The United States finally catches up!

[redbaron]

I agree with Peter on this stuff.

[mu4]

Your premiums skyrocket because medical care has gotten ridiculously expensive. In addition, with mandatory health insurance, people won't have to go to the ER when they are sick, which means that hospitals won't have recover their loss when treating uninsured patients by adding it on to other bills.

I totally agree.
The #1 reason for skyrocketing prices as far as I can tell is uninsured patients or uncovered(you can be covered and still get tagged with a large payment) getting hospitalized and defaulting on medical payments. Contrary to popular belief, it only takes a small amount of people who fall thru the cracks of the system to create a systemic downward spiral. To cover future losses, hospitals will preemptively raise costs which leads to cost raise by the insurance companies, which leads to lowered coverage by employers and employees, which leads to more people not defaulting on health care which spirals out of control.

This is largely a hospital driven cost mechanic, because bills at general practitioners and the like are fairly low and minimal relative to hospital bills. However, as a whole this is where everyone is triage to in a emergency. Just call your doctor, "In-case of emergency, please call 911."

This is why community hospitals are always in need of government capital.

There is a predatory relationship between the providers and the uninsured created by this situation. The average discount between a insured patient vs a uninsured patient is ~25-35%, this is prior to insurance. This is because the fees for a insured patient are negotiated downwards by the insurance company and the providers prior to any billing process.

I work in this industry and see millions of claims a year from thousands of providers go thru the system and experienced in claims adjustment and premium adjustment accounting.

Healthcare is not a supply and demand industry in a aging society, because the demand is always increasing as people get older. There is no question that healthcare cost will rise in the US, but it has been rising at a rate that is astronomical, especially for the uninsured. This is largely invisible to those in employer-based health plans.

The uninsured population tends to be young, working and relatively cheap to society, in contrast to the retired or unemployed, insured, and very expensive.

This isn't a victory for healthcare or anything like that, it's a victory for the young working non-professional adult who have been screwed by a social welfare system that largely caters to senior citizens.

American isn't socialist what it is a nursing home.

[Wynch]

Luis shared this with me, I thought it was cute:

Healthcare Napkins All

[discojoe]

Your premiums skyrocket because medical care has gotten ridiculously expensive. In addition, with mandatory health insurance, people won't have to go to the ER when they are sick, which means that hospitals won't have recover their loss when treating uninsured patients by adding it on to other bills.

My premiums skyrocket because the price system has been distorted and medical providers can charge whatever the fuck they want. Also because the quality of care has increased, and new technology costs money

And if you think that mandating health insurance is going to save any money, you're basically doing this:

"20 + 50 - 10 + 40 + 100 + 32 = 60"

Yes... but only if you ignore the 40 and the 100 and the 32. You're leaving out important variables in your humorously simplistic equation.

Fuck I love being Aussie

Yeah, it's cool how your nanny government tells you what video games you can and can't play.

[mu4]

Hence, the proper solution to the employer unions was legislation, and the the employee unions were a mistake in the opposite direction. I like this idea.

Let's not forget that employee unions were put down with guns and force by employers and government alike.

You can't get rid of employee unions any more then businesses without the use of force and violence which had happened in history up until recent history. Governments, religion, business, aristocracy have always sought to remove all other political organization from within their sphere of influence. However, unions have largely degenerated to trade-guild mechanism which are aristocratic in nature and counter to the organizational needs of the working poor.

Let's not forget that economic struggle is a precursor to visceral struggle, those who fail economically will retaliate politically or violently, unfortunately, we have thus far been unable to avoid these consequences regardless of ideology and intention.

As far as our current state, trade, entrepreneurship and relatively equitable distribution of resources has provided a very nice enviroment in developed countries.

As a whole I find many of the people that are most anti-socialist and anti-bank and anti-abortion, they are lower middle class devolving to working class and this feeds their ressentiment. They're manipulated largely by a affluent wealthy group who just wishes to ensure their own welfare or wish for some sort of grand cleansing of impurities(whatever group - gay, yellow peril, black, hispanic, immigrants) within their society(this sort of rhetoric althrough not overt is very commonly found).

