I dont get why Americans arent down with our Canadian healthcare system

[losturmarbles]

Why? Why should national defense be socialized, but not health care?

Just as it makes more sense for all of us to pitch in and fund national defense, it makes sense for all of us to pitch in and fund health care.

why? because national defense is a role of government. we have given government the authority to have a national military for national defense.

its not about what makes sense to you. and it's not about us pitching in.

Besides, ALL health insurance is socialist. All of it. It's a group of people getting together to mutually support each other in times of need. The whole idea of insurance is to have the many help the few.

private insurance is subject to socialist mandates put forth by government, not the insurance company. "to have the many help the few" you'll see this marxist ideal as a reoccurring theme in government mandates in any industry. and even more so recently... wonder why.

But if you don't choke on your own hypocrisy (supporting government provided health care for the military, for example, because it WORKS, but condemning government provided health care for everyone else because you claim it WON'T work),

i never said what works or doesnt work. but i know family friends that were in the military and use to often go off base to take their children to the doctor and pay out of pocket, rather than use the free (on base) health care facility. i guess because it WORKS so well.

or the other hypocrisy of the health care deniers (being part of a socialist health insurance pool--and ALL insurance is essentially socialist--yet condeming national health insurance because it would be ... socialist),

or choke on the OTHER hypocrisy (you'll be in line to accept Medicare one day, which means, you'll gladly be accepting government provided health insurance)

actually i pay into medicare and social security more accurately the government seizes funds from me to go toward my medicare and social security. you see these where suppose to be trust funds set up by government, because i'm too irresponsible to buy my own insurance and save my own money. but wait, fuk. so is government. if i want to live comfortable i'm going to have to save my own money anyway, and buy my own insurance too, medicare is only going to cover what? 70%? 70% of an bill that is inflated by 1000% vs true market prices. yeah youre right i'm a hypocrite.

or if you don't choke on your own naivete (believing you have insurance because you haven't been rejected for major expenses yet by profiteering companies, because you haven't had cancer yet)

or choke on your immorality (denying fellow human beings needed care because you're a cheap bastard)

ok who's being denied care? yeah i'm the cheap bastard, not the parasites that live off the tax payers

or choke on the sheer stupidity of believing that government provided health insurance would have MORE bureaucracy than the current tangle of red tape we face,

lol where do you think "the current tangle of red tape" comes from?

if you don't choke on all that, choke on this:
You are sucking the balls of the health care companies.

In the entire history of the world, there has never been a single Christian against health care for all. Never. By definition.

never. by definition. lol

ok the way you keep referencing my position, ones that i never made, almost screams that you ripped this response from someone else on the internets. even that last stanza about christians seems out of place. so it's really hard for me to take you serious.

but the problem with the main theme in your whole argument is that it's based on a faulty premise.
we dont have true health insurance in this country.
we only have health payment plans.

[andywend]

I like it when they call it health care industry. It's an industry like making steel or cement. Shouldn't is be a service though instead? Making enough money just to pay for reasonable expenses to acquire raw materials and pay for reasonable salaries for employees. Then don't waist any advertising dollars on TV or magazines for the drugs. I don't fukking want to ask my doctor what to do if my pee stream is weak or my poop won't come out. I can go to the doctor if I had that predicament and get prescribed a $10 drug and not a $100 drug because I have to pay for the stupid advertising while I eat dinner.

According to PavyRacer, everyone involved in the medical industry should take significant pay cuts just so he can pay less for his drugs.

Your Nexium costs $5 per pill. DEAL WITH IT!!!

Remember you always have the option of NOT buying it.

[pavyracer]

According to PavyRacer, everyone involved in the medical industry should take significant pay cuts just so he can pay less for his drugs.

Your Nexium costs $5 per pill. DEAL WITH IT!!!

Remember you always have the option of NOT buying it.

I hope you never get sick but if by a slight chance you have to buy medication that costs more than its weight in gold you open up your checkbook, max your credit cards, take loans to save your life. Off course you have the option of not paying and die which is fine by me. At least the funeral home will make some money.

