The raw facts on health care, US vs Canda

[jreeves]

Overall, two-thirds of American adults are now obese or overweight, according to the report.

Obesity rates have been climbing just as fast in Canada. Just google: Canada, Obesity.

A lot of them don't pay US income tax, so no they shouldn't receive free or reduced cost health care paid for by US income taxes.

But we end up paying for them anyway when they hit the emergency room, and by that time it's too late. And the cost to save someone in a later stage of an illness or injury is usually much higher than catching it in an early stage.



I'd do the research on Canadian Obesity for ya, but it's time I hit the sack. night.

You take for granted they are going to stay in the country. Also, I don't think having an abortion is life threatening if it is a normal pregnancy or receiving acne medication for their face. Both of these things are covered by the bill in the House. These are only 2 of many medical procedures that non taxpaying immigrants would enjoy.

 

[eagleseven]

Certainly.

http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?docid=25216

The average privately insured household pays $1800 per year to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid losses.

Hmm, I do see what led you to believe that. A private study engineered, and paid for by a consortium of health insurance corporations. However, there is no proof that there is a "Cost Shift" only that there is a theory held by private insurers that there is a cost shift.

Hospitals, Pharma Companies, and various other private health concerns are making LOTS of money from what they do. Huge amounts of it in fact.

And this discredits the study how?

You only believe facts that agree with your position, it seems...typical.

Price control by fiat (government power) is one of the most economically destructive things a government can do.

Except in the case of a desperately needed essential, where it is deemed that price gouging is happening.

Like health care.

How many times must humans repeat their mistakes before they learn?

The more essential a good is, the MORE damage price controls do. Nixon put price controls on gasoline because "EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CHEAP GASOLINE! THE EVIL GAS COMPANIES ARE PRICE GOUGING!"

Guess what happened, Sherlock? The 1973 oil crises, where there WAS NO GAS. Oopsies!

Price controls, now and forever, are a failure.

The price of healthcare is increasing dramatically because the types of treatments are improving dramatically. Modern medical technology is incredibly complex and expensive to produce

How is it that technology has DESCREASED costs in every other industry except health care? And if technology is in fact increasing the cost of health care, than it is not an effective technology.

That is what the free market is all about, right? various entities are supposed to compete with one another until prices go down, right?

Only that's not happening.

Technology does not necessarily decrease gross costs, particularly when it opens up new product markets.

Case in point? Cellular phone service. Before cellular phones were invented, cheap landline telephone service was all a family needed. Today, families spend way more on cellphones for each member of the family than they did on that single landline back in the 1970s, so objectively, the invention of cell phones increased the costs of living in America.

Now, the Free Market has dramatically reduced the price and increased the quality of cellular service since the early 1990s, but they still cost more than just one solitary landline.

Likewise, the free market has reduced the costs and improved the quality of older, well-established treatments and medical technology.

But today, everyone "needs" the latest prescription drug, "needs" the latest surgical devices, "needs" the latest implants. New Medical Technologies in the US have a 10-year "avoiding the market" patent whereby for a decade after invention, the company can keep the price artificially high.

Drugs and treatments more than a decade old are MUCH cheaper than top-of-the-line medicine. A bottle of antibiotics discovered 30 years ago is $5. A bottle of antibiotics developed 3 years ago is $80.

So then why are our health care costs increasing exponentially? Because the number and types of new treatments are increasing exponentially. You can get treatments here simply not yet available in Canada or most of Europe.

There are statistical methods for eliminating differences in demographics from your comparisons between countries. Methods that you have ignored, thus invalidating your comparison.

But I notice you don't mention what those factors are, do you?

One can only imagine what rationalizations will be presented. Please, be specific.

I definitely did note those factors...in the part of my post you omitted in your quote. I suggest you go back and re-read it.