[implied]

As a purely political statement. I am a believer in universal healthcare, We have the NHS here in the UK and whilst it may not be perfect, i know that if I need to see a doctor I can and if I have need for medical or surgical treatment as will anyone else, from the richest (if they don't have private insurance) to the poorest in the country.

The system isn't perfect, some people use the healthcare system more than others, some people take adavntage, however that does not change the fact that healthcare is seen as an essential public service, just like a school or library or park.

Some people get more out of it than others, it is still there for everybody who needs it and I am proud that I live in a country where we have such a system.

I havn't read exactly what has happened in the US, but if it's taking the country more towards that kind of system, then I say good for you.

this is a really neat perspective, i think. what do you think of the quality of emergency/critical care there? that's really the only thing i've heard bad things about, and something i think the united states excels in as it is.

fwiw, the ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs was lifted recently under the obama admin and i think it's basically one of the best things he's done.

i'm not sure what i think of the whole HCR bill yet, but i do really like the shift towards harm-reduction and prevention programs. the abstinence-only sex education programs are no longer receiving funding either. yay to that, as those programs are fucking USELESS in preventing diseases & teen pregnancy.

[Brilliand]

Healthcare is not a supply and demand industry in a aging society, because the demand is always increasing as people get older.

No, supply and demand still works. The demand is increasing linearly, it isn't instantly infinite, and even so, the higher demand indicates that it is indeed more important (after accounting for ability to pay - i.e. a beggar wishing for a mansion is not providing any demand for mansions). Earlier in your post you mention the requirement that ERs accept anyone, which itself messes up the economics of health care. It won't work to socialize just ER payments... hmm, perhaps the ER should be covered by insurance that must be purchased in advance to use the ER (as ER use should really be an emergency event); that would provide for approximately the effect that ERs are supposed to have without putting undue burden on society. Yes, it's best to save the lives of everyone, but this sort of mercy must be somehow unreliable (i.e. difficulty in finding kind doctors) for the rest of the system to function.

EDIT: Your point about violent response to economic trouble is relevant, though I've no particular answer to that as yet.

[mu4]

My premiums skyrocket because the price system has been distorted and medical providers can charge whatever the fuck they want. Also because the quality of care has increased, and new technology costs money

Isn't this market pricing? This is because healthcare is not a commodity, and when we treat it like a commodity, the mark to market pricing is distorted by medical necessity. That's why people will lie, cheat, steal for health care, because what is is they're doing when they default on a medical payment, but lying about their ability to pay.

Beyond traditional medical costs, Insurance companies now sells isolation from commodity based pricing of healthcare.

It's very important in a democratic and capitalistic society that people cheat as little as possible because efficient and rational mechanisms are typically intolerant of heavy exceptions.

I'm indifferent to the legislation but having the 30% uninsured gap covered is neccessary for the cost-regulation of healthcare services.

Insurance premiums are secondary to the actual true cost of healthcare and the fact that the uninsured are paying anywhere from 25-35% more for healthcare is distorting and inflating the real costs and have been for at a while now.

[Kim]

You know, I really resent having to explain any of this to you. You're obviously intelligent enough to be able to do some fucking research and find this stuff out for yourself.

I didn't ask you to explain this to me. I asked the person whose argument was based on these issues to clarify what he means in order to fully understand where he is coming from.

[mu4]

No, supply and demand still works. The demand is increasing linearly, it isn't instantly infinite, and even so, the higher demand indicates that it is indeed more important (after accounting for ability to pay - i.e. a beggar wishing for a mansion is not providing any demand for mansions). Earlier in your post you mention the requirement that ERs accept anyone, which itself messes up the economics of health care. It won't work to socialize just ER payments... hmm, perhaps the ER should be covered by insurance that must be purchased in advance to use the ER (as ER use should really be an emergency event); that would provide for approximately the effect that ERs are supposed to have without putting undue burden on society. Yes, it's best to save the lives of everyone, but this sort of mercy must be somehow unreliable (i.e. difficulty in finding kind doctors) or the economy fails.

