namelesstavern.net

Ciladan wrote:Uh, I think everyone should be entitled to health care. Guess it's just that compassion thing. Costs be damned, humans don't deserve to suffer because they can't afford not to.

An average family pays 48% of income in taxes

I must have missed that on my last cheque, because this is a load of crap.

Totally agree Ciladan. All you Libertarian/Objectivist/Conservatives need to remember something. That homeless mentally ill dude with no healthcare that you dont give a shit about sitting next to you on the bus, guess what. He is a disease vector. Who do you think spreads disease? So, now you have a selfish reason to want everyone covered. Since general compassion and the desire for a healthy public isnt good enough.

He also gets free health care. He gets free emergency treatment.

Jesus fucking Christ, Get a frickin clue. We spend MORE per person on FREE health care than Canada, probably because sick poor people get helped IMMEDIATELY here.

*shrug* I know this is anecdotal, but the friends I have in Canada who were in LOS seem to constantly get their medical care in an extremely timely manner. Yes, possibly taking longer than here for some things, but when they had emergencies (gall bladder), they were seen immediately, and had surgery to remove it within the week. Others with serious medical problems were similarly seen rapidly. I have a sneaking suspicion that the horror stories of long waits are by far the exception, and not the rule.

Meanwhile, how many uninsured people in the US wander around with untreated pneumonia or bronchitis, because they can't afford the several hundred dollars a doctor's visit would cost them? I know I've done that, spent 2 months hacking up green crap cause I couldn't afford to go see someone. Canada's system, even if it took me 2 weeks to get an appointment, I'd still have been able to get seen and get antibiotics to treat it for nothing out of pocket. A few years back, I had a staph infection in my leg that hospitalized me for over a week. I had no choice to go in, as I was within days of the leg going gangrenous and losing it, or possibly dying. That cost me, even with all the "low income safety net" crap over $1500. Yeah, sure, I can afford $1500 when I'm not working, and wonder from month to month how I'm even going to cover rent. Riiiiight. I guarantee if we had the Canadian system here, I'd have gone in a week before I did, and maybe I wouldn't have even needed to be hospitalized. How much would we save if people could actually get preventative care (cheap) covered, instead of not being able to afford it, not going in and ultimately needing emergency care? ($$$$$)

Face it, unless you have an actual health plan in the US, you're fucked, period. You haven't had to live like that, so you have absolutely no clue what it's like. I have, and do, and I am all for a national healthcare system.

-Arlos

Lyion wrote:He also gets free health care. He gets free emergency treatment.

Jesus fucking Christ, Get a frickin clue. We spend MORE per person on FREE health care than Canada, probably because sick poor people get helped IMMEDIATELY here.

Yes, you spend a LOT more than we do (as a fraction of GDP) on health care. But you still have lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates.

So exactly what are you getting for spending all that money?

--R.

Based on a conversation with a Canadian friend concerning the issue when it first arose, I think that stories of people having to wait extended periods for serious issues are either extreme cases or flat out fabricated examples of what could possibly happen. Honestly the question of quality of heath care under a government run system like Canada's should be easy to answer... ask the Canadians . Without rereading the posts here I don't recall any posts by Canadians concerning problems with the quality of the health care received under their system.

Whether or not you like the idea of a government run healthcare system, or have concerns about the economic impact, the fact remains that there are a lot of people who have no health insurance, and we are not talking people who have tons of disposable income to either pay for insurance or their own heath care expenses. Something does need to be done. Personally I don't know that I trust the government with being in control of my healthcare.. not sure I really trust insurance companies either for that matter. Ideally I'd like to see something along the lines of a minimum standard for coverage, and only have a government system involved if someone is unable to obtain insurance from their employer. The problem would of course be setting those minimum standard, where do you set the line between what is truly prudent and needed vs. cosmetic or extreme.. I doubt even the people here could come to a consensus, what does that say about the chances those in Washington would have? Setting standards for healthcare will also apply to a national healthcare system.

Maybe your higher life expectancy guesses can be attributed to your much, much smaller population driving down to the US for better health care? Although given both Canada and the US' life expectancy are almost identical, I'd think that was a silly argument, but not surprising.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/19/canada/babies040419]
Check your birth rates. There's a reason Canada is keen on immigration. Comparing our birth rates and countries is like comparing sales figures between 7-11 and Wal Mart. If we had your birth rate, our infant mortality rate would probably be 0.5%...Its nice to be be able to use Americas hospitals as well.
[/url]
Also, you don't have millions of Mexicans crossing your border and giving birth to gain citizenship. Or people in poverty in Mississippi or Tennessee.

Our infant mortality rate recently spiked, which is alarming. Hopefully they'll sort it, but at least we do not have to rely on immigration like Canada.

http://www.effwa.org/opeds/2004_05_27b.php

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others in place in the OECD. It produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing death from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada's monopolistic, single-provider system have user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals. Canada should follow the example of these superior health care models.

Lyion wrote:Maybe your higher life expectancy guesses can be attributed to your much, much smaller population driving down to the US for better health care? Although given both Canada and the US' life expectancy are almost identical, I'd think that was a silly argument, but not surprising.

So, according to you, Canadians live an average 2.6 years longer (77.4 years versus 80.0 in 2004) because a small number of us (a couple percent, maybe?) drive to the US to pay for health care... we go somewhere with a LOWER life expectancy to RAISE ours.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/19/canada/babies040419]
Check your birth rates. There's a reason Canada is keen on immigration. Comparing our birth rates and countries is like comparing sales figures between 7-11 and Wal Mart. If we had your birth rate, our infant mortality rate would probably be 0.5%...Its nice to be be able to use Americas hospitals as well.
[/url]
Also, you don't have millions of Mexicans crossing your border and giving birth to gain citizenship. Or people in poverty in Mississippi or Tennessee.

