The raw facts on health care, US vs Canda

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't say anything about sources, you nitwit. I said "context". Get someone to look up the definition and read it to you.

That "context" being a right-wing "context"? The point of this post was to point out the actual numbers, without some pre-existing interpretation. That way people can make an informed decision based on the DATA, rather than listen to someone else's opinion.

When I said "get someone to explain the definition of 'context' to you", I didn't mean ask ME to do it. I'm not your ESL tutor. Come back when you know what you're talking about (I won't hold my breath waiting).

Ever hear of the OECD? THEY say that the US outperforms the rest of the world in outcomes across the board. Not just cancer, but pneumonia, heart disease,

That's funny, because the data I can access from the OECD does not in fact back up your assertion.

In fact, you know what the prime factor listed by the OECD for evaluating health care is? (you'll love this one)

Life Expectancy.

LOL

"LOL" I didn't say "Go look up what the OECD thinks is important", dumbass. I said, "The OECD ranks the US as number one in outcomes." I referenced their STATISTICS, not their PRIORITIES, in specific rebuttal to your blank numbers from Nationmaster. This is similar to the way that I mentioned the WHO report, whose priorities I categorically reject, in the specific statistical area of responsiveness.

Here's an interesting bit of data that I DID find from the OECD:

It seems that the cost per capita for US health care is about twice as much as other developed countries, including Canada.

And if I had said, "The OECD is God, and everything they say is scripture", that might be relevant. As it is, it's a complete non sequitur, and pointless. We aren't talking about costs at the moment, dumbass. We're talking about rating quality of care. I don't tolerate topic-hopping, so stop trying.

So, let's say US health care is just about on par with that of Canada, or other nations with socialized health care, and I'm not saying this is true, I'm just presenting a hypothetical situation.

Let's say you stick to the frigging subject and stop wandering down tangents, shall we? I'm not saying this is TRUE. I'm just presenting a hypothetical situation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, in summary.

According to the raw data.

The US has a slightly worse health care system than Canada.

And health care in the US is twice as expensive, per person, as it is in Canada.

So in summary, VLWC ignores anything he doesn't want to hear, clutters the conversation with irrelevant, uncontexted numbers, and then runs for another, unrelated subject so he can pretend he's won the debate he actually avoided entirely.

 

[Andrew2382]

pretty much Cecile...he pretty much dismissed the fact that nearly half of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants

 

[Cecilie1200]

pretty much Cecile...he pretty much dismissed the fact that nearly half of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants

Count yourself lucky that he acknowledged it long enough to dismiss it, instead of simply pretending he didn't see it, like he does most stuff.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, they weren't. The beginning of this thread was filled with DEATH rates

OK, let me get this straight. So it's your assertion that death rates per disease are not an approximate reflection of survival rates?

The only possible reason that this would be true is that you firmly believe that the US has higher rates of all diseases than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. Is that what you're saying? That's your latest rationalization?

Wow, that's an interesting one.

the REAL survival rates you've been given in three different threads.

You mean the 3-4% advantage the US has in one disease, Cancer? Which I mentioned at least twice in this thread?

shout slogans, move the goalposts every chance you get,

Wow, that is pretty much the opposite of my debate style.

I present data, then extrapolate an opinion from that data, ask other people to state their opinions, and argue I my side. Just read this thread, and you will find that to be true. The only times I stray from this formula is when someone says something that I find particularly offensive or outright , and then I respond in kind, like this:

Apparently your reading comprehension skills need some work.

On the other hand, so is reporting that you're happy with your healthcare system, but that doesn't stop you Canada- and France-worshippers from telling us right and left how happy their people

Apparently you're mistaking me for someone else. Apparently you missed the part where I clearly stated that I love America so much, that I volunteered and served in the Army to defend her, which I'm sure is more than you've ever done, so you can take your "Canada and France worshipping comments" and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Just because you love Corporations and the almighty dollar more than you care about the people of this fine country doesn't mean you get to project your traitorous feelings onto me, K?

An hour or two? What the fuck are you babbling about, an hour or two? Try months.

Yet another in a long string of unsupported assertions, do you not know how to google?

YOU would consider yourself to be in "good health" if you had a different terminal illness than everyone around you.

