|
See, I read some thing like this:
I don't think these say what you think they do. On my read they argue that the UK, for example, is starting to supplment care delivery with non-government owned, non-government run facilities. The government is still paying the bill, which makes it a sort of hybrid system emerging between the US and Canadian. However, there is still universal coverage paid by the government, so I'm not sure it really supports your point.
“People swap from public to private sector all the time, and they’re topping up for virtually everything,” Dr. Charlson said in an interview. For instance, he said, a patient put on a five-month waiting list to see an orthopedic surgeon may pay $250 for a private consultation, and then switch back to the health service for the actual operation from the same doctor.
I see a system where people are choosing to pay for health care on their own. In fact the article makes it very clear that in many cases, if people choose to use the private facilities, they must pay for them on their own. Therefore, what they are talking about is not a hybrid system where the government pays for treatment at a non-government facility but instead a system where people who want to get their problems taken care of faster, or at all, can step out of the system and pay their own way, if they can afford it.
Okay I've forgotten now, how is the health care debate tied to Palin other than that she's against socialized medicine?
Speaking of Palin polling shows that she actually is turning out to have been the best possible choice for VP she's energized the party base and is pulling in those wascawy uncommiteds.
She's sure 'energized' me! lol.
Even as a middle-aged white guy even I've gotten tired of the same old stereotypes. Both physical and ideological ones.
|
I'm getting a disturbing trend of dismissing Canadian "universal health care" as "socialized medicine" and therefore "socialist". I really don't care if you call me a socialist, because I am, but the people using the term seem to be using it in a defiant manner (ie. "Socialism is inherently bad and therefore anything to do with socialism is also bad"). I find there is still a lot of lingering bad feelings in the US about "socialism" (read: Communism).
It's a bad place to start an argument, especially with a socialist. :)
I'm not saying that every country should be socialist - everyone can make their own bed, so to speak. What I am saying is that I prefer Canada to the alternative.
Incidentally, the province of Quebec has started allowing certain types of care facilities to extend to the private sector. The supreme court even ruled that the government cannot prevent people from paying for health care. There are people on both sides, some saying the private facilities are great, others saying there are massive oversight issues.
The push to a two-tier system is on though, it's cheaper for the government to monitor private clinics and pay for patients to attend than it is to provide direct care. Personally I don't want to see a full two-tier system, which caters to the rich. But the system in place in Quebec, where patients receive guaranteed and fully-funded private care only if a 6-month wait time is exceeded, is a good comprimise.
I'm getting a disturbing trend of dismissing Canadian "universal health care" as "socialized medicine" and therefore "socialist". I really don't care if you call me a socialist, because I am, but the people using the term seem to be using it in a defiant manner (ie. "Socialism is inherently bad and therefore anything to do with socialism is also bad"). I find there is still a lot of lingering bad feelings in the US about "socialism" (read: Communism).
It's a bad place to start an argument, especially with a socialist. :)
I'm not saying that every country should be socialist - everyone can make their own bed, so to speak. What I am saying is that I prefer Canada to the alternative.
Alternative being........? (lots of choices there)
We have cookies. Yummy cookies.
|
|
]
How about this. What about paying for the health insurance regardless of who delivers the medical care? Because I don't know how much choice a broke person has or the people I've mentioned or the millions like them.
I would like to see a system where the government is not paying the bills at all. The government currently spends $2700 per person per year on medical care. That is with us only covering 45% of expenses. Canada's universal system only pays out $2100 per year per person. In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, health care costs took a huge leap when Congress first began attempting to control health care prices back in 1973. In 1974, when the first "price control laws" took effect the cost of health care more than doubled. Then they settled down in the mid-eighties and have been slowly but steadly declining since that time. The numbers would argue that getting government out of health care would tend to drive prices down, not getting them more involved in health care.
Okay I've forgotten now, how is the health care debate tied to Palin other than that she's against socialized medicine?
