A Pitting for the local Small Town Medical Clinc

Nope, you’ve just proven yourself to be a moron. You apparently believe that life expectancy numbers prove which country has a better healthcare system. That is obviously moronic, as I will illustrate with an example that even you should be able to understand.

Take Island A and Island B, both with a population of 100 people.

Island A has 10 doctors, all of whom were educated at Harvard and have Nobel prizes. The other 90 residents eat nothing but bacon, smoke 4 packs a day, and drink 2 bottles of wine a day. Island A’s most popular hobby is Russian Roullette.

Island B has 1 doctor, who got his degree in veterinary medicine through an internet correspondence course based in Nigeria, and he’s killed every patient that’s ever seen him (even those who showed up with minor problems). The other 99 residents are the perfect model of physical perfection, always eating correctly and getting plenty of exercise and sleep.

The average life expectancy on Island A is 42 years and Island B is 78.

According to you, Island B has a far superior health care system than Island A. You’d apparently go to Island A, tell them to fire those 10 Harvard-educated idiots, and hire a guy with an online vet degree who kills every patient.

No, just the most obvious one. I didn’t want to overwhelm you, since you’re a moron and all.

I see you are unable to comprehend even the simple analogy I posted. Figures.

Why would I waste time reading some ridiculously contrived analogy when I can cite actual stats from actual countries?

Here’s an analogy for you: A moron said something. Bryan said he was a moron. The end.

Cite? A quick check of unemployment rates over the last 4 years shows the US rate consistently higher than Canada (not a lot higher but definitely not lower). I’ll grant you the tax point but that covers the monthly health insurance payments you pay down there and with a lot less hassle from the sounds of most complaints I’ve heard.

I wonder if the growth on the OP’s ear is extending into his brain.

You told her you could pay $75 on Friday when you get your check. She said if you could pay it upfront at your appointment today it would be $75 instead of the $200 she originally told you. Why the heck didn’t you just say, ‘Let’s make the appointment for Friday, then’ and go home. You said you hadn’t expected to get in that day. She’d understand, really she would.

Look, in my opinion the American health care system is possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of (and no, I don’t want to argue about it), but you’re making it awfully hard to be sympathetic.

I don’t like the idea of paying to see a GP, but the fact that they would want money can hardly have been a surprise to you. And concept that it would cost less to pay up front than to bill it - even I knew that, and I’ve never dealt with the system. If you wanted to pit the health care system, or the problem of people putting off necessary medical treatment due to cost, or hell just the suckiness of being poor, people would be behind you. But instead you pit the clinic and the receptionist, who frankly seem like victims of the system to exactly the same extent you are. It’s like going to the airport and bitching to the flight attendant about the high cost of buying a ticket right before you fly. It’s hardly her fault.

Incidentally, have never paid a GP, I’m curious - did they give you an itemized bill or did you sign something or what? Because your intention to low ball them on Tuesday and inform them that they should consider it payment in full sounds misguided to me, at best. Does that really work?

Except this more accurately describes the US than Canada, moron.

Dude, you are the reason the thing is set up the way it is. 'Cause you’re not really intending to pay, if you don’t like this or that. You are the reason they want their money up front, and are willing to offer a huge discount to get it.

If you don’t like how it’s being run go somewhere else. But at least be savy enough to know that it’s actions such as you are contemplating, that created this.

Ihre Papiere, bitte.

Yeah, thanks but no thanks, Fritz. I’ll take out my own appendix, danke very much!

That’s right! Especially since high permanent unemployment rates, burdensome taxes and anchors on the economy have proven since the days of Herbert Hoover that universal health care has nothing to do with anything.

Rand Rover, your contentions may morph into a point if you post stats comparing alcohol and cigarette consumption per capita for other industrialised countries. Higher homicides in the US do not account for the differences in lifespan, differences in obesity do not account for the differences in infant mortality.

In the UK, comprehensive health insurance with no copay cost £1662 in 2005. Per capita expenditure on healthcare was £2224 in 2009 (using today’s exchange rates). Having both is $6094, which is lower than the per capita expenditure in the US.

You are citing a stat to support an argument that the stat simply does not support. And you don’t seem to understand this or even want to think about it–you just want to reflexively cite a number like it means something.

Must have been a really quick look. Canada has had higher unemployment than the US for a long time . . . up until the current recession caused the US to catch up. That same story holds true for many other western democracies with universal healthcare.

If someone believes that the health care system in country x is better than the one in country y, they have the burden to support that argument. I have simply been showing how looking at life expectancy alone does not support that argument, which is all i need to do.

  1. Sorry bro, I live in a province that ended up on the front page of CNN during the recession because it was one of the only places in NA going through a boom. We can’t get enough workers.