Supply and demand might work on healthcare, but it's not something that works for healthcare. Healthcare is not a rationalized commodity, healthcare decisions are heavily influenced by ethical and emotional concerns.

When we treat this problem logically and rationally, we dismiss the fundamental ethical and emotional issues involved when people make healthcare decisions. Survival is more then merely rational.

I think supply and demand has worked on healthcare and you can see it in the the way the price has raised.

But there is a compound set of forces on healthcare costs which work to produce a unsustainable effect.

General inflation
Demand inflation
Emotional irrationality
Unequal pricing (The inflation for one segment of the population is more pronounced then the other, but this happens to be the default state as everyone is uninsured at first. Also it's hard to get insurance if you have pre-existing condtions and the like(covered by bill but only in 2014 I think))

[Kim]

The bottom line is that there are no good arguments for a bill such as this. Every argument that you can come up with is based either in some kind of nonsensical economic fallacy or in ignorance about the facts of the matter.

No,my argument is different because my priorities are different AND because I happen to know that not every country besides the U.S. lives in the dark ages although they have different systems. You have never shown any interest whatsoever in listening to other perspectives. It's all "you are stupid/ignorant/fucking brits/damn blacks/idiot socialists/ evil obama/everyone is stupid but me." It just gets very very boring.

As for where this is going to lead the country, we will see, won't we?

[Kim]

Healthcare is not a rationalized commodity, healthcare decisions are heavily influenced by ethical and emotional concerns.

When we treat this problem logically and rationally, we dismiss the fundamental ethical and emotional issues involved when people make healthcare decisions. Survival is more then merely rational.

But all that falls to the wayside when the free market is the main concern.

[FDG]

No, supply and demand still works. The demand is increasing linearly, it isn't instantly infinite, and even so, the higher demand indicates that it is indeed more important (after accounting for ability to pay - i.e. a beggar wishing for a mansion is not providing any demand for mansions). Earlier in your post you mention the requirement that ERs accept anyone, which itself messes up the economics of health care. It won't work to socialize just ER payments... hmm, perhaps the ER should be covered by insurance that must be purchased in advance to use the ER (as ER use should really be an emergency event); that would provide for approximately the effect that ERs are supposed to have without putting undue burden on society. Yes, it's best to save the lives of everyone, but this sort of mercy must be somehow unreliable (i.e. difficulty in finding kind doctors) for the rest of the system to function.

EDIT: Your point about violent response to economic trouble is relevant, though I've no particular answer to that as yet.

The whole issue can be summed up easily: demand for healthcare is extremely inelastic, thus it's really hard to create a competitive market, thus usually government has to step in.

[discojoe]

Isn't this market pricing? This is because healthcare is not a commodity, and when we treat it like a commodity, the mark to market pricing is distorted by medical necessity. That's why people will lie, cheat, steal for health care, because what is is they're doing when they default on a medical payment, but lying about their ability to pay.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Beyond traditional medical costs, Insurance companies now sells isolation from commodity based pricing of healthcare.

Sort of embarrassing, but I've never heard the term "isolation from commodity."

It's very important in a democratic and capitalistic society that people cheat as little as possible because efficient and rational mechanisms are typically intolerant of heavy exceptions.

Why can't the free market take care of this?

I'm indifferent to the legislation but having the 30% uninsured gap covered is neccessary for the cost-regulation of healthcare services.

I've seen no evidence that suggests legislation is necessary to regulate health care costs. If you are using our own system as a basis, then you are using a tainted test subject.

Insurance premiums are secondary to the actual true cost of healthcare and the fact that the uninsured are paying anywhere from 25-35% more for healthcare is distorting and inflating the real costs and have been for at a while now.

What do you mean by "true cost of health care"?

I'm sorry. You're obviously intelligent, but you seem to be linking things together in a rapid Ne manner that I am having trouble following.

I didn't ask you to explain this to me. I asked the person whose argument was based on these issues to clarify what he means in order to fully understand where he is coming from.

Well, you obviously need me to explain it to you because you don't seem to understand that the changes that you're espousing would make health care less available and less reliable for everyone, whereas my positions would result in affordable health care for practically everyone with no drop in quality.