Speaking of Palin polling shows that she actually is turning out to have been the best possible choice for VP she's energized the party base and is pulling in those wascawy uncommiteds.
I'm not sure what you mean by socialized. But she is sure against giving every American healthcare insurance like we give every American clean water.
I'm not sure what you mean by socialized. But she is sure against giving every American healthcare insurance like we give every American clean water.Okay I've forgotten now, how is the health care debate tied to Palin other than that she's against socialized medicine?
Speaking of Palin polling shows that she actually is turning out to have been the best possible choice for VP she's energized the party base and is pulling in those wascawy uncommiteds.
She is also energizing Democrats who see her as something you can't say in polite company.
See, I read some thing like this:
I don't think these say what you think they do. On my read they argue that the UK, for example, is starting to supplment care delivery with non-government owned, non-government run facilities. The government is still paying the bill, which makes it a sort of hybrid system emerging between the US and Canadian. However, there is still universal coverage paid by the government, so I'm not sure it really supports your point.“People swap from public to private sector all the time, and they’re topping up for virtually everything,” Dr. Charlson said in an interview. For instance, he said, a patient put on a five-month waiting list to see an orthopedic surgeon may pay $250 for a private consultation, and then switch back to the health service for the actual operation from the same doctor.I see a system where people are choosing to pay for health care on their own. In fact the article makes it very clear that in many cases, if people choose to use the private facilities, they must pay for them on their own. Therefore, what they are talking about is not a hybrid system where the government pays for treatment at a non-government facility but instead a system where people who want to get their problems taken care of faster, or at all, can step out of the system and pay their own way, if they can afford it.
Not to be a penis, but in the example you site the person paid for an independent consultation but got their actual treatment paid by the health service (government). So there's still universal coverage. I'm not arguing a person shouldn't be allowed to pay someone for something outside a system. I'm saying we should have universal coverage just like the person in your example. The person in your example has the choice to have the health system pay for their operation. We don't.
Also, from the executive summary of the cool and informative study you cited:
"Across Europe governments are increasingly turning to the independent
sector to provide the delivery of healthcare. In Britain, the NHS is well on its way to being redefined as a regulator and funder of healthcare but no longer the owner of the institutions in which healthcare is provided."
Which is fine by me. I'd like the best people to run the hospitals -- who wouldn't? I just want everyone to get medical treatment the same way they get clean water and education.
Why do people get offended with the phrase "socialized medicine" when that's exactly what universal healthcare is? When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
|
I just want everyone to get medical treatment the same way they get clean water and education.
See now I know where all that bias you so clearly show is coming from, it's all that clean water and education mucking up your common sense. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get a drink from the ditch and home schooling my kids that Jesus beat back the Muslims in the civil war. :D
I would like to see a system where the government is not paying the bills at all. The government currently spends $2700 per person per year on medical care. That is with us only covering 45% of expenses. Canada's universal system only pays out $2100 per year per person. In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, health care costs took a huge leap when Congress first began attempting to control health care prices back in 1973. In 1974, when the first "price control laws" took effect the cost of health care more than doubled. Then they settled down in the mid-eighties and have been slowly but steadly declining since that time. The numbers would argue that getting government out of health care would tend to drive prices down, not getting them more involved in health care.]
How about this. What about paying for the health insurance regardless of who delivers the medical care? Because I don't know how much choice a broke person has or the people I've mentioned or the millions like them.
We should spin this sub-topic off into a seperate thread, but I disagree with this interpretation of the numbers. This one trend line is insufficient for a full analysis. It leaves out the massively rising waste and duplicated treatment/testing during the same time period, which speaks, in my opinion, more to the form of price control (introducing HMOs) than it does to whether the US should provide universal coverage.
Also, somethig in your $2100 vs. $2700 stat number is off as Canada spends 50% per capita as the U.S. I'm not sure what's off, but something is, maybe beacause at the reduced cost of treatment and the currency difference, $2100 buys 2x as much care as in the US? Not sure.
