That's all well and good Tress, but personally, while having the option is nice, I still wouldn't want to opt for "shitty government health care" for the sake of having health care if it's going to end up costing more than we can handle. If taxpayers are gonna be expected to shell out a ton for a new system and if its going to put the U.S. further into debt, I'd rather it be a good system with good care, rather than running through a 1,000 page health care bill that no one has really bothered reading.
- Status
P
Papillon
Keep in mind the cost of procedures in the US higher than elsewhere. For example, some procedures almost double the cost of the same procedures in Canada[1][2], for example.tegid said:
--------------------
[1] J. Antoniou et al. In-Hospital Cost of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Canada and the United States
[2] M.J. Eisenberg et al. Outcomes and Cost of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the United States and Canada
Then I'd say that needs fixing too. If I recall correctly, you're supposed to be one of the most (if not the most) advanced country in medical procedure and medtech innovation. Maybe the prices are over-inflated? Someone care to enlighten me? Or is it just due to the enormous practitioner insurances because of general suing trigger-happiness?Papillon said:
Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
C
Chibibar
Several factors (as we have stated on this thread)Denbrought said:Then I'd say that needs fixing too. If I recall correctly, you're supposed to be one of the most (if not the most) advanced country in medical procedure and medtech innovation. Maybe the prices are over-inflated? Someone care to enlighten me? Or is it just due to the enormous practitioner insurances because of general suing trigger-happiness?Papillon said:
Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
- Hospital eating the cost of non-payment bills so someone gotta eat the cost
- Lawsuit happy. There are insurance to protect hospital on this of course premiums are not cheap.... guess who pays?
Those are the main two I can think right off the top of my head. My friend who was a nurse (and a good) tell me stories.
P
Papillon
Oh, sorry. I'm at a university where we get a lot of this stuff for freeDenbrought said:Also, I wanted to read [2] but I'm sure as hell not shelling out 30USD for it
. I figured other people wouldn't be able to get the full text, but I was hoping it would at least link to a useful abstract.
S
Steven Soderburgin
lolTress said:I just wish a politician would propose a national health care plan that people could choose to use, while still being allowed to use private health care if they wanted.
OH WAIT.rly:
Hey everyone, new here and gonna go out on a possibly unpopular limb buuuuuuuuuuuuut....
I agree with Messiah.
To be honest, the reason we're in such a pickle is that we've created such a dependence on the government in the first place. The best way to get rid of that? Eliminate welfare, social security and any federal funding, then turn them over to private contractors. This includes the military and the police force.
Now, as to why we're better off having a private military and police force: Simply, they'd be better paid, better outfitted and your taxes would be a hell of a lot less. We've already seen (sadly sometimes) how much better PMC troops have it in terms of supplies and support than those backed by the DoD.
The fact of the matter is that regulation by the government hurts any business or operation. We should put capitalism back into place in America, as cold as it may sound at times. Quite simply, the government shouldn't exist to provide help for people in any sense. I'd go so far as to say we don't even NEED a federal system, and it in and of itself is the reason we're so screwed up as a nation. We've become so dependent on looking to Washington for help that we can't even think of what would happen if we stood on our own two feet.
I agree with Messiah.
To be honest, the reason we're in such a pickle is that we've created such a dependence on the government in the first place. The best way to get rid of that? Eliminate welfare, social security and any federal funding, then turn them over to private contractors. This includes the military and the police force.
Now, as to why we're better off having a private military and police force: Simply, they'd be better paid, better outfitted and your taxes would be a hell of a lot less. We've already seen (sadly sometimes) how much better PMC troops have it in terms of supplies and support than those backed by the DoD.
The fact of the matter is that regulation by the government hurts any business or operation. We should put capitalism back into place in America, as cold as it may sound at times. Quite simply, the government shouldn't exist to provide help for people in any sense. I'd go so far as to say we don't even NEED a federal system, and it in and of itself is the reason we're so screwed up as a nation. We've become so dependent on looking to Washington for help that we can't even think of what would happen if we stood on our own two feet.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Okay, so what happens when a person who cannot afford the prices of the private police force gets robbed, or is involved in a natural disaster and needs the help of the privatized national guard?