But since diabetes in most cases not terminal (as long as you take your meds and watch your diet), you would. Which is my point, (how did you put it? oh yeah) "Dumbass".

 

[Vast LWC]

No, shitforbrains, like WE Down's Syndrome is caused by an extra 23rd chromosome. I hate to break it to you, but medical science doesn't conform to your politically correct racist views.

So, let me get this straight. Black people are genetically inclined to have more diseases and die faster than white people, is that your assertion? Please feel free to provide proof of this little nugget, I'd love to see it.

No, it's more likely that your assertion is based on some sort of hearsay evidence, making it a racist statement. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

Yeah, in the same way that it's "sexist" to say that men and women are genetically different.

No, it's not, but it IS sexist to say that women are genetically INFERIOR to men, which is what you did in reference to black people. Especially without any supporting data at all to back up your claim.

I referenced their STATISTICS, not their PRIORITIES

Yet, you don't link, or even quote the actual statistics you mention.

All you've done this entire thread is say "you're wrong" and insult me, really a very sad debating style.

So in summary, VLWC ignores anything he doesn't want to hear, clutters the conversation with irrelevant, uncontexted numbers, and then runs for another, unrelated subject so he can pretend he's won the debate

Uh Huh. straight out of the Neo-Con talking point handbook:

Accuse your opponent of exactly what you, yourself are doing. Nice.

I provide raw data, and you provide nothing except your opinion. Good work.

I imagine you'll just go back to calling me "Shithead" at this point. Another excellent debating method, by the way, it really shows everone how intelligent you are.

 

[Vast LWC]

Let's say you stick to the frigging subject and stop wandering down tangents, shall we? I'm not saying this is TRUE. I'm just presenting a hypothetical situation.

Uh huh.

Except that when taken in context, it was directly related, and not a "tangent". You do know what a "tangent" is, right?

So, let's say US health care is just about on par with that of Canada, or other nations with socialized health care, and I'm not saying this is true, I'm just presenting a hypothetical situation.

That would mean that Americans pay twice as much for the same level of care. Add to that all the data I presented in the beginning of this thread, and it looks like a pretty grim picture, doesn't it?

Just because something is hypothetical does not mean it is not directly related to the conversation at hand.

 

[Vast LWC]

Count yourself lucky that he acknowledged it long enough to dismiss it, instead of simply pretending he didn't see it

Just because I have a life, and it takes me some time to respond, does not mean I am not acknowledging you.

 

[Vast LWC]

pretty much Cecile...he pretty much dismissed the fact that nearly half of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants

Except for the fact that you said 59% of uninsured are illegal immigrants, and that 24% of the uninsured are legal immigrants, which is a hell of a lot more than "nearly half".

Let me quote:

U.S. citizens 14%

Legal immigrants 24%

Illegal immigrants 59%

Are you trying some revisionist thread history now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Even little Costa Rica, with a one-tenth per capita income can come up with a system that insures all of it's citizens, and has private insurance that you can buy, if you feel the wait for the regular insurance is to long. Not only that, Costa Rica ranks third in life expectancy, behind only Japan and France. And their medical system is advanced enough that a substancial portion of their tourism is "medical vacations".

But all you Rushpublicans can say is "Oh no, we can't".

 

[elvis]

pretty much Cecile...he pretty much dismissed the fact that nearly half of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants

Except for the fact that you said 59% of uninsured are illegal immigrants, and that 24% of the uninsured are legal immigrants, which is a hell of a lot more than "nearly half".

Let me quote:

U.S. citizens 14%

Legal immigrants 24%

Illegal immigrants 59%

Are you trying some revisionist thread history now?

she may have been exaggerating to make a point. Everyone does that.

 

[Vast LWC]

To be PERFECTLY clear, that quote is not part of the conversation I was having with you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

You were responding to a response I had made to another poster. That made you part of THAT conversation. See how that works?

 

[Vast LWC]

she may have been exaggerating to make a point. Everyone does that.

An exaggeration would be: "most of the uninsured are immigrants".

When one presents precise figures, that is a lie, not an exaggeration.