[tacomax]

Total expenditure on health, % gross domestic product (2007)

Canada: 10.1%
United Kingdom: 8.4%
United States: 16.0%

Total expenditure on health, /capita, US$ purchasing power parity (2007)

Canada: 3895
United Kingdom: 2992
United States: 7290

Infant mortality, Deaths per 1 000 live births (2006)

Canada: 5.0
United Kingdom: 5.0
United States: 6.7

Life expectancy, Total population at birth, Years (2006)

Canada: 80.7
United Kingdom: 79.1 (2005 data)
United States: 78.1

So America spends significantly more on healthcare yet the infant mortality rate is a lot more and the life expectancy a lot less. Whatever you think the solution to this is, it is clear that the current system is not only not working (from the benefit of the consumer) but is ludicrously expensive.

[andywend]

We spend more on health care as a percentage of GDP than other nations because the U.S. has a very high percentage of people who consume far more than they produce.

You can spend all the money in the world on health care and that still won't stop women in the ghetto from smoking crack while they're pregnant, hence the higher infant mortality rates.

As far as life expectancy being slightly shorter in the U.S., that is caused by poor diet and obesity which is far more prevelant in the U.S. than in other nations. The above mentioned people who consume far more than they produce are more likely to smoke, take drugs and eat all the wrong foods in huge quantities.

None of the figures you mentioned have anything to do with the quality of health care being delivered in the U.S.

[andywend]

Quote:
Originally Posted by andywend
According to PavyRacer, everyone involved in the medical industry should take significant pay cuts just so he can pay less for his drugs.

Your Nexium costs $5 per pill. DEAL WITH IT!!!

Remember you always have the option of NOT buying it.

I hope you never get sick but if by a slight chance you have to buy medication that costs more than its weight in gold you open up your checkbook, max your ************, take loans to save your life. Off course you have the option of not paying and die which is fine by me. At least the funeral home will make some money.

I've had to open up my checkbook on more occassions than I can count and do without many things to provide my family the highest quality medical care.

It would be extremely beneficial to me personally if the entire medical care system was socialized.

However, I am still strongly opposed to it because I'm able to think beyond myself.

You should try it some time.

[Hope1]

good grief, the US cannot afford full blown socialized healthcare, cmon now. The country is strangled by rising debt. The Fed is buying treasuries, lol.

private healthcare is much too profitable, the heathcare lobbys just will NOT allow it.

stuck with what ya got...........read the fine print.

[ElCapitan]

At least the funeral home will make some money.

Get rid of those damned funeral homes! All they do is make money! And can you imagine the nerve of those assholes! Making money off of people's misfortune!

[tacomax]

We spend more on health care as a percentage of GDP than other nations because the U.S. has a very high percentage of people who consume far more than they produce.

None of the figures you mentioned have anything to do with the quality of health care being delivered in the U.S.

The UK has an obesity problem but the figures show that they spend significantly less in healthcare and return significantly better results. I can't comment on the level of fatties in Canada, however.

And if you don't think that infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates are correlated to the quality of healthcare then there really is no point discussing this any further.

[reno cool]

I was reminded of that video reading some of these posts myself.

[Pokerjoe]

good grief, the US cannot afford full blown socialized healthcare, cmon now. The country is strangled by rising debt. The Fed is buying treasuries, lol.

private healthcare is much too profitable, the heathcare lobbys just will NOT allow it.

stuck with what ya got...........read the fine print.

Socialized healthcare SAVES money. One of the reasons we need to do it is to SAVE money.

Let me spell it out for you:
Many advanced nations with nationalized health care.... spend less .... get more.

One advanced nation with mostly private health care .... spends more ... gets less.

In the laboratory of life, private health care has proven itself to be a failure. Over and over and over again, nationalized health care proves itself superior.
Yet, the racist and ignorant (that is, those who lie awake at night afraid some of their tax dollars might go to negroes (aka, "crack whores in the ghetto")), think that spending more than other nations to get less is somehow intelligent.

I think Guiness did a whole series of commercials whose punchline comes to mind now.

[Hope1]

Socialized healthcare SAVES money. One of the reasons we need to do it is to SAVE money.

Let me spell it out for you:
Many advanced nations with nationalized health care.... spend less .... get more.

One advanced nation with mostly private health care .... spends more ... gets less.