That said "it costs a bunch" is not, in my book, an argument not to provide universal coverage. It just raises the questions of how do we make it cost less, and what on earth is more important to spend money on? We spend on roads, education, clean water, etc. Why not medical treatment. What better way to spend the money?
Lots of interesting diversions...
...but critical thinking requires the ability to accept facts and utilize data.
And remember - I have no stake in american health care - I feel badly for americans... but I am not invested in the system.
When something is ranked - the higher the ranking the better something is.
For example: the Montreal Canadians are a better hockey team than the Toronto Maple leafs... Now as a Leafs fan this hurts me to say... I might point out that the Leafs beat the Canadians 3 times last year, that Mats Sundin is a hall of fame player, that the leafs play in the most intense media market in the world and that effects performance... but a look at the facts - in this case the standings - will tell you the Canadians finished 1st and the leafs finished last in their division... so even if i don't like the data, even if I don't want to believe it, even if i will argue with you that the Leafs are better till i am blue in the face... the facts are that the habs are better.
When you compare costs - the lower the cost the more affordable it is.
For example: Sadly the tickets to the leafs games are more expensive than the tickets to the Canadians games... essentially leafs fans pay more to watch their team lose than habs fans pay to watch their team win
Here are some health care stats:
Canadians live longer than Americans
Canadians have low infant mortality than Americans
Canadians lose less years due to preventable disease than Americans
Canadian health system is ranked 30th in the world
American health system is ranked 37th in the world
Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
Canadian Health system costs $2998/person
American Health system costs $5711/person
Even if the systems performance was EQUAL - the Canadian system costs 50 cents on the dollar and includes EVERYONE.
WHY PAY MORE FOR LESS?
Why do people get offended with the phrase "socialized medicine" when that's exactly what universal healthcare is? When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Well you have to be aware that the term socialized has a pejorative connotation since the cold war. Its a connotation that makes some listeners shut off and not listen to an argument on its merits the second they hear the word. Why use it then, if you want the most possible people to actually listen to what you have to say?
Also, people have a tendency to talk about "socialized" as if we don't already have tons of socialized things all over this country. Like public education. Yet I don't hear many people call public education a damned socialist institution that should be reviled because its socialist.
It's just one of those words that, in the American context, tends to shutdown converstation more than it furthers conversation.
Essentially, though, I agree. There's no valid reason for the word to have a perjorative connotation. Yet it does.
I just want everyone to get medical treatment the same way they get clean water and education.See now I know where all that bias you so clearly show is coming from, it's all that clean water and education mucking up your common sense. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get a drink from the ditch and home schooling my kids that Jesus beat back the Muslims in the civil war. :D
Ahg! Soylent Green is people -- and they're in the water!!!
|
I'm getting a disturbing trend of dismissing Canadian "universal health care" as "socialized medicine" and therefore "socialist". I really don't care if you call me a socialist, because I am, but the people using the term seem to be using it in a defiant manner (ie. "Socialism is inherently bad and therefore anything to do with socialism is also bad"). I find there is still a lot of lingering bad feelings in the US about "socialism" (read: Communism).
The reason for that is not the concept of universal health care, but with the ideology being asserted as its base.
When the concept is presented as funded as "everybody" sharing in a forced redistribution of wealth, then it becomes impossible to consider the system outside of a socialist government structure.Add in the forced assignment of job tasks so that there are a sufficient number of the right types of doctors, and it takes that last step into overt communism. That is enhanced further with the example of the British health care system, and the whole inevitable attitude of rationing limited resources, and cutting people off from treatment that is too expensive.
I really do not care if anyone calls me a capitalist, but that sort of socialist system for medical care is very definitely inherently bad.
Also, somethig in your $2100 vs. $2700 stat number is off as Canada spends 50% per capita as the U.S. I'm not sure what's off, but something is, maybe beacause at the reduced cost of treatment and the currency difference, $2100 buys 2x as much care as in the US? Not sure.
