Minor detail that every other Western nation finds a single payer system better, cheaper, and more fair, but we in our infinite wisdom are smarter.
Right.....
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Universal Health Care
- Thread starter t_samford
- Start date
Minor detail that every other Western nation finds a single payer system better, cheaper, and more fair, but we in our infinite wisdom are smarter.
Right.....
yes, lets have the government run our healthcare...everything they have touched has gone broke....from social security to the fucking postal office....but you want them in charge of healthcare...you are an idiot
When someone runs out of ideas, they resort to personal attacks.
My friends from Canada LOVE their healthcare system. Every system has its problems, but the single payer system is better and cheaper, that is why everyone else uses it.
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care
good read...I mean you guys like to link left wing tard sights right...some excerpts cause I know most of the lefties don't enjoy reading something unless it agrees with their philsophy.
So what has happened in Canada? Why is it that we've gone from being very bullish on this health care system to having great reservations? Part of it is that Canadians read newspapers, and it doesn't much matter whether you're on the west coast or the east coast; it doesn't much matter whether you're a Globe and Mail reader, or a National Post reader; every single day, there are stories describing the system.
I've just randomly chosen a few stories that have come to light recently.
* The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.
* In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year. The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.
* New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.
* In Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours. No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital. It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications hours later.
-For example, Angus Reid, a well-respected Canadian pollster, asked Canadians to rate their health care system. When they started doing this polling in 1991, a clear majority of Canadians gave the system top marks: excellent or very good. Last year, when they did the poll again, under one in four gave the system that rating.
Angus Reid has done other polls as well. A year and a half ago, a poll sent shock waves across the country when 73 percent of Canadians described their health care system as being "in crisis." Reid actually went back and redid the poll six months later: 78 percent of Canadians now thought the system was in crisis.
-The Fraser Institute, a major think tank in Canada, does a survey of 2,300 physicians across 12 specialties and asks them to estimate the wait time between the initial visit with the family doctor to the surgical therapy. They do this every year. Right now, the average wait time is 14 weeks. What's very impressive is the extent to which that has grown; 14 weeks marks a 5.3 percent increase over the last year, despite the fact that government spending in health care has grown by 22 percent over the last three years.
The Fraser Institute not only asks physicians how long patients wait, but they ask doctors how long they think patients ought to reasonably wait. In every single category, patients wait too long, in the opinion of the physicians.
good read...I mean you guys like to link left wing tard sights right...some excerpts cause I know most of the lefties don't enjoy reading something unless it agrees with their philsophy.
So what has happened in Canada? Why is it that we've gone from being very bullish on this health care system to having great reservations? Part of it is that Canadians read newspapers, and it doesn't much matter whether you're on the west coast or the east coast; it doesn't much matter whether you're a Globe and Mail reader, or a National Post reader; every single day, there are stories describing the system.
I've just randomly chosen a few stories that have come to light recently.
* The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.
* In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year. The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.
* New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.
* In Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours. No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital. It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications hours later.
-For example, Angus Reid, a well-respected Canadian pollster, asked Canadians to rate their health care system. When they started doing this polling in 1991, a clear majority of Canadians gave the system top marks: excellent or very good. Last year, when they did the poll again, under one in four gave the system that rating.
Angus Reid has done other polls as well. A year and a half ago, a poll sent shock waves across the country when 73 percent of Canadians described their health care system as being "in crisis." Reid actually went back and redid the poll six months later: 78 percent of Canadians now thought the system was in crisis.
-The Fraser Institute, a major think tank in Canada, does a survey of 2,300 physicians across 12 specialties and asks them to estimate the wait time between the initial visit with the family doctor to the surgical therapy. They do this every year. Right now, the average wait time is 14 weeks. What's very impressive is the extent to which that has grown; 14 weeks marks a 5.3 percent increase over the last year, despite the fact that government spending in health care has grown by 22 percent over the last three years.
The Fraser Institute not only asks physicians how long patients wait, but they ask doctors how long they think patients ought to reasonably wait. In every single category, patients wait too long, in the opinion of the physicians.
Though little known at the time of its founding, the Institute has been a source of controversy since its beginning. It was founded by T.Patrick Boyle with a grant from forestry giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited[citation needed], at a time when MacMillan-Bloedel was in conflict with the left-wing NDP government of British Columbia then led by Premier Dave Barrett. The relationship, though, was short-lived as MacMillian-Bloedel broke ties with the Institute when it published a book opposing wage and price controls. The CEO of MacMillian-Bloedel at the time supported wage and price controls.
Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[2] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.
In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[3] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]
In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.
Fraser Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[2] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515.
In 2002, a study by Neil Brooks of the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claimed the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study stated that the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year.[3] The Institute counters that Professor Brooks confuses the aggregate tax burden with the tax burden borne by those who actually pay tax.[citation needed]
In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.
Fraser Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All patients are waiting longer to see doctors in emergency rooms, a study by Boston-area researchers says, but for people with serious conditions such as heart attacks, the time it takes has risen more rapidly.