In the laboratory of life, private health care has proven itself to be a failure. Over and over and over again, nationalized health care proves itself superior.
Yet, the racist and ignorant (that is, those who lie awake at night afraid some of their tax dollars might go to negroes (aka, "crack whores in the ghetto")), think that spending more than other nations to get less is somehow intelligent.

I think Guiness did a whole series of commercials whose punchline comes to mind now.

'SAVES' money? in the hands of US governemnt?..a governemnt with current future liabilities is staring bankrupcy in the face?.......

"private health care has proven itself a failure over and over and over again"---- link please

[Hope1]

yeah get cancer. where are you going to go for treatment? canada? lol

the US has significantly higher survival rates than europe and canada. but i guess suckling mother canada's tit for inferior treatment sounds like a good idea, lets just hope they dont keep you waiting too long... free health care is very popular. oh wait that's right, free , canada's tax rates are even higher than the US.

yeah get cancer. where are you going to go for treatment? canada? lol

the full gament of treatment options are available. Don't speak of somehting you clearly know nothing about

the US has significantly higher survival rates than europe and canada.

link please

canada's tax rates are even higher than the US

the gap is closing though. Your generous massive govt spending will liklely lead to even further taxation, sorry but they need revenue. State to state its happening now. BTW corporate tax rate is actually lower in Canada, chekc your facts

[Willie Bee]

Once again, thanks for the morning chuckles guys. I'm soooooooo happy you're all just message board posters and not actually in charge of making things right. God bless.

[jackpot269]

Im not sure what the best answer for our health care problems are and have not looked @ current bills beinglooked @ that closely but, there has to be a better way than what we have now! I know a man that has been a family friend since before i was born recently retied worked in a local foundery for almost 50 years never had health ins. He worked hard his whole, life most who post here would not last 1 day in that place could someone who is not for changing this system in some way explain to me how this is a good system

[CaneDawg]

[losturmarbles]

Originally Posted by OECD Health Data 2009
Total expenditure on health, % gross domestic product (2007)

Canada: 10.1%
United Kingdom: 8.4%
United States: 16.0%

Total expenditure on health, /capita, US$ purchasing power parity (2007)

Canada: 3895
United Kingdom: 2992
United States: 7290

Infant mortality, Deaths per 1 000 live births (2006)

Canada: 5.0
United Kingdom: 5.0
United States: 6.7

Life expectancy, Total population at birth, Years (2006)

Canada: 80.7
United Kingdom: 79.1 (2005 data)
United States: 78.1

So America spends significantly more on healthcare yet the infant mortality rate is a lot more and the life expectancy a lot less. Whatever you think the solution to this is, it is clear that the current system is not only not working (from the benefit of the consumer) but is ludicrously expensive.

so what is your argument? that socialized health care delivers better quality health care? and these stats are your basis for that belief?

god, there is just so much to address here.

first off, the OECD has outlived it's usefulness by at least a half century.

your first two gems are the same shit weighed against 2 different denominators. and i'm really not sure what the point is. granted health care costs are high, but lets break this down.
out of the per capita figures. how much is privately spent and government spent?
well the OECD doesn't come out and tell you directly, but luckily they did make a cute little bar graph separating the two here:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

(on side note, it does seem a bit fishy, almost like the OECD has a targeted bias, the way they are projecting the US vs everyone else. but whatever, i'm sure they have separate pdfs for all the countries, "How Does ____ Compare" )

so here it is, you can estimate from the graph, almost 4000 of the 7290 is privately spent. about 1k of canada's 3895 and about 500 of uk's 2992 is privately spent.

so government spends
us-3300/person
can-2900/person
uk-2500/person

so maybe socialized medicine is better because the government spends less money per person?

privately spent
us-4000/person
can-1000/person
uk-500/person

and maybe our current system sucks because we privately spend more than the government does! now wait, this couldn't have anything to do with having some of the biggest and best treatment centers in the world, or people spending their money to have procedures to have a better quality of life (ones that socialized medicine would never dream of covering), ground breaking surgeries and treatments, and so on and so on, naaah, that would make too much sense.

the problem here is your comparing, as the old cliché goes, apples to oranges. government health care to semi-private health care. and even in doing so, what does it prove? nothing more than the obvious. the US spends more money on health care. that could mean good, that could mean bad. and of course "more" is a relative term anyway when comparing different regions with different costs of living.

oh but that's right. your contention is that OECD's infant mortality and life expectancy rates of a country somehow determine the quality of health care one receives. and the fact that a country (the US) spends more money yet has poorer scores means they should adopt socialized medicine to improve their scores.

now even if the scores were 100% accurate, that would still be faulty logic on so many levels. most rational people would be skeptical of the rates to begin with, and with minimum research could expose the many flaws in the results that putting any weight or bearing on them, or especially basing your whole view of health care on them would be downright pathetic.