That said "it costs a bunch" is not, in my book, an argument not to provide universal coverage. It just raises the questions of how do we make it cost less, and what on earth is more important to spend money on? We spend on roads, education, clean water, etc. Why not...
Spending per capita should include all sources of health spending both public and private - for example Canadians can pay for private supplemental insurance(for things like dental and pharma) and the American government pays for some public health care 9elderly, some chilren, military etc).
Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
Canada $2,998
United States 5,711
You know what is never annoying? Someone cut and pasting the same crap over and over again. That is never annoying at all.[/snark]
Anyway. There is a serious problem when a person's full treatment costs (x+y) and the government only agrees to pay (x) and the person can pay (y), but the government forbids them to pay it unless they are willing to pay all of (x+y) even though they could only afford to pay (z) where (y) < (z) < (x+y). That is a horribly screwed up system. Anyone that is willing to accept a system that does not encourage a system where the individual and the state can work in concert with one another obtaining a better result than either could do alone, is a person I don't want making decisions for me.
Well you have to be aware that the term socialized has a pejorative connotation since the cold war. Its a connotation that makes some listeners shut off and not listen to an argument on its merits the second they hear the word. Why use it then, if you want the most possible people to actually listen to what you have to say?
Also, people have a tendency to talk about "socialized" as if we don't already have tons of socialized things all over this country. Like public education. Yet I don't hear many people call public education a damned socialist institution that should be reviled because its socialist.
It's just one of those words that, in the American context, tends to shutdown converstation more than it furthers conversation.
Essentially, though, I agree. There's no valid reason for the word to have a perjorative connotation. Yet it does.
You are absolutely correct Lou - you internationalist you - the rest of the developed world did not suffer under McCarthyism and the RED TERROR!
So we can differentiate between the words socialism (democratic application of Keynesian economic theory) and Communism (dictatorial regimes in Russia and China).
You know what is never annoying? Someone cut and pasting the same crap over and over again. That is never annoying at all.[/snark]
Not nearly as annoying as a field of strawmen yelling "the facts don't matter" and repeating libertarian talking points in a never ending cycle...
Ahg! Soylent Green is people -- and they're in the water!!!I just want everyone to get medical treatment the same way they get clean water and education.See now I know where all that bias you so clearly show is coming from, it's all that clean water and education mucking up your common sense. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get a drink from the ditch and home schooling my kids that Jesus beat back the Muslims in the civil war. :D
Soylent Green Jello! There's always room for Jello!
|
|
Here are some health care stats:
"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli by way of Mark Twain (or one of several other possible sources)You keep parroting those same statistics as if they proved everything.
They do not. Especially when they deliberately ignore numerous additional factors.
Anyway. There is a serious problem when a person's full treatment costs (x+y) and the government only agrees to pay (x) and the person can pay (y), but the government forbids them to pay it unless they are willing to pay all of (x+y) even though they could only afford to pay (z) where (y) < (z) < (x+y). That is a horribly screwed up system. Anyone that is willing to accept a system that does not encourage a system where the individual and the state can work in concert with one another obtaining a better result than either could do alone, is a person I don't want making decisions for me.
This is essentially present in some form in all western democratic systems. For example if I need surgery for cancer, a pharmaceutical regime and want to go to a miracle spa and pray for healing in Mexico.
The Canadian government pays for my surgery, my extended health coverage at work pays for my drugs, and I pay for the spa in Mexico.
Why do people get offended with the phrase "socialized medicine" when that's exactly what universal healthcare is? When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.Well you have to be aware that the term socialized has a pejorative connotation since the cold war. Its a connotation that makes some listeners shut off and not listen to an argument on its merits the second they hear the word. Why use it then, if you want the most possible people to actually listen to what you have to say?
Also, people have a tendency to talk about "socialized" as if we don't already have tons of socialized things all over this country. Like public education. Yet I don't hear many people call public education a damned socialist institution that should be reviled because its socialist.
