USA has about 7-800,000 immigrants per year.
Is that legal or all, lol.
USA has about 7-800,000 immigrants per year.Is that legal or all, lol.
these are not the immigrants you are looking for. move along.
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.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...
I am not sure what report you mean...
OECD is comprised of the 30 most developed countries - but they do administer systems of governance analysis for non member countries.
This is their website:
http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Their publications of comparative analysis are available at any university library - they are not article length - they are entire texts.
Their data is referenced on every major study of economic, health, education and infrastructure performance.
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.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.
Not contesting your point, but I have always found that RNs consider wherever they work to be a disaster.
--Trey "Raised by an RN" Wol
;-)
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.
Wait for it now...
I am going to agree with you that those are all facts. Those are facts that the OECD used to determine national rankings.
Canada is ranked 30th after all... but still 7 places higher than the USA and at half the cost...
I would like Canada to look to Italy and France to reform our system.
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.Wait for it now...
I am going to agree with you that those are all facts. Those are facts that the OECD used to determine national rankings.
Canada is ranked 30th after all... but still 7 places higher than the USA and at half the cost...
I would like Canada to look to Italy and France to reform our system. They clearly deliver health care more effectively than we do...
I don't want to wade into the middle of a slap and tickle fest but there's one thing I don't get when I hear that line about "letting a bureacrat get between you and your doctor".
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment? I don't know, maybe that's just the impression I get from watching American TV (so perhaps fictionalized). But that seems very strange to me.
|
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.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?
Yep, have them earn minimum wage, deal with same health care, etc. I'd love to see what kind of changes would evolve from that.
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?
For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility."
My wife files the same appeals several times a year, every 2 years, for the same required MRI scans. That keeps us down to around $750 a pop, instead of $5,000 each. In Canada, though, we're told there's an average 5 year wait for an MRI scan, which is no good for a person who needs them every 2 years.
Here are some other facts from the OECD report. Canada has a high suicide rate than the United States.
I can believe that, it gets so dark and cold up here some winters I almost understand the point of Swedish films... :)
I don't want to wade into the middle of a slap and tickle fest but there's one thing I don't get when I hear that line about "letting a bureacrat get between you and your doctor".
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment? I don't know, maybe that's just the impression I get from watching American TV (so perhaps fictionalized). But that seems very strange to me.
Maybe sometimes, but I haven't had much experience in it. Most benefits are spelled out ahead of time. Docs decide the treatment, you pay your co-pay and get it done. If you ask for/need something that your particular HMO doesn't cover the doc will tell you and suggest options.
Here are some other facts from the OECD report. Canada has a high suicide rate than the United States.I can believe that, it gets so dark and cold up here some winters I almost understand the point of Swedish films... :)
Maybe they are not all suicides.
|
|
Getting back to the original topic, NEWSWEEK/Factcheck.org has just posted an article titled, Sliming Palin, that debunks many of the internet rumors about her.
I thought it might be interesting since it: 1.) defends Palin against many of the rumors posited here by Obama-fans and 2.) is presented by Factcheck.org, which supporters of Palin argued was pro-Obama.
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility."
My wife files the same appeals several times a year, every 2 years, for the same required MRI scans. That keeps us down to around $750 a pop, instead of $5,000 each. In Canada, though, we're told there's an average 5 year wait for an MRI scan, which is no good for a person who needs them every 2 years.
That sounds a little better than how it gets portrayed on TV but it still seems kind of miserable. Especially if you're sick or recovering and have to deal with that kind of nonsense.
Stupid question (because it portrays my Canadian naivete :) ) but are there government agencies willing to help sick people jump through all these hurdles? Private charities? Or are you on your own?
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility."
My wife files the same appeals several times a year, every 2 years, for the same required MRI scans. That keeps us down to around $750 a pop, instead of $5,000 each. In Canada, though, we're told there's an average 5 year wait for an MRI scan, which is no good for a person who needs them every 2 years.
That's funny in a sad way.
In alberta wait times for MRI are between 5-20 weeks depending on severity/need.
