies—round about the same time they implemented universal single-payer healthcare.
Canadian healthcare taken as a whole is, by empirical measurement, objectively superior to U.S. healthcare. This is almost certainly due to the implementation of a nationalized, single-payer healthcare system.
Okay, lets be objective. There is such a thing as “ideal care”. For example, “ideal care” for cholelithiasis (gallstones) is to get them to surgery soon, before simple stones becomes inflammation (cholecystitis). There is a measurable increase in mortality and morbidity in cholecystitis versus cholelithiasis. The wait for surgery in Canada for cholelithiasis is literally months, compared to much less for the US. This translates into more cases of cholecystitis, which is inherently more serious than gallstones. Their statistics on cholecystitis outcomes are similar in every respect to the US outcomes - what they don’t tell you is how many cases of simple gallstones BECAME cholecystitis because they waited so long. No one can tell you that. But we know that it increases with time, and we know that they wait much longer than us.
To wait up to 9 months for knee replacement or to wait up to 6 months for hip replacement would just not be tolerated here. And the cost of that is for the patient to live in pain longer. This doesn’t show up in mortality statistics, but it exists nonetheless.
I contest your statement above that Canadian is, by empirical measurement, superior to US medicine. There is a lot more involved than simplistic comparison of longevity studies. Yet this is what you seem to be basing your opinion on. Even Canadian physicians don’t think that. And to say that a “single-payor” system is RESPONSIBLE for improvements in people’s health - you’ll have to demonstrate how that could be. A temporal association is not strong enough evidence.
Okay, lets be objective. There is such a thing as “ideal care”. For example, “ideal care” for cholelithiasis (gallstones) is to get them to surgery soon, before simple stones becomes inflammation (cholecystitis). There is a measurable increase in mortality and morbidity in cholecystitis versus cholelithiasis. The wait for surgery in Canada for cholelithiasis is literally months, compared to much less for the US. This translates into more cases of cholecystitis, which is inherently more serious than gallstones. Their statistics on cholecystitis outcomes are similar in every respect to the US outcomes - what they don’t tell you is how many cases of simple gallstones BECAME cholecystitis because they waited so long. No one can tell you that. But we know that it increases with time, and we know that they wait much longer than us.
To wait up to 9 months for knee replacement or to wait up to 6 months for hip replacement would just not be tolerated here. And the cost of that is for the patient to live in pain longer. This doesn’t show up in mortality statistics, but it exists nonetheless.
I contest your statement above that Canadian is, by empirical measurement, superior to US medicine. There is a lot more involved than simplistic comparison of longevity studies. Yet this is what you seem to be basing your opinion on. Even Canadian physicians don’t think that. And to say that a “single-payor” system is RESPONSIBLE for improvements in people’s health - you’ll have to demonstrate how that could be. A temporal association is not strong enough evidence.
And what else doesn’t show up is the impact and cost of a decline of worker productivity related to long waits for treatments. Take the example I gave previously on the Canadian having to wait 9 months of a hernia repair. Suppose he worked in a job that required physical stamina to perform or someone who misses work because of nausea & vomiting from cholelithiasis while waiting for surgery? None of these costs are captured as “costs” to the Canadian health care system that I can see. The pain and suffering these poor chaps endure while waiting for surgery would probably get them a cool million here in the U.S.
The health care system dispute in the US is basically a story of class warfare. Affluent people with good health care do not wish to pay more in taxes so that the poor can get better health care. Because it is unappealing to make a selfish argument, they pull together all kinds of anecdotes and statistics to demonstrate that the US system is better for everyone. But it sure as hell isn’t better for the uninsured, and as the number of uninsured grows, the passage of universal health care legislation in the US becomes more likely.
The health care system dispute in the US is basically a story of class warfare. Less affluent people who rely on free basic health care wish for others to pay more in taxes so that they can get premium health care at the expense of others. Because it is unappealing to make a selfish argument, they pull together all kinds of anecdotes and statistics to demonstrate that the Canadian system is better for everyone. But it sure as hell wouldn’t be better for the vast majority of responsible Americans who maintain their own health care insurance. And as the number of uninsured grows, the demagoguery of those who wish to worsen health care for all so that some can have it for free grows in direct proportion.
There is no question that the Canadian and European health services are well set-up for “catastrophic” care. But this is not what is being sold by the political hacks. The reality is that in anything but the most serious cases the client of a state-run system has two challenges:
1. they wait in line for an appointment/ procedure (even for dire cases - remember “dire” is not the same as “dying").