No,my argument is different because my priorities are different AND because I happen to know that not every country besides the U.S. lives in the dark ages although they have different systems. You have never shown any interest whatsoever in listening to other perspectives. It's all "you are stupid/ignorant/fucking brits/damn blacks/idiot socialists/ evil obama/everyone is stupid but me." It just gets very very boring.

As for where this is going to lead the country, we will see, won't we?

I know a lot about other health care systems. In fact, I obviously spend more time learning about other positions than you, since you seem to be totally caught off guard by all of my arguments, whereas I actually know about the health care systems in Germany, Cuba, Canada, the UK, and Japan.

By the way: Every single socialist health care system in the world is either low quality or unsustainable. Your weak anecdotal arguments to the contrary are invalid.

The whole issue can be summed up easily: demand for healthcare is extremely inelastic, thus it's really hard to create a competitive market, thus usually government has to step in.

You can't use tainted systems to create anything other than a tainted model.

[FDG]

You can't use tainted systems to create anything other than a tainted model.

Well, it's not like I agree with state-intervention either, because - as I explained in the previous post - it introduces a large amount of distortions. However, sticky demand is one of the main causes of collusion (and eventually monopoly), thus a completely unregulated market doesn't seem to work that great either, since total welfare is likely maximized by an intermediate choice i.e. even if I can afford SUPER healthcare, it won't be worth much if most people around me are ill etc. etc.

Bottom line: it's just not an easy-to-solve issue.

[Wynch]

In genuine curiosity, what makes Canada's health care system low quality or unsustainable? I've never understood those sentiments because I don't see signs of that from within the system. I'd actually really like to hear which of those categories my health care falls under and why.

[discojoe]

Well, it's not like I agree with state-intervention either, because - as I explained in the previous post - it introduces a large amount of distortions. However, sticky demand is one of the main causes of collusion (and eventually monopoly), thus a completely unregulated market doesn't seem to work that great either, since total welfare is likely maximized by an intermediate choice i.e. even if I can afford SUPER healthcare, it won't be worth much if most people around me are ill etc. etc.

Bottom line: it's just not an easy-to-solve issue.

I still don't see why insurance companies that charge high prices in an unregulated system wouldn't face profit-lowering competition and be forced to compete in kind.

I realize that health care is inelastic, but people would still prefer to pay lower premiums if they could.

[discojoe]

In genuine curiosity, what makes Canada's health care system low quality or unsustainable? I've never understood those sentiments because I don't see signs of that from within the system. I'd actually really like to hear which of those categories my health care falls under and why.

The only answer you need is that thousands of Canadians come to the US the pay out-of-pocket for health care that they cannot get in their own country.

They also banned adderall in Canada, which would totally fuck up my stricken-with-severe-ADD ass.

[FDG]

I still don't see why insurance companies that charge high prices in an unregulated system wouldn't face profit-lowering competition and be forced to compete in kind.

I realize that health care is inelastic, but people would still prefer to pay lower premiums if they could.

Yeah, but you would need an extremely watchful antitrust authority to avoid cartels, because insurance companies would profit from creating a strong oligopoly (exactly because of low elasticity of demand). This would be the very best alternative.

[discojoe]

Yeah, but you would need an extremely watchful antitrust authority to avoid cartels, because insurance companies would profit from creating a strong oligopoly (exactly because of low elasticity of demand). This would be the very best alternative.

I have no problem with anti-trust institutions watching out for oligopolistic behavior, but they need to have strictly limited powers and not clog up the industry with red tape.

[FDG]

I have no problem with anti-trust institutions watching out for oligopolistic behavior, but they need to have strictly limited powers and not clog up the industry with red tape.

That's exactly why I said the issue becomes complicated: if their powers are too large, they will slow down the system with long court-related red tape; if their powers are too limited, they will not be able to limit cartelization and thus competition will be hampered.

[discojoe]

That's exactly why I said the issue becomes complicated: if their powers are too large, they will slow down the system with long court-related red tape; if their powers are too limited, they will not be able to limit cartelization and thus competition will be hampered.

