The greatest health care system in the world

[Gurdari]

Sparky, exactly how common do you think MRI machines are in the US? Do you really think we tolerate having 6 per million of population? 12 CT scanners per million people? Really? Do you have any concept how primitive you appear to us?

No idea how many machines you have - are they accessible to all who need them?
If so, great! If not, too bad.

The city of Tucson has just under one million people in its metropolitan area. Want to bet that we have more than 6 MRI machines here?

I had a roommate who needed an MRI as part of a routine diagnostic process. He wasn't even sick. He managed to get not one, but three, within a week of his doctor referring him, one of which was in an open MRI machine, which is relatively new and uncommon. Can you do that in Canada? In a pig's eye.

That's great for your roommate. Can I get an MRI scan in Canada, if I needed one. Would I have to wait longer than an American? Depends on need, severity of the situation, and in your case - wealth.

You want to sit up there and pronounce about the unacceptability of the US system, and you really, genuinely have no clue what US health care is really like, other than what you hear and read in an incredibly biased press. It's as if I wanted to declare myself an expert on the African jungle just because I read "Tarzan".

Wow. So this was a thread about health care, so we are all debating things, and you sem to be angry that we disagree... but, isn't this the place to debate our different ideas about health care?

Youhave made far more pronouncements about the Canadian system than I have about yours... but since you are intimately familiar with this system, you are not the idiotic Tarzan reader you claim I am... unless of course you are NOT familiar with this system.

I have many relatives in the US who use the system, and they pay through the nose for things ANYONE up here has regular access to. Not sure why that is bad, or primitive, or backwoods...

as for our biased press, do you see a difference in the US media? We have many papers/magazines that call for 2-tier health care, and many that disagree with it... meaning, a difference of opinin in the media.

What Mainstream news papers inyour area have been arguing FOR socialized medicine? And for how long?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see. English isn't your first language. "Rock on", and call me when you can understand simple sentences.

Sorry, but I simply can't dumb this down any further. If you couldn't understand that, there's no hope for discussing this with you. You just go on believing you have the most wonderfullest health care in the whole world . . . and keep it to yourself, because it's really none of your damned business what the US does.

You have not dumbed anything down (except the thread).

Go read a book about critical thinking, and try to form logical arguments - you will have less stress and make your point (when you have one) much clearer to your audience.

Keep in mind when you reference your opponent's argument, you should try to be factual (like, I never said Canada had the best system in the world - just that I was happy with it, and that it seems superior to the US model).

You basically ranted about things and failed to support them, not really sure why you think Canada's system is so bad... other than you think we have less MRI machines than your city. ANd you think government-run health systems are unferior to private ones... not sure why.


Oh well, I hope you have a super day, regardless (I'm off to English class).

"Go read a book." The last refuge of someone who has no argument to make.

Keep in mind when you reference your opponent's argument you should try to be factual. Like, I never said you said Canada had the best system in the world. I have merely pointed out that you apparently know little about the American system, have no way of telling whether your system is superior except highly biased news articles, and pointed out one way in which our system is superior to yours.

I basically didn't rant at all. I pointed out an inferiority in the Canadian system to someone else, you jumped in and made a fool of yourself, and are now trying to climb up on your high horse at me. Works better if you accuse me of something I actually did.

If you're not sure why I think Canada's system is so bad, then you're the only one who DOESN'T get it. Let me spell it out for you, Sparky: the US system is better than the Canadian system because it offers greater and faster accessibility to cutting-edge technology. Which is why I consider a government-run healthcare industry to be inferior to a more capitalistic model: it reduces availability and access.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sparky, exactly how common do you think MRI machines are in the US? Do you really think we tolerate having 6 per million of population? 12 CT scanners per million people? Really? Do you have any concept how primitive you appear to us?

No idea how many machines you have - are they accessible to all who need them?
If so, great! If not, too bad.

Yes, actually. Contrary to the biased stories you have apparently believed, the US does not simply shove people out into the street and ignore them and let them die.

The city of Tucson has just under one million people in its metropolitan area. Want to bet that we have more than 6 MRI machines here?

I had a roommate who needed an MRI as part of a routine diagnostic process. He wasn't even sick. He managed to get not one, but three, within a week of his doctor referring him, one of which was in an open MRI machine, which is relatively new and uncommon. Can you do that in Canada? In a pig's eye.

That's great for your roommate. Can I get an MRI scan in Canada, if I needed one. Would I have to wait longer than an American? Depends on need, severity of the situation, and in your case - wealth.

