Ladies, are you receiving better healthcare in the United States?

[Sculpto]

I will agree with you here that American obesity is making Americans sicker. However, this hardly proves that the American health care system is better than the Canadian one. I take a more balanced view: the Canadian health care system is better for the entire population, produces good family doctors (general practitioners) and is quite proactive in trying to deal with health care problems before it is necessary to go to the hospital. The American system is better if you have a very good plan or have a lot of money or want to get something done immediately. All told, I still prefer the Canadian way of doing things.

Again, you want to compare those white vegans who floss regularly Sorry, I prefer looking at the stats as to how health care systems treat the entire population, not just privileged minorities.

Really well said Misha.  I am too passionate sometimes to be as articulate as I could/should be.  

[Blues Fairy]

So, this type of rationing is not "disgusting" and "appalling", because it is less visible? Or just because it is "free market capitalism" type of rationing, which is by definition better than done by government?
And yes, hypocrisy left aside, and looking at facts, I agree with Dr. Singer's reasoning.

The creepiness of Dr. Singer is in the way he rationalizes how a disabled life is less worthy of living than a healthy life, and the life of 85-year-old is less valuable than a teenager's.  Do you not see it?  If you still don't, then let me ask a question: from whose point of view are the values being set? The society, the humanity, the government?

The reason it's disgusting and appalling is precisely because the values on lives are being set from a point of view of "general good" decided by someone for me, not by ME, the individual.  Once again, I'm much more comfortable pulling my own plug than having some abstract entity decide it for me, because deciding how valuable my life is is my sacred individual right.  In this line of reasoning, people making personal arrangements with private insurance companies are much more within my system of values than your "general good" funded and rationed by totalitarian health care system.  And it's not like poor teenagers are denied medical care, under current circumstances.  That's just not the case.  

And no, no one is saying the 85-year-old should not have a right to add 6 more months to his/her life with a $5 mln. procedure. He/she or their family may pay for it, and there should be an option for supplementary private insurance for such cases. As long as it is not covered from public resources.

The article says and you repeat that it's an assumption that private and public insurance systems should co-exist to make this possible.  Once the government takes control of the healthcare, I don't think 85-year-olds will have enough private options to choose from.  Once the government enters the insurance market as a player/rule setter, healthy competition will be annihilated.  Government competes with private companies like alligator competes with ducks.

[Blues Fairy]

glitch

[BillyB]

I am sure that American women have as many miscarriages as Canadian women, and I am sure they are not all counted as infant mortality.
 

You do not fully understand the infant mortality rates you have provided. There are children being born live who die soon after. Unfortunately Canada and other countries do not consider these children human because they are prematurely born, underweight or undersized. So it seems they have less people dying and a better health care system when in fact they have different definitions on what is human and what isn't.

Billy, just admit that there is not proof that you will ever accept. You want to believe that the United States is better. Maybe we can find a stat more to your liking.

What proof have you provided? I've seen those who want to promote socialized health care throw studies of life expectancy and infant mortality rate out as hard evidence that one health care system is better than the other. You're not happy everyone accepts it. I showed you good reasons not to accept it but you now think it's my stubbornness that prevents me from seeing the light you're trying to shine.


Besides obesity, there are many other factors that can contribute to increased or decreased life expectancy that has nothing to do with health care. Maybe Americans do drugs more contributing to our demise. Maybe we drink and drive more. We certainly live in tighter quarters and we probably crash into each other more on the roads. Maybe we work more and fall asleep at the wheel more often. Since we work more, we have more stress decreasing life span. There are many other factors I could list.

Our individual bad habits and outside conditions beyond our control hurt our life span. It's possible if we adopt Canada's health care program, we'd die even quicker based on the way we live. It's possible if Canada adopts America's system and the type of doctors it puts out, Canadians may live longer.

Bottom line here is the two studies you provided are not solid or acceptable evidence on who's health care system is better. I've seen politicians and media claiming that but I don't believe everything I hear or read.

[Sculpto]

Billy..

the problem is those great American doctors are being strangled by the insurance companies, and, their great services are not available to a much too large part of the population.

The doctors themselves want reform.. maybe all us "experts" should be listening to them instead of interjecting some pretty limited viewpoints on the subject that are far too politicized by dogma and three decades of right wing propaganda to be of any value.

[Misha]

You do not fully understand the infant mortality rates you have provided. There are children being born live who die soon after. Unfortunately Canada and other countries do not consider these children human because they are prematurely born, underweight or undersized.