Our infant mortality rate recently spiked, which is alarming. Hopefully they'll sort it, but at least we do not have to rely on immigration like Canada.

Yeah, the US doesn't need immigrants at all. All those ex-dot-commer guys are the ones picking lettuce in California...

http://www.effwa.org/opeds/2004_05_27b.php

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others in place in the OECD. It produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing death from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada's monopolistic, single-provider system have user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals. Canada should follow the example of these superior health care models.

I have no problem if people want to pay privately as long as no money is taken from the public health care system. If you want to pay a doctor to do something, go ahead. Just go set up your private clinic. Vaya usted con dios. Universal health care, on the other hand, is just that. Everyone has the same access, nobody gets special rights because they're rich. Money doesn't earn you special treatment.

In the mean time, good luck with your 50% higher infant mortality rate, and lower life expectancy. Apparently all that FREE HEALTH CARE for the poor doesn't seem to be doing much actual good in keeping them alive, does it?

--R.

There is another factor you are not taking into account, since your Medical system is so vastly inferior to ours.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

Rust wrote:So, according to you, Canadians live an average 2.6 years longer (77.4 years versus 80.0 in 2004) because a small number of us (a couple percent, maybe?) drive to the US to pay for health care... we go somewhere with a LOWER life expectancy to RAISE ours.

Apples and Oranges. The US health care system is hugely superior to Canada's. That is a fact.

Canadians come to the US so they do not die waiting for a procedure. That has little to do with 'expected life expectancies, which have a variety of factors. If we gave you the huge amount of fat fuckers we have in the US, with your medical system, your countries ELE would probably be about 50.

If you are saying health care that is provided in Canada is as good as the US, I'll gladly debate that with you. You'll lose handily

Rust wrote:

http://www.effwa.org/opeds/2004_05_27b.php

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others in place in the OECD. It produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing death from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada's monopolistic, single-provider system have user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals. Canada should follow the example of these superior health care models.

I have no problem if people want to pay privately as long as no money is taken from the public health care system. If you want to pay a doctor to do something, go ahead. Just go set up your private clinic. Vaya usted con dios. Universal health care, on the other hand, is just that. Everyone has the same access, nobody gets special rights because they're rich. Money doesn't earn you special treatment.

In the mean time, good luck with your 50% higher infant mortality rate, and lower life expectancy. Apparently all that FREE HEALTH CARE for the poor doesn't seem to be doing much actual good in keeping them alive, does it?
.

Canada loses 5 out of 1000 for infant mortality. The US loses 7 out of 1000. Those figures again include a lot of other factors. On average our hospitals completely own yours in every way, and that includes our birthing facilities, number of medical professionals, and every other category. If you did more than a passing study you'd see that. Also, reread the first bit of this post several times and you'll realize why our infant mortality is higher. its because in addition to a much higher birthrate, many more infants have a CHANCE at life here, versus in Canada or the EU.

Given your society is declining in population, sans your push for immigration, and has a vastly lower birth rate, as well as most likely completely piss poor accounting, auditing, and numbers it really wouldnt surprise me if at the end of the day with your much smaller amount of babies if you still didnt end up with a higher infant mortality than us.

Given people can't even get in to see Doctors, it wouldnt be a surprise.

I'm not saying our system is perfect, or that it doesnt need an overhaul and better support for the poor. I do think it's vastly superior to Canadas, though.

Which countries incubate crack babies? Anyone know or can find this statistic?

Martrae wrote:Because you can get into see a doctor within days instead of months.

Well this isn't exactly true. We tried to make an apointment for our daughter to get her shots. The first available apointment we can get is JULY. Speedy service I tell you.

Gidan wrote:

Martrae wrote:Because you can get into see a doctor within days instead of months.

Well this isn't exactly true. We tried to make an apointment for our daughter to get her shots. The first available apointment we can get is JULY. Speedy service I tell you.

Go to a different doctor. One of the advantages of a capitalistic system is supposed to be competition. Of course, with the emergence of the HMO, that's been drastically reduced.

HMO requires us to goto a specific doctor or we have to foot the entire bill.

Get another HMO then.

Every HMO I've been in gave a choice of doctors.

We don't have a choice for our pediatrician either because of being a military family - and when appointments were finally open we got our daughter in for her 3 month shots at 4 months, and her 4 month appointment was unable to be scheduled at all, so they put us off until her 6 month because that was the soonest they could get us in. Pretty piss poor service.

And you think national health care would be any better than the military? Would be more of the same on a larger scale.

Azlana wrote:We don't have a choice for our pediatrician either because of being a military family - and when appointments were finally open we got our daughter in for her 3 month shots at 4 months, and her 4 month appointment was unable to be scheduled at all, so they put us off until her 6 month because that was the soonest they could get us in. Pretty piss poor service.

Being military does elimintate some of the benefits of capitalism (good luck offering your services to a higher bidder for example). Most of the places I've been, stateside at least, have had pretty timely service for pediatrics. Are you stationed somewhere you can hit another base for medical treatment? I know some bases will share medical resources and allow active duty members to be treated wherever services are available.

Martrae wrote:And you think national health care would be any better than the military? Would be more of the same on a larger scale.

I can see any doctor I want, and I've *never* had to wait more than a few hours to see a physician for primary care. I have had to wait a few days to see a specialist for my broken arm.

Why you put up with a system that restricts what doctors you can see is wierd.

--R.