  2. I wish there was an online thing where I could put in my info and figure out how much my insurance would cost in the US. I have a gut feeling that because of my pre-existing conditions I’d be one of those people stuck with a $500 a month insurance package. Way more than I pay in taxes, anyway…

I am sorry you do not trust your government with your personal info. I, however, do.

(if you’re whooshing me, ooops!)

Yeah, I thought my ridiculous German accent would’ve given it away.

If that’s all my insurance would cost, I would quit my shitty job tomorrow. Try almost doubling that and adding in $50 co-pays.

The UK. We do have to provide some form of ID, when registering with a new doctor, but we don’t have a seperate health card. Treatment is available to all legal residents, not just citizens.

Last time I went to hospital, I don’t recall being asked for ID, neither was I asked for any at the drop-in centre I went to before I’d registered with a doctor when I moved, when I wound up going to the city’s out-of-hours GP.

Some places will accept some pretty shaky forms of ID too, gas bills, debit cards and the like- my ex had no legal ID, but did have a doctor.

I know they can charge if you’re not a resident, but it’s up to the practice concerned whether or not they enforce it, and as they’re on a salary rather than paid per patient, some places don’t think it’s worth the trouble. I think it’s also accepted that there’s not much point in trying to save a few pounds by trying to stop every illegal immigrant or tourist from getting to see a GP as it’d take a lot more infrastructure and checks, and we don’t want people dying in the street regardless of their legal status.

Oh?

Y’know, if I thought I could get a serious and informative debate with you about health care systems, contrasting the Canadian single-payer to an ACA-observing U.S. (or the U.S. without ACA, if that’s the discussion), I’d be happy to do so in GD. Thing is, I have no doubt whatsoever that fairly early in the process you’d incorrectly describe something in the Canadian system as a flaw, while misattributing same to liberal laziness or hatred of capitalism or some such nonsense, because you have shown a determined set of beliefs and anything that doesn’t fit those beliefs must be a lie or a conspiracy or a deception of some kind.

IF such a discussion was to take place, I’d want to start by drawing a distinction between medical science and medical insurance. I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that specific American institutions like, for example, Johns Hopkins, represent world peaks in medical treatment, and top-tier medical research does indeed go on in American universities, and top-tier pharmacological research does indeed go on in American laboratories. Further, if one is a wealthy American, I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that the widest possible range of medical treatments will be available to one, including cutting-edge therapies unavailable elsewhere.

As a follow-up to the above, I’d cite Canadian medical stats, starting with life expectancy, but also infant mortality, survival rates after various cancer treatments. etc. as well as describe top-rated Canadian hospitals, Canadian medical schools (and I cheerfully admit their overall numbers are small, even with a per-capita adjustment, compared to the U.S.) … all to establish that, for most purposes, the level of medical treatment available to an average Canadian is comparable to that available to an average American. At the very least, it’s clearly not going to be in even the remotest sense comparable to the analogy you offered of two islands, one of which has 10 Harvard-educated Nobel-winning doctors (and an population with bad habits) and the other a single graduate of an Nigerian online veterinary school (and a population with good habits). Frankly, I feel * embarrassed* for you, if you honestly thought that was a good analogy to the U.S. and Canada.

For a serious population comparison, I daresay the eating habits, sleeping habits, working habits and recreational habits of Americans and Canadians are closely comparable. For the most part, we work the same kinds of jobs, watch the same kinds of movies and TV shows, eat the same kinds of foods. I might want to break it down a little - compare urban Canadians to urban Americans, and rural Canadians to rural Americans - to get fairer results. I’d be open to suggestion as to how to go about doing this. Possibly, I could picture limiting the comparison to Canadians who live within 100 miles of the border (that is to say, most of them) and Americans who live in the northern contiguous-48 states, to rule out climate as a factor.

Anyway, after establishing all that - that this is not going to be like comparing a First-World population in a temperate zone to a Third-World one in a tropical zone - we could begin a more serious discussion on medical insurance and medical financing generally. My starting premise would probably be along the lines of defending the single-payer system as an efficient way of ensuring care to all or nearly-all (I’m cheerfully prepared to recognize the limitations) of a population. My evidence would be stats on health-care spending and results (including stats like life expectancy). If an early response is a reflexively derisive “LOL! Governments doing something EFFICIENTLY?! LOL! ROFL!” then I’ll know I’m wasting my time.

The gist is that in your case, I’m confident my time will be wasted.

Alberta? I’ve occasionally mused on going west, not-quite-so-young man…

Here, just bookmark this and link to it next time: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/4/1133.full

(Not that it will do any good, but, y’know, you may not wear out your keyboard quite as fast.)

After that, post a link to thisto remind yourself that you can’t argue against bullheadness.