The government tracks wait times here:
http://www.ahw.gov.ab.ca/waitlist/AccessGoalCharts.jsp
http://www.ahw.gov.ab.ca/waitlist/AccessGoalCharts.jsp
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility."
My wife files the same appeals several times a year, every 2 years, for the same required MRI scans. That keeps us down to around $750 a pop, instead of $5,000 each. In Canada, though, we're told there's an average 5 year wait for an MRI scan, which is no good for a person who needs them every 2 years.
That sounds a little better than how it gets portrayed on TV but it still seems kind of miserable. Especially if you're sick or recovering and have to deal with that kind of nonsense.
Stupid question (because it portrays my Canadian naivete :) ) but are there government agencies willing to help sick people jump through all these hurdles? Private charities? Or are you on your...
Both govt and private. Most hospitals employ social workers that can walk you thru the various options, especially Medicare. As do many private charities. Due to the size and # of options it really helps to have someone navigate. My sister works for the state and helps people in private facilities.
In alberta wait times for MRI are between 5-20 weeks depending on severity/need.
Sorry, I was looking at the GTA. No way my wife would ever consent to move to Calgary, despite the work opportunities I could find there.
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.
You have what appears to be this kind of odd thing going on. Likely I'm just misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that if the US decided to pay for everyone's health insurance, instead of the current way the health insurance gets paid, the US would also suddenly begin forcing people to work in specific jobs and slide inevitably into a totalitarian communist state? If that's what you're saying its...well, er...a bit of a leap, no?
|
|
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.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.
Not contesting your point, but I have always found that RNs consider wherever they work to be a disaster.
--Trey "Raised by an RN" Wol
;-)
I know what you mean, for I am Heathansson "raised by an RN"....
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?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.
This is an argument for making public schools better, which, ultimately is a policy debate that starts with the US budget. Are are you seriously suggesting that we should do away with public education and only allow people to attend schools if they can afford them?
And if your response will be a voucher system or the equivalent, that example doesn't refute my suggestion. In short I don't care what vehicle is used to deliver people their education or their healthcare, provided its both available and of decent quality. I just suggest that healthcare should be available the same way education is available.
Seriously, I agree education in the nation needs to be better. I disagree that the way to accomplish it is to only let those who can afford private school be educated.
Never mind; this whole thing makes me nauseated.
Hey Heath,
Why? What did you feel wasn't being heard? I have a lot of respect for your opinions, personally, from lurking and posting around here. It dismays me to see you feel this way.
- Lou
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.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.
With all respect Garydee (and I do mean that), their opinions are not enough on which to base a national policy. It's why I was arguing against anectdotal evidence. Of course, I'm certain they both experienced disastrous parts of the system, or they wouldn't have said such things.
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.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?
Woot! *pumps fist in air*
EDIT: ok, Jerry Springer moment passing...
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.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...
Ok. This is a serious question: how do you define a fact? I really do mean this seriously. What counts as a fact for you so I know before I try to give you one?
For me a statistical result garnered according to proper methodology, functionally defined as meeting the consensus standard of the international scientific community is a fair enough proxy for a fact in this case.
I'm not sure what your criteria of rational acceptability is, and so I could say that would satisfy you as evidence.
And I want to know.
|
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
Facts are interesting things because they do not always mean what people think they mean.
Take the higher infant mortality rate in the United States. From what I have heard elsewhere, I believe, if you closely examine the reason behind those numbers you will get a different picture. America has more preemie babies born than many other countries, in fact I have been told that women sometimes come here if their baby is going to be premature simply because our facilities and training our better. These are infants that in years past would not have been able to be born. Curiously, this means that because of our more advanced techniques more babies are born than might otherwise have been born but because we are doing more premature births, it raises the percentage of infant deaths. For children that are carried to term I believe our numbers are pretty good.
I also have to wonder whether the reason that American Health expenditures are greater per person is because we have greater access to the tests and whatnot that cost more money. It's not rationed.
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*
Out of curiousity, do they subsidize his trip? I'm as concerned about increasing the quality of US care as I am about the US providing universal coverage of costs. While these impact each other depending on the system chosen, they are nonetheless independent questions.
|
|
As an aside, its always interesting to find out how people elsewhere veiw your country and to see how media presentation scews perception.
