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

[Ronnie]

France and Germany both have better systems but I don't see Ronnie willing to debate them.. why?  Because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Going about it incrementally isnt bad.. as long as it doesnt create loopholes and opportunities for fraud. 

The whole point of incremental improvements is that fraud and loopholes can be carefully closed or considered ahead of time.  This new goverment we have  wants things voted on without reading the details..how much fraud and loopholes will come from that kind of bum's rush?

I don't know what people think about their systems in Germany and France.  Maybe they love it, maybe they hate it.  I do know that the British hate their single payer socialized system that seems to be model for the current bill in Washington.

What I've heard about Germany is that there is not a heck of a lot of difference between theirs and ours if the truth be told.  The have competition between their "health funds" (companies), employers pay half and if you want to change doctors or hospitals you're free to do it.  The German model bears no similarity to what the US Congress is being pushed to saddle Americans with.

[Sculpto]

Eric..now you're sounding like a victim.  Yes you are a victim..no doubt about it.  But to sound like one...well, let's just say that the size of your problem may pale in comparison to those others may have. 

Sure, others might have bigger problems Ronnie, I appreciate that.. but, nevertheless some kid from Beverly Hills ran a red light but will nto have any consequences.. cops don't come to auto accidents anymore.. Daddy pays insurance.. she wasn't injured.. 90% of my time for the last 3+ weeks has been dealing with this crap.. I didn't need it and don't need it and I am freaking pissed that I am having to fight for something that I shouldn't have to fight for.  I can only imagine how bad it must be in more serious injuries. 

BTW.. did I mention.. I hate insurance companies.  As far as I am concerned they are leaches and parasites who contribute nothing useful.  Just a massive scam to milk people of hard earned money.  So, you know what, I have no sympathy for health insurance companies and I think the entire system is completely screwed up.  It isn't capitalism, it is extortion and corruption that has been institutionalized and codified.   

[Ade]

I don't know what people think about their systems in Germany and France.  Maybe they love it, maybe they hate it.  I do know that the British hate their single payer socialized system that seems to be model for the current bill in Washington.

No, not all or even most of us British "hate" the system. Of course, it's not perfect and we Brits would always find something to moan about even if it were but, given the choice, I think most Brits would choose to keep it rather than go with a fully Americanized system. FWIW, there are also private clinics in the UK (and in Norway) that people can choose to go to and pay for their health care.

[Ronnie]

Sure, others might have bigger problems Ronnie, I appreciate that.. but, nevertheless some kid from Beverly Hills ran a red light but will nto have any consequences.. cops don't come to auto accidents anymore.. Daddy pays insurance.. she wasn't injured.. 90% of my time for the last 3+ weeks has been dealing with this crap.. I didn't need it and don't need it and I am freaking pissed that I am having to fight for something that I shouldn't have to fight for.  I can only imagine how bad it must be in more serious injuries. 

BTW.. did I mention.. I hate insurance companies.  As far as I am concerned they are leaches and parasites who contribute nothing useful.  Just a massive scam to milk people of hard earned money.  So, you know what, I have no sympathy for health insurance companies and I think the entire system is completely screwed up.  It isn't capitalism, it is extortion and corruption that has been institutionalized and codified.   

You should consider one of the mutual insurance companies.  Mutual means that they are owned by the policy holders and are not for profit.  Same for Credit Unions vs banks.  The best one is right up the street from you on Van Ness...CSAA (AAA).  They find ways to pay claims they could easily deny.  the benefits of membership are outstanding too.  Get the Plus membership, it's worth the $20 extra annually.

Lloyds of London was the first such insurance company..read up on them an you might understand the valuable role insurance plays.

[Ronnie]

A British lady said on the radio today that under the NHS, they can't get mammograms after the age of 65 and cancer treatments must be paid for from one's own pocket.  Such payments from private health care can cause the person to lose all future NHS benefits.  True?