You can eventually get an MRI in Canada, sure. Can you get one that quickly? No. And while someone severely sick in Canada MIGHT be bumped up to the head of the line and get on that quickly, it's not a certainty, and someone like my roommate DEFINITELY wouldn't.

By the way, it wasn't a matter of wealth. That's actually a typical wait time for that procedure in the US. You might have a bit longer in a less metropolitan area, depending on how busy the closest clinic is, but my point is that Americans can take for granted an accessibility to technology that Canadians can't.

You want to sit up there and pronounce about the unacceptability of the US system, and you really, genuinely have no clue what US health care is really like, other than what you hear and read in an incredibly biased press. It's as if I wanted to declare myself an expert on the African jungle just because I read "Tarzan".

Wow. So this was a thread about health care, so we are all debating things, and you sem to be angry that we disagree... but, isn't this the place to debate our different ideas about health care?

Wow. So I disagree with you, and you interpret that as me being angry that YOU disagreed. Is debate defined as only you expressing your opinions? Sorry, but pointing out how little you actually know about the subject you've chosen to pronounce upon IS a valid debate point.

Youhave made far more pronouncements about the Canadian system than I have about yours... but since you are intimately familiar with this system, you are not the idiotic Tarzan reader you claim I am... unless of course you are NOT familiar with this system.

Sorry, but everything I've said is independently verifiable fact and mathematics, rather than personal opinion regurgitated from biased, agenda-driven media articles.

I have many relatives in the US who use the system, and they pay through the nose for things ANYONE up here has regular access to. Not sure why that is bad, or primitive, or backwoods...

Because "regular access" under the Canadian system consists of wait times no American would tolerate. And I suspect your relatives are so busy bitching about costs that they never consider the accessibility that they, like all Americans, take for granted. Anecdotal evidence does not and never will trump statistical reality and hard proof.

as for our biased press, do you see a difference in the US media? We have many papers/magazines that call for 2-tier health care, and many that disagree with it... meaning, a difference of opinin in the media.

Who said I was making any division between "your" media and "our media? It's all the same damned media. Our press lies, your press repeats it, they all apparently share the same hive mind. The existence of alternative media doesn't negate the fact of the major media's lockstep attitude.

What Mainstream news papers inyour area have been arguing FOR socialized medicine? And for how long?

Um, I don't know of any mainstream media in the US that DOESN'T advocate it, either overtly or obliquely.

 

[Said1]

[

If you're not sure why I think Canada's system is so bad, then you're the only one who DOESN'T get it. Let me spell it out for you, Sparky: the US system is better than the Canadian system because it offers greater and faster accessibility to cutting-edge ltechnology. Which is why I consider a government-run healthcare industry to be inferior to a more capitalistic model: it reduces availability and access.

Implementing a capitalist system would not necessarily equate more innovation, efficiency and access. If that was the case, then other industries would be cutting edge in technology and innovation ie: R&D. Which is not the case.

 

[Gurdari]

"Go read a book." The last refuge of someone who has no argument to make.

No. It is the first stance of someone inviting you to, um... read a book.

Keep in mind when you reference your opponent's argument you should try to be factual. Like, I never said you said Canada had the best system in the world. I have merely pointed out that you apparently know little about the American system, have no way of telling whether your system is superior except highly biased news articles, and pointed out one way in which our system is superior to yours.

"You just go on believing you have the most wonderfullest health care in the whole world . . . "

You made no support for that at all. All you seem to do is rant and rave. List a few points - ANYTHING -about my knowledge of the US system, or how biased my news sources are.

I basically didn't rant at all. I pointed out an inferiority in the Canadian system to someone else, you jumped in and made a fool of yourself, and are now trying to climb up on your high horse at me. Works better if you accuse me of something I actually did.

This is tough to respond to, it sounds like a weird insult/complaint... I will accuse you right now of saying thinsg you have not supported, and of accusing me of being various bad names.

If you're not sure why I think Canada's system is so bad, then you're the only one who DOESN'T get it. Let me spell it out for you, Sparky: the US system is better than the Canadian system because it offers greater and faster accessibility to cutting-edge technology. Which is why I consider a government-run healthcare industry to be inferior to a more capitalistic model: it reduces availability and access.

The US system does not offer those things to it's population, it offers them to segments of the population who can afford them, there is a difference. Our system if for Canadians who need it, not Canadians who can pay. Your availability is very 'reduced' comparatively, which is why some people get such fast access... none of those lazy undesirables clogging up the health care line.