Between 1997 and 2004, wait times went up an average of 4.1 percent per year for all patients, but for heart attack patients, the waits stretched 11.2 percent per year, researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in today’s issue of Health Affairs. Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients in urban hospitals waited longer than other patients.
"The striking finding is that waits are increasing for all Americans, for people who are insured and for people who are uninsured," lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, also a fellow in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in an interview. “For patients with severe illnesses, it is troublesome.”
The median amount of time between registering in the emergency department and being examined by a physician was 22 minutes in 1997, according to an analysis of more than 92,000 medical records in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. By 2004, the median wait time was 30 minutes, the study says. Whether patients had insurance made no difference in how long they waited to see a doctor.
For patients ultimately diagnosed with heart attacks, the wait time rose from 8 minutes in 1997 to 20 minutes in 2004. Patients who needed attention within 15 minutes, according to triage nurses who evaluated them, waited 10 minutes in 1997 but 14 minutes in 2004.
In urban hospitals, the emergency room wait was 30 minutes compared with 15 minutes in nonurban locations.
For black patients, the wait took 31 minutes, for Hispanic patients it was 33 minutes, and for white patients it was 24 minutes. Women waited 26 minutes, one minute longer than men. The longer waits for black and Hispanic patients reflect greater crowding at hospitals serving mostly minority patients, the authors said. They did not find evidence of bias in how patients were triaged.
The longer wait times were tracked during a period when hospital emergency departments were being closed even though patient visits were going up, the authors say. Emergency visits climbed 78 percent from 1995 to 2003 but the number of emergency departments fell 12.4 percent from 1995 to 2003.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/01/all_patients_ar.html
Between 1997 and 2004, wait times went up an average of 4.1 percent per year for all patients, but for heart attack patients, the waits stretched 11.2 percent per year, researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in today’s issue of Health Affairs. Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients in urban hospitals waited longer than other patients.
"The striking finding is that waits are increasing for all Americans, for people who are insured and for people who are uninsured," lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, also a fellow in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in an interview. “For patients with severe illnesses, it is troublesome.”
The median amount of time between registering in the emergency department and being examined by a physician was 22 minutes in 1997, according to an analysis of more than 92,000 medical records in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. By 2004, the median wait time was 30 minutes, the study says. Whether patients had insurance made no difference in how long they waited to see a doctor.
For patients ultimately diagnosed with heart attacks, the wait time rose from 8 minutes in 1997 to 20 minutes in 2004. Patients who needed attention within 15 minutes, according to triage nurses who evaluated them, waited 10 minutes in 1997 but 14 minutes in 2004.
In urban hospitals, the emergency room wait was 30 minutes compared with 15 minutes in nonurban locations.
For black patients, the wait took 31 minutes, for Hispanic patients it was 33 minutes, and for white patients it was 24 minutes. Women waited 26 minutes, one minute longer than men. The longer waits for black and Hispanic patients reflect greater crowding at hospitals serving mostly minority patients, the authors said. They did not find evidence of bias in how patients were triaged.
The longer wait times were tracked during a period when hospital emergency departments were being closed even though patient visits were going up, the authors say. Emergency visits climbed 78 percent from 1995 to 2003 but the number of emergency departments fell 12.4 percent from 1995 to 2003.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/01/all_patients_ar.html
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
so the institution is not valid because they dont think government should be regulating tobacoo?
One has nothing to do with the other.
O wait.. I see because one left wing nutjob orgnization like left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wants to dismiss them..we all should too.
Chris..its not a personal attack.
You're a fucking idiot
One has nothing to do with the other.
O wait.. I see because one left wing nutjob orgnization like left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wants to dismiss them..we all should too.
Chris..its not a personal attack.
You're a fucking idiot
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
All patients are waiting longer to see doctors in emergency rooms, a study by Boston-area researchers says, but for people with serious conditions such as heart attacks, the time it takes has risen more rapidly.
Between 1997 and 2004, wait times went up an average of 4.1 percent per year for all patients, but for heart attack patients, the waits stretched 11.2 percent per year, researchers from Cambridge Health Alliance report in todays issue of Health Affairs. Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients in urban hospitals waited longer than other patients.
"The striking finding is that waits are increasing for all Americans, for people who are insured and for people who are uninsured," lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, also a fellow in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in an interview. For patients with severe illnesses, it is troublesome.
The median amount of time between registering in the emergency department and being examined by a physician was 22 minutes in 1997, according to an analysis of more than 92,000 medical records in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. By 2004, the median wait time was 30 minutes, the study says. Whether patients had insurance made no difference in how long they waited to see a doctor.
For patients ultimately diagnosed with heart attacks, the wait time rose from 8 minutes in 1997 to 20 minutes in 2004. Patients who needed attention within 15 minutes, according to triage nurses who evaluated them, waited 10 minutes in 1997 but 14 minutes in 2004.
In urban hospitals, the emergency room wait was 30 minutes compared with 15 minutes in nonurban locations.