BTW the lady now lives in the USA.  I think people can get accustomed to all kinds of inconveniences and even abuses.  In the old USSR people waited on line an average of 2 hours ever day for something.  It became a normal part of life.  Here in San Diego, we meet Canadians and Brits who come here on medical holidays.  I head that the Canadian system actually shuts down in November-January when the annual funding runs out.  The doctors and nurses take a long holiday and the patients who can afford it, travel to the USA for treatments. 

[Misha]

I head that the Canadian system actually shuts down in November-January when the annual funding runs out.  The doctors and nurses take a long holiday and the patients who can afford it, travel to the USA for treatments. 

You heard wrong. Simply one of the many unfounded (and bizarre) rumors circulating in the United States about the Canadian health care system 

[Ronnie]

Thanks Misha, I was skeptical that's why I asked.  I hate it when false stuff get's passed off as true..I don't care what the agenda is.  Using falsities weakens the case.

I have met people here on medical holidays though so something must not be all it should be up north.

[Ade]

A British lady said on the radio today that under the NHS, they can't get mammograms after the age of 65 and cancer treatments must be paid for from one's own pocket.  Such payments from private health care can cause the person to lose all future NHS benefits.  True?

Actually, women between 50 and 70 are invited and this will be extended to between 47 and 73 over the next few years; this is of course free. Younger and older women that are at high risk get regular free screening too of course.

And FWIW

Why are women under 50 not invited?

Women under 50 are not offered routine screening. This is because mammograms are not as effective in pre-menopausal women. as the density of the breast tissue makes it more difficult to detect problems, and also because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in this age group. The average age of the menopause in the UK is 50. As women go past the menopause, the glandular tissue in their breast "involutes" and the breast tissue is increasingly made up of only fat. This is clearer on the mammogram and makes interpretation of the x-ray more reliable. Breast cancer is also far more common in post-menopausal women and the risk continues to increase with rising age.

Women can ask their GP to refer them to a hospital breast clinic if they are concerned about a specific breast problem or otherwise worried about the risk of breast cancer. This is not part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme, which uses a routine call and recall system to invite well women. However, the same techniques are used in both breast screening clinics and hospital breast clinics for diagnosing breast cancer and many staff work in both settings.

BTW the lady now lives in the USA.  I think people can get accustomed to all kinds of inconveniences and even abuses.  In the old USSR people waited on line an average of 2 hours ever day for something.  It became a normal part of life.  Here in San Diego, we meet Canadians and Brits who come here on medical holidays.  I head that the Canadian system actually shuts down in November-January when the annual funding runs out.  The doctors and nurses take a long holiday and the patients who can afford it, travel to the USA for treatments.  

Yes, people move to other countries for all sorts of reasons and some people have weird ideas in their heads that aren't entirely factual or rational either.

[pitbull]

America was founded on the idea that liberty means a very small role for government and that the individual is free to choose the course of his life.  He's free to refuse medical care and therefore insurance. 

The health care bill that Mr. Obama wants us to accept (the one he hasn't read), contains many abuses of an individual's freedom.  There is a fine of $2,500 annual on any person who refuses to buy health insurance. 
 

Ronnie, the problem with your "liberty" concept as it pertains to the current situation with healthcare is that many people refuse to buy health insurance, but would never refuse health care when they really need it. And the cost of their care falls on tax payers. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions in case of a major injury or illness.
Everyone should be mandated to have health insurance, and I think the $2500 fine is way too low for those who can afford, but refuse to buy it.

The other way to deal with it is to allow people refuse to buy health insurance. After all, some may think they are invincible since they are young and healthy at the moment. Others may choose to spend their money on a new car or a new plasma TV. However, with liberty comes responsibility. Such people should sign the official agreement that in case they need urgent major expensive treatment, they agree to be left to die on the steps of the hospital if they cannot pay the cost of treatment in full from their own pocket.