1. infant mortality rates.
first of all the rates are misleading (on purpose). rates are commonly thought of in percentages, and cleverly they make these rates out of 1000 instead of out of 100.
the rates are: can .5%, uk .5%, us .67%, so that would be .17% difference. 1/6th of 1%.

the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. the US counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. but in many countries, there is a minimum weight a premature baby must be to be considered a living child. what!?! then you have some countries that report babies as stillborn if they die in the first 24 hours of life. but that's about 40% of all infant deaths, which occur in the first 24 hours of life. hmm... then births before the third trimester or babies born shorter than a minimum length, some countries exclude them also.
fact is most countries have different procedures that they use to classify a baby as being alive and the countries report factors of birth weight, prematurity, etc differently, so the result is a just bunch of stats that have no way of being fairly compared.

this article should be an interesting read:

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

^^
even the OECD itself "warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

yet this is your reasoning. 1/6th of 1% worse infant mortality rates means lower quality health care.

2. life expectancy

this one is easy. first of all, let's not forget. these life expectancy stats are counted from "at birth". so any infant mortality not counted as actual births will inflate a country's actual life expectancy numbers. so right off the bat, these numbers have no credibility at all.
but let's pretend they do.
life expectancy is more of a measure of lifestyle and environment than it could ever be of health care.

In 2006, U.S. life expectancy reached a record high of 78.1 years.
Good news, to be sure. But that record number still put the nation
behind almost 30 other countries. In Japan, Hong Kong, Canada,
France, Sweden, and elsewhere, people are expected to live well
past their 80th birthday.
Outcomes do matter. But the United States has nothing to be
embarrassed about. Crude indicators like life expectancy and
infant mortality don’t just reflect the quality of a health
care system. They also reflect cultural, behavioral, and other factors,
such as a nation’s homicide rate, the number of accidents,
diet trends, ethnic diversity, pre-natal habits and much more.
It’s not pretty but it affects health care statistics. According to the
U.S. Department of Justice, America’s homicide rate was 5.9 per
100,000 inhabitants in 2004. In contrast, it was 1.95 in Canada,
1.64 in France, and 0.98 in Germany.
The United States also has more car accidents. According to
the Department of Transportation, America had 14.24 fatalities
per 100,000 people from auto accidents in 2006. In Canada,
the number was 9.25. In France, 7.4. In Germany, despite the
country’s high-speed autobahns, fatalities stood at just 6.19 per
100,000.
Indeed, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M University and John Schneider
of the University of Iowa recently concluded that Americans
who don’t die from homicides or in car accidents outlive
people in every other Western country.

this is from The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide
By Sally C. Pipes.
you can download it here:

http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20081020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

the ohsfeldt and schneider study is in their book here:

http://www.aei.org/press/24974

[TPowell]

hate to say it, but universal health care is a great idea IMO

[losturmarbles]

And if you don't think that infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates are correlated to the quality of healthcare then there really is no point discussing this any further.

of course there isn't. because anyone that bases their whole position on health care on 2 misleading stats that are loosely connected to quality of health care, isn't exactly the most perceptive of persons to actually have a discussion with in the first place.
i'm sure andywend would call you a liberal, yet i thought liberals were suppose to be free thinkers, broad minded, and progressive? your apprehension to even question your support to socialized medicine based on broken stats from OECD is beyond laughable. almost like the idiots that believe every word of the bible. they should make a bumper sticker just for you:

OECD Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It.

