65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
sstainba
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:23 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

sstainba wrote:

No, it is absolutely not. It should be ignored because the medical protocols for dealing with infants and even the definition of "infant" is different between countries. Further, that statistic has zero meaning if it is separated from the statistics for premature birth rates.


You are wrong here:

- only very few countries don't follow the WHO definition of 'infant'
- premature births are included in that number.
(Only France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.)


So... I'm wrong... but then you support exactly what I said. You said that at least these countries do not follow the same rules as the others in regards to the definition of an infant/premature birth. I said that not all countries agree. So... how exactly am I wrong ?

And again, those numbers are still only useful when used in the context of the number of premature births as well.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:25 pm
@sstainba,
Quote:
I was more referring to procedural types of treatments and not so much drugs because they are a retail type of thing.

That is an odd stipulation since much of the cost of health care is NOT for procedures but for control of various disease much of it controlled by drugs.

Quote:
I imagine they are less in Canada at least party due to a contractual agreement to buy a set number of doses,
I guess your imagination is all you need to support your claims.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:26 pm
@sstainba,
Quote:

I'm curious though, why this price difference is only important with respect to healthcare goods and services. The same food also costs different prices and the same car has a different price between Canada and the US. I'm not sure what makes healthcare some special product that isn't allowed to follow those same rules.

Could you provide evidence that food and cars cost 50% less in Canada?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:29 pm
@sstainba,
Quote:
So... I'm wrong... but then you support exactly what I said. You said that at least these countries do not follow the same rules as the others in regards to the definition of an infant/premature birth. I said that not all countries agree. So... how exactly am I wrong ?

You are wrong because you said that we couldn't use it for comparison. In reality it can be used for comparison for most if not all industrial nations. That means your argument is pretty much negated and claiming you are correct is nothing but weaseling in your part.
0 Replies
 
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,


Of the 4 main factors listed in the reason healthcare costs more in the US than in Canada, I'd like to point out that (2) the administrative overhead is not simply from the insurance companies. Medicaid and Medicare are a nightmare for documentation sake. Providers spend most of the time filling out documentation to satisfy useless governmental rules than they do with the patients. And then, hospitals usually hire coders that go through documentation with a fine-tooth comb to check for any possibility of errors or incorrect charge levels.
Number (3) was "more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment". So, there's one reason. Canada uses older technologies that are cheaper. I suppose we could stop inventing newer techniques. That would cut down on cost.
Number (4) was... oh... wait... tort laws that lead to defensive medicine. I find it ironic since just a few posts back you mentioned tort laws with such a dismissive tone.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's no evidence to support your theory of genetic superiority. It's a factor you have included with the sole intention of derailing all other factors of consideration. No matter what other points are brought up, you just circle back to this one as if it explains everything.


Are you sure there's no evidence? Or are you assuming that because I haven't provided you any? There is a difference between "not being" and "unknown". The fact that you may be unaware of it doesn't negate the existence. And no, I haven't circled back to it in spite of other things. I merely mentioned it's a viable factor that merits consideration. I never touted it as the end-all-be-all answer.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Arguing over the quality of our argumentation is not the same as arguing over the merits of our data points. That should have been obvious, but apparently you don't understand the distinction.


So it's fine when you do this? You routinely try to point out what you consider logical flaws in arguments. You apparently don't like it when the same rules are applied to yours.
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:45 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
I was more referring to procedural types of treatments and not so much drugs because they are a retail type of thing.

That is an odd stipulation since much of the cost of health care is NOT for procedures but for control of various disease much of it controlled by drugs.


Evidence? Drugs may be a large portion of money spent, but things like ventilators, imaging studies, cardiac caths and others are incredibly expensive and not rare at all.

parados wrote:

Quote:
I imagine they are less in Canada at least party due to a contractual agreement to buy a set number of doses,
I guess your imagination is all you need to support your claims.