I received medical treatment both in FSU and in the US. In my experience the quality of treatment depends on how good your doctor is, which means you should research thoroughly and only go to the highly recommended specialists. And in both cases you should have money. Whether it is "socialized" or "free-market" kind of medicine, is often irrelevant to the professionalism of your doctor.

Personally, I hate the kind of "rat race" people live in in the US, where the vast majority is only one major incident/illness away from bankruptcy, no matter how well things look for them at the moment. The dirty little secret is that people in higher tax brackets are taxed as high or higher than the population of "socialist"  Scandinavian countries. But they have to pay for healthcare/daycare/education from their own pocket on top of the taxes.

[mies]

"You have to be really making good money in USA if you want to buy same quality apartment before you are 35."

Again, I don't know where a statement like this comes from. I'm not particularly plugged in to the under 35 segment of the population but hundreds of thousands of them have houses the size you are talking about or larger. My unmarried, 28 year old son just bought an 1800 sq. ft. (roughly 165 sq. m.), 4BR, 3BA, multilevel home in downtown Baltimore. A couple who are close friends bought the home across the street from him last December. The people across the street from my home are a couple in their early 30's and probably owned a home before this one. I purchased my first home when I was 26. This statement is just flat wrong.

As for quality of construction, I see no comparison with standards between the FSU and North America. Small, cramped rooms, plumbing that has to be periodically shut down for maintenance for weeks at a time each year, extremely poor quality concrete, limited bathroom designs, tiny balconies, woefully insufficient electrical outlet availability, no AC, inconsistent heating, elevators the size of phone booths, crumbling concrete, rotted window frames and door assemblies - all of these are the norm. Then consider land and garages. Simply better quality home construction might well add a measurable amount of time to average life expectancy in FSU countries.

i am eager to correct my opinion about the realities of USA if you will show me that my current opinion is wrong.

I have only three questions:

1) did you, your son, and other people who bought their apartments and paid for them in full immediately, or did you buy them on mortgage? If on mortgage - at what age did you finish paying the credit to the bank?

2) What was the income of you, your son, and all those people (you don't need to give the answer here - just keep it in mind for my next question)

3) in what percentile does this income fall in USA?

Again - you don't have to write the percentile here. But after you keep in mind the percentile - what's wrong with me saying that that you have to be earning really well if you want to buy apartment of this quality in USA? Do you think that 5-10% isn't called "earn really well"?

As for quality of apartments, concrete, plumbing, and so on - please don't start another argument. There are dozens of topics "FSU apartments are *snip*ty! or how wonderful life in USA is!!!"
If you read my reply carefully - you will see that I was talking about my experience. Because initial question was about my experience. And this is what my experience was. What to argue about? You don't believe that I lived in the conditions I describe? I don't see where are you aiming at with your disbelief. Are you trying to get an invitation to visit my parents? Are you trying to start some other topic? Do you want to check my knowledge of plumbing and concrete? Please clarify.

[Blues Fairy]

many people refuse to buy health insurance, but would never refuse health care when they really need it. And the cost of their care falls on tax payers. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions in case of a major injury or illness.

How so?  The uninsured person gets the bill, first and foremost.  If he/she can't pay, than through bankruptcy taxpayer foots the bill.  But suppose you give everybody health insurance for free, imagine how that will raise the taxes?
And the worst thing, they propose to tax the "rich", e.g. exactly those who create jobs in this country, the small business.  I simply don't believe that savings from Medicare and Medicaid will cover 2/3 of the cost of nationalized healthcare.  If savings in these government programs were at all feasible, wouldn't they have been enacted already, seeing how inefficient these programs are?

Personally, I hate the kind of "rat race" people live in in the US, where the vast majority is only one major incident/illness away from bankruptcy, no matter how well things look for them at the moment.

I actually felt that way while living in Moscow, but not here.

[Misha]

I have met people here on medical holidays though so something must not be all it should be up north.