I remember chuckling when I was reading Azumanga Daioh, at the believe in Japan that America is full of shootings and to live here is to take your life in your hands. It is equally amusing to see the perception outside of this country that to live in America is to be denied access to Health Care when it has been my experience that even when one has no money, there are ways to receive what you need.
Ok. This is a serious question: how do you define a fact? I really do mean this seriously. What counts as a fact for you so I know before I try to give you one?
A fact is an observable datum. Any application of a trend or statistical analysis to the data results by definition in an inference, not a fact.
Fact: "An organization ranked the U.S. 37th and Canada 30th."
Inference: Canadian health care is therefore "better" than U.S. health care.
Discussion: "Better" by what rubric? I'm sure I could alter the comparative rating system to make the U.S. #1 and Canada #582, if I put my mind to it.
Neither is "better" in an absolute sense; it always depends on the situation.
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?
But he's not quoting raw statistics. He's quoting an internationally recognized study jointly conducted by scientists, economists, politicians, etc. -- including American representatives of same -- precisely for the purpose of interpreting statistics and creating a ranking system.
A study of this sort is precisely the act that validly transforms statistics into facts, as I understand you to mean that term.
Greg is citing excerpts from this study -- this interpretation of statistics into facts -- as opposed to pointing us to the whole study (good question -- is it available online?). Since, I assume, its probably rather voluminous.
It's certainly seems perfectly legitimate to me for one to question any study's methodology and conclusions, but it seems to me one would have to read the the methodology and provide a specific critique of it in order to do this.
It just doesn't seem likely to turn out valid to dismiss an internationally recognized study on world healthcare and a resultant ranking system because its "just a bunch of statistics" or because of a Mark Twain quote (much as I enjoy his writing).
So no. I don't think Greg is just quoting a bunch of statistics and not facts. Unless you've an alternate source with equal or equivalent methodology and recognition, he seems to be quoting the closest thing to facts that exist.
If you don't agree, I really am curious, specifically, on which grounds you reject the study; and I'm also curious what criteria for fact you are using. Knowing that would help me assemble acceptable evidence.
I don't want to wade into the middle of a slap and tickle fest but there's one thing I don't get when I hear that line about "letting a bureacrat get between you and your doctor".
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment? I don't know, maybe that's just the impression I get from watching American TV (so perhaps fictionalized). But that seems very strange to me.
In many cases that is exactly how it works.
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility..."
Essentially accurate with exceptions for some procedures. Many PPO and HMO plans will, for example, not cover much of pre or post natal care without yo first authorizing the procedures.
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility."
My wife files the same appeals several times a year, every 2 years, for the same required MRI scans. That keeps us down to around $750 a pop, instead of $5,000 each. In Canada, though, we're told there's an average 5 year wait for an MRI scan, which is no good for a person who needs them every 2 years.
That sounds a little better than how it gets portrayed on TV but it still seems kind of miserable. Especially if you're sick or recovering and have to deal with that kind of nonsense.
Stupid question (because it portrays my Canadian naivete :) ) but are there government agencies willing to help sick people jump through all these hurdles? Private...
Wow. Which state? I'm in NY and didn't none of them help me and mine navigate healthcare insurance and reimbursement. I've been on my own.
|
|
I agree that *some* stats are not facts.
I trust the OECD.
Tentatively, I trust their statistics too.
I do not however trust your interpetation of them.That is two different things.
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!
So obviously quality of life is based on quite a bit more than per capita spending on health care.
So much for your interpretation of statistics.Canada has about 260,000 immigrants per year.
USA has about 7-800,000 immigrants per year.
I guess you have forgotten about all those illegal immigrants.
per capital more people are coming to Canada... but the USA is still the number one destinatin for people seeking a better life.
Then why mention per capita of current residents at all?
I would love to do you have any data?
You have the OECD. Does it not contain data on everything?
As an aside, its always interesting to find out how people elsewhere veiw your country and to see how media presentation scews perception.
I remember chuckling when I was reading Azumanga Daioh, at the believe in Japan that America is full of shootings and to live here is to take your life in your hands. It is equally amusing to see the perception outside of this country that to live in America is to be denied access to Health Care when it has been my experience that even when one has no money, there are ways to receive what you need.