HAH! That would never work, surely you are smoking the crack. Personal responsibility? Substituting the increasing power of government for (gasp) the private sector? Getting rid of welfare? Bwahahahah, you must think the founding fathers knew what they were talking about or something. And who cares about raising taxes? Taxes SHOULD be high, so we can all be reminded of ... how good we have it... Or something?
The point is, it doesn't matter if the American economy collapses and/or stagnates, as long as I can get the doctor to look at my stubbed toe for free.
And capitalism obviously doesn't work. Just look at the unprecedented level of prosperity in the United States since its inception and subsequent adoption of the free market system. You wouldn't want that to continue, would ya? People making money and spending it on what they decide is best? Only the government, lead by the guy that wins a popularity contest every 4 years, can be expected to manage your money responsibly.
The point is, it doesn't matter if the American economy collapses and/or stagnates, as long as I can get the doctor to look at my stubbed toe for free.
And capitalism obviously doesn't work. Just look at the unprecedented level of prosperity in the United States since its inception and subsequent adoption of the free market system. You wouldn't want that to continue, would ya? People making money and spending it on what they decide is best? Only the government, lead by the guy that wins a popularity contest every 4 years, can be expected to manage your money responsibly.
Well, one of three things:
1) They enter into a contract of repayment at a monthly sum for the service provided. possibly garnished from their pay
2) They rely upon the community to help them in their our of need, in the benefit of reciprocation in case any other person is either robbed or looses their house.
3) They find another way to work off the debt, or deal with the situation without the police of guard's assistance.
1) They enter into a contract of repayment at a monthly sum for the service provided. possibly garnished from their pay
2) They rely upon the community to help them in their our of need, in the benefit of reciprocation in case any other person is either robbed or looses their house.
3) They find another way to work off the debt, or deal with the situation without the police of guard's assistance.
Gurpel said:
1). This is also known as a LOAN, you take it out for something you need vitally (should be that way) and cannot afford right now, with the promise that you will pay it back in a reasonable length of time.
2) This isn't socialism, this is an aspect of TRUE conservatism, as devised by Edmund Burke. The government shouldn't have to do and pay for something that people will naturally do on their own. Socialism advocates the nationalization of industries and actions because the government 'knows better' than a community.
M
Mr_Chaz
Curious how countries who have an even greater dependence on the government are not in as much of a pickle.MrHaha said:
GasBandit
Staff member
Sure, you guys have all the fun while work keeps me busy. I'm late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to chime in with this gem...
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world. But hey, when we've starting shoving all our grey-hairs into hospices and pumping them full of painkillers to await death instead of actually treating their ailments, I suppose there'll be plenty of money then to continue to cover every frantic parent who runs to the emergency room every time her baby has a sniffle.
Also, of the so-called 45 million uninsured, it's been posited that 15 million are here illegally, 17 million can afford it (make 50+k a year) but decide not to, and who knows how many of the remainder reported not having it because they were between jobs at the moment.
This medical boondoggle is the same as the stimulus, the same as cap and trade.. it's not actually about trying to fix anything.. it's about increasing government's control.
The truth of the matter is more than 90% of americans who want it have health insuarance, and 70% are happy with it.
-- Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:43 pm --
and this one also -
Remember, we might have more expensive health care, but that's because we have the best quality of health care in the world. But hey, when we've starting shoving all our grey-hairs into hospices and pumping them full of painkillers to await death instead of actually treating their ailments, I suppose there'll be plenty of money then to continue to cover every frantic parent who runs to the emergency room every time her baby has a sniffle.
Also, of the so-called 45 million uninsured, it's been posited that 15 million are here illegally, 17 million can afford it (make 50+k a year) but decide not to, and who knows how many of the remainder reported not having it because they were between jobs at the moment.
This medical boondoggle is the same as the stimulus, the same as cap and trade.. it's not actually about trying to fix anything.. it's about increasing government's control.
The truth of the matter is more than 90% of americans who want it have health insuarance, and 70% are happy with it.
-- Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:43 pm --
That's because their countries, and therefor, their governments, are a fraction the size of ours. But then, most of them are dying more than us, too (see above).Mr_Chaz said:
Quit trolling already.
