The Little Health Care System That Couldn't

FreeDuck wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Free - The focus here is health. You posited that poor people aren't as healthy because we don't do enough for them.

Yes, that's the focus, which is why I'm confused about the point of saying that rich people are both rich and healthy because they are smart.

Fortunately, I covered that when I wrote:

Quote:

The importance of all of this to our discussion is that simply throwing more money and resources at "poor" people is unlikely EVER to raise their health to a comparable level with those who are considered "wealthy". So, unless you are willing to lower the health standards of that second group, it seems we have to accept that the poor will be less healthy.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Higher earners do avail themselves of preventive care more than do lower earners, but that's just a piece of the puzzle. Higher earners are also generally people making sound choices. (That's how they become higher earners.) Those choices generally extend to other behaviors such as diet, exercise, smoking and drinking, drug use, etc.. Access to health care isn't the only thing that makes them healthier.

Higher wage earners can afford preventative care. Many poor people refrain from taking their sick kids to the doctor because they can not afford to pay for care.

People do not necessarily become higher earners because they make better choices. There are lots of corporate presidents who drink themselves into oblivion regularly and who use recreational drugs.

On the other hand, there are many poor people who live healthy lives, excercising, eating right, etc.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Really? Can you cite any statistics with regard to the number of people in the US who have been bankrupted by medical costs?

Right? Free Duck.

I have no statistics, but as a former guitar picker, I know lots of musicians who were bankrupted by medical costs.

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

Higher wage earners can afford preventative care. Many poor people refrain from taking their sick kids to the doctor because they can not afford to pay for care.

Again, that's true but it's only one piece of the puzzle.

Atkins wrote:

People do not necessarily become higher earners because they make better choices. There are lots of corporate presidents who drink themselves into oblivion regularly and who use recreational drugs. On the other hand, there are many poor people who live healthy lives, excercising, eating right, etc.

Pointing to the reality of given individuals' traits and actions does not disprove the reality of statistical norms.

If you've read the citations offered, you would at least have noted that "the poor" are measurably less healthy than "the rich" even in societies with socialized medicine where both groups should have identical access to preventive care.

0 Replies

What about mental health? There are a lot of crazy rich people.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Breast Cancer survival rates ONLY 3% higher in the USA?? That's not imporatant? It is if you are one of the three percent.

I note that Free Duck artfully skipped the data on Prostate Cancer. We have a much higher rate of success with that cancer than Canada has.

However, it is clear that FreeDuck has missed the key point of the Chapman article.

The Canadian Supreme Court( not the US Supreme Court or sixty minutes or some other gadfly) has declared that the Canadian Health System is failing.

Free Duck really ought to read up on the huge number of Canadians who go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester Minnesota to get the most advanced Medical Treatment in the World.

I note that chiczaira has artfully avoided the point about health care rationing and bankrupcies resulting from medical expenses. I also note that chiczaira misinterprets the Canadian Supreme Court's decision.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Free - The focus here is health. You posited that poor people aren't as healthy because we don't do enough for them.

Yes, that's the focus, which is why I'm confused about the point of saying that rich people are both rich and healthy because they are smart.

Fortunately, I covered that when I wrote:

Quote:
The importance of all of this to our discussion is that simply throwing more money and resources at "poor" people is unlikely EVER to raise their health to a comparable level with those who are considered "wealthy". So, unless you are willing to lower the health standards of that second group, it seems we have to accept that the poor will be less healthy.

Except, Scrat, that we're talking about universal health care (for all, including middle and upper classes) and not Medicaid (for poor people). And, I've already addressed, twice now, your quoted point.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

If you've read the citations offered, you would at least have noted that "the poor" are measurably less healthy than "the rich" even in societies with socialized medicine where both groups should have identical access to preventive care.

I swear, this is the last thing I have to say on this topic. Something that's being missed here is that the "poor" are also measurable younger than the rich. They are, as a population, denser with risk. Not all of this is a matter of choice. And what you say about societies with socialized medicine is true but what you don't say is that it is still "better" for the poor in those countries (as opposed to ours) even though it is not completely equal. You seem to be saying that "better" isn't enough of a pay off to justfiy attempting to make it equal.

But none of it matters. We are talking about two equally broken systems. Canada's, which has care for everyone, low health care costs, but rations based on need and the balance of cost vs. benefit, and is lagging behind technologically. And ours, which has no guaranteed care for anyone (except in life-threatening emergencies), skyrocketing costs, and rations based on ability to pay, but is leading the way in medical technology.

What I'm saying, what I've been saying, is that there has to be something in the middle that would work better. We are rationing health care in this country right now. Maybe it's time to do it systematically. I realize that for many of us, a certain ideology prevents us from acknowledging the benefits of doing things differently. It has certainly been true for me. I once believed that there should be no public schools. Free market argument for everything. Thankfully, I've seen the error in that belief. One solution model does not fit all problems.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I swear, this is the last thing I have to say on this topic.

