Universal Health Care Canada Style

No Jer. It is based on everything I know about economics and the fact that the United States is judged by EVERY measure to be the best in the world under the system that exists. It isn't because we Americans are superior in any way, but it's because the system for health care is superior. Every country that has adopted single payer may have better health coverage for everybody, but the overall excellence of their health care has deteriorated or become more limited in the process.

I think that is something we would be very wise to consider before we start making a lot of drastic changes.

With all respect, Foxfyre: this sounds very, very zynical .... and inhuman.

Well if you know of anyplace it isn't true Walter, let me know and I'll correct my statement.

Regarding all the (famous) people, who go for medical treatment to German and UK hospitals, it can't be THAT bad here and there.

I didn't mean to imply that Germany or the UK or France or Canada or anybody has terrible health care. But every indicator I've ever seen ranks the U.S. health care system No. 1 in the world. It isn't because we're naturally better. I think its because we aren't single payer. The profit motive is the best motive in the world to ensure and sustain excellence.

Foxfyre, here's one indicator that you may want to consider: Infant mortality. US does not compare well with other Western countries.

Why? Lack of access to prenatal care is one reason. Guess the profit motive doesn't come through for many pregnant women.

And I believe you'll find that the lions share of infant mortality is among those who are here illegally D. I can't remember where I last saw those statistics so I'll put that out there as opinion. I do believe it is correct though. If other countries had borders as porous as ours, I think you'd see the infant mortality rate go up. I don't think there are many, if any, Americans who do not have access to prenatal care through some source.

You have a remarkable ability to deflect info that contradicts your assumptions, Foxfyre. Check this site for some data. The U.S. ranks 35th in infant mortality. Do you really think porous borders explain this?

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

Sure when there are 196 countries worse than we are, many of which have single payer systems? It's easy to believe that the relatively slight difference between our record and the 21 countries that do some better is due to the hundreds of thousands of illegals in the U.S.

If you want to base your world view on what's "easy to believe" rather than what's real, then do so. You're simply creating a rationale for why the U.S. has such a poor infant mortality rate (illegal immigration).

Do you have any data that shows my recollection to be wrong D? The only way any statistics are useful is if they address specific factors. I don't know if many or most of the countries that do better than we do re infant mortality accept illegals to the extent we do. If they do, are the illegals insured? I admitted I'm working from pure memory here and therefore am quite prepared to be wrong on this.

But why are you so sure that the U.S. is doing such a bad job with infant mortality? Do you want to believe that without knowing what extenuating factors may be at play?

It's just like those 41 or 43 or however million people are uninsured in the U.S. Before we assume this is as serious as it looks, I would like to know how many of those prefer to pay as they go and intentionally don't have health insurance. There are some religious groups that do not believe in health insurance (the Amish and Christian Scientists come to mind right off the bat.)
How many are temporarily without insurance because they are volunarily between jobs and waiting for a new policy to kick in? While it may be true that for whatever reason, that many are without insurance any given time, there can be extenuating factors that show that it isn't as bad as it looks.

I think we have to know the whole picture before we can conclude that the U.S. infant mortality rate is any better or any worse than anybody else's.

I don't mean to be diverting the issue or giving you or anybody else a hard time here. I've just lived long enough to see so much really bad policy adopted by people who just flat didn't do their homework. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. . . .

i think i may have posted this on another thread earlier. i'm wondering why americans come to canada by the busload(mostly seniors) to buy their prescription medications here. the ones that were interviewed, stated that they were not able to afford the drugs in the u.s. because of high prices. i certainly do not think they were in canada on a pleasure trip. some canadian internet-pharmacies are also doing a brisk trade in supplying u.s. citizens with prescription drugs; and some state governments are even encouraging their employees to buy the drugs in canada. surely, a health system that can not take care of some the most vulnerable citizens - the elderly - can't be such a wonderful example. hbg

No that much is very true. A great many Americans go to Canada and Mexico to buy cheaper prescription drugs. It will take some serious litigation reform to bring the prices down here and that's something our Congress doesn't seem to want to tackle.

Why not look at countries with similar populations? The US is the third most populated country in the world. Shall we compare infant mortality rates in India and China? How about Indonesia, the 4th most populous country?

China - 25.26
India - 59.59
Indonesia - 38.09
USA - 6.75

Pretty good comparison if you ask me.

If you want a fair comparison, what is the rate for the EU? I'll bet it's higher than the US.

Yes, truly a good comparison . . . for those unconcerned with the matter of per capita income, in which case it's a pathetic ranking.

Just what i'd expect from you, McG.

So, tell me Setanta, what is the rate for the EU?

You are happy if American health care compares favourably to ... India's?

Well, its always nice if people are able to be happy with little ;-)

Seriously, what does a country's population size have to do with a per capita mortality rate? You take an average one-tenth of Indonesia's population, and the rate is still the same.

No, I am not. I am simply saying that when you compare the third most populous country in the world to a country like Sweden of lichtenstien, you're going to get results that mean nothing.

Honestly people! How about we compare Sweden to, I don't know, Massachusetts. That would probably be a much more equivalent comparison.

You have stated variations of this assertion a couple of times now, without specifying any of the "indicators" you might be talking about. On the other hand, Billy Falcon had this:



So we have three clear indicators on the one hand, of which you have dismissed one on the basis of speculation (about the influence of illegal immigrants), and two not at all ... compared to a mere assertion on the other hand.

OK - back to fundamentals here - what does the size of a country's population have to do with a per capita indicator?

The mortality rates listed are per head of the population - or in this case, per live birth, x1,000. I.e., if you would take a single American state that reflects the average of America-wide numbers - say, Missouri or Minnesota or something - you would still have roughly the same mortality rate. Population size is a red herring here.

(Edited to add the "per 1,000 live births" clarification to the "per capita" notion - same logic applies. The per thousand number isnt impacted by how many 1,000s there are.)