 

[elvis]

I know people who live in Canada and they have to wait a long time for appointments because there is a doctor shortage. Why is that? Because the government tells them how much they can charge. Socialism doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

 

[DiveCon]

I know people who live in Canada and they have to wait a long time for appointments because there is a doctor shortage. Why is that? Because the government tells them how much they can charge. Socialism doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

either that, or they come here

 

[elvis]

I know people who live in Canada and they have to wait a long time for appointments because there is a doctor shortage. Why is that? Because the government tells them how much they can charge. Socialism doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

either that, or they come here

yet old rocks swears up and down that we should implement Canada's system.

 

[KittenKoder]

I know people who live in Canada and they have to wait a long time for appointments because there is a doctor shortage. Why is that? Because the government tells them how much they can charge. Socialism doesn't work and has been proven not to work.

either that, or they come here

yet old rocks swears up and down that we should implement Canada's system.

We'd be screwed even worse than Canada if we did, with the FDA thugs still in power it would ruin our country.

 

[elvis]

either that, or they come here

yet old rocks swears up and down that we should implement Canada's system.

We'd be screwed even worse than Canada if we did, with the FDA thugs still in power it would ruin our country.

maybe that's what Roxy wants.

 

[KittenKoder]

yet old rocks swears up and down that we should implement Canada's system.

We'd be screwed even worse than Canada if we did, with the FDA thugs still in power it would ruin our country.

maybe that's what Roxy wants.

I would not doubt that.

 

[DiveCon]

yet old rocks swears up and down that we should implement Canada's system.

We'd be screwed even worse than Canada if we did, with the FDA thugs still in power it would ruin our country.

maybe that's what Roxy wants.

doesnt he have VA coverage?
you would think that if he does he would know how bad it is

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's interesting.

How exactly would you compare one country's health care to another, if not by death rates for disease and relative life spans?

I'd REALLY like to know.

You compare them using criteria that are actually directly affected by the healthcare system itself, rather than being the results of myriad factors that healthcare and doctors have no effect on whatsoever. You know, you compare them by the factors you keep wanting to blow off, like survival rates, responsiveness, the percentage of Americans (particularly the elderly) reporting that they are in good health, wait times . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Neither Canada nor Australia has a massive African-descent underclass populating the inner cities, nor do they have over 20 million largely uneducated immigrants from Mexico.

Oh, I see: When all else fails, blame blacks and hispanics. Wow.

Why would any of that make a difference if they had health insurance?

Pull your head out of your sheet and stop being such a racist, Klan Boy. Are you really this incapable of logical, dispassionate awareness of race and ethnicity?

Blacks, Hispanics, and North American aborigines (those we used to call American Indians) don't pull down the average life expectancy and infant mortality because of your narrow, racist ideas of social injustice. Although we don't know for sure all of the factors involved, we know that at least half of it is pure genetics. Just as white Americans have life expectancy and infant mortality rates comparable to Northern Europeans and Asian-Americans have them comparable to those people native to their country of origin (and much higher rates than white, FYI), blacks and Hispanics have comparable rates to their counterparts in other countries.

It's not a matter of "blaming" anyone. Like every response to your half-assed assertions about the world, it merely involves understanding the principles and reasons behind the blank statistics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

According to whom? Nationmaster? You can cite blank, uncontexted statistics

All sources were referenced. Nationmaster links it's sources, and I provided them in the post.

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

 

[Vast LWC]

the figures I apply to don't only apply to immigrants.

Yes, they do. The entire article is written about immigrants and immigrants only.

When it refers to "Share of adults without health insurance" it is referring to the "Share of adults among the immigrant population without health insurance".

This is a prime example of taking something out-of-context. Of course, that's nothing new to the right, is it?

 

[Vast LWC]

And this discredits the study how?

Because the people doing the study were obviously influenced by the people funding the study.

Price controls, now and forever, are a failure.

Again, in your opinion. Perhaps you have some supporting data for your theory.

But today, everyone "needs" the latest prescription drug, "needs" the latest surgical devices, "needs" the latest implants. New Medical Technologies in the US have a 10-year "avoiding the market" patent whereby for a decade after invention, the company can keep the price artificially high.

My point exactly. The vast majority of medical expenditures are spent on pharma, some for conditions like "restless leg syndrome".

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.