I don't believe you. :wink:

FreeDuck wrote:

Something that's being missed here is that the "poor" are also measurable younger than the rich. They are, as a population, denser with risk.

Young people are at greater risk health-wise than the elderly? Seriously??? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one.

FreeDuck wrote:

Not all of this is a matter of choice. And what you say about societies with socialized medicine is true but what you don't say is that it is still "better" for the poor in those countries (as opposed to ours) even though it is not completely equal. You seem to be saying that "better" isn't enough of a pay off to justfiy attempting to make it equal.

If you're going to assert that the poor in countries with socialized medicine are demonstrably healthier than the poor in America, I'm again going to have to ask for a citation.

FreeDuck wrote:

But none of it matters. We are talking about two equally broken systems.

I'd rather write that we're talking about two working systems, each having it's own specific shortcomings. I don't think either system is "broken", neither do I think either is perfect. I happen to think ours is closer to perfect than theirs (or simply better overall), but that's just my opinion. I'd rather have more freedom and more risk, than give up the former to reduce the latter, especially given that Canada's much-lauded attempt to do just that has not reduced risk so much as traded one set of risks for another.

FreeDuck wrote:

Canada's, which has care for everyone

I know it's easier to make your argument by ignoring this fact, but SO DOES OURS!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I don't believe you. :wink:

Busted. :wink:

Scrat wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Something that's being missed here is that the "poor" are also measurable younger than the rich. They are, as a population, denser with risk.

Young people are at greater risk health-wise than the elderly? Seriously??? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one.

Not exactly what I said, there, Scrat. Unless it's a known fact that rich people are disproportionately elderly, in which case you got me. There are people who are neither children nor elderly. Just like there are people who are neither poor nor rich. But what I said was that the "poor population" (which happens to be younger than its opposite) is denser with risk. Some of that is because it is a younger population (children are more susceptible to disease and injury and need more preventive care), but some of it is because of where poor people live and the kinds of food choices they have. I'd still be happy to find you citations if you are disputing that the poorer population is a more youthful population. The other point is one that you've already conceded. Indeed, I think it's your point.

Scrat wrote:

If you're going to assert that the poor in countries with socialized medicine are demonstrably healthier than the poor in America, I'm again going to have to ask for a citation.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040602/d040602a.htm

Quote:

Another difference between the two countries was related to health disparities between individuals in various income groups. According to the survey, almost one-third (31%) of Americans in the lowest income group reported fair or poor health, compared with only 23% among their Canadian counterparts. Significant differences were also noted with regard to severe mobility limitations and risk factors such as smoking and obesity.

Scrat wrote:

I'd rather write that we're talking about two working systems, each having it's own specific shortcomings. I don't think either system is "broken", neither do I think either is perfect. I happen to think ours is closer to perfect than theirs (or simply better overall), but that's just my opinion. I'd rather have more freedom and more risk, than give up the former to reduce the latter, especially given that Canada's much-lauded attempt to do just that has not reduced risk so much as traded one set of risks for another.

Ok. Whatever. We can use the word "flawed" if you like. Seems like you got my point and are mostly agreeing with it. Personally, I'm ok with assuming the higher risk too, to a certain extent. When I start to feel like the deck is stacked, that's another story.

Scrat wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Canada's, which has care for everyone

I know it's easier to make your argument by ignoring this fact, but SO DOES OURS!!!!!!!!

Yes, you're right. Everybody can have care.... as long as they can pay for it. We have medicaid for the worst off, insurance for those that can afford it, and the shaft for the rest of us. From the above cited article:

Quote:

About 13% of Americans reported that they had experienced an unmet health care need in the year prior to the survey, compared with 11% of Canadians. The difference is attributable to a much higher rate among uninsured Americans, 40% of whom reported an unmet need. There was no difference, however, in the proportion who reported unmet health care needs between Canadians and Americans with health care insurance (10%). The top reasons for unmet health care needs differed in the two countries. Waiting too long was most often reported in Canada, while costs were reported in the United States.

The second bolded sentence I think is what this all boils down to.

0 Replies

I hate it when liberals evoke the 'Nazi" label when they run out of other derogatory hype to use. But here one of my heroes equates some Canadian healthcare policies with 'Nazi-ism' and thinks the USA is well on its way in that direction as well.

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

DO WE WANT THIS?

America's socialists advocate that we adopt a universal healthcare system like our northern neighbor Canada. Before we buy into complete socialization of our healthcare system, we might check out the Canadian Supreme Court's June 9th ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). It turns out that in order to prop up government-delivered medical care, Quebec and other Canadian provinces have outlawed private health insurance. By a 4 to 3 decision, Canada's high court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance. With all of the leftist hype extolling the "virtues" of Canada's universal healthcare system, you might wonder why any sane Canadian would want to purchase private insurance.