For black patients, the wait took 31 minutes, for Hispanic patients it was 33 minutes, and for white patients it was 24 minutes. Women waited 26 minutes, one minute longer than men. The longer waits for black and Hispanic patients reflect greater crowding at hospitals serving mostly minority patients, the authors said. They did not find evidence of bias in how patients were triaged.
The longer wait times were tracked during a period when hospital emergency departments were being closed even though patient visits were going up, the authors say. Emergency visits climbed 78 percent from 1995 to 2003 but the number of emergency departments fell 12.4 percent from 1995 to 2003.
Emergency room wait times getting longer - White Coat Notes - Boston.com
yeah lets compare 15-20 minutes to waiting for 6 hours in the ER waiting room
God, you get dumber with each post
so the institution is not valid because they dont think government should be regulating tobacoo?
One has nothing to do with the other.
O wait.. I see because one left wing nutjob orgnization like left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wants to dismiss them..we all should too.
Chris..its not a personal attack.
You're a fucking idiot
Hardly...
The truth of the matter is that we already have universal healthcare, just a really, really, bad version of it in which the rich get good care, and the poor don't get care at all until they are at death's door when care is the most expensive. And guess who pays for their expensive emergency room care? We do.
yeah lets compare 15-20 minutes to waiting for 6 hours in the ER waiting room
God, you get dumber with each post
I don't believe your source.
I specifically asked my Canadian friends about wait times, and they said it was not a problem.
You can continue to believe right wing propaganda or you can do a little research and figure out the truth. The rest of the world does a lot things better than we do, and we are falling further behind as time goes on.
Wiki has a pretty good overview of the subject....
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
ooo shit well what good is a source when you have a canadian friend lol
what a joke you are
I have a canadian friend too and he says the system sucks
and my cousin is a well known orthapedic surgeon in Spain and guess what, he says the system there sucks and doctors all flock to their private practices rather the the public ones.
and my brothers friend cousins lesbians brothers unclues father newphew friend who knows a guys girlfriend says Englands healthcare sucks also
what a joke you are
I have a canadian friend too and he says the system sucks
and my cousin is a well known orthapedic surgeon in Spain and guess what, he says the system there sucks and doctors all flock to their private practices rather the the public ones.
and my brothers friend cousins lesbians brothers unclues father newphew friend who knows a guys girlfriend says Englands healthcare sucks also
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
ahh..wiki
the all knowing never wrong wiki
please stop posting chris really
the all knowing never wrong wiki
please stop posting chris really
ahh..wiki
the all knowing never wrong wiki
please stop posting chris really
Never.
One of the things that is great about the overview in Wiki is it goes through every country individually and give a good overview.
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A single payer system is better and more efficient, and that is why every other Western democracy in the world uses it.
Our system is twice as expensive because we have to pay 150 different insurance companies, liability lawyers, and Big Pharma. That is also why American seniors go to Canada and Mexico to buy drugs.
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
yeah, can you also explain why the first private hosital that opened up in vancouver is soo busy that its turning away patients
Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment
Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment
yeah, can you also explain why the first private hosital that opened up in vancouver is soo busy that its turning away patients
Can you explain why so many canadians flock to the United States to receieve medical treatment
Because we have good healthcare for the wealthy.
Every healthcare system is going to be a compromise, so if you are happy with paying twice as much for healthcare, so that insurance companies, liability lawyers, and Big Pharma can continue to screw us, so be it. But there is a better way, a fairer way. Our system is very destructive to our society. Major illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. The lack of a single payer healthcare system is hurting our competitiveness worldwide. Toyota recently located a plant in Canada because company healthcare costs are cheaper there. Healthcare is now 16% of our GDP and that percentage is rising. Our system is bloated, expensive, and unfair and will break down in the near future as the bulk of the Baby Boomers age. We can't afford to continue on the path we are on.
Last edited:
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
yes lets switch t a single payor system because the illegal immigrants need insurance
Good point
Good point
yes lets switch t a single payor system because the illegal immigrants need insurance
Good point
Illegal immigrants already have insurance. It's called the emergency room.
We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really, expensive and inefficient version of it.
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
yeah, so lets just insure them totally and pay for their normal doctor visits too right
Please tell me you're a hair smarter than that Di. You really don't see a problem with interpreting a document such that government can do anything as long as a written document doesb't say the CAN'T?
Actually, that's exactly the inverse of the intent of the founding fathers .... INDIVIDUALS can do anything NOT expressly forbidden, while the GOVERNMENT can only do those things explicitly allowed.
Well, it was a good idea, anyway .....
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care
good read...I mean you guys like to link left wing tard sights right...some excerpts cause I know most of the lefties don't enjoy reading something unless it agrees with their philsophy.
.................
But, but, but....all those contributors are from the right.
David Gratzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CNE Event - 25 May 2005 - Dr Tim Evans at PAF
Richard Teske - $1,000 in Political Contributions for 2008
And Teske is a lobbyist for private health care
RICHARD TESKE Federal Lobbying activities for 2005 - www.implu.com
And you're having a go at the Canadian woman?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 591
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 123
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 192
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 186
- Views
- 721
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 83K
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 112
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 3
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8038
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-