The main reason why somebody would travel to another country for medical care in Canada:

1. The procedure is considered experimental or is not covered by our health care plan (rare);
2. Somebody refuses to wait for any surgery even if it is not life threatening.

You can find the median wait times online. Here is for example a site that gives you all the wait times for various surgeries in my province. You can even see average wait times by city, by hospital and even by surgeon: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/index.html.

As this site notes: "If you need surgery or treatment that is not an emergency, you will be placed on a wait list. An individual who needs emergency surgery does not go on a waitlist; they receive treatment without delay."

Types of surgeries that are not considered an emergency would be a hip replacement for example or a knee replacement.

Misha

[pitbull]

And the worst thing, they propose to tax the "rich", e.g. exactly those who create jobs in this country, the small business.  I simply don't believe that savings from Medicare and Medicaid will cover 2/3 of the cost of nationalized healthcare.  If savings in these government programs were at all feasible, wouldn't they have been enacted already, seeing how inefficient these programs are?

I actually felt that way while living in Moscow, but not here.

The proposed healthcare reform plan is too rushed, and doesn't address the costs/savings issue. Simply adding 50 mln. more people to Medicare will send the costs through the roof and bankrupt the country fast. Taxing the "rich" will not even remotely pay for it. Maintaining the status quo will bankrupt the country a bit later though.

The major way to cut costs is to ration health care. In a rational way, not the way it is done right now in the US. And it should start from Medicare, no matter how much older people will protest. With so much pressure on the increasingly scarce resource as health care it is not rational to add let's say 6 months of life to an 85-year-old for $5 mln., when you can insure (hypothetically) 20 kids through the age of 16 for the same amount. And no, we can't really have it both ways anymore.

There is a good article on this  in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&em

[Misha]

The fact of the matter is that globally the United States does not fare that well in terms of health in spite of all the money that is spent. Let's take a simple indicator such as life expectancy. According to CIA stats, the United States is ranked 51st with a life expectancy of 78.11 years. Canada is ranked 8th with a life expectancy of 81.23 years. In other words, with our "socialized" health care, we live longer. Also, the United States IIRC has higher infant mortality rates (which contributes of course to the lower life expectancy in the USA).

Source: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

[BillyB]

The fact of the matter is that globally the United States does not fare that well in terms of health in spite of all the money that is spent. Let's take a simple indicator such as life expectancy. According to CIA stats, the United States is ranked 51st with a life expectancy of 78.11 years. Canada is ranked 8th with a life expectancy of 81.23 years. In other words, with our "socialized" health care, we live longer. Also, the United States IIRC has higher infant mortality rates (which contributes of course to the lower life expectancy in the USA).

Source: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Can't use life expectancy as an example of who's health care is better unless you match apples to apples. It is a known fact that blacks and hispanics have a shorter life span than whites. Of course in America we have those minorties in large quantities. Take our whites and compare them with other countries whites, blacks with blacks and so on then you could start to say who's health care system is better quality but there are more factors involved with life span. Quality of diet has an impact on health too. In America there is an abundance of cheap food and we have a tendency to eat more than we should plugging up our arteries decreasing our life span. No matter how good the health care is, it can't cure bad habits.


Better health care can contribute lower infant mortality rates but again we need to match apples to apples to even think about how much impact health care from each country has and their quality.  Minorities in America, except Asians, have higher infant mortality rates than whites. Of course that affect the statistics. Maybe poor diet and heavy use a drugs and alcohol contribute to higher infant mortality rates.

Wikipedia says USA reports every infant newborn death but other developed countries do not. For example, if the newborn doesn't meet a certain weight or was born too early, other developed countries do not count those babies into their infant mortality rate. Of course we also know certain countires want to paint a rosy picture instead of telling what's actually happening in their county. I remember Russia's divorce rate dropped over 10% in one year! We need to do our homework on these studies before trying to relate them to certain issues, in this case health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

[Misha]

It is a known fact that blacks and hispanics have a shorter life span than whites. Of course in America we have those minorties in large quantities.

