When blogger Melissa moved to Canada in 2008, she identified as a conservative, Republican evangelical Christian. Part of that identity included a deep mistrust of Canada's universal healthcare system. Before the move, she was terrified that she was going to place that would limit her medical choices, tell her what to do with her body, and push abortions (paid for with her money) on any woman who was unsure of what to do about an unwanted pregnancy. She was afraid of losing her freedom. She was afraid of losing her religious liberty.
But that's not what she found in Canada.
Instead, Melissa slowly came to realize that the Canadian system was actually more family friendly than the American one. In Canada, there is significantly less demand for abortion. In Canada, she says, it's easier to be a stay at home parent, and it's easier to ensure the health of your children. She also found that abortion wasn't pushed (merely offered as one of many options) and that Catholic hospitals weren't forced to offer abortions if they didn't want to. Meanwhile, Canada does a better job than we do at balancing their national budget and has far, far, far less national debt.
one of our budget issues is that we provide a police service to the world
at a cost of 700 billion a year. More than the rest of the globe combined.
how does that happen anyway? I presume its like everything else.
all the defense companies have lobbying control of congress, and congress approves huge deficit spending for defense to pay off the people giving them money to keep them in office.
we also spend $3 trillion + a year on healthcare, and yet have a system that underperforms dozens of other countries. including Cuba. measured by what?
life expectancy. we're on a par with such advanced countries as Barbados. yet spending 3.3 trillion a year.
why? cause the health industry has lobbying control of congress, and gets our economy to overspend on everything that lines their pockets the most, regardless of the economic damage it reeks. plus. we're a nation of obese people. but no one does anything because someone is making tons of money off of it. just like cigarettes. who makes money from killing 400,000 people a year with it anyway?
so until america quits getting run by industries that buy congress, and get them to do whatever they want, it will only keep getting worse here. maximizing profits for private industry, while socializing expenses through manipulation of paid off legislators has nothing to do with governing properly. quite the opposite.
Objective measures like life expectancy and infant mortality prove that it's better.
Although those are good indicators they are also affected by other factors such as poverty, nutrition, etc. I'd still rather see a valid comparison of the two systems rather than a blog posting.
Although those are good indicators they are also affected by other factors such as poverty, nutrition, etc. I'd still rather see a valid comparison of the two systems rather than a blog posting.
They're the universally accepted metric for the quality of a nations capacity to look after it's citizens.
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote: We should be ashamed of ourselves that we can't figure out how to do likewise.
I read her whole story, and she seems to be pretty focused on the cost aspect. She says that she has a good insurance plan through her engineer husband's job, and it helps offset her medical bills to a good degree. She keeps comparing that with someone in the US who doesn't have insurance.
It sounds like she didn't have insurance when she was in the US, so she was always "afraid of going for checkups for fear of the bill".
Not exactly an assessment of their healthcare system.
Although those are good indicators they are also affected by other factors such as poverty, nutrition, etc. I'd still rather see a valid comparison of the two systems rather than a blog posting.
one of our budget issues is that we provide a police service to the world
at a cost of 700 billion a year. More than the rest of the globe combined.
how does that happen anyway? I presume its like everything else.
all the defense companies have lobbying control of congress, and congress approves huge deficit spending for defense to pay off the people giving them money to keep them in office.
we also spend $3 trillion + a year on healthcare, and yet have a system that underperforms dozens of other countries. including Cuba. measured by what?
life expectancy. we're on a par with such advanced countries as Barbados. yet spending 3.3 trillion a year.
why? cause the health industry has lobbying control of congress, and gets our economy to overspend on everything that lines their pockets the most, regardless of the economic damage it reeks. plus. we're a nation of obese people. but no one does anything because someone is making tons of money off of it. just like cigarettes. who makes money from killing 400,000 people a year with it anyway?
so until america quits getting run by industries that buy congress, and get them to do whatever they want, it will only keep getting worse here. maximizing profits for private industry, while socializing expenses through manipulation of paid off legislators has nothing to do with governing properly. quite the opposite.
but the GOP has made a religion out of it.
Of course the problem might look a little different when one realizes that the same numbers are not being used across the board, as well as biased numbers that really don't have anything to do with healthcare.
The US has far more traffic fatalities that other countries.
But then again, how many more cars and drivers do we have?
How much more time does the US citizen spend driving than people in other countries?
And what does that have anything to do with the healthcare system?
How about the infant mortality rate?