 

[elvis]

Even little Costa Rica, with a one-tenth per capita income can come up with a system that insures all of it's citizens, and has private insurance that you can buy, if you feel the wait for the regular insurance is to long. Not only that, Costa Rica ranks third in life expectancy, behind only Japan and France. And their medical system is advanced enough that a substancial portion of their tourism is "medical vacations".

But all you Rushpublicans can say is "Oh no, we can't".

Keep waiting for you to move there.

 

[Andrew2382]

she may have been exaggerating to make a point. Everyone does that.

An exaggeration would be: "most of the uninsured are immigrants".

When one presents precise figures, that is a lie, not an exaggeration.

its not an exaggeration...it's fact

unauthorized immigrants account for approx 59% of the uninsured people in this country.

Legal immigrants count for 24% and US born citizens make up 14%

where is the exaggeration?

When these other countries with socialized health face an immigration problem such as us then you can try and compare both healthcare statistics.

But then again, I am sure you're of the mind of just granting citizenship to every illegal immigrant in the country

 

[American Horse]

In many cases, these products are not even adequately tested, some don't even do what they say they do, but pharma companies are making money by the bucketload. One only needs to look at their overall stock performance to see that.

And treating diseases is MUCH more profitable than curing diseases. Guess that's why there's a whole bunch of treatment options for so many diseases and so few cures coming out.

Going directly to the New York Stock Exchange charts for the Top twenty Pharmas worldwide and focusing only on the US companies, particulary the one with the highest net income in 2006 figures Pfizer ($19.337 billion); The smallest of the twenty Bristol Myers/Squib ($1.585 billion), and two in the middle range( which is $5.534 billion average), Bayer, a German Co. ($5.442 billion) and Merck ($4.434 billions) here is what I found:

Pfizer's stock per share price went from
$26.30 Aug 9, 2004 to $15.19 Aug 7, 2009 - dn 42% in five years
Bayer's stock per share price went from
$20.77 Aug 9, 2004 to $40.18 Aug 7, 2009 - up 93% in five years
Mercks stock per share price went from
$45.77 Aug 9, 2004 to $30.10 Aug 7, 2009 - dn 34% in five years
Bristol/Myers/Squib stock per share price went from
$22.70 Aug 9, 2004 to $21.90 Aug 7, 2009 - dn 3.5% in five years

In every case a US investor investing in stock in a US pharma company would have lost significant money during a five year period. For a ten year period for Pfizer, going back to August 1999, the share price was $37.75 and the lost value in ten years is 60% in price per stock share. It seems a prudent investor would not buy stock in any of those companies, except the German one.

 

[Vast LWC]

she may have been exaggerating to make a point. Everyone does that.

An exaggeration would be: "most of the uninsured are immigrants".

When one presents precise figures, that is a lie, not an exaggeration.

its not an exaggeration...it's fact

unauthorized immigrants account for approx 59% of the uninsured people in this country.

Legal immigrants count for 24% and US born citizens make up 14%

where is the exaggeration?

When these other countries with socialized health face an immigration problem such as us then you can try and compare both healthcare statistics.

But then again, I am sure you're of the mind of just granting citizenship to every illegal immigrant in the country

No, they don't.

You quoted a source out of context to arrive at these figures.

According to the US Census ( linked here , see page 22)

Uninsured Americans can be broken down as follows:

Native Born: 34,380,000
Naturalized: 2,384,000
Not a Citizen: 10,231,000

Total: 46,995,000

AS Naturalized Citizens are in fact citizens, this means that a grand total of 36,764,000 of the uninsured are citizens, while 10,231,000 are not.

Which means that non-citzens make up only 21% of the uninsured in America.
And remember, some of those non-citizens are legal residents, not illegals.

But I imagine now you'll try to cast doubt on the Census.

 

[Andrew2382]

sigh...from your own source...you apparently don't read the text under the graphs do you?

Page 23
Nativity

The Uninsured rate for the NATIVE BORN POPULATION declined to 12.7% in 07 DOWN from 13.2% in 06.

While the Uninsured rate for the foreign-born population was statistically unchanged at 33.2% in 07.