The "minorities" are quickly on their way to becoming a majority in the United States. Besides, Canada has its fair share of historically marginalized minorities that have worse health problems than the average (Canada's aboriginal First Nations for example) and we have large numbers of recent immigrants as well. So, the numbers should not be all that different given that the USA spends IIRC on average 50% more on health care per capita.

In America there is an abundance of cheap food and we have a tendency to eat more than we should plugging up our arteries decreasing our life span.

Canadians eat the same junk food and fast food as Americans.

Minorities in America, except Asians, have higher infant mortality rates than whites. Of course that affect the statistics. Maybe poor diet and heavy use a drugs and alcohol contribute to higher infant mortality rates.

See my first comment.

Wikipedia says USA reports every infant newborn death but other developed countries do not.

Canada reports every newborn death as does the USA so this is not going to be contributing to the differences between Canada and the USA.

[BillyB]

The "minorities" are quickly on their way to becoming a majority in the United States. Besides, Canada has its fair share of historically marginalized minorities that have worse health problems than the average (Canada's aboriginal First Nations for example) and we have large numbers of recent immigrants as well. So, the numbers should not be all that different given that the USA spends IIRC on average 50% more on health care per capita.

Canada's fair share of minorities is still not equal to America's. No matter how much you want to insinuate it's an apples to apples comparison and the life expectancy study should be used, I'm not going to buy it untill you show me how American whites compare to Canadian whites, and compare how long other minority groups are living in between the two countries.

Canada reports every newborn death as does the USA so this is not going to be contributing to the differences between Canada and the USA.

I showed you a website that says countries have different standards in evaluating mortality rates. America is the only one that says it counts all infants deaths no matter if they were prematurely born, underweight or undersized. Show me proof Canada does the same thing. Canada infant mortalility rate is 1.2 less per 1000 than the USA's. It is small potatoes in comparision and if all things were equal, you might be surprised or even envious where America ranks.  Maybe you'll give our current Health care system another look?

[Misha]

Canada's fair share of minorities is still not equal to America's. No matter how much you want to insinuate it's an apples to apples comparison and the life expectancy study should be used, I'm not going to buy it untill you show me how American whites compare to Canadian whites, and compare how long other minority groups are living in between the two countries.

Here is your data for the United States:

"Record high life expectancy was recorded for white and black males (76 and 70 years respectively)."

"Record high life expectancy was also recorded for white and black females (81 and 76.9 years)."

End result: overall life expectancy of 78.1 years in 2006.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111095.php

Versus Canada:

"Girls born in 2005 can expect to live 4.7 years longer than boys, with female life expectancy at 82.7 and male expectancy at 78."

Overall life expectancy for all Canadian based on 2005 data: 80.4 years.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/14/death-stats.html

Conclusion: Canadians as a whole live longer than American whites.

Show me proof Canada does the same thing.

Feel free to look at the following link: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/meas-haut/mu_c_e.html

Yes, there is some ambiguity if the child weighs less than 500 grams, but that still would not explain away the gap of 5.6 per thousand in Canada as compared to 7.8 per thousand in the United States. And, Canada still has a way to go to catch up to other countries.

It is small potatoes in comparision and if all things were equal, you might be surprised or even envious where America ranks. 

Maybe, but I doubt it. I like the system that we have, and I would never want to trade it for the American way of doing things. You can do what you want, but I find it a bit humorous the rumors and half-truths that circulate about Canada's health care system in the United States.

[Blues Fairy]

The major way to cut costs is to ration health care. In a rational way, not the way it is done right now in the US. And it should start from Medicare, no matter how much older people will protest. With so much pressure on the increasingly scarce resource as health care it is not rational to add let's say 6 months of life to an 85-year-old for $5 mln., when you can insure (hypothetically) 20 kids through the age of 16 for the same amount. And no, we can't really have it both ways anymore.