Well my experience, as noted elsewhere in this thread, has been quite the opposite. No insurance? No healthcare. Or, if you get healthcare by, for example, always going to a hospital emergency room in a state where it is illegal to refuse that care, then all you've done is force the hospital to raise costs on the rest of us to stay afloat. In fact, that would be a sort of defacto universal healthcare at everyone else's expense.
|
|
Never mind; this whole thing makes me nauseated.Hey Heath,
Why? What did you feel wasn't being heard? I have a lot of respect for your opinions, personally, from lurking and posting around here. It dismays me to see you feel this way.
- Lou
Okay.
For minor stuff, Canada sounds great. Everybody can see a General Prac, and get a broken arm taken care of.I do PET scans. I have quite possibly the fastest PET scanner on earth. The company that built the PET scanner showcases my scanner to potential buyers.
In studying up a little, I found out that the city I live in had more PET scanners than the Canadian province that a set of buyers hailed from. It's disheartening to me. I wanted to walk away from this little tiff, because I can't really see a victory here. No, I can't quote you WHO statistics right now. All I can say is this: if you need a PET scan, it sounds like you'll get one quicker in my city.
If you need a PET scan, you probably don't need to be on a waiting list.
And, frankly, it nauseates me to be argle bargling about this. It's depressing to me.
Ok. This is a serious question: how do you define a fact? I really do mean this seriously. What counts as a fact for you so I know before I try to give you one?A fact is an observable datum. Any application of a trend or statistical analysis to the data results by definition in an inference, not a fact.
Fact: "An organization ranked the U.S. 37th and Canada 30th."
Inference: Canadian health care is therefore "better" than U.S. health care.
Discussion: "Better" by what rubric? I'm sure I could alter the comparative rating system to make the U.S. #1 and Canada #582, if I put my mind to it.If you are poor and/or uninsured, Canada wins.
If you are never sick, U.S. wins (lower taxes).
If you are insured, but the health care providers keep denying you needed coverage, Canada wins.
If you are insured, and need some specialized procedure that few people are competent to perform, U.S. wins. Neither is "better" in an absolute sense; it always depends on the situation.
Ah. I see where you are coming from.
The problem it seems to me, is that if nothing is acceptable to you as evidence other than empirically observed data, then there are a whole host of things for which there can never be facts and therefore discussion. I mean, who, for example, can "observe" as a datum the entirety of the current US healthcare system?
But just these issues are what statistical methodologies are designed to handle. I understood the OECD data to mean "better" in the sense of for most people, most of the time.
To dismiss a study based on the notion that its conclusions aren't directly observable seems to beg the question, since the point of a study is to draw valid conclusions on things that are not otherwise observable.
At the same time it seems a perfectly valid thing to ask "better in what way" which is what I take you as doing. Greg's answer was a list of the better ways: life expectancy, etc. etc.
Some counter examples were brought up, too, of ways in which the US delivered better outcomes.
Turning these various outcomes into weighted results to reach an overarching ranking is a perfectly valid statistical tool, no?
|
And I'm sorry if I sounded like a dick before or whatever, but this issue really gets my panties in a bun.
Then you should head over to my other thread. Not only is it something that you can sink your teeth into, but it will help you think better as well.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay.
For minor stuff, Canada sounds great. Everybody can see a General Prac, and get a broken arm taken care of.I do PET scans. I have quite possibly the fastest PET scanner on earth. The company that built the PET scanner showcases my scanner to potential buyers.
In studying up a little, I found out that the city I live in had more PET scanners than the Canadian province that a set of buyers hailed from. It's disheartening to me. I wanted to walk away from this little tiff, because I can't really see a victory here. No, I can't quote you WHO statistics right now. All I can say is this: if you need a PET scan, it sounds like you'll get one quicker in my city.
If you need a PET scan, you probably don't need to be on a waiting list.
And, frankly, it nauseates me to be argle bargling about this. It's depressing to me.
They also have mounties. Give them some credit for that.