GasBandit
Staff member
P
Papillon
And the infant mortality rate in the US is 31% higher than in Canada. The average life expectancy is a little over 2 years longer in Canada than the US. In the papers I cited previously they found that for certain surgical procedures people there was no statistical difference in survival rates between US and Canada. Cherry picked statistics on the survival rates for certain kinds of cancer mean very little.GasBandit said:
C
Chummer
"Best Healthcare in the World"... for those who can afford it.
The rest of you get shit on and can go die in the street. Sorrrr-rrrrrryyyyy. Welcome to America!
The rest of you get shit on and can go die in the street. Sorrrr-rrrrrryyyyy. Welcome to America!
A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada's at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.
from http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html
But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16 While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.
Switzerland is far from the only nation to have peculiarities in its measure. Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19 Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.
The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:
...some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence... Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20
The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.
Registration problems hamper accurate collection of data on infant mortality in another way. Looking at data from 1984-1985, Eberstadt argued that, "Underregistration of infant deaths may also be indicated by the proportion of infant deaths reported for the first twenty-four hours after birth."21 Eberstadt found that in the U.S. and Canada more than a third of all infant death occurred during the first day, but in Sweden and France they accounted for less than one-fifth. Table 3 shows that the pattern still holds today.
Inconsistent measurement explains only part of the difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Were measurements to be standardized, according to Eberstadt, "America might move from the bottom third toward the middle, but it would be unlikely to advance into the top half."22 Another factor affecting infant mortality Eberstadt identifies is parental behavior.23 Pregnant women in other countries are more likely to either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own. In the U.S., pregnant women are far more likely to be living alone. Although the nature of the relationship is still unclear (it is possible that mothers living on their own are less likely to want to be pregnant), it likely leads to a higher rate of infant mortality in the U.S.
In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.
Conclusion
Life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care "should be implemented in the United States."24
Life expectancy rates also depend on personal habits such as smoking, diet, and physical activity. Interestingly, U.S. smoking rates are lower (17 percent of adults) than for many developed countries with higher life expectancies. For instance, 30 percent of Japanese adults smoke daily. In France, 23 percent of adults smoke; Germany, 25 percent; Switzerland, 25 percent; Spain, 28 percent, and the U.K., 25 percent.
The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries increases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. A recent international survey reported that 31 percent of Americans are obese (body mass index over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30.
Taking all these unhealthy proclivities into consideration, the American health care system is most likely not to blame for our lower life expectancies. Instead, American health care is rescuing enough of us from the consequences of our bad health habits to keep our ranking from being even lower.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics."
from http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html
But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16 While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.
Switzerland is far from the only nation to have peculiarities in its measure. Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19 Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.
The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:
...some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence... Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20
The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.
Registration problems hamper accurate collection of data on infant mortality in another way. Looking at data from 1984-1985, Eberstadt argued that, "Underregistration of infant deaths may also be indicated by the proportion of infant deaths reported for the first twenty-four hours after birth."21 Eberstadt found that in the U.S. and Canada more than a third of all infant death occurred during the first day, but in Sweden and France they accounted for less than one-fifth. Table 3 shows that the pattern still holds today.
Inconsistent measurement explains only part of the difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Were measurements to be standardized, according to Eberstadt, "America might move from the bottom third toward the middle, but it would be unlikely to advance into the top half."22 Another factor affecting infant mortality Eberstadt identifies is parental behavior.23 Pregnant women in other countries are more likely to either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own. In the U.S., pregnant women are far more likely to be living alone. Although the nature of the relationship is still unclear (it is possible that mothers living on their own are less likely to want to be pregnant), it likely leads to a higher rate of infant mortality in the U.S.
In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.
Conclusion
Life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care "should be implemented in the United States."24
Life expectancy rates also depend on personal habits such as smoking, diet, and physical activity. Interestingly, U.S. smoking rates are lower (17 percent of adults) than for many developed countries with higher life expectancies. For instance, 30 percent of Japanese adults smoke daily. In France, 23 percent of adults smoke; Germany, 25 percent; Switzerland, 25 percent; Spain, 28 percent, and the U.K., 25 percent.
The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countries increases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. A recent international survey reported that 31 percent of Americans are obese (body mass index over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30.
Taking all these unhealthy proclivities into consideration, the American health care system is most likely not to blame for our lower life expectancies. Instead, American health care is rescuing enough of us from the consequences of our bad health habits to keep our ranking from being even lower.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics."