Plaintiffs Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis, launched their legal challenge to the government's monopolized healthcare system after having had to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness." Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps said, "Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times."

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004. For example, depending on which Canadian province, an MRI requires a wait between 7 and 33 weeks.

Orthopaedic surgery might require a wait of 14 weeks for a referral from a general practitioner to the specialist and then another 24 weeks from the specialist to treatment. That statistic might help explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin responded to the court's decision saying, "We're not going to have a two-tier healthcare system in this country. What we want to do is strengthen the public healthcare system." That's the standard callous political response. He's telling Canadians to continue waiting, continue suffering and perhaps dying until the day comes when there's no more waiting. And though Canadian politicians can't give their citizens a date certain when there'll be no more waiting, they're determined to deny them alternatives to waiting for government-provided healthcare. I'd bet you the rent money that Prime Minister Martin and members of the Canadian Parliament don't have to wait months and years for a medical procedure.

I wonder just how many Americans would like to import Canada's healthcare system, which prohibits the purchase of private insurance and private healthcare services. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. In my book, it's medical Naziism for government to prohibit a person who wishes to purchase medical services from doing so. But let's not look down our noses at our northern neighbors, for we too are well along the road toward medical Naziism.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/medical.html

0 Replies

American socialists shouldn't be extolling the virtues of the Canadian National Health Care System. They should be doing it of a country that actually works, like say... France, or maybe Norway (or was it Sweden?)

The problem with the British health care system and possibly the Canadian as well, is that the systems are being overrun and overworked.

In order to ensure a proper public health care system, we must base payment on a sliding scale, so that those who really can't afford healthcare can get it. I realise this means that those who are rich must pay for healthcare and must subsidise other people's healthcare through taxes, but would you prefer that the poor do not get healthcare at all?

Maybe, though, it would be better off for society if the poor were to not get healthcare. If they are sick, let them die. If they are sick, they are not fit enough to live and procreate and thus through Darwinian selection must die from lack of healthcare.

May I ask what the Republican alternative is? Because, seeing no alternative means that just what I described in the last paragraph will happen, which sounds very Nazi-ish.

0 Replies

FreeD - First, from your citation:

"About 13% of Americans reported that they had experienced an unmet health care need in the year prior to the survey, compared with 11% of Canadians."

How is it that anyone in Canada has an unmet health need? I thought they had universal coverage. The fact that we're only two percentage pointsw behind them on this puts the lie to the notion that they are doing so much better or that we are doing so much worse.

Further, the survey you cite is not a survey of the relative healthiness of the two poo[pulations, it is a report comparing how people in the two nations described their health and how they reported their experiences with healthcare. The fact that more people in one nation or the other termed their own health "excellent", "fair" or "piss-poor" is not a scientific comparison of the actual healthiness of people. (That's not to say that it is of no value; I just want to be clear what it is we're discussing.)

Lastly, it is not accurate to say that everyone in the US gets healthcare if they can pay for it, as I keep pointing out, the law guarantees everyone basic medicla care whether you can pay or not. You and others keep pretending that isn't so, but that is the reality. The US system provides basic care for those who cannot pay. It is erroneous to portray it otherwise.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

FreeD - First, from your citation:

"About 13% of Americans reported that they had experienced an unmet health care need in the year prior to the survey, compared with 11% of Canadians."

How is it that anyone in Canada has an unmet health need? I thought they had universal coverage. The fact that we're only two percentage pointsw behind them on this puts the lie to the notion that they are doing so much better or that we are doing so much worse.

Scrat, we've already talked about the long delays inherent in Canada's system that might cause someone to have an unmet health need, and the article specifically mentioned those waits as being a factor, so I'm not sure why you ask this way. I cited that article because you challenged me to show that poor folks were better off health-wise in social systems than in ours. I believe I demonstrated that.

Scrat wrote:

Further, the survey you cite is not a survey of the relative healthiness of the two poo[pulations, it is a report comparing how people in the two nations described their health and how they reported their experiences with healthcare. The fact that more people in one nation or the other termed their own health "excellent", "fair" or "piss-poor" is not a scientific comparison of the actual healthiness of people. (That's not to say that it is of no value; I just want to be clear what it is we're discussing.)

Yes, but that's true for all health studies as there is no other consistent way to quantify "health". This includes one cited by a Forbes article that you referenced earlier to show that rich people are healthier than poor. It is just as scientific a method as any other. It may not have the same degree of accuracy as something more easily quantified, but that's something that must be taken into account. Just so that we're clear, I believe that the study I linked to served its purpose, which was to provide backup to my assertion that poor people do better with regard to health in a socialized system than in ours.