No Billy, a baby who is born breathing in Canada and dies will be considered an infant mortality. A child that died in the womb in the early stages of pregnancy will be considered a miscarriage. This is pretty much the case in the United States as well. Yes, there are hues of gray, but you simply do not want to accept the evidence that infant mortality is higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries and you merely obfuscate to avoid addressing the facts.

What proof have you provided?

Again, I provided infant mortality and life expectancy as indicators of overall health. You want to cherry pick. Seemingly, the health of African-Americans or other minorities count less in your analysis   It is quite simple: those who have money, usually have better health care in the United States. I agree that those with money do better than those who don't in your country.

Our individual bad habits and outside conditions beyond our control hurt our life span. It's possible if we adopt Canada's health care program, we'd die even quicker based on the way we live. It's possible if Canada adopts America's system and the type of doctors it puts out, Canadians may live longer.

Based on personal experience, the Canadian health care is quite decent. Yes, we have longer wait times for some procedures, but I have my choice of family doctor and if I am really sick I can go to the hospital without worrying whether my coverage will pay for it. Looking around me, I can't really think of anybody who is dying because of poor health care. Yes, it would be nice if all those who needed knee replacements would get them immediately, but I am happy that we have decent health care that covers everybody, as opposed to having health care that covers fewer people and allows some to get treatment immediately. Overall, I believe that this approach results in a healthier population, fewer deaths and much less stress.

Bottom line here is the two studies you provided are not solid or acceptable evidence on who's health care system is better. I've seen politicians and media claiming that but I don't believe everything I hear or read.

Billy, I am not going to waste my time finding study after study when you clearly do not want to accept any evidence that challenges your point of view. Again, you take as a given that the American way is better and will never accept any evidence to the contrary.

[BillyB]

No Billy, a baby who is born breathing in Canada and dies will be considered an infant mortality. A child that died in the womb in the early stages of pregnancy will be considered a miscarriage. This is pretty much the case in the United States as well. Yes, there are hues of gray, but you simply do not want to accept the evidence that infant mortality is higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries and you merely obfuscate to avoid addressing the facts.

I think I'll take my chances and believe that article you provided a few hours ago over what you're saying now in that Canada has inconsistencies in handling live births weighing less than 500 g for infant mortality calculations. Canada does not consider an infant who's born alive breathing an infant if it's under 500g otherwise Canada would order all doctors to report their deaths as if they were an infant human being.

 Again, I provided infant mortality and life expectancy as indicators of overall health.

No, you wanted to sell us on socialized health care. Go back and read what you said. You mention two studies about life expectancy and infant mortality and said "In other words, with our socialized health care, we live longer." Oh well, I guess I'm the one that can't come to grips with facts. :noidea:

[Sculpto]

Billy.. what I understand about your position is there is nothing at all wrong with our current system.  Is that true?

[Misha]

I think I'll take my chances and believe that article you provided a few hours ago over what you're saying now in that Canada has inconsistencies in handling live births weighing less than 500 g for infant mortality calculations. Canada does not consider an infant who's born alive breathing an infant if it's under 500g otherwise Canada would order all doctors to report their deaths as if they were an infant human being.

Again, if you reread the link, you will see that there are sometimes inconsistencies as a foetus that ends before the child reaches a certain stage may not be considered an infant mortality (i.e. will be considered a miscarriage). You are reading this as saying that it will never be considered an infant mortality in the statistics  Again, the occasional discrepancy does not explain away the much higher infant mortality in the United States.

No, you wanted to sell us on socialized health care.

I am not selling anything, just pointing out the obvious: in spite of all the money that the United States spends on health care, the health of all Americans (not just those you want to count) is on average worse than virtually all the other industrialized countries of Europe as well as Canada. I am arguing that life expectancy as a good indicator of overall health: healthy populations live longer. If you do not accept this premise, then I will not argue with you. Blame it on obesity if you will, but clearly the United States spends a lot on health care, with many millions not covered, and what are the results?

Oh well, I guess I'm the one that can come to grips with facts. :noidea:

If that is what you want to believe Billy, feel free 

[BillyB]

Billy.. what I understand about your position is there is nothing at all wrong with our current system.  Is that true?

How did you come to that conclusion? I never said the American health care is the best in the World unlike others in this thread saying certain other countries are the best. I've used words such as "could", "may", and "possibly" America's health care system could be better than other countries socialized health care if we could see studies based on apples to apples comparison. I see pros and cons to all health care systems.