2. they cannot choose their physician or treatment
The only positive thing you can say about this is that nobody has to think about paying insurance fees (the government already took care of that for you by lifting it from your paycheck).
Only an ignoramus would claim a state-run health-care system is appreciably better than the US system. I say that as a person with direct experience of both (flawed) systems.
Well, maybe “ignoramus” is a strong word. It’s certainly true that citizens of these socialist paradises do have a touching faith in the excellence of their doctors and their care (as they mark off the days on their calendar to the appointment with the imperious specialist who will decide, 2 hours late for the consultation, in under 10 minutes what list they will enter next).
I wish those who really loved the Soviet Union had just had the courage to pick up and go there (before it collapsed) rather than inflicting their nightmare utopias on the rest of us.
The health care system dispute in the US is basically a story of class warfare.
A poll a couple of years ago showed that the groups most happy with their health care were poor people and old people: two groups who rely more than others on government programs.
The health care system dispute in the US is basically a story of class warfare.
A poll a couple of years ago showed that the groups most happy with their health care were poor people and old people: two groups who rely more than others on government programs.
It’s only one data point, but there it is.
Sounds like a pseudo-datapoint to me, but lets accept that it is true, just for argument.
a) If the poor are so ecstatic about their healthcare, why do we need to change it?
b) If the old are so ecstatic about their healthcare, why do we need to change it?
If we needed to change it, in view of this “datapoint”, one would have to postulate that the poor and the old are STUPID, and simply don’t understand how poorly they are treated.
And who are the people who seem to be making that supposition? Who are the ones FOR changing their healthcare, even though they are the “most happy” of ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES about their healthcare? The left.
So here, we have independent confirmation, supplied by vlad, that the left thinks that the poor and the elderly are stupid.
I wish those who really loved the Soviet Union had just had the courage to pick up and go there (before it collapsed) rather than inflicting their nightmare utopias on the rest of us.
How is it that the United States is the only country among advanced nations to have the brilliance and insight to make sure that 15% of the population is uninsured so as to assure superb health care for the rest of us? Why did the rich nations of Europe and Asia not think of this brilliant public policy? What are they missing?
Because the United States has the greatest tradition of ensuring individual freedom. Much more than the “rich nations of Europe and Asia”, who come from an authoritarian, or oppressive, or oligarchic, or monarchic backgrounds. We didn’t. We broke free of that yoke. It is guys like you that wish us to go back, and who seem to yearn for such a background. The freedom to succeed includes the freedom to fail. And you seem to be quite happy to damage the freedom to succeed in order that the freedom to fail doesn’t happen.
Thanks for including the United States under the classification of “advanced nations”. It goes against what you usually say. The fact is that EVERYONE in this country has the ability to get insured. Those who do not choose to pay the price to get insured, don’t. And of course, when the consequences of this decision becomes clear, they are quite ready to blame it on everyone else. And you are quite ready to buy that excuse.
Every person in America can raise their education, their productivity, their skill level, their knowledge base, and their compensation. Every one. What you seem to be trying to do is to ensure that failure never carries consequences. And this, of course, will ensure that there are decreased incentives to succeed. This will INCREASE failure in the US, not decrease it. I would have thought that you cared more for the poor than that.
How is it that the United States is the only country among advanced nations to have the brilliance and insight to make sure that 15% of the population is uninsured so as to assure superb health care for the rest of us? Why did the rich nations of Europe and Asia not think of this brilliant public policy? What are they missing?
I have this meliorist guy on ignore but I enjoy Oscar’s comments about healthcare so I read the quote he used.
Every now and then the underlying marxist shows itself. It can be quite subtle but it is there nonetheless. In this case I point out the words “...so as to assure superb healthcare for the rest of us.”
This is the old Karl Marx zero sum game. Meliorist wishes us to believe that our superb healthcare is somehow made possible ONLY through keeping others uninsured. It is the old “the wealthy achieved their positions on the backs of the workers” nonsense. And it is nonsense.
but wait, there’s more. Meliorist also contends that this oppression of the great mass of uninsured is the direct result of policy choices made by those who have insurance. It just doesn’t get any more nonsensical than that. Let me be sure I’m getting this right: I chose to pay for medical insurance via my employer, therefore some other employee somewhere else must do without medical insurance? Is that really what this jerk wants us to believe?
Of course the biggest hurdle that the socialists and communists must overcome is the simple fact that the national healthcare systems in other countries are inadequate to the task. Oscar has shredded their arguments repeatedly.
