Back on the first hand, I often hear such stories from partisan Republicans, but only third-hand ( 
) and with no cites whatever. Why is THAT?
I have a friend who went to the US for some tests, because he had the money, and he liked being able to schedule a test for when it was convenient for him. He did not want to wait in line with the peons, because he considers himself better than them.
The top tier of medical treatment in the US is excellent, if you have the money.
Nobody is disputing that. What we’re looking at is the OVERALL level of medical care for the entire society.
You’re still grasping at straws, and your argument is still “American Exceptionalism”
My bottom line is, I’m tired of hearing any argument that says that Canada’s health system is worse than that of the US.
I’m sick of hearing “My mother in-law knew a guy whose cousin’s friend was on a wait list in Canada and nearly died so they had to come to the US for treatment”
I"m sick of hearing “In Canada, a doctor is assigned to you at birth” (yes, I have heard this one)
I’m sick of hearing “In Canada, the government decides what health care you get”
I’m tired of crap like “In Canada, doctors are not free to choose what treatment you get” (ya, their hands are tied by medical boards who make decisions based on medical science, instead of by insurance companies who make decisions based on the bottom line)
I’m also tired of statements about how exceptional the US is, so much so that there is no way you can possibly change the health of your population. Another poster here that I argued with tried to use the argument that the US had a special lazy shiftless “underclass” that made it impossible to change the medical insurance business. Nice.
Often it’s because they’re seeking a treatment that isn’t approved in the U.S.
Right.
I’m suggesting that it’s wrong to force one segment of a society to care for the medical problems of other segments of society. I am rejecting, in other words, the idea that the proper role of government is to ensure that everyone gets medical care at no individualized cost to them. I would rather pay for my family’s medical care and let you pay for yours.
This is really what this battle’s about. When it comes to roads, or the military, or police services, most everyone agrees that these are valid items for shared cost and shared risk.
When it comes to college education or automobiles or a personal computer, on other other hand, there is very little support for the idea that the government should ensure everyone who wants it gets it.
So this debate is, in large measure, to decide if we as a society should embrace, at some level, the concept that medical care is like the roads – a public expense, a resource that all will use and one paid for by public coffers. Should medical care be like a college education, where the ultimate responsibility is the student’s to pay if he wanst it? Or should it be like the police, an obvious target for public financing?
The arguments above, not surprisingly, take this latter assumption as a given.
Which, of course, your personal preferences obviously trump. Apparently you’ve never had a catastrophic illness or injury in your family.
Have you ever considered at all that virtually every other country generally recognized as civilized has made the same “assumption”, and is quite happy with the results? Or that our refusal to date to do so makes any US claim to be even fully civilized, much less exceptional, a bit hollow?
You and people like you are holding us back. Why?
This is a very important philosophical point, and does show a vast difference between Canada and the USA. There are many more people with your viewpoint in the US - Canada does not have a strong libertarian movement. The early motto of the country, “Peace, order and Good Government” sums up our nature of accepting that the government is actually not “them”, but it is “us”. We’re generally much more interested in a stronger social safety net, and there is less angst about helping others through government. On the other hand, I think I’ve read where Americans are more generous to charities.
By the way, I pay for my healthcare through insurance. There is an individual cost to me. I am part of a group insurance plan that encompasses every single person in my province, and I pay a monthly insurance fee.
I think a strong argument can be made that there is a place for government to provide healthcare for their population.
I am quite happy that people in my society are able to get preventative medicine to keep them healthy and employed, and that an illness does not push a family into the poorhouse. I think that we as a society are more productive as a result, and we have to support fewer people in the long run. Pay now vs. pay more later.
I’m thrilled that government funded public health keeps communicable diseases to a minimum.
I’m happy that my insurance dollars go directly to healthcare, and are not used for advertising, CEO salaries, stock options, profit, management perks, duplication of services and whole divisions that are used to deny coverage to customers.
I’m happy that my doctor does not have to have many employees (whose salary I pay for) whose sole job is to negotiate with a myriad of insurance companies
Not American Exceptionalism…just common sense. There are many countries that have government health care in one form or another that have life expectancies shorter than we have in the US. But, you’ll say, some of them are developing countries so maybe we should take that into account. And you would be correct. But, for some reason you refuse to believe that Americans may do things like shoot each other and go to war than may reduce our life expectancy relative to Canada. Can’t you understand that you CANNOT draw a line between higher life expectancy and health care?
Well, I guess we could ban guns in order to increase the life expectancy. Then I’ll use it as proof that the private insurance model is superior to UHC.
Simplistic views? You’re saying that the Democrates are going to drive health insurance companies out of business out of bleeding-heart generosity, than subject everyone to nightmarishly stingy rationing because tht’s what “pleases” them. :rolleyes:
I absolutely do not accept your premise that HCR will drive all insurers out of the health insurance business, but even so, what’s to stop them from getting right back in if the limitations on the public option stimiulat
The plan is to reduce the ranks of the uninsured without driving the insurance compnies out of business.