Maybe implement the death penalty for participating in a cartel.

[FDG]

ahahahhaahhaa

[discojoe]

ahahahhaahhaa

I was only half joking. I think death should be used to scare people more often.

[mu4]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Sort of embarrassing, but I've never heard the term "isolation from commodity."

isolation from commodity based pricing of healthcare.

I tend to not use formal terminology because I tend to study systems outside of terminology. Rigorous and abstract use of terminology leads to indoctrination. Consequently, I will describe situations in a way that hopefully people can understand essentially.

But the terminology true believers tend to get confused and scared.

I hope there is nothing unclear about what I have said.

How's this, people are already paying to be outside of the market[no such thing as "free" in "market"] on healthcare.

Why can't the free market take care of this?

Why can't God fix [insert problem here]?

I've seen no evidence that suggests legislation is necessary to regulate health care costs.

I have seen no evidence that no legislation is regulating health care costs, all I see is inflation above and beyond other commodities and I've illustrated the reasons for the cost inflation previously. The truth is, insurance is making a killing in the current healthcare system and they've done it under the cover of a protected monopoly.

What do you mean by "true cost of health care"?

What do they mean by "labor theory of value" or "marginal utility" or however different ideology uses to assess value. It's somewhere in between there but somewhere below the current pricing model.

Well, you obviously need me to explain it to you because you don't seem to understand that the changes that you're espousing would make health care less available and less reliable for everyone, whereas my positions would result in affordable health care for practically everyone with no drop in quality.

Cheaper usually doesn't mean better, but more expensive doesn't mean a whole lot better either. The goal is to find a financially reasonable alternative to cheap but shitty vs expensive but slightly above average healthcare. Also, affordable healthcare with no drop in quality for everyone? Hippies got pulled off stage left and shot in the 70's.

By the way: Every single socialist health care system in the world is either low quality or unsustainable. Your weak anecdotal arguments to the contrary are invalid.

You can't use tainted systems to create anything other than a tainted model.

Let's be realistic here, there are no indefinitely sustainable model for anything, it's foolish to believe this. History has shown the rise and fall of all civilizations and species, we are merely one of those many(unless you happen to believe Jesus is coming back to save you). What is different about humans is our ability to solve problems by apply our knowledge, rationality and imagination. It's not so much that we are sustainable or that we will be here forever, but that human existence has flourished when we successfully solved the problems in-front of us rather then sat in a corner praying to be saved.

[mu4]

Maybe implement the death penalty for participating in a cartel.

Corruption is a crime punishable by death in China and has been for a few thousand years, yet corruption exists...

[mu4]

Yeah, but you would need an extremely watchful antitrust authority to avoid cartels, because insurance companies would profit from creating a strong oligopoly (exactly because of low elasticity of demand). This would be the very best alternative.

The system is so messed up here in the states that the insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws until very recently.

[Wynch]

The only answer you need is that thousands of Canadians come to the US the pay out-of-pocket for health care that they cannot get in their own country.

They also banned adderall in Canada, which would totally fuck up my stricken-with-severe-ADD ass.

See, I find that argument ludicrous. I think the only people here who would argue for private health care in Canada are people who are upper-middle class or higher (a very small minority). Those people make the argument because they like the advantage to pay their way to priority rather than get their care on the basis of need. People get their health care here based on priority of need. If you need it first, you get it first. My friend got an MRI in 24 hours because she needed it urgently. I was put on a wait list for three months because I didn't need an MRI in 24 hours. It wasn't that critical. Either way, I'm not in the position to pay out of pocket for an MRI in the US anyways. Some people have a lot of frigging money and can afford to pay out of pocket for health care right when they want it, but that's not most people. Interestingly enough, there are also a lot of Americans who come to Canada for our universal health care. Sarah Palin anyone?

As for Adderlol, it's not banned in Canada. It was suspended after concern over health risks, then the ban was lifted after further research demonstrated that the concern was unwarranted. Either way, Adderall is not the only pharmaceutical for ADHD anyways.