 

[Gurdari]

Cecilie says: "Sorry, but everything I've said is independently verifiable fact and mathematics, rather than personal opinion regurgitated from biased, agenda-driven media articles."

Gurdari says (in broken English): Alright, lay it on me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

If you're not sure why I think Canada's system is so bad, then you're the only one who DOESN'T get it. Let me spell it out for you, Sparky: the US system is better than the Canadian system because it offers greater and faster accessibility to cutting-edge ltechnology. Which is why I consider a government-run healthcare industry to be inferior to a more capitalistic model: it reduces availability and access.

Implementing a capitalist system would not necessarily equate more innovation, efficiency and access. If that was the case, then other industries would be cutting edge in technology and innovation ie: R&D. Which is not the case.

I'm sorry. In what area of R & D are we not on the front line? In which industry are we the idiot child of the industrialized world, research and development-wise?

 

[Annie]

Hmmm on original post. All I can say is, why would any brilliant person go into medicine today, knowing they will likely make less than many a politician in their lifetime? Have a clue how much it costs to get an MD? Then the hours away from home, while you work to pay for insurance? The hours of paperwork? Knowing you are delivering less than good care, because you have to shove patients through?

It's already happening today, there is a MD shortage in many areas. With the one payer system which is what's in store, it will become more severe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Go read a book." The last refuge of someone who has no argument to make.

No. It is the first stance of someone inviting you to, um... read a book.

Not even a good try at a cover-up. Epic fail. Moving on.

Keep in mind when you reference your opponent's argument you should try to be factual. Like, I never said you said Canada had the best system in the world. I have merely pointed out that you apparently know little about the American system, have no way of telling whether your system is superior except highly biased news articles, and pointed out one way in which our system is superior to yours.

"You just go on believing you have the most wonderfullest health care in the whole world . . . "

You made no support for that at all. All you seem to do is rant and rave. List a few points - ANYTHING -about my knowledge of the US system, or how biased my news sources are.

Please. Every damned post you make reveals that you know shit about our system, not to mention exactly what your sources were. And I could surmise that anyway, because - HELLO! - you don't live here and experience it. And no, I'm not going to slog back through your bullshit a second time, just to go, "Look, here you said THIS, and there you said THAT." The bottom line is, you aren't an American, it's not your healthcare system, and we don't give a rat's ass what you think of it, so bugger off.

I basically didn't rant at all. I pointed out an inferiority in the Canadian system to someone else, you jumped in and made a fool of yourself, and are now trying to climb up on your high horse at me. Works better if you accuse me of something I actually did.

This is tough to respond to, it sounds like a weird insult/complaint... I will accuse you right now of saying thinsg you have not supported, and of accusing me of being various bad names.

I don't give a fuck what you think I have and haven't supported sufficiently to suit you. I'm not begging your pardon for not citing a ream of studies with every word I type. Every single bit of it IS factual and DOES have hard data, regardless of whether or not I feel like boring everyone to death with masses of references on every post.

And I didn't accuse you of being anything. I simply stated my personal opinion.

If you're not sure why I think Canada's system is so bad, then you're the only one who DOESN'T get it. Let me spell it out for you, Sparky: the US system is better than the Canadian system because it offers greater and faster accessibility to cutting-edge technology. Which is why I consider a government-run healthcare industry to be inferior to a more capitalistic model: it reduces availability and access.

The US system does not offer those things to it's population, it offers them to segments of the population who can afford them, there is a difference. Our system if for Canadians who need it, not Canadians who can pay. Your availability is very 'reduced' comparatively, which is why some people get such fast access... none of those lazy undesirables clogging up the health care line.

And how the fuck do YOU know what the US system does or doesn't offer? You got all snotty about how I didn't know for sure that your sources were biased media articles, so why don't you tell us what your sources ARE? Exactly how do you know that the US only offers those things to certain segments of the population, and that other people can't get them at all? Prove to me that only rich people get good health care in the US. Prove to me that fast access is only available to the rich in the US.

As for "our system is for ALL Canadians, not just the rich ones", I call bullshit. A series of studies by the University of British Columbia in the 1990s found widespread inequality in care among that province's regions. Those researchers have continued tracking this, and the inequalities have continued, and in some cases gotten worse. A survey of Ontario physicians found that more than 80 percent of them, including 90 percent of cardiac surgeons, 81 percent of internists, and 60 percent of family physicians had been involved with a patient who had received preferential access on the basis of factors other than medical need. Other studies have reached the same conclusion.