Among the foreign born population the uninsured rate for naturalized citizens increased to 17.6% in 07, while the uninsured rate for non citizens declined to 43.8% in 07

The proportion of the foreign born population without health insurance in 07 was about 2 and a half times that of native born population.

lol the chart I put done by the Pew Research Center was

U.S. citizens 14%

Legal immigrants 24%

Illegal immigrants 59%

ALMOST THE EXACT SAME...except your census report is from 07 and their numbers are taken from the 08 or 09 report I don't recall


Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?


also, your precious census reports doesn't count ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS YOU TWIT

When they list not a citizen they are talking about non citizens...people with visa's etc... They aren't including pablo and jose in LA mowing the lawn

 

[Vast LWC]

5 Year

Bectin Dickinson: Aug 6th 2004: 44.62 Up
Aug 7th 2009: 64.42

Johnson & J: Aug 6th 2005: 25.63 Up
Aug 7th 2009: 59.50

Bayer AG: Aug 6th 2005: 21.26 Up
Aug 7th 2009: 55.99

Schering Plough: Aug 6th 2005: 17.85 Up
Aug 7th 2009: 26.62

Merck and Squib did indeed go down dramatically over the last year-and-a-half due to the recession, when all stocks took a dive, but Merck was up in the 60's around the end of 2007 and Squib was arounud 30 at about the same point.

Pfizer, let's face it, is just badly managed.

 

[Vast LWC]

sigh...from your own source...you apparently don't read the text under the graphs do you?

Page 23
Nativity

The Uninsured rate for the NATIVE BORN POPULATION declined to 12.7% in 07 DOWN from 13.2% in 06.

While the Uninsured rate for the foreign-born population was statistically unchanged at 33.2% in 07.

Among the foreign born population the uninsured rate for naturalized citizens increased to 17.6% in 07, while the uninsured rate for non citizens declined to 43.8% in 07

The proportion of the foreign born population without health insurance in 07 was about 2 and a half times that of native born population.

lol the chart I put done by the Pew Research Center was

U.S. citizens 14%

Legal immigrants 24%

Illegal immigrants 59%

ALMOST THE EXACT SAME...except your census report is from 07 and their numbers are taken from the 08 or 09 report I don't recall


Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?


also, your precious census reports doesn't count ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS YOU TWIT

When they list not a citizen they are talking about non citizens...people with visa's etc... They aren't including pablo and jose in LA mowing the lawn

OK, I see where the problem lies:

In this post:

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf

page 28


Adults

Type Uninsured

U.S. citizens 14%

Legal immigrants 24%

Illegal immigrants 59%

Children

Type Uninsured

U.S. citizens 8%

Citizens whose parents are legal immigrants 14%

Foreign-born children of legal immigrants 22%

Citizens with illegal immigrant parents 25%

Foreign-born children of illegal immigrants 45%

So lets see, according to this aprrox 14$ of US born citizens are without health insurance , 24% are legal immigrants, and 59% stems from unauthorized immigrants.

And for our children only 8% of children are without compared to 45% of illegal children with illegal parents.

Recent data from 2008.

Yeah seems like we have an immigration problem, add that together with Americans being the most gluttonous people on earth and it will always be a recipe for expensive healthcare.

But no, we love our illegal immigrants I guess


Sounds like our immigration problem is the main burden on our healthcare problem. Put that together with the fact that Americans are gluttonous and its always going to equal disaster.

You said this:

So lets see, according to this aprrox 14$ of US born citizens are without health insurance , 24% are legal immigrants, and 59% stems from unauthorized immigrants.

Which is a completely mixed and confusing statement. That was where our misunderstanding occurred.

I believe, from what you have said since, that what you MEANT was:

14% of US born citizens are without health insurance,
24% of legal immigrants are without health insurance, and,
59% of unauthorized immigrants are without health insurance.

Correct?

And yes, that would be a more or less accurate statement I believe.

Since there are about 12 million illegals in the US, that means roughly:

7 million illegal uninsured
37 million full-Citizens who are uninsured, (2.3 million of which are immigrants) and
10.2 million legal non-citizens who are uninsured

right?

And you are correct, I did accidentally include "illegal immigrants" in the "non-citizens" category. That was indeed an error on my part. You'll find I am more than willing to admit mistakes if and when the occur.