It's just one of those words that, in the American context, tends to shutdown converstation more than it furthers conversation.
Essentially, though, I agree. There's no valid reason for the word to have a perjorative connotation. Yet it does.
Public education is a fine example of why I don't want universal healthcare. Have you noticed how children in private schools and those that are schooled at home out perform children in a public school? Would you rather go to Harvard or go to a local public supported community college?
Anyway. There is a serious problem when a person's full treatment costs (x+y) and the government only agrees to pay (x) and the person can pay (y), but the government forbids them to pay it unless they are willing to pay all of (x+y) even though they could only afford to pay (z) where (y) < (z) < (x+y). That is a horribly screwed up system. Anyone that is willing to accept a system that does not encourage a system where the individual and the state can work in concert with one another obtaining a better result than either could do alone, is a person I don't want making decisions for me.This is essentially present in some form in all western democratic systems. For example if I need surgery for cancer, a pharmaceutical regime and want to go to a miracle spa and pray for healing in Mexico.
The Canadian government pays for my surgery, my extended health coverage at work pays for my drugs, and I pay for the spa in Mexico.
Except in the article on the previous page, the woman in the story was not allowed to recieve this stuff. It was either settle for what we want to pay for or pay for everything yourself. In some misguided ideal of "fairness".
Public education is a fine example of why I don't want universal healthcare. Have you noticed how children in private schools and those that are schooled at home out perform children in a public school? Would you rather go to Harvard or go to a local public supported community college?
It depends on what I am going to college for. If I am going for an education for a job that only pays $40,000 a year, I don't see a point in going to a university that costs $100,000 a year when a local community college would give me the same functional education (without all the liberal professors) for $4,000 a year.
Here are some health care stats:"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli by way of Mark Twain (or one of several other possible sources)You keep parroting those same statistics as if they proved everything.
They do not. Especially when they deliberately ignore numerous additional factors.
Look I know you think that you may have thought of something that the OECD did not... i understand that a nation that has Fox news should not trust anyone...
The OECD employs teams of systems analysts, mathematics professors, statisticians etc. to gather and compile data in a way that the USA and other participants in the studies) agree are valid before doing their comparative analysis.
Government, universities, political parties, think tanks - they all get their data from the OECD. When a government makes a decision on a health care, or education or infrastructure issue the first place they look for data is the OECD.
The OECD is a non partisan, organization for democratic MARKET based reforms...
Public education is a fine example of why I don't want universal healthcare. Have you noticed how children in private schools and those that are schooled at home out perform children in a public school? Would you rather go to Harvard or go to a local public supported community college?
See this is what happens when you can't argue with facts. You compare apples to oranges.
By the way the US education system is also a shambles... privatizing it won't fix it either - but have I got a great solution for another thread!
I teach in the number one jurisdiction in Reading, the number one jurisdiction in Writing, the number three jurisdiction in Mathematics and number three jurisdiction in Science ON THE PLANET (according to the OECD) and guess what - its all public education...
Greg, honestly,....do you actually know anything about what you're talking about besides some statistics?
While arguing from anecdote is a pleasurable pursuit - I think critical thinking requires argument from data...
I am hoping that that is not just me...
I worked with an RN who was going back home to Canada.
She was going to work for 1 year there or whatever, then avail herself of the 1 year's paid maternity.
She said she'd like to stay working in the U.S., though, because it's really nice to be able to actually help people.
My ex-girlfriend was an RN in Canada as well as one of her friends. They both told me the the Canadian system was a disaster, which is surprising because they are both liberals.
Can we change the perception of CEO incomes at the same time? If we're looking to trim some fat out of the economy, many of them make a whole lot more than my doctor. ;-)How about politicians, as well?
Better yet, make the politicians subscribe to the same health care plans as the rest of us, and at some cost. Maybe then they'd get serious about addressing some of the flaws/shortcomings.
I worked with an RN who was going back home to Canada.
She was going to work for 1 year there or whatever, then avail herself of the 1 year's paid maternity.