Scrat wrote:

Lastly, it is not accurate to say that everyone in the US gets healthcare if they can pay for it, as I keep pointing out, the law guarantees everyone basic medicla care whether you can pay or not. You and others keep pretending that isn't so, but that is the reality. The US system provides basic care for those who cannot pay. It is erroneous to portray it otherwise.

What is this law you say you keep pointing out. I'm aware that one cannot be denied emergency, life-saving care for reasons of inability to pay, but that's not exactly "basic healthcare". The US system, and many state systems, provide ways to get healthcare for those below the poverty line, but they don't cover everything and the costs of healthcare today often put it out of reach for those above the poverty line. This is born out by the study which showed that 40% of the US uninsured reported an unmet health need. Not poor necessarily, just uninsured.

What the study made clear was that the main difference between the two systems is that Canadian care is low and wide, while US care is high and narrow. Is this something that you disagree with? Because you seem to be arguing with me as if I were making the argument that we should go with a Canadian system. The fact that I can acknowledge what works about their system (and I've consistently acknowledged its flaws) does not mean that I think it's the best system. I wonder what you think the goal of our healthcare system ought to be and how you think we can best achieve it.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I cited that article because you challenged me to show that poor folks were better off health-wise in social systems than in ours. I believe I demonstrated that.

With respect, I don't believe you did. What you demonstrated was that when surveyed there was a statistically insignificant difference in the opinions expressed by people in both countries regarding their own health.

Years ago I recall reading a study that surveyed women in the US and in Europe and asked them to rate the pain of childbirth. Women in the US consistently stated that childbirth was extremely painful while women in Europe tended to consider it to be far less so. You might cite this as evidence that having a baby hurts more in the US, but the authors instead noted that there appeared to be differing expectations between the two groups. Likewise, in the survey you cited, unless we know that Americans and Canadians have the same standards in mind when they "reported fair or poor health", we can't draw any hard conclusions as to whether we've identified real differences in the health of these groups or merely identified differences in their attitudes and expectations relating to their own health. What someone in Canada might call "fair" health, someone in the US might call "poor" or "good". Your survey educates us as to how these people feel about their health and healthcare, but it does not tell us anything about whether one group is healthier than the other.

As to their being no way to quantify health, I disagree, but will have to save my thoughts for another time.

0 Replies

By your reasoning, we may also not conclude that rich people have better health than poor. We're just taking their word for it. The survey tells us quite a bit more than how people feel about their health. If you follow the links and read it, you'll see that. Also, if you were a woman who gave birth in the US, you might find it perfectly plausible that childbirth IS more painful here. But that's for another thread.

But, we can also look at infant mortality. The infant mortality rate in Canada for the poorest 20% still beats the US national average. And that's comparing the US sytem to Canada's which is a poor example. What would we see if we compared the US to Sweden or Germany?

I don't have the kind of time to do the kind of research you seem to require. I've backed up my opinion with a study that you don't accept but which two goverments do. Why don't you just tell me, do you think lower income people fare better here than in countries with national health care? What do you think would be the best system?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

By your reasoning, we may also not conclude that rich people have better health than poor. We're just taking their word for it.

You're right; we cannot use your survey to draw such a conclusion.

And as to infant mortality rates, before you can compare those between two countries, you need to ensure that they quantify them using the same standards. If Canada considers a live birth at 24 weeks non-viable, and the US considers it viable, and the infant dies in both cases, it's a mark against the infant mortality rate in the US, but is not counted by the (theoretical) Canadian standard. In the US we routinely use heroic measures to try to save premature babies that other countries do not try to save. If these children die, we consider it a live birth that resulted in an infant death. Many other countries don't count these births in their infant mortality statistic. (Canada may well use the same standard as we for generating this number, but I do not know it, nor do I suspect, do you.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I hate it when liberals evoke the 'Nazi" label when they run out of other derogatory hype to use.

Then try to behave in a civil and ladylike manner.

0 Replies

Quote:

A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies

Our health care system isn't perfect, but we do have Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the indigent). There are also numerous state-run programs and they are far more inclusive than proponents of socialization would have one believe.

The quote above is from a hospital in Canada to some poor heart patient. It's so bizarre, I can't begin to think even the Dems would approve. The Canadian model is failing and even their Supreme Court recognizes people are dying because of it.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Quote:
A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies

Our health care system isn't perfect, but we do have Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the indigent).

And everyone in need of life-saving or stabilizing emergency care must--by federal law--be given same, without regard to his or her ability to pay. The reality is that we have UNIVERSAL (as in covers everybody) health care in the US today, but this universal health care extends purely to emergency medical care. Beyond that, access becomes more limited.

0 Replies

The Little Health Care System That Couldn't

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know