Frankly I’d love it if more people chose to act responsibly and obtained insurance. Unpaid medical bills are an expense that providers must face and they do so by rasing thier rates. There is a cost to charity care and bad debt. While charity care is central to the mission of most hospital providers, bad debt is not. What’s the difference? Charity care is given to people who cannot pay for care. Bad debt is people chosing NOT to pay, even though they have the means to do so.
Further if more people were insured the risk pool would be larger, thus there would be more individuals to share the cost of expensive care for those who need it. Therefore our premiums would DECLINE. It makes no economic sense to purposely exclude people from insurance risk pools. Once again meliorist just demonstrates abyssal ignorance. You’d think the boy would learn, but I guess Howard Zinn and noam chomsky’s mental programming is simply to effective for him to overcome.
The fact is that EVERYONE in this country has the ability to get insured.
This is demonstrably false. If you have a serious pre-existing condition, you will never find affordable insurance. Most of you fools are just one bad diagnosis away from bankruptcy. Of course, you would enjoy becoming destitute because, as a loser, you would be upholding the right of the winners to profit from their hard work.
Define “affordable” in a manner that doesn’t include “what I feel like paying”.
Every insurance company has an open enrollment period whereby those with pre-existing conditions may buy their product.
The fact is that EVERYONE in this country has the ability to get insured.
This is demonstrably false. If you have a serious pre-existing condition, you will never find affordable insurance. Most of you fools are just one bad diagnosis away from bankruptcy. Of course, you would enjoy becoming destitute because, as a loser, you would be upholding the right of the winners to profit from their hard work.
1) If someone has a significant chronic illness and 2) either didn’t have insurance or 3) dropped their insurance, and then 4) tried to get new insurance, then, yes, they would have to pay more. But they would still be able to get it, despite their poor choices. So “demonstrably false” requires quite a few “ifs”. But you were not talking, in terms of the 15%, of people who have “serious pre-existing conditions” - you were clearly referring to people who couldn’t afford it or have chosen not to have it.
Although that is not terribly clear. You said that someone is “making sure” that this 15% isn’t insured, “so as to assure superb health care for the rest of us”. (Thanks for admitting that the care here is “superb”. I will expect no more gratuitous slams about the quality of care here in the US.) Sounds like it is a conscious choice by this shadowy “someone”. Too bad that we don’t have the ability to interview this Person of the Shadows, to find out what his criteria are, isn’t it? And, of course, how he brings this off. He must have incredible behind-the-scenes power, mustn’t he? And, of course, people with your slant can never actually IDENTIFY who might be doing these nefarious tasks, or identify HOW he or they might be pulling it off. And, of course, how they might be ENSURING that the remaining people get “superb” care.
And as for becoming “destitute”, with in your opinion, I would “enjoy” (a perfectly stupid postulate, if you ask me), I assume that you are limiting it to “most of you fools”, which means, whom? Patients? Physicians? You need to become clearer in your writing. When we wade through your rhetoric, we often find...nothing there. Care to elaborate?
The fact is that EVERYONE in this country has the ability to get insured.
This is demonstrably false. If you have a serious pre-existing condition, you will never find affordable insurance. Most of you fools are just one bad diagnosis away from bankruptcy. Of course, you would enjoy becoming destitute because, as a loser, you would be upholding the right of the winners to profit from their hard work.
...
You need to become clearer in your writing. When we wade through your rhetoric, we often find...nothing there. Care to elaborate?
Just in case “Meliorist” comes back with a retort about your using the “royal we” and such, let me add myself to the set of people who’s interested in having him/her/it ‘splain.
The canard from the Left is that medical insurance and medical care are one and the same, and that somehow if an individual has no insurance, they get no care.
Medical care is available to anyone in the United States of America who bothers to seek it out - even the truly poor - even non-citizens. You may need to fill out some paperwork, wait a bit, or God forbid suffer the indignity of care that is not as expedient as care obtained by someone with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. But you’ll get care, in the same medical system enjoyed by everyone else.
It’s a good system we have, if government would just get the hell out, and let the market work. Look at all the market-based systemic infrastructure in this country, across the board. The systems that are the most f**ked up are the ones most interfered-with by government bureaucracy and regulation.
And if you oppose a market-based medical system, go to school and intern for 13 years, and then be told the government is going to regulate the value of the time and effort you’ve spent.
And Mealy-mouth, you like to flaunt the “fact” that once the number of uninsured becomes a majority, then we’ll have taxpayer-funded health-care. Understand, the system was not always like it is now. I realize you are but a youth. The system has gotten worse over the years in proportion to government interference and regulation in the system.