More high risk pregnancies are prolonged in countries like America, resulting in less miscarriages and pregnancy loss, and higher infant death rates. In other countries such high tech intervention wouldn't be available thus resulting in only a miscarriage, not an infant death.
How about the effect of fertility treatments?
Women in the US take advantage of fertility treatments which themselves come with the risk of higher infant mortality. Fertility treatments commonly result in multiple, low weight births and premature births. A much higher percentage of those babies don't survive.
Not to mention differing reporting standards.
How can one get an accurate view of the situation when one is not comparing apples to apples?
How does the birthrate for illegals who have come to America to give birth affect the numbers?
Most likely with no prenatal care and other high risk factors.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
SKPhoto wrote: The US has far more traffic fatalities that other countries.
But then again, how many more cars and drivers do we have?
How much more time does the US citizen spend driving than people in other countries?
And what does that have anything to do with the healthcare system?
Those who still claim that the United States has the best health care system in the world need a reality check. Of the nineteen OECD nations studied, the United States has the highest rate of deaths that “should not occur in the presence of timely and effective health care.”
Further, in the time interval studied, the United States ranked last in the reduction of amenable mortality. The other eighteen nations were more effective in reducing these preventable premature deaths.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
SKPhoto wrote: How does the birthrate for illegals who have come to America to give birth affect the numbers?
Most likely with no prenatal care and other high risk factors.
Probably a much bigger contributor is our enormous domestic teen birth rate. But I guess there's nothing we could do about that....
SKPhoto wrote: The US has far more traffic fatalities that other countries.
But then again, how many more cars and drivers do we have?
How much more time does the US citizen spend driving than people in other countries?
And what does that have anything to do with the healthcare system?
In diving deeper into your cited references, it is noted the US started at a lower rate that the other nations, which in effect "caught up" with the US due to their higher starting point, resulting in larger percentage declines.
Furthermore, the studies are centered around "amenable mortality", or deaths that could have been prevented "in the presence of timely and effective health care.” These causes the report considered were conditions such as bacterial infections, treatable cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, and complications of common surgical procedures.
The study attempts to link uninsured persons to these deaths, but that conclusion cannot be justified as the single cause. People with insurance fail to or just refuse to see a doctor, despite having a problem. That would not be the fault of the healthcare system. There is an element of culture in play here, not just economics.
Probably a much bigger contributor is our enormous domestic teen birth rate. But I guess there's nothing we could do about that....
You should also note the significant difference in the definition of "birth" per each country. Some countries do not consider a birth to be "live" if the baby is below a certain weigh of length, and thus does not get included in any infant mortality statistics. These deaths are never recorded for such purposes. That differs greatly from the US, Canada, etc. which record all births for these statistics.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
sublime LightWorks wrote: In diving deeper into your cited references, it is noted the US started at a lower rate that the other nations, which in effect "caught up" with the US due to their higher starting point, resulting in larger percentage declines.
Nope, this isn't the case. I updated the first link, btw, which had expired (it doesn't go directly to a PDF now). The United States started the period near the bottom and far from the lead, and ended in absolute last among OECD countries, further out of the lead.
sublime LightWorks wrote: The study attempts to link uninsured persons to these deaths, but that conclusion cannot be justified as the single cause.
Doesn't say it's "the single cause", but it's surely a contributing factor, as verified by numerous other studies.
Piscis Noctis
Posts: 10,833
San Diego, California, US
Instinct Images wrote:
Although those are good indicators they are also affected by other factors such as poverty, nutrition, etc. I'd still rather see a valid comparison of the two systems rather than a blog posting.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
sublime LightWorks wrote: You should also note the significant difference in the definition of "birth" per each country. Some countries do not consider a birth to be "live" if the baby is below a certain weigh of length, and thus does not get included in any infant mortality statistics. These deaths are never recorded for such purposes. That differs greatly from the US, Canada, etc. which record all births for these statistics.
Greg Kolack
Posts: 17,243
Downers Grove, Illinois, US
Instinct Images wrote:
Although those are good indicators they are also affected by other factors such as poverty, nutrition, etc. I'd still rather see a valid comparison of the two systems rather than a blog posting.
So do some research and let us know what you find.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: I read her whole story, and she seems to be pretty focused on the cost aspect. She says that she has a good insurance plan through her engineer husband's job, and it helps offset her medical bills to a good degree. She keeps comparing that with someone in the US who doesn't have insurance.
It sounds like she didn't have insurance when she was in the US, so she was always "afraid of going for checkups for fear of the bill".