And I submit that’s a bullcrap analogy. The government is not in business to attract customers and make a profit. It’s there to address certain problems. Addressing problems is a burden and, like anyone else, the government prefers there be fewer problems.
If by some miracle nobody had anything to compain about wrt paying for health care and so nobody signed up for the public option, then the plan would be a raging success!
No. I have not “refused to believe”.
You have veered off the point here. I would like to emphasize that I have NEVER drawn a simple line between higher life expectancy and health care. The cite I gave earlierdealt with 38 studies that were FAR MORE COMPLEX than simple life expectancy. They looked at health outcomes of specific diseases.
SO PLEASE stop talking about war or homicide skewing the results, when they DO NOT. Your talk of banning guns is simply idiotic in this context.
Yes. It was a literal question, not a rhetorical one. How, specifically, do you suggest the health care distribution system be reformed, if indeed it can be reformed without being dismantled? Sometimes things do need to be dismantled, if they are corrupt at the heart, like the insurance industry, where you literally pay them to deny you services, and your health care coverage is frequently linked inextricably to your employment, or the medicine-for-profit industry in general, which I think makes about as much sense as police-for-profit or firefighting-for-profit or road-building-for-profit or sewage-treatment-for-profit. Imagine calling up your HMO to get permission to have a fire or a burglary diagnosed and treated, or preventing those who don’t have money from being able to afford to have their wastewater treated. Basic health care is a community need the same way infrastructure and waste treatment and policing and fire control are community needs in my opinion. That doesn’t preclude private insurers from providing non-basics that may not be covered by a public system, such as in Canada, but at least the basics should be covered for every legal resident regardless of age, income, gender, preexisting conditions, or place of employment.
Could you explain more about the regulation of insurance companies and what deregulation would involve? I agree that regional health care distribution would probably be more practical than state level regardless of whether it’s private insurance or public. In Canada it’s provincial, which works out geographically to several states per province, similar to a typical US “region”. Malpractice reform is also definitely needed – how might that be achieved? What other things about the current health care distribution system need to be addressed?
Okay, I spent enough time in Manitoba that that’s funny.
Well, if Americans are such slobs, then anyone who signs up for the public option may have to face a bit of rationing and have nothing to complain about.
Don’t forget the schools.
How about we offer people health care vouchers? Conservatives would get behind that, wouldn’t they?
Here is a table, from 1990, of traffic fatalities per 100,000 people. Canada is only slightly better than we are. I’ve seen other data indicating that we are among the safest per 100,000 miles driven. (The Congo being the safest in the linked chart shows the problem with doing it by population only. Car crashes, according to another site I found, rank relatively low as a factor in deaths - deaths due to smoking is much, much, higher.
As for war, we’ve suffered 4,000 or so deaths in the past 7 years, which is dreadful but is in the noise when computing life expectancy. Calling it a major factor shows is innumerate.
And besides, the traffic fatalities or homicide rates have DIDDLY SQUAT to do with the studies that show health care outcomes are better in Canada for patients with a specific diagnosis compared to Americans with the same diagnosis
Often it’s because they’re seeking a treatment that insurance companies won’t pay for in the U.S., in the cased of surgery, or because even with insurance, it’s still cheaper to get the treatments outside the US. In the case of Canada and drugs, its because the drugs are so much cheaper, even when insured.
There, fixed your response so it made sense.
Schools, yes, thanks. Good example.
Vouchers? How well did that work for the schools?
Yes, what you say is true also.
Note that it’s not true instead of what I said. It’s also true.
It’s interesting to me that I can acknowledge there is validity to arguments on the other side. You, apparently, cannot.
In any event, it’s not really relevant to the ultimate truth of the issue whether you personally can see anything. The question that arises from these juxtaposed points is: what percentage of treatments are uncovered because they’re ill-advised, as opposed to being uncovered merely because of some insidious motive on the part of insurance companies?
For example, I remember the laetrile craze, when people would flock to Mexico to get the cure for cancer that the corrupt insurance companies didn’t want you to have. Of course, as it turned out, laetrile was a fraud, not a miracle cure for cancer.
So my question is: what are the real numbers? Presumably, your count of people going outside the country for perscription meds would have included laetrile seekers; I am looking for a number that shows a distinction between those and people seeking proven, workable therapies.
You are correct that I somehow veered off point. I think someone mentioned life expectancy in countries with UHC and I confused it with your posts. My apologies.
As I’ve mentioned earlier I’m not sure the comparisons between populations are valid.
There are simply too many variables to account for and public vs private health is only one. Also, I can’t think of any particular reason that health care, whether provided at goverment expense or privately, would have an effect on health outcomes other than the fact that wait times could cause a disease to progress to a point that makes it untreatable. No doubt the elective surguries are punted to the end of the line so more important, life-saving surgeries can be expedited. But, if you are waiting for a hip replacement or a bladder operation, things that may be inconsequential as compared to cancer treatment, I’m sure the wait can be excrutiating.
The problem with the canandian system is that EVERYONE now has to wait. Here, if you are in the vast majority that have health insurance, the wait is much less. I’m sure there are better ways to help those who do not have access to healthcare without making everyone else suffer as a result.