<sigh> Imagination seems to be what most people use on here. It seems like it's pointless to bother saying anything unless it can be backed up by various web links. I figured that it would be somewhat obvious that those things take place... much like the reimbursement schedule of Medicaid/Medicare and how it is contracted between care facilities.
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

I'm curious though, why this price difference is only important with respect to healthcare goods and services. The same food also costs different prices and the same car has a different price between Canada and the US. I'm not sure what makes healthcare some special product that isn't allowed to follow those same rules.

Could you provide evidence that food and cars cost 50% less in Canada?


Why would I do that? I never said those items were "50% less in Canada." I only said there is a difference. For example, a 2010 BMW 328i sedan costs $7000 more in Canada than it does in the US.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:54 pm
@sstainba,
Me and my wife are some of those deadbeat medicare people who get free health care. My total healthcare costs run around $16,000 per year on an income of around $40,000 per year. My private insurance only pays about 10% of what medicare pays on hospitalization and about 50% of drugs. My private insurance costs twice as much as medicare but I have to have it for drugs because the drugs my wife takes are not covered by most medicare drug plans. We pay 35% of our income on health care. I dont think that constitutes free health care. And I believe that most people on medicare have the same problems we have.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:58 pm
@sstainba,
Quote:
I figured that it would be somewhat obvious that those things take place

ROFLMAO..
Just like it was obvious that all countries used different definitions of "infant"?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:01 pm
@sstainba,
sstainba wrote:
Number (3) was "more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment". So, there's one reason. Canada uses older technologies that are cheaper.


errr, no, not older - not as high cost

there is a difference

many of the new, effective, technologies are not as high-cost as the older ones


~~~

I think I'll pick off a few more tonight or on the weekend. Excellent practice.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:01 pm
@sstainba,
Quote:
Evidence? Drugs may be a large portion of money spent, but things like ventilators, imaging studies, cardiac caths and others are incredibly expensive and not rare at all.

Yes, and do you have evidence of what they cost? Or are you just using your imagination again?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:04 pm
@sstainba,
sstainba wrote:

And again, those numbers are still only useful when used in the context of the number of premature births as well.


Well, I admit that those five countries can be neglected in the statistics.

So, what did you say about the the other countries again? They do have the very same definition as the USA has, namely that from WHO.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:04 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Canadians are genetically different from US citizens?


Well, d'oh, we are superior Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:05 pm
@sstainba,
sstainba wrote:
I imagine they are less in Canada at least party due to a contractual agreement to buy a set number of doses, regardless of their use.


not so much

try again
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:07 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
I figured that it would be somewhat obvious that those things take place

ROFLMAO..
Just like it was obvious that all countries used different definitions of "infant"?


I never said it was obvious. I never said "all". And I believe that it was supported that not all countries use the same definition.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:08 pm
@sstainba,
sstainba wrote:
And I believe that it was supported that not all countries use the same definition.


By whom exactly?
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:08 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

sstainba wrote:
Number (3) was "more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment". So, there's one reason. Canada uses older technologies that are cheaper.


errr, no, not older - not as high cost

there is a difference

many of the new, effective, technologies are not as high-cost as the older ones


~~~

I think I'll pick off a few more tonight or on the weekend. Excellent practice.



the quote was "high-cost, high-tech". "high-tech" tends to be newer rather than older.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:13 pm
@sstainba,
Quote:

the quote was "high-cost, high-tech". "high-tech" tends to be newer rather than older.

Which specific "high-cost, high-tech" things are you talking about?

You're argument is the opposite of an argument about how difficult the FDA makes it to get procedures approved in the US. There are many drugs, devices, procedures that are in use in Europe that are not yet approved in the US.
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Evidence? Drugs may be a large portion of money spent, but things like ventilators, imaging studies, cardiac caths and others are incredibly expensive and not rare at all.

Yes, and do you have evidence of what they cost? Or are you just using your imagination again?


Imaging scans: approx $1000/each (here, an MRI is $1500).
Cardiac Cath: approx $10000

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/ct/content/article/113619/1183517?verify=0
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:16 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

sstainba wrote:
And I believe that it was supported that not all countries use the same definition.


By whom exactly?


You, actually. 1 page back.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 11:01:15