Your own media has done stories on wealthy and prominent patients "line-jumping" to get care ahead of ordinary citizens. Allan Rock, the health minister, got surgery for prostate cancer right after being diagnosed, and was heavily criticized by other prostate cancer patients who waited a lot longer, some up to a year between diagnosis and treatment. Find me an American diagnosed with prostate cancer who has to wait a year for treatment, let alone a statistically significant group of them. The president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Victor Dirnfield, said that he knew of seven prominent political figures who received special treatment. "instead of waiting three months for an MRI, they will have it done in three or four days." Three months? Really? THAT'S the craptacular system you want to foist off on us? Let me say it again: bugger off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie says: "Sorry, but everything I've said is independently verifiable fact and mathematics, rather than personal opinion regurgitated from biased, agenda-driven media articles."

Gurdari says (in broken English): Alright, lay it on me.

Been there, done that, not repeating myself because you didn't read or understand. Go back and read it again.

 

[Annie]

As for the 'debates' above, who does WHO turn to with something like the possible pandemic? CDC.

Won't be happening if Obama has his way. The best minds will NOT go into medicine.

 

[Agnapostate]

Been there, done that, not repeating myself because you didn't read or understand. Go back and read it again.

It's so ridiculously ironic and blatantly hypocritical that you'd be critical of others for not understanding your drivel whilst having squawked and hissed about my terminology being too "complex" for you to understand.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

has come to this:

"I don't want to die. I shouldn't have to die. This is a county hospital. This is for people that, like me, many people have lost their insurance, have not any other resources. I mean I was a responsible person. I bought my house. I put money away. I raised my two children. And now I have nothing. You know my house isn’t worth anything. I have no money. And I said 'What do I do, but what do all these other people do after me?' 'And they said we don't know,'" Sharp told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley.

Sharp, 63, has been fighting lymphoma since July. She's not working because of her illness and has no insurance. Last year, she received charity care at the county hospital, University Medical Center. She was one of 2,000 patients who got the letter.

"Dear patient, we regret to inform you that the Nevada Cancer Institute will no longer provide contract oncology services at University Medical Center," Sharp read.

People who worked, raised their children, put money away, tried to be responsible, now have nowhere to turn to. Those who are on welfare, of course, can still get medical care.

What a sorry situation. There has to be a better way.

If only those dems would just like the economy work its magic no hard working person would be without insurance.

 

[Said1]

[

If you're not sure why I think Canada's system is so bad, then you're the only one who DOESN'T get it. Let me spell it out for you, Sparky: the US system is better than the Canadian system because it offers greater and faster accessibility to cutting-edge ltechnology. Which is why I consider a government-run healthcare industry to be inferior to a more capitalistic model: it reduces availability and access.

Implementing a capitalist system would not necessarily equate more innovation, efficiency and access. If that was the case, then other industries would be cutting edge in technology and innovation ie: R&D. Which is not the case.

I'm sorry. In what area of R & D are we not on the front line? In which industry are we the idiot child of the industrialized world, research and development-wise?

I though it was fairly obvious that I was speaking about Canada. I mean if you read what you wrote, and then what I wrote and my use of the words 'implementing a capitalist system' it makes sense. Those 4 words combined with everything are supposed to imply lack, that is, there is an implied absence of 'capitalist, free market mechanisms structuring the delivery, pricing etc of Canadian health care'.

 

[Yukon]

The US government owns the banks, the insurance companies, and the car manufacturers and that is free market capitalism. In Canada the government controls Health Care Insurance premiums and that's socialism. How paradoxical Americans are.

 

[Gurdari]

A series of studies by the University of British Columbia in the 1990s found widespread inequality in care among that province's regions. Those researchers have continued tracking this, and the inequalities have continued, and in some cases gotten worse. A survey of Ontario physicians found that more than 80 percent of them, including 90 percent of cardiac surgeons, 81 percent of internists, and 60 percent of family physicians had been involved with a patient who had received preferential access on the basis of factors other than medical need. Other studies have reached the same conclusion.

Your own media has done stories on wealthy and prominent patients "line-jumping" to get care ahead of ordinary citizens. Allan Rock, the health minister, got surgery for prostate cancer right after being diagnosed, and was heavily criticized by other prostate cancer patients who waited a lot longer, some up to a year between diagnosis and treatment. Find me an American diagnosed with prostate cancer who has to wait a year for treatment, let alone a statistically significant group of them. The president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Victor Dirnfield, said that he knew of seven prominent political figures who received special treatment. "instead of waiting three months for an MRI, they will have it done in three or four days."

This is actually making an argument, and then trying to support it. Very well done.

As for the rest of what you type... yikes.