And who, according to you, should decide which elderly or disabled person gets his 6 months and who does not?
The article you are quoting is simply disgusting.  This Peter Singer is a notorious egalitarianist and animal rights activist who advocates the theory that very disabled humans are less worthy to live than adult gorillas and chimpansees.  His language regarding the treatment of disabled human beings is at times appallingly similar to the eugenic arguments used by Nazi theorists concerning "life unworthy of life."
I am quite shocked that you should agree with his views.

As for cutting the costs, why not try malpractice litigation reform and fraud reform first, and see if the Medicare/Medicaid fraud and waste (1 out of every 3 million, according to some estimates) can be put to fix the holes in the system.  But I'm guessing while the matter is in the hands of the government, nothing of the sort will be attempted.  In fact, the Congress has avoided any anti-fraud measures against Medicare/Medicaid for a while now: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Henry-Waxman---fraud-king-8011982-51515927.html

[Sculpto]

Personally, I hate the kind of "rat race" people live in in the US, where the vast majority is only one major incident/illness away from bankruptcy, no matter how well things look for them at the moment. The dirty little secret is that people in higher tax brackets are taxed as high or higher than the population of "socialist"  Scandinavian countries. But they have to pay for healthcare/daycare/education from their own pocket on top of the taxes.

That is a big part of my current frustration.  I have worked hard and smart my entire adult life.. paid my taxes.. paid my bills.. and now one stupid move from a spoiled princess and I am teetering on the brink.. I will pull out of it.. I have been in tough situations before.. but I have gone out of my way over the last several years to minimize these kinds of risks and still got kicked in the arse.  just something to think about..

[Sculpto]

a few years ago during another short period where I lacked health insurance I contracted food poisoning.  At first I didn't know what it was but on the third day the pain became so severe I had no choice but to go to the emergency room.

The doctors were mystified, couldn't figure out what was wrong.. pumped me full of electrolytes and morphine.  I was FLYIN! 

10 hours later they still had no idea what was wrong with me.  The kept me overnight and continued to run tests.

The next day.. they decided to release me "you aren't dead so it must not be that serious"

A few days later one of the doctors called and said it was food poisoning. 

The bill.. $13,000

[BillyB]

Conclusion: Canadians as a whole live longer than American whites.

Yes, there is some ambiguity if the child weighs less than 500 grams, but that still would not explain away the gap of 5.6 per thousand in Canada as compared to 7.8 per thousand in the United States. And, Canada still has a way to go to catch up to other countries.

Yes there is some ambiguity. Canada's infant mortality rate went from 27.3 to 5.6 according to the article you provided over 40+ years. Better health care isn't the only reason and maybe not the main reason. Canada changed their definition of what a human infant is and a human that doesn't not meet certain criteria if he/she dies as an infant will not be included in Canada's infant mortality statistics because..... that infant isn't considered an infant but by the American definition, it is.

If the rest of the developed World used the same methods as the USA to determine infant mortality rates, their life expectancy would go down wouldn't it? Misha, I knew even if you find a study that shows life expectancy of Canadians vs. Americans is larger, there's always something else that will keep you from matching apples to apples. In this case infant mortality rate.

It's possible if everything is equal when it comes to infant mortality rate, American's may live longer than Canadians and you'll start to wonder how great the doctors are here to keep our #1 obese population alive so long.

Even if you find a study that shows Canadians live longer if all things are equal when making an infant mortality rate study, you still won't convince me the health care system is better.

You did not tell us the entire truth earlier when you said Canadians eat the same food as Americans. We are fatter twice the rate of you guys up North. On an individual level, we decrease our own life expectancy and poor health care isn't to blame as you would like us to believe.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Now we need to find a group of people from Canada and America from the same ethnic background, same infant mortality testing and the same diet and then we may be getting close to seeing who's health care program will keep those guys living longer.