Not exactly an assessment of their healthcare system.
You've misunderstood. The boingboing story isn't written by the woman now in Canada. That woman's story is here: http://ayoungmomsmusings.blogspot.ca/20 … ealth.html (its linked at the bottom of the boingboing post.)
In any case ... generally the only medical related bills that will need to be paid by occupational insurance are certain kinds of physiotherapy and prescription drugs. All of the other stuff she talks about would still be covered even if she was destitute. Other things not covered by provincial health programs are eye and dental care.
PNHP is a fringe physician group that advocates for a single-payer health system.
So...a little biased.
So what's wrong with the WHO studies? Let me count the ways.
The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care?
Wye wrote: You've misunderstood. The boingboing story isn't written by the woman now in Canada. That woman's story is here: http://ayoungmomsmusings.blogspot.ca/20 … ealth.html (its linked at the bottom of the boingboing post.)
Yea, I had read through to that link as well. Still, her comments like:
"When they asked me to clarify and I explained that many people in the States are not insured and they try to put off medical care unless absolutely needed, they literally could not comprehend such a thing."
... seem to indicate she's comparing with care in the US for folks who for whatever reason don't have insurance. Never mind that the main reason many folks don't have insurance is because they chose not to pay for it. That's still not going to change with Obamacare, since many people will still opt for the much cheaper fine (or tax or whatever they call it).
Yea, I had read through to that link as well. Still, her comments like:
"When they asked me to clarify and I explained that many people in the States are not insured and they try to put off medical care unless absolutely needed, they literally could not comprehend such a thing."
... seem to indicate she's comparing with care in the US for folks who for whatever reason don't have insurance. Never mind that the main reason many folks don't have insurance is because they chose not to pay for it. That's still not going to change with Obamacare, since many people will still opt for the much cheaper fine (or tax or whatever they call it).
But what about the issues around changing jobs or moving to another state or discovering that whatever it is you have isn't covered by your insurance or having certain treatments or preventions be less than your deductible? I have great insurance on my car but I will generally slide on repairs that will be less than my deductible. I don't doubt that many who have insurance are not getting regularly checked out because of such issues.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
SKPhoto wrote:
PNHP is a fringe physician group that advocates for a single-payer health system.
So...a little biased.
You're a little biased. But they have data. The PNHP link merely summarizes the Health Affairs study.
SKPhoto wrote: So what's wrong with the WHO studies? Let me count the ways.
The rest of your reply deals with a WHO ranking that has nothing to do with the links. Mortality amenable to health care is a measure that largely addresses your criticisms of life expectancy.
Wye wrote: But what about the issues around changing jobs or moving to another state or discovering that whatever it is you have isn't covered by your insurance or having certain treatments or preventions be less than your deductible? I have great insurance on my car but I will generally slide on repairs that will be less than my deductible. I don't doubt that many who have insurance are not getting regularly checked out because of such issues.
I've had an existing condition for many, many years. That's part of the reason I sought work with a company that offered insurance. Eventually, I decided to go out on my own, and thanks to the COBRA laws I was able to buy my own insurance without worry about pre-existing conditions. Then, once COBRA expired (1 year) I went to a private insurance plan... and was STILL protected by law in that pre-existing conditions couldn't be considered (that law had been in place I think since the Clinton years).
Sure... if some moron waits until they get sick to finally insure themselves they're in a pickle... much like standing next to your crashed car and calling all the car insurance companies trying to find one that will sign you up and replace your car for you.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: ... the main reason many folks don't have insurance is because they chose not to pay for it.
Is there a stat on that?
I guess you could say anytime someone doesn't pay for something, it's a "choice." But some are less of a choice than others. The high number of foreclosures and bankruptcies with medical costs as a factor would indicate that the choices aren't very good. When you're meeting your bills and your employer says, "We're paying for half the insurance now instead of all," and now you've got a $400 bill that you didn't have before, the choice is harder.
To say "the main reason is because they chose not to pay for it" implies a cavalier attitude toward an expense that is, frankly, often outrageous, financially crippling, or sometimes not even available. I'm covered. It would be easy for me to sit in my ivory tower and saying, "I got it. No reason you people shouldn't." But that would be uncaring and irrational in the face of the tough financial choices, and lack of choices, that our citizens deal with in their daily lives.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: Not exactly an assessment of their healthcare system.
Of course it is. That's the whole point. You can't just cherry pick and say, 'Well our health system utterly fails those millions of people so lets not count them, ok?'