She said she'd like to stay working in the U.S., though, because it's really nice to be able to actually help people.
Here's one:
I work with a doctor from the USA and he said that one in three babies are eaten by nurses in private hospitals...
Something about that statement seems less valid than internationally recognized data...
Public education is a fine example of why I don't want universal healthcare. Have you noticed how children in private schools and those that are schooled at home out perform children in a public school? Would you rather go to Harvard or go to a local public supported community college?See this is what happens when you can't argue with facts. You compare apples to oranges.
By the way the US education system is also a shambles... privatizing it won't fix it either - but have I got a great solution for another thread!
I teach in the number one jurisdiction in Reading, the number one jurisdiction in Writing, the number three jurisdiction in Mathematics and number three jurisdiction in Science ON THE PLANET (according to the OECD) and guess what - its all public education...
The problem is that I don't see any facts on your side. All I see are stats on your side that can be easily manipulated.
|
|
I worked with an RN who was going back home to Canada.
She was going to work for 1 year there or whatever, then avail herself of the 1 year's paid maternity.
She said she'd like to stay working in the U.S., though, because it's really nice to be able to actually help people.
Here's one:
I work with a doctor from the USA and he said that one in three babies are eaten by nurses in private hospitals...
Something about that statement seems less valid than internationally recognized data...
The difference is, Greg; she knew what she was talking about, and you're just quoting supportive statistics.
Never, mind; I'm done. You're right Greg. You know everything.
Whatever.
The crux of your argument is somebody told me... OECD facts don't count, I have real life experience and I am no longer talking about it...
Ouch!
Sorry.
Here are some health care stats:"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli by way of Mark Twain (or one of several other possible sources)You keep parroting those same statistics as if they proved everything.
They do not. Especially when they deliberately ignore numerous additional factors.Look I know you think that you may have thought of something that the OECD did not... i understand that a nation that has Fox news should not trust anyone...
Gee, Canada doesn't get Fox? Don't diminish yourself/your arguments by going down these roads. Too many counter-arguments, and none that matter.
The difference is, Greg; she knew what she was talking about, and you're just quoting supportive statistics.
That is silly. The ranking of health system performance is a fact. Italy is number one. Canada is number 30 (not that great in my estimation). USA is number 37.
The cost of the systems are facts.
Opinion is opinion. I heard stories are I heard stories.
Oh an I should point out - my Grand mother was a nurse for 35 years, my mother is a health care aid, and two of my best friends are doctors... and my sister is a stewardess (they have first aid).
Plus I have 3 kids and have been to the doctor and hospital lots.
Gee, Canada doesn't get Fox? Don't diminish yourself/your arguments by going down these roads. Too many counter-arguments, and none that matter.
I joke Fox is very nice news...
I have actually been quoted on fox... told off actually by O'Reilly...
you can google it.
I have a very strong position on health care.
In the 1990's conservatives in Canada tried to create a crisis in health care, by under funding it, to change the system to a for profit model.
I have heard most of these arguments for 20 years - we have had a national debate going on in Canada for most of my life.
That is why I trust the data.
I know, and you know too, that there will be no health care reform in the USA... there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in the for profit model.
I am sorry if I came on to strong.
The ranking of health system performance is a fact. Italy is number one.
And my cousin (dual citizen for 20+ years) still comes to the US from Italy and pays for care? *scratches head*
The ranking of health system performance is a fact. Italy is number one.And my cousin (dual citizen for 20+ years) still comes to the US from Italy and pays for care? *scratches head*
Well the difference may be in calculating averages. While some systems may handle a large number well, they may not work well for individual extreme cases.
My main worry is that people claim these government systems promise "Star Trek" but I'm worried I might actually get "Logan's Run".
|
|
The crux of your argument is somebody told me... OECD facts don't count, I have real life experience and I am no longer talking about it...
Ouch!
Sorry.
Statistics are not facts.