(my apologies to any bible believers out there)

[losturmarbles]

hate to say it, but universal health care is a great idea IMO

numbers up, storytelling down

[ZBOIZ]

I have to agree we should have the same system as the Canadians

[TPowell]

numbers are up pal, no storytelling here

[losturmarbles]

I have to agree we should have the same system as the Canadians

you would.

[TPowell]

marbles, you've lost it pal

[jon101]

I disagree we don't need socialized medicine rather competition to bring costs down.
We need a congress that doesn't take money from insurance lobbyists.
We need a government that manages healthcare dollars wisely and negotiates with pharmaceutical companies to pay the lowest price possible for medications.
Co-op solutions for insurance and pills will do that.
Give them a non government option that creates tax payer relief, and remains deficit neutral.
Make sure it isn't another blue cross as they were a coop and went to the for profit model.
Also stop using household income to determine eligibility for medicaid, so that 13-18 million more americans qualify thereby increasing the chance a coop for those earning more than 200% of poverty level are insured.After all just because a person lives with you doesn't mean they should pay your medical bills.

[durito]

no one is proposing a canadian style or socialized system for the USA.

[durito]

Unfortunately, many of those same people are allowed to vote.

The Willie Bee Health Care Plan is very simple. Lawyers are only allowed to talk to doctors when the lawyers are sick. Doctors are only allowed to read about new medicines, but not talk to drug company execs or salesmen. Drug company execs are not allowed to do business with any ad agency-slash-marketing companies. And anyone who works for the FDA will be shot, twice to make sure, if they're caught taking bribes from anyone even remotely connected to the health care industry. Plus all federal employees, including elected officials and their staff, will be forced to contribute to and be part of any health care regulations, reform and system they pass through legislation.

Willie Bee in 2012. I'll get the job done.

you got my vote

[tacomax]

no one is proposing a canadian style or socialized system for the USA.

You're not watching Fox News I take it.

[DwightShrute]

You're not watching Fox News I take it.

again with the fox news. It baffles me all the fox news bashing. To me, they provide equal opportunities for both sides to discuss topics of interest. Sure, Hanity is far right but makes a lot of sense at times. He at least doesn't hide that fact is a republican. O'Reilly is fair but has his opinions. Beck hates them both but Obama is in power so he calls it like he sees it.

what do you watch?

[pavyracer]

Really...Fox News? How many times are they going to show the lone paid protester at the town hall meetings yelling profanities at the Senators? Out of 1000 people attending the meetings they chose the eccentric to show as the typical protester. Then they ignore the other 999 who agree with the Senator. You call this unbiased news? Give me a break!

[DwightShrute]

Really...Fox News? How many times are they going to show the lone paid protester at the town hall meetings yelling profanities at the Senators? Out of 1000 people attending the meetings they chose the eccentric to show as the typical protester. Then they ignore the other 999 who agree with the Senator. You call this unbiased news? Give me a break!

totally false statement 999 of 1000 agree with the senator. A closer more accurate would be the exact opposite. Look at the polls. That is white the white house, democrats and CNN and their likes would have you believe.

Why is the health care bill 1000 pages? Most of the senators don't even understand the bill themselves.

I think they should reform the medical care in the US. But is this the right way?

[20Four7]

And p.s. Don't EVER compare me to my husband. Just because you dislike him, don't presume for one moment that we share the same brain, you fucking vile piece of shit.

Robyn,

You having a good day, cuz I don't understand what your saying there please tell us how your feeling.

[pavyracer]

Don't you find it strange they never interview any attendant at the town hall meetings who agrees with the plan?

[DwightShrute]

Don't you find it strange they never interview any attendant at the town hall meetings who agrees with the plan?

who in their right mind would? If the senator doesn't even understand it and is basically telling everyone "trust me"!!!!. A 1000 ****ing pages of legal mumbo jumbo purposely designed to make it confusing. This is just wrong and I would be saying the same if a republican president was doing this. Man, you trust these crooks more than I do.

These town halls are a dog and pony show only.

[pavyracer]

I was watching Fox News the other day interviewing a young lady 20-22 years old who was protesting the plan with a huge ass sign telling that the Senators haven't read the 1,000 page plan so she is protesting it. My question is since she hadn't read it herself to know what it contains how is she protesting someone that hasn't read it himself. This is hilarious to watch!