[Misha]

Yes there is some ambiguity. Canada's infant mortality rate went from 27.3 to 5.6 according to the article you provided over 40+ years. Better health care isn't the only reason and maybe not the main reason.

Billy, you really, really, really want to believe that the United States is the only country in the world with decent health care  Yes, child mortality went down, and it is not merely a question of how you define when it is a miscarriage versus a case of infant mortality. Just admit that you won't believe any credible stats that don't support your conclusion, and we can agree to disagree  It is normal that child mortality went down in Canada as health service improved, new vaccines were introduced, more was done to help poor families, better roads were built making it easier to bring women and children to hospitals.... 

Canada changed their definition of what a human infant is and a human that doesn't not meet certain criteria if he/she dies as an infant will not be included in Canada's infant mortality statistics because..... that infant isn't considered an infant but by the American definition, it is.

Again, 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.

Misha, I knew even if you find a study that shows life expectancy of Canadians vs. Americans is larger, there's always something else that will keep you from matching apples to apples. In this case infant mortality rate.

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. Maybe white, skinny vegans who floss twice a day have a longer life expectancy than the average Canadian  :evil:

It's possible if everything is equal when it comes to infant mortality rate, American's may live longer than Canadians and you'll start to wonder how great the doctors are here to keep our #1 obese population alive so long.

There is such a thing as preventative medicine Billy, and helping people lose weight is one important tool in preventative medicine, along with helping them to stop smoking. However, Canadians are hardly a slim and fit population  I do agree that American obesity is epidemic and contributing to making your population less healthy than it should be. Still, Canada spends a lot less on health care than the United States. This should balance things out, but it doesn't.

Even if you find a study that shows Canadians live longer if all things are equal when making an infant mortality rate study, you still won't convince me the health care system is better.

Because it is an article of faith.

You did not tell us the entire truth earlier when you said Canadians eat the same food as Americans. We are fatter twice the rate of you guys up North. On an individual level, we decrease our own life expectancy and poor health care isn't to blame as you would like us to believe.

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.

Now we need to find a group of people from Canada and America from the same ethnic background, same infant mortality testing and the same diet and then we may be getting close to seeing who's health care program will keep those guys living longer.

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.

[Misha]

Sorry, posted twice.

[pitbull]

And who, according to you, should decide which elderly or disabled person gets his 6 months and who does not?
The article you are quoting is simply disgusting.  This Peter Singer is a notorious egalitarianist and animal rights activist who advocates the theory that very disabled humans are less worthy to live than adult gorillas and chimpansees.  His language regarding the treatment of disabled human beings is at times appallingly similar to the eugenic arguments used by Nazi theorists concerning "life unworthy of life."
I am quite shocked that you should agree with his views.

As for cutting the costs, why not try malpractice litigation reform and fraud reform first, and see if t

Yes, there is no doubt it's tough - emotionally and ethically - to talk about rationing of such vital thing as health care. However, it is being rationed alright in the US right now. By people's ability to pay and by whatever level of healthcare your health insurance determines as profitable. Like life-time benefit after which you are denied coverage (often $1-5mln.), like limiting the number of procedures covered, or not covering a more expensive cancer treatment because it is deemed as "experimental". Like having a whole unit whose job is to dig through patient's records and find the smallest "reason" to deny coverage or payment of bills (the "Aetna" scandal"). People die as the result of this all the time. And insurance companies don't care if a child or a19-year-old dies because he/she is denied "experimental" (read expensive") cancer treatment, even though it could have added 70-80 years to his/her life.

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?

In Britain the "rationing" is done by independent institute of scientists and doctors, which at least is logical. In the US - by insurance bureaucrats, based solely on how profitable/unprofitable human life is.

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.

And yes, hypocrisy left aside, and looking at facts, I agree with Dr. Singer's reasoning.