That is the error you are making there.Statistics are just statistics. Whether they are properly interpreted in relationship to the facts that they categorize is something completely different.
If you want to go by raw statistics, I can just point to the fact that more people immigrate to the US every year than immigrate to Canada. That proves more significantly than anything else which country is better overall.
How will you explain that away?
Or should we compare how many people come to the US for healthcare? What about for education?
For all of the statistical "advantages" you throw about as if they were scientific laws, how do you explain those simple statistics?
The crux of your argument is somebody told me... OECD facts don't count, I have real life experience and I am no longer talking about it...
Ouch!
Sorry.
Statistics are not facts.
That is the error you are making there.
Statistics are just statistics. Whether they are properly interpreted in relationship to the facts that they categorize is something completely different.If you want to go by raw statistics, I can just point to the fact that more people immigrate to the US every year than immigrate to Canada. That proves more significantly than anything else which country is better overall.
How will you explain that away?
Or should we compare how many people come to the US for healthcare? What about for education?
For all of the statistical "advantages" you throw about as if they were scientific laws, how do you explain those simple statistics?
Well said!
|
|
I teach in the number one jurisdiction in Reading, the number one jurisdiction in Writing, the number three jurisdiction in Mathematics and number three jurisdiction in Science ON THE PLANET (according to the OECD) and guess what - its all public education...
Except that, according to the OECD itself, they do not track the whole planet, only their member countries. I understand that hyperbole is felt needed at times. Could you please direct me to the statistics, as I am unable to locate them in the OECD report.
Never, mind; I'm done. You're right Greg. You know everything.
Whatever.
*licks Heathansson*
*licks Heathansson*Never, mind; I'm done. You're right Greg. You know everything.
Whatever.
Darn poodle. Now Heathansson has to go get a shot. And we know how screwed up our US healthcare is.
Thanks a lot CF. ;-)
Statistics are not facts.
That is the error you are making there.
Statistics are just statistics. Whether they are properly interpreted in relationship to the facts that they categorize is something completely different.
I agree that *some* stats are not facts.
I trust the OECD.
If you want to go by raw statistics, I can just point to the fact that more people immigrate to the US every year than immigrate to Canada. That proves more significantly than anything else which country is better overall.
How will you explain that away?
I think the American Dream is a very powerful symbol of freedom and the search for a better life for all of the people of the world. America is a beacon of democracy and opportunity and I am very fond of all my American friends and would live in American in a heart beat!
Canada has about 260,000 immigrants per year.
USA has about 7-800,000 immigrants per year.
per capital more people are coming to Canada... but the USA is still the number one destinatin for people seeking a better life.
Or should we compare how many people come to the US for healthcare? What about for education? For all of the statistical "advantages" you throw about as if they were scientific laws, how do you explain those simple statistics?
I would love to do you have any data?
|
|
The difference is, Greg; she knew what she was talking about, and you're just quoting supportive statistics.That is silly. The ranking of health system performance is a fact. Italy is number one. Canada is number 30 (not that great in my estimation). USA is number 37.
The cost of the systems are facts.
Here are some other facts from the OECD report. Canada has a high suicide rate than the United States. Canada is the third worst country in terms of death after having been admited to the hospital after a stroke or critical illness, which means only two other countries have more people die in the hospital after a critical illness, and one of them is Mexico. America has more long term care beds in hospitals and nursing homes, per capita. The United States government spends more per capita on health care than Canada does, even without a single payer system.
The ranking of health system performance is a fact. Italy is number one.And my cousin (dual citizen for 20+ years) still comes to the US from Italy and pays for care? *scratches head*Well the difference may be in calculating averages. While some systems may handle a large number well, they may not work well for individual extreme cases.
Nah, no extreme case. She just doesn't like waiting for months for the little stuff.
My main worry is that people claim these government systems promise "Star Trek" but I'm worried I might actually get "Logan's Run".
The original Star Trek or the later versions? lol. Logan's Run used to be cool. Until I reached 30.