[Sculpto]

How did you come to that conclusion? I never said the American health care is the best in the World unlike others in this thread saying certain other countries are the best. I've used words such as "could", "may", and "possibly" America's health care system could be better than other countries socialized health care if we could see studies based on apples to apples comparison. I see pros and cons to all health care systems.

yet I was under the misimpression that you were indicating a belief that our system is superior. 

I know you were in the service Billy.. did you ever live in another country independently?  Just asking.. nothing implied..

[BillyB]

 
I know you were in the service Billy.. did you ever live in another country independently?  Just asking.. nothing implied..

Do you consider living in another country under military orders independent? I've stayed and drove all over Mexico for 3 weeks, Panama a month, Vietnam a year and Germany for 4 years besides traveling to numerous other countries on shorter stays. I liked something about every place I've been but based on the overall package, I like living in the USA.

[Sculpto]

Do you consider living in another country under military orders independent? I've stayed and drove all over Mexico for 3 weeks, Panama a month, Vietnam a year and Germany for 4 years besides traveling to numerous other countries on shorter stays. I liked something about every place I've been but based on the overall package, I like living in the USA.

If you lived on base no.  If you lived off base but still had access to the amenities on base, no.  And please do not take that to minimize whatever you went through in VN. 

I ask for the following reason.

When I first went to live in Mexico, I was frankly scared to death.  I was worried someone would try and rob, scam, attack or otherwise harm me.  It took no less than six months to get over this feeling that I was a target.  later on I learned that I was mostly not even noticed.  At first I was filled with negative biases, in particular about health care.  Then, I had an incident.

While traveling in the jungle in Guatemala I contracted hepatitis A.  I actually got it from my roomate, but, with the incubation period it didn't hit me until I was in the worst possible place I could have been.  From the first indicator I was sick until I got back home about 5 days had passed, during which time I became severely dehydrated and jaundiced.

My friends saved my life.  The combination of an ambulance doctor, an excellent pharmacist and old fashioned "womens knowledge" I was nursed back to health.  Cost to me for the doctor's house calls, $0.  Cost to me for the pharmacist house calls $0.  The Doc and Pharmacist both came twice. 

When I got back to the states about 7 weeks later my Mom insisted I go to the doctor even though I mostly felt better.  Of course the blood test came back positive for hep, so, then I was being harassed by the public health officials, forced to submit to more blood work and spend more money out of pocket because I did not have health insurance at the time.  During that entire period of being poked and prodded not once did i ever feel like anyone gave a damn about my health.  The doctor thought it was interesting because hep is so rare int he states.. the health officials were just about in a panic and threatened to put me in quarantine. 

So, you tell me.. whats better? 

Some people are comfortable with what is FAMILIAR and confuse that with BETTER.  I see that in Americans more than in any other nationality.

No judgements here.. just observations and a bit of opinion.

btw.. where in Mex did you go?

[pitbull]

The creepiness of Dr. Singer is in the way he rationalizes how a disabled life is less worthy of living than a healthy life, and the life of 85-year-old is less valuable than a teenager's.  Do you not see it?  If you still don't, then let me ask a question: from whose point of view are the values being set? The society, the humanity, the government?

/quote]



I do not agree that he rationalizes that the life of a 85 year old is less valuable than a teenager's. He is describing one of the methods (widely used for more than 30 years) to allocate health care, provided by PUBLIC sources, as it isn’t possible to provide everyone with all beneficial treatments. The quality-adjusted life-year, albeit not an ideal way, is the best we have and is being used (in Great Britain for example). And if to reduce it's complexity to one example, if a $5 mln. treatment adds 70 years to a teenagers life or 6 months to the life of 85-year-old, it's more benificial for the society (PUBLIC resources, remember) or probably even for a patient, to spend money treating the teenager.

By the way, in "free market healthcare competition" environment, your life in most cases is worth exactly how much you can pay for it. And if you cannot pay any more (major illness-loss of work-you do not qualify for disability), insurance company could care less about you, be you a teenager or an 85-year-old.

As to the choice, with preexisting condition and not much money to pay sky-high premiums, there is hardly any "choice" at all.

As to the supplemental insurance that covers the cost of procedures not covered under government, this works in at least two countries that I know of - Australia and Israel. Don't see why this wouldn't work in the US.