...
and why is everyone always ragging on dystopias in threads like this. I, for one, welcome our new dictatorial overlords, whether they be angry computers sending armies of robots after us, genetically engineered clones that fly around in helicopters, or insane biker/jet-ski dudes with punk rock style and greasy faces.
|
|
and why is everyone always ragging on dystopias in threads like this. I, for one, welcome our new dictatorial overlords, whether they be angry computers sending armies of robots after us, genetically engineered clones that fly around in helicopters, or insane biker/jet-ski dudes with punk rock style and greasy faces.
I want in on some of that action. Gamma World, here I come.
The problem it seems to me, is that if nothing is acceptable to you as evidence other than empirically observed data, then there are a whole host of things for which there can never be facts and therefore discussion. I mean, who, for example, can "observe" as a datum the entirety of the current US healthcare system? But just these issues are what statistical methodologies are designed to handle. I understood the OECD data to mean "better" in the sense of for most people, most of the time.
To dismiss a study based on the notion that its conclusions aren't directly observable seems to beg the question, since the point of a study is to draw valid conclusions on things that are not otherwise observable.
Correct, "the whole health care system" is not observable; it is an amalgamation of data, to which the OECD assigned scalings and relative importance, until the ended up with a ranking. I could easily go in and re-assign the relative scalings: make state-of-the-art procedures count more, make medication costs less important overall, etc., and end up with totally different rankings. The study is useful only if we know the relative weight that different things get. Then we can say, "this study puts a lot of emphasis on rates of insured vs. uninsured, and on average life span," and if those things are most important to us, too, then the ratings are useful to us. If those things are not important compared to lesser-weighted criteria, then the study is worthless for our purposes.
"What's 'better' (still undefined) for most people" doesn't have a lot of meaning to a lot of the people on this thread, because they look at what's better for them personally, and never mind the other guy -- "this is America; if he's hurting, it's probably his own fault." I'm not saying that's how I necessarily see it, but some do. Personally, I see the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. I'm relatively healthy now, so the American system is good for me... and serious heart problems requiring obscure specialists run in my family, so that's another very good reason to stay near Houston, for example. But if insurance costs keep going up, and my general health starts to decline, and I start thinking that I might want to retire one day... that's when Canada starts to look a lot better than the U.S. It's all a trade-off, depending on what's most important to you.
And I'm sorry if I sounded like a dick before or whatever, but this issue really gets my panties in a bun.
No sweat. I get that. You didn't sound like a dick. And I didn't know you wore panties -- kinda like that. :^)
Seriously, though, I want to see if I can bring this conversation back to my original thought. How it turned into a nyah-nyah argument about whose country is better then whose kind of baffles me.
Also the notion seems to have currency in this discussion that if one could prove a system like Canada's doesn't work as well as some claim (not that I happen to agree), that that is somehow a refutation sufficient to put paid to any such notion in America. That line of reasoning doesn't strike me as valid either.
As I've said before, it also doesn't matter to me so much how healthcare (or sickness care, the distinction right this second for my point is irrelevant) gets delivered -- provided the devlivery is of acceptable quality -- the question for me is who pays for it.
Arguments that "it" will be too expensive or lack quality don't wash for me right now, because there is no specific "it" -- a defined plan to provide all Americans access to quality healthcare -- on the table to judge the expensiveness or quality thereof. Also such arguments simply suggest to me that we need to exert effort to make sure the quality is good and the cost acceptable. I don't believe that Americans are so lost to good old American ingenuity that its just beyond our abilities as a nation to make quality healthcare available to all Americans for free or for very cheap. I believe America is capable of solving those operational and workability problems. I believe we as a nation have what it takes -- if we want to do it.
No. What I want to figure out is something like this: most of us accept that the governemtn, local or federal or both, pays for a bunch of stuff we use. Fire departments, police departments, roads, clean water, public education, the FBI, the EPA, in NYC the DEP, the DOB, etc. etc. Even some who would argue government shouldn't pay for things like roads, drive to work on them.
Most of us would probably agree that the US gov't shouldn't use its tax money to buy all of us extra television sets, frilly soap, or a new car. Especially not to buy, say, perfume, for people who can't afford it.