For crying out loud, government won’t even allow people to purchase insurance from out of state. How in the hell is a free market system supposed to function with that kind of arbitrary restrictive regulation? I want insurance companies to compete for my dollars. Only then will the cost of insurance and the value of the product reflect real market dynamics.
I realize that competition is antithetical to your liberal sensibilities, but it is THE best regulator for a free market system. F**k with it, and f**k with people’s lives and livlihood.
Medical care is available to anyone in the United States of America who bothers to seek it out - even the truly poor - even non-citizens.
Bull$hit. If you are uninsured and have a costly chronic condition or require an expensive repair procedure, you will not receive that care. The best you can hope for is to get treated in an emergency ward when your condition becomes acute, then get dumped out on the street once you are “stabilized.”
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Every city has several free clinics, and every hospital has liason staff that will direct people to them. There is staff at every medical facility that treats low income patients that will assist those patients in navigating through medical assistance beaurocracy. If uninsured people are willing to do what it takes, they can get government assitance if they qualify. If they don’t qualify, guess, what? That means they can pay. And I know first hand that hospitals and clinics will negotiate reduced fees and payment schedules with patients. They employ staff just for that purpose as well.
Emergency rooms treat acute situations. They are not set up to treat long-term chronic conditions. Just because patients off the street cannot get long-term care from the emergency room does not mean it is unavailable to them.
You are just so bent on everybody being treated exactly the same, that you fail to understand that for the vast majority of Americans, we have easy access to the best medical care anywhere in the world, and for the minority without insurance, they have access to the same system via alternate means. They may have to go through the “degrading” process of jumping through beaurocratic hoops to get long-term assistance, and going to the free clinic downtown for their primary care instead of the shiny new clinic in the burbs, but that is because their economic circumstances warrant it, not because the majority get the best care.
Bottom line is you think the system “unfair”, so you would see it worsened for all, so that the underprivileged could feel better about themselves. Stinking class envy.
If you think we need less regulation of business, take a look at the US financial markets. If the Fed had not stepped in, all of the Wall Street investment houses would have collapsed because of their swinish pursuit of predatory profits in mortgage and junk bond lending.
That is called market correction, son. Look, I know you’re an idealistic young man, but you need to take a reality pill. The government f**ks up everything it touches when it tries to stick its nose in the market by telling people dealing in legal commerce what they can sell, what they can buy, and how they can buy it.
I want to shop around the country for the medical insurance policy that best suits my needs, for the best price. Government prevents me from doing that, and thereby squashes competition for my dollar. This puts the HMOs in a position of offering less service for more money. That is laid directly at the feet of politicians who pandered to that industry and f**ked it up in the first place. Government regulation.
If the government had kept its stinking nose out of the medical insurance industry in the first place, we would not be in the situation we are in right now.
Not to mention the fact that out medical benevolence infrastructure is being overrun by illegal aliens who do not even have the right to be in this country. Government again.
You want this inept government to be in charge of the medical system that treats you, your “partner”, or your family’s children? You are insane.
This is just the magic of the marketplace at work, right? This is what makes us such a great society? All these bankrupt families must make you smile because they prove we have the best medical care system in the world. Americans live in fear of getting sick, because a catastrophic illness can destroy their financial security.
If people incur medical expenses they cannot pay because they failed to seek the proper channels available to them for financial relief, who’s fault is that? Mine? Capitalism’s?
And what the hell do you think bankruptcy is for? It is relief from uncollectable incurred debt, you dodo. You want to pay in good faith, but you can’t, and can prove you can’t, you get to file bankruptcy. Entrepeneurs do it all the time. Most millionaires have filed at least once. Bankruptcy does not mean you lose everything. It means there is a safety net to prevent that from happening.
Do you believe that somewhere embedded in the constitution or in some imaginary meliorist moral code that everyone has the “right” to financial security? Do you think it is a person’s “right” to be free from the risks that arise from the hazards of everyday living, including injury and disease? Maybe you should just live in a padded cell.
Zealots like you would shut down Medicare, Medicaid and the VA hospital system. Somehow, the marketplace magic would take care of all of the indigent and unfortunate. We are the only affluent nation in the world in which this fairy-tale view of health care capitalism persists, and our declining public health statistics show the price we are paying for this delusion.
Don’t tell me what I would or wouldn’t do.
And we have thus far staved off the substandard health-care systems that now plague so many Europeans and Canadians who thought it would be nice to suckle on the teat of the nanny-state.
Bottom line is, when they need the best, they come here.