[discojoe]

See, I find that argument ludicrous. I think the only people here who would argue for private health care in Canada are people who are upper-middle class or higher (a very small minority). Those people make the argument because they like the advantage to pay their way to priority rather than get their care on the basis of need. People get their health care here based on priority of need. If you need it first, you get it first. My friend got an MRI in 24 hours because she needed it urgently. I was put on a wait list for three months because I didn't need an MRI in 24 hours. It wasn't that critical. Either way, I'm not in the position to pay out of pocket for an MRI in the US anyways. Some people have a lot of frigging money and can afford to pay out of pocket for health care right when they want it, but that's not most people. Interestingly enough, there are also a lot of Americans who come to Canada for our universal health care. Sarah Palin anyone?

Americans do not go to Canada for health care, at least not in any meaningful numbers (pay careful attention to the use of word meaningful there). If Canada's health care system were effective, thousands of Canadians wouldn't come to the United States each year for their surgeries.

Also, look at cancer survival rates in the US vs Canada.

As for Adderlol, it's not banned in Canada. It was suspended after concern over health risks, then the ban was lifted after further research demonstrated that the concern was unwarranted. Either way, Adderall is not the only pharmaceutical for ADHD anyways.

That was merely an aside. We have our FDA that illegally bans things over here.

[FDG]

Don't you have private clinics in Canada?

[discojoe]

Don't you have private clinics in Canada?

Yes, to meet the demand for not dying.

[Kim]

I know a lot about other health care systems. In fact, I obviously spend more time learning about other positions than you, since you seem to be totally caught off guard by all of my arguments, whereas I actually know about the health care systems in Germany, Cuba, Canada, the UK, and Japan.

By the way: Every single socialist health care system in the world is either low quality or unsustainable. Your weak anecdotal arguments to the contrary are invalid.

I am wondering where exactly you get your information from. To be honest, I am a bit suspicious regarding the objectivity of your sources.

[Brilliand]

I wonder if we should compare healthcare to military protection?

[Kim]

I wonder if we should compare healthcare to military protection?

We could compare it to schools, police departments, roads, etc.

[discojoe]

Hopefully I will have moved to another country by the time that happens. Preferably one that doesn't require insurance to aid a human being who needs help.

Resources are scarce. Please learn what this means.

Oh, and if people want to bitch about those 'socialist' countries and their medical capabilities, try GOING there first to see how it works and then speak up. See it as it is. Besides, if it's so distasteful to have socialized health care, then you still have the option to BUY private insurance. Whoopie!

We don't need to physically travel somewhere to know what it's like. "You think the sun is hot? How bout you shut the fuck up and go there yourself before making these wild claims!"

We already understand enough about the sun to know that it is hot; we don't need to physically travel there ourselves. Likewise, we already know that socialist medical care is unsustainable and rides on the coattails of American medical innovation. We don't need to observe all of this on a micro level to understand it.

I am wondering where exactly you get your information from. To be honest, I am a bit suspicious regarding the objectivity of your sources.

And where the fuck do you get your info, Kim? Stories from your friends? Laughably invalid personal anecdotes? Newsweek magazine?

I get my information from spending hours googling. There isn't one central compendium of objective information on political and social topics, so stop being a snob and admit you don't understand the economics of your positions. You base you positions on pure Delta Fi+Si, and you fail to see the big picture, the reason your views don't work when implemented. Look past what's "nice and cozy for everyone" and see what systems actually result in people getting treatment they need.

I'm not some immoral jackass; my views are 100% behind poor people being able to get medical care.

I would implement a negative income tax that guarantees a minimum income for everyone, and I would mandate that part of this be used to purchase insurance for children in poor families. With the reforms that I support, health insurance would become cheap and affordable. I'd be paying $20 a month so that I could get treated if I get cancer or were ever hit by a bus.

I have a life insurance policy that is $15 dollars a month. If I die, the payout is $250,000. How much do you think the premium would be if the government stepped in and told the insurance company to pay out in full if I ever break my arm? Exactly.