So then why are our health care costs increasing exponentially? Because the number and types of new treatments are increasing exponentially. You can get treatments here simply not yet available in Canada or most of Europe.

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.

I definitely did note those factors

No, you mentioned general descriptions of what such factors would be, but did not mention specific factors, thus stopping me from being able to dispute them.

 

[Vast LWC]

You know, you compare them by the factors you keep wanting to blow off, like survival rates

The entire beginning of this thread is filled with survival rates. You might want to go back and check them out.

responsiveness, the percentage of Americans (particularly the elderly) reporting that they are in good health, wait times

As I stated, I'd much rather wait an hour or two and be alive, than get immediate treatment, and be dead. I'm sure there are a whole lot of people out there who would agree with me.

Reporting that you're in "good health" is completely subjective, and relative to the people in your immediate surroundings. If everyone around you has terminal cancer, and you only have diabetes, you would consider yourself to be in "good health".

 

[Vast LWC]

we know that at least half of it is pure genetics.

You "know" that, do you?

Just like people 100 years ago "knew" that black people were just "not as smart" as white people.

I wonder if you'll ever realize how racist this statement is? Probably not.

And to be clear, the person I was reponding to was not talking about genetics, or any scientific analysis, as is shown in the below quote:

Because health insurance cannot stop the urban youth from drinking. Or joining gangs. Or doing drugs. Or ignoring health problems until they are in the ER. Or getting pregnant at 15.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

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

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.

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?

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know, you compare them by the factors you keep wanting to blow off, like survival rates

The entire beginning of this thread is filled with survival rates. You might want to go back and check them out.

No, they weren't. The beginning of this thread was filled with DEATH rates, drawn from the blank, contextless statistical sources you hunted up to allow you to continue ignoring the REAL survival rates you've been given in three different threads.

I think we've all got a handle on what passes for your debate style now. shout slogans, move the goalposts every chance you get, cherrypick one-liners out of lengthy posts, flat-out ignore everything else that's inconvenient, and when all else fails, find some statistics to misinterpret.

responsiveness, the percentage of Americans (particularly the elderly) reporting that they are in good health, wait times

As I stated, I'd much rather wait an hour or two and be alive, than get immediate treatment, and be dead. I'm sure there are a whole lot of people out there who would agree with me.

An hour or two? What the **** are you babbling about, an hour or two? Try months. What frigging debate do you think you're in, talking about "an hour or two"?

My God, I'd get more sense out of arguing with my dog. And he's cuter.

Reporting that you're in "good health" is completely subjective, and relative to the people in your immediate surroundings. If everyone around you has terminal cancer, and you only have diabetes, you would consider yourself to be in "good health".

Of course it's subjective. 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 are with their systems and how they aren't making any moves to be more like us.

And no, dumbass, YOU would consider yourself to be in "good health" if you had a different terminal illness than everyone around you. Sane people would consider themselves to be differently sick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

we know that at least half of it is pure genetics.

You "know" that, do you?

Just like people 100 years ago "knew" that black people were just "not as smart" as white people.

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.

I wonder if you'll ever realize how racist this statement is? Probably not.

Yeah, in the same way that it's "sexist" to say that men and women are genetically different. It's not a superiority thing, Klan Boy. It's just a fact of life. Some ethnic groups have greater longevity than others, and the difference persists regardless of what country they live in (provided we're talking about industrialized, modern countries) and what healthcare system they have.

I consider it a lot more racist to run around, trying to pretend everyone comes out of a cookie cutter somewhere and no differences exist just so you can pat yourself on a back and tell yourself what a good person you are, even though the net result is that medical science never gets the chance to find out WHY those differences exist and find a way to lengthen the lifespans of blacks and Hispanics to match those of Asians.

And to be clear, the person I was reponding to was not talking about genetics, or any scientific analysis, as is shown in the below quote:

Because health insurance cannot stop the urban youth from drinking. Or joining gangs. Or doing drugs. Or ignoring health problems until they are in the ER. Or getting pregnant at 15.

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. If you want to argue his point with him, knock yourself out. You don't get to argue his point with ME. You have to argue mine.