GasBandit
Staff member
Certain kinds, being the most common kinds you mean? I'd like to see some linkage on the infant mortality rate claim there.Papillon said:
As for your infant mortality rate, you're the one now with misleading statistics. That's canada's 0.4% vs america's 0.6%. That's not quite as wide a gulf as the ~4% difference in survival rates for ALL malignancies between the US and canada, and forget europe. It's WAY down there.
But of course the elephant in the room no canadian healthcare proponent ever wants to bring up is that the only reason their economy can handle single payer healthcare is because they're actually a relatively small country crammed against the southern border of a very large map (90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US border), butting up against the world's most sucessful economic engine and sole remaining military superpower, leeching off it like crazy.
Except that is entirely untrue. As shown, more than 90% of americans who want it have health insurance, and 70% of them report being happy with it, and there are already systems in place to help the indigent. This "crisis" is largely manufactured out of whole cloth, and carried by brain dead simps who are more than happy to play chicken little.Chummer said:
M
Mr_Chaz
I don't have time for much Gas, but here's my first rebuttal...
Interesting. I wonder about that, seeing as the average waiting time is now 4.6 weeks, and the absolute maximum limit on waiting times, which all 10 Strategic Health Authorities have been able to keep up since 2007, is 18 weeks. No one will wait more than 18 weeks on the NHS for treatment. And if it's critical? It'll be much sooner. For example breast cancer? You'll start treatment the same week. Don't give me this waiting times bullshit Gas, it simply does not apply.
M
Mr_Chaz
I do yes. It could be better, it could be further improved, the NHS has a lot of room for improvement, can't deny that, but if the alternative is to have healthcare that isn't universal then I'll turn you down thanks, I'd rather keep the wait.GasBandit said:
C
Chummer
GasBandit said:
When I see news stories about people going bankrupt adn losing everything or being denied their insurance claim due to some BS reason so they cant get the medication or treatment they need, wel that tells me there is a problem.
You dont see someone walking into the hospital in Canada and getting care and then months later stuck with a 200k bill he cant pay due to his insurance comp fucking him over and has to go bankrupt and move in with his child.
Its bullshit and its wrong.
Okay sure if you dont want to blame the system fine, but i can totalyl lay blame on the insurance companies and all the horrible stories thats spawned from them.
Shit like a girl dying because she couldnt get to the hospital that carried her insurance plan even though there was a hospital much closer but she was scared to go there due to the bills.
Peopel shouldnt be scared to go to the hospital.
Hell I had to go twice in the last few months and I put it off for as long as possible cause I didnt want to chance getting fucked.
Its sad.
Hmmm, I guess the Canadians that come to the US for treatment are just stupid, then. Maybe they just don't realize how much better they had it back home? Or maybe they are so wealthy they can afford to throw their money away?Mr_Chaz said:
At some point, you will be forced to reconcile your figures with reality. Having met, worked with and even shared a dwelling with Canadians seeking US healthcare at their own expense, I am at a loss to explain their actions in light of the stunning revelation you just laid down.
For clarity: If Canadian healthcare is what you say, why do so many Canadians come here for health care? These aren't facts and figures pulled off of some ultra right wing conspiracy website, designed specifically to foil your position in the debate. These are REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost. Is there some massive flaw in their reasoning? Are they just retarded?
GasBandit
Staff member
The NHS is an insolvent nightmare of terrible care quality and skyrocketing expense.Mr_Chaz said:
I just hope you don't need any painkillers for a back injury.
Here is an article by the NY Times of all places, debunking the ''infant mortality rate'' issue. It goes on to address life expectancy, etc. Not that it will matter to those of you who are too busy spitting and seething with rage at the moment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/busin ... nted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/busin ... nted=print
Because those are the people who can afford to cross the border and pay huge costs for healthcare? They're not foolish, they are wealthy enough to not need the healthcare provided by Canada.The Messiah said:
It's nice that the option is there for those who aren't wealthy enough to come to the United States.
Not trying to foil your position either. There's this mentality that we can't have both private and public healthcare options. I think our system would benefit from both, not just one.
ah yes, the golden age of the 1860s-1920s, ain't nothin wrong ever happened to the economy then! that was the best idea ever, I wonder what stopped it.....MrHaha said:
- Status