THAT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

You want people to have better access to medical care? Let the fucking market work, stop using retarded Fi/Si reasoning to justify having the government fuck with the market. It's always shortsighted to do that, and it always FUCKS OVER EVERYONE ELSE BY MAKING THEM HAVE TO PAY MORE.

THERE IS NO GODDAMN FREE LUNCH. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW HOW TO ALLOCATE SCARCE RESOURCES BETTER THAN THE FREE MARKET.

[Brilliand]

We could compare it to schools, police departments, roads, etc.

The Romans included food in this list. Related?

At some point, you ask why anyone has to work at all, if all of their needs are met regardless.

[Wynch]

An interesting note:

A study by Barer, et al, indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations.

In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the U.S. in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.

(these quotes from the Canadian Health Care page on Wikipedia)

I will give you that some Canadians will travel to the US for superior care in things like Breast and Prostate cancer. However, here is an interesting note:

In an international comparison of 21 more specific quality indicators conducted by the Commonwealth Fund International Working Group on Quality Indicators, the results were more divided. One of the indicators was a tie, and in 3 others, data was unavailable from one country or the other. Canada performed better on 11 indicators; such as survival rates for colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia, and kidney and liver transplants. The U.S. performed better on 6 indicators, including survival rates for breast and cervical cancer, and avoidance of childhood diseases such as pertussis and measles.

This from the Wiki page comparing Canadian and American Health care. From reading it it sounds to me like our systems are fairly comparable in advantages and disadvantages, but Canadians spend less overall...

[discojoe]

(these quotes from the Canadian Health Care page on Wikipedia)

LOL.

In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the U.S. in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.

How many of those people traveled to the US to vacation AND get treatment? That seems like a more economical way of doing it. In Florida, you see thousands of Canadians during the winter months.

This from the Wiki page comparing Canadian and American Health care. From reading it it sounds to me like our systems are fairly comparable in advantages and disadvantages, but Canadians spend less overall...

Canadians spend less because they are protected from paying the high prices that we Americans pay in order to reimburse investors for their innovations. You ride on our coattails.

Also, here's a good video. WATCH IT RIGHT NOW:

[Drommel]

This from the Wiki page comparing Canadian and American Health care. From reading it it sounds to me like our systems are fairly comparable in advantages and disadvantages, but Canadians spend less overall...

In Canada, it takes 4 weeks to get an MRI and other basic procedures. In the U.S. it takes hours. There's a 10 month to get a hip replacement in Canada, whereas there is no waiting line in the U.S. (If you're a dog in Canada, you can get a hip replacement in hours at a private vet.)

Canada has a GDP cap on how much they can spend on health care. That is the only reason they spend less. With less money to spend on health care, they start rationing, hence long waiting lines for basic tests and procedures.

In fact, recently Canada has been trying to move more towards a U.S. model for health care, with an increased emphasis on privatization. Private practices, long banned in Canada, might become legal in the future, for example.

[Beautiful sky]

When you limit medical practice by restricting necessary and fast diagnostics, you limit the quality of care that is provided to patients; each person must become an advocate of their own health care and push for necessary diagnostics where insurance and bureaucracy limits what "should or is necessary" rather then "must"; cost benefit analysis is only in the benefit of corporations not in the benefit of people and their health. Health care is too costly no matter what system it is used, whether it is private or public.

It's not an easy thing to be altruistic as a medical doctor, when you've spent more then 10 years becoming one. But, it's sad that sports players make so much more money in comparison, for providing entertainment; the best solution is to turn medicine into entertainment; maybe then some of the costs will be compensated and we will have better "services".

People who have lots of money get great seats at the stadium; so they should pay up the yin yang for medical care to provide everyone else for the same "entertainment" or "opportunity" for good and necessary health access.

We spend more money on patients who have very little chance of recovery, in their passing hours then we do in preventative care; if we learned to "put people down" and "let go" of that moment, we can focus our resources on taking care of people. Hell, my aunt, at her death bed was on life support for 10 day, that's was unnecessary with the extent of her conditions and rather torturous if you tell me; we can't deal with things like death because we see ourselves as something far more important then the world around us which is not good.