Lightcraft Studio wrote: Never mind that the main reason many folks don't have insurance is because they chose not to pay for it.
Yeah, well, some people choose to eat and have a roof over their head, and that impacts their ability to 'choose' health insurance.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: That's still not going to change with Obamacare, since many people will still opt for the much cheaper fine (or tax or whatever they call it).
And yet 'Obamacare,' as you call it, as far as it is from the Universal Healthcare we actually want, is still vigorously opposed by Conservatives, some of whom INVENTED it.
I guess you could say anytime someone doesn't pay for something, it's a "choice." But some are less of a choice than others. The high number of foreclosures and bankruptcies with medical costs as a factor would indicate that the choices aren't very good. When you're meeting your bills and your employer says, "We're paying for half the insurance now instead of all," and now you've got a $400 bill that you didn't have before, the choice is harder.
To say "the main reason is because they chose not to pay for it" implies a cavalier attitude toward an expense that is, frankly, often outrageous, financially crippling, or sometimes not even available. I'm covered. It would be easy for me to sit in my ivory tower and saying, "I got it. No reason you people shouldn't." But that would be uncaring and irrational in the face of the tough financial choices, and lack of choices, that our citizens deal with in their daily lives.
Life's about choices. Paying for health insurance should be very high on everyone's priority list... certainly higher up than new gadgets, vacations, cable TV, and other things. It's easy to understand that someone who's young and healthy would be inclined to think "I'm healthy, so I don't need to worry about insurance now... there are many other things I could do with a few hundred bucks a month".
Obamacare will only insure that MORE people are left uninsured. Fewer companies will opt to offer plans as the fines will be cheaper than offering plans. Other people will still opt not to buy their own, and just pay the very tiny fine instead... and still be without coverage.
Somewhere between 53.1-59.2% "involuntarily uninsured" according to these folks.
According to that report, 43% of the uninsured are VOLUNTARY uninsured... meaning they can afford it, but choose not to bother.
I suspect that number will only increase with Obamacare, since less competition and more regulation will only drive up the costs of insurance even more.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote: I suspect that number will only increase with Obamacare, since less competition and more regulation will only drive up the costs of insurance even more.
figurativearts wrote: how does that happen anyway? I presume its like everything else.
all the defense companies have lobbying control of congress, and congress approves huge deficit spending for defense to pay off the people giving them money to keep them in office.
WWII made it happen. Instead of isolating ourselves like we did after WWI, we chose to project our power. This was meant to curb the spread of Communism from the Soviet Union AND to able to take action in literally any part of the world quickly by having these bases all over the world.
Easier to monitor Germany and Japan if we're IN Germany and Japan.
Somewhere between 53.1-59.2% "involuntarily uninsured" according to these folks.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: According to that report, 43% of the uninsured are VOLUNTARY uninsured... meaning they can afford it, but choose not to bother.
43% is less than "most."
And what's voluntary? If a single mom is struggling to make rent, food, utilities, school costs, and car costs, and the only insurance she has a hope of affording has a $5K deductible, which makes it virtually useless for her, she might "voluntarily" forego getting that insurance, but I'd call it less than fully voluntary.
I suspect that number will only increase with Obamacare, since less competition and more regulation will only drive up the costs of insurance even more.
That's speculative. What if decreased reimbursements drive down the carrier's costs? All of this is unknown at the moment. Concrete predictions are made out of advocacy, not certainty in the process.
And what's voluntary? If a single mom is struggling to make rent, food, utilities, school costs, and car costs, and the only insurance she has a hope of affording has a $5K deductible, which makes it virtually useless for her, she might "voluntarily" forego getting that insurance, but I'd call it less than fully voluntary.
The report defines "voluntary". I think it said people who make 250% of "poverty" level.
We already provide free coverage for the poor, so we're only talking about those who simply have other "priorities".
Like I said... Obamacare is only going to make that situation even worse. We should have instead dealt with the cost of insurance by cutting barriers to interstate coverage, tort reform, and things like that. But... this bill was written behind closed doors with the drug and insurance companies who lobby Congress extensively... they will win, and the people will lose.
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,634
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Instinct Images wrote:
Although those are good indicators they are also affected by other factors such as poverty, nutrition, etc. I'd still rather see a valid comparison of the two systems rather than a blog posting.
Google is your friend! GO for it. I'm sure it's out there.
Oh--you mean you want someone else to show you and until then, you are content to believe the USA has a better system because, well, because you live in the USA...
| 
| 
| edu