Here is the exact quote from the article. Makes perfect sense to me, don't see any better way out:

"Rationing public health care limits free choice if private health insurance is prohibited. But many countries combine free national health insurance with optional private insurance. Australia, where I’ve spent most of my life and raised a family, is one. The U.S. could do something similar. This would mean extending Medicare to the entire population, irrespective of age, but without Medicare’s current policy that allows doctors wide latitude in prescribing treatments for eligible patients. Instead, Medicare for All, as we might call it, should refuse to pay where the cost per QALY is extremely high. (On the other hand, Medicare for All would not require more than a token copayment for drugs that are cost-effective.) The extension of Medicare could be financed by a small income-tax levy, for those who pay income tax — in Australia the levy is 1.5 percent of taxable income. (There’s an extra 1 percent surcharge for those with high incomes and no private insurance. Those who earn too little to pay income tax would be carried at no cost to themselves.) Those who want to be sure of receiving every treatment that their own privately chosen physicians recommend, regardless of cost, would be free to opt out of Medicare for All as long as they can demonstrate that they have sufficient private health insurance to avoid becoming a burden on the community if they fall ill. Alternatively, they might remain in Medicare for All but take out supplementary insurance for health care that Medicare for All does not cover. Every American will have a right to a good standard of health care, but no one will have a right to unrationed health care. Those who opt for unrationed health care will know exactly how much it costs them"[/

[Ronnie]

Here is one man's perspective.  Daniel Hannan is MEP.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI6uyhRcZLY[/youtube]

[Ronnie]

Could Cloward and Piven be the inspiration for what's happening in
America?

http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=1878

[Ade]

Here is one man's perspective.  Daniel Hannan is MEP.

Seriously dude 

Do you know who this guy is and what his standing is even among his own conservative party?  Here's a from the conservative MEP spokesperson for you, ""David Cameron has made it clear that the NHS is a number one priority for us. The Conservative party is fully supportive of a healthcare system that is free for all who need it. That is the belief and position that Timothy Kirkhope, the leader of Conservative MEPs, and his colleagues also support"

It doesn't at all surprise me that a biased right ring news channel such as Fox could dig out someone from the bottom of the British MEP barrel to support their agenda.

[Blues Fairy]

I do not agree that he rationalizes that the life of a 85 year old is less valuable than a teenager's.
It's more benificial for the society (PUBLIC resources, remember) or probably even for a patient, to spend money treating the teenager.

By the way, in "free market healthcare competition" environment, your life in most cases is worth exactly how much you can pay for it. And if you cannot pay any more (major illness-loss of work-you do not qualify for disability), insurance company could care less about you, be you a teenager or an 85-year-old.

So you don't agree with his rationalization, huh.    And yet in the next sentence you rationalize it yourself from the point of common good, society, commune etc etc.  

You see, in the free market you deplore, however large bills you later get stuck with, you will still get treatment for your condition, immediately upon need, with no discussion of how valuable your life is.  It's up to you and only you to figure out how much you can afford and what resources to use.  A public option will inevitably be rationed, and not in the ways it pays for treatment, but in the way it delivers treatment.  That's what worries and appalls me.  

Having said that, I would like to remind you that even now, with mostly private healthcare in the US, there are subsidized options for teenagers and kids at the state level (State Children's Health Insurance Program).

[gemini]

Did anybody watch the movie "Sicko" directed by Michael Moore? I would recommend to watch all the movie. This movie won Oscar in 2008.

 

[ECOCKS]

That was a cute clip.

Scaremongering and biased, bbut cute nonetheless.

[gemini]

That was a cute clip.

Scaremongering and biased, bbut cute nonetheless.

It is not clip, it is part of the movie that won Oscar, as I mentioned.

[Ronnie]

It is not clip, it is part of the movie that won Oscar, as I mentioned.

Gemini, in our vernacular a "clip" is a part of a movie.  Just so you know.

[ECOCKS]

It is not clip, it is part of the movie that won Oscar, as I mentioned.

As Ronnie mentions, a clip refers to a portion of a movie. I understand it is part of a larger picture.

The simple fact is that out of all the folks I grew up with, worked with, meet in line of business, students, etc., none have ever come up with stories like this. I also worked for over 2 years in one of the largest public hospitals in the US and stories like this are rare.

[gemini]

Gemini, in our vernacular a "clip" is a part of a movie.  Just so you know.

From Wikipedia: Video clips are short clips of video, usually part of a longer piece. The term is also more loosely used to mean any short video less than the length of a traditional television program.

You are right, I am wrong. 

[Ronnie]

I confess I have a secret crush on a gal named Peggy.  Ssshhh, don't tell my wife!

Peggy Noonan weighs in on this issue and, as she has been all her life, she's brilliant.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306533556532364.html