My question is this: why do we, as a nation, seem to want to put basic medical care in the same basket with televisions, cars, soap or perfume and not in the same basket with fire departments, roads, police departments, clean water, and public education, etc.?
My belief is that we can, and we should. How precisely to achieve such a goal is a different question, entirely.
But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
I mean, I REALLY don't get it why so many people seem so invested in not having government ensure that we are all insured.
Is it really just fear that whatever new system emerges will somehow mean less for specific individuals?
What's up with this?
Correct, "the whole health care system" is not observable; it is an amalgamation of data, to which the OECD assigned scalings and relative importance, until the ended up with a ranking. I could easily go in and re-assign the relative scalings: make state-of-the-art procedures count more, make medication costs less important overall, etc., and end up with totally different rankings. The study is useful only if we know the relative weight that different things get. Then we can say, "this study puts a lot of emphasis on rates of insured vs. uninsured, and on average life span," and if those things are most important to us, too, then the ratings are useful to us. If those things are not important compared to lesser-weighted criteria, then the study is worthless for our purposes. "Most people" doesn't have a lot of meaning to a lot of the people on this thread, because they look at what's better for them personally, and never mind the other guy -- "this is America; if he's hurting, it's probably his own fault."The problem it seems to me, is that if nothing is acceptable to you as evidence other than empirically observed data, then there are a whole host of things for which there can never be facts and therefore discussion. I mean, who, for example, can "observe" as a datum the entirety of the current US healthcare system? But just these issues are what statistical methodologies are designed to handle. I understood the OECD data to mean "better" in the sense of for most people, most of the time.
To dismiss a study based on the notion that its conclusions aren't directly observable seems to beg the question, since the point of a study is to draw valid conclusions on things that are not otherwise observable.
Ah. I see. I think I would be more willing to accept the argument if you could point out the specific failures in the methodology that the think tanks of 30 developed nations believe to be a fair way of interpreting the statistics. They could definitely be wrong, but given the international consensus, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt unless there are some specific errors someone can point at. That said, "its just an intepretation, I could write it differently" isn't a sufficent argument, prima facea (sic), for me to throw out the conclusions of the OECD study.
On to the next thing you said:
...this is America; if he's hurting its probably his own fault..."
It comes down to this, doesn't it? This depresses me. I think this is a fair example of something called the Fundamental Attribution Error.
And I think it lasts just up until a person is unexpectedly laid off from work by their closing factory, in a bad economy, and can't afford $1,000 / month for COBRA. And then their kid needs an operation and their wife contracts cancer.
It's almost like claiming god only punishes people who deserve it, or some equally bad line of reasoning. Or the belief that "that'll never happen to me. That only happens to [insert character pejorative] people!" Then it happens to you.
I think I'm going to go drink myself into oblivion and then, when I'm done puking, move to Canada with a hangover. Better yet, move to Italy.
Okay, back to the original topic, a new poll shows McCain now has a 12 point lead with women, which is the group Palin was supposed to bring in.
Booo. You're just going to ignore my question?
But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
This issue has come up a couple of times, and I don't pretend to know all the facts. But after doing 30 seconds of searching I found this site. Is the problem that there isn't free or affordable prenatal care or is it that there are just women who are not taking advantage of it.
|
|
Well my experience, as noted elsewhere in this thread, has been quite the opposite. No insurance? No healthcare. Or, if you get healthcare by, for example, always going to a hospital emergency room in a state where it is illegal to refuse that care, then all you've done is force the hospital to raise costs on the rest of us to stay afloat. In fact, that would be a sort of defacto universal healthcare at everyone else's expense.
I thought that was what you wanted. Universal health care for everyone paid for by the people who have the money. Or how were you planning on funding it? :)
This issue has come up a couple of times, and I don't pretend to know all the facts. But after doing 30 seconds of searching I found this site. Is the problem that there isn't free or affordable prenatal care or is it that there are just women who are not taking advantage of it.But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
If you aren't insured, you aren't getting it.
Here's some additional info. I tried to stay nation specific and recent but didn't in the first and last two links. So take those as examples. Basically, poor people can't get prenatal care. Some would argue therefore, they shouldn't.