Basic values regarding universal healthcare

[JakeHarley]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've recently discovered this forum and have been catching up on many of the debates from the sideline.

I noticed a lot of passionate discourse in threads discussing universal healthcare, and realized that there were some fundamental, unresolvable (?) value differences between posters. Out of curiosity, I would like to see which of the above statements the majority of people posting and reading here identify with.

Thanks for your vote,

Jake

 

[docB]

Your poll choices assume that compassion and wealth accumulation can not both be valuable to someone. It's pretty transparent that you lean toward "compassion" which in this arena I expect will be equated with universal health care.

 

[Shredder]

theres always somebody in every poll wanting the "both" easy option. the poll asks which is valued more. sometimes black and white choices just have to be made. i dont see much bias/transparency, seems pretty even handed to me

 

[JakeHarley]

DocB--you are right about my own values, however, I was hoping to make a non-biased poll and trusting that people would feel comfortable to answer honestly given the voting is anonymous.

I realize it is possible to value both to some extent, but I want to know which is valued more on average. I am guessing that most people do indeed value one of the options more than the other.

Take care,

Jake

Edit: I agree that there are certainly those out there who can hold both values quite highly--look at Gates for instance! However, its still interesting to me which people would choose if forced to choose between the two.

But,I'm no professional sociologist!

 

[docB]

But you have created a poll that is clearly biased by the way it asks the question. "Compassion" sounds great, warm and fuzzy. "Accumulation of wealth" sounds like something a robber baron would do.

Here's an example of biased questions going both ways:

Do you favor the killing of innocent fetuses at the whim of the mother or do you cherish life?

Do you support the death of innnocent women by back alley abortionists or a woman's right to choose?

Clearly biased questions.

If you really care what people think you could rephrase your questions:

free market vs. socalized healthcare
multi payor vs. single payor helathcare
current vs. universal helathcare

 

[docB]

theres always somebody in every poll wanting the "both" easy option. the poll asks which is valued more. sometimes black and white choices just have to be made. i dont see much bias/transparency, seems pretty even handed to me

I don't want both. I object to the biased nature of the question. I think "compassion" is great. Since "compassion" in this instance is being used as a code word for socalized healthcare I suppose I must oppose it.

 

[JakeHarley]

But you have created a poll that is clearly biased by the way it asks the question. "Compassion" sounds great, warm and fuzzy. "Accumulation of wealth" sounds like something a robber baron would do.

Here's an example of biased questions going both ways:

Do you favor the killing of innocent fetuses at the whim of the mother or do you cherish life?

Do you support the death of innnocent women by back alley abortionists or a woman's right to choose?

Clearly biased questions.

If you really care what people think you could rephrase your questions:

free market vs. socalized healthcare
multi payor vs. single payor helathcare
current vs. universal helathcare

Excellent point. I would have liked to have used any of the three formats you suggested.

Still curious to see what kind of response we get...I suspect people can see through the unintended bias--I'm not exactly calling capitalists killers of innocent women.

 

[FoughtFyr]

theres always somebody in every poll wanting the "both" easy option. the poll asks which is valued more. sometimes black and white choices just have to be made. i dont see much bias/transparency, seems pretty even handed to me

Really, this seems unbiased to you? Go look at the "compassion" in the socialized systems in Canada, there are literally people dying in the ED waiting rooms, ambulance diversions are a huge crisis (and have been for almost 10 years now) and basic definitive care for controllable diseases (e.g., PCTA for MI) is not routinely provided within therapeutic timeframes. Or the "compassion" in South Africa where a dual system of private "insured" hospitals and state run socialized ones exists. Guess which actually provides timely treatment, preventative care, etc. Face it, socialized medicine is not "compassionate" any more than the U.S. system is based on wealth accumulation.

- H

 

[docB]

Excellent point. I would have liked to have used any of the three formats you suggested.

Still curious to see what kind of response we get...I suspect people can see through the unintended bias--I'm not exactly calling capitalists killers of innocent women.

Ok. Let's see what people say.

BTW I know you were not as inflammatory as I was in my examples. I was just making a point.

 

[Shredder]

i see what you guys mean about bias. to me "compassion" has a negative stigma since its associated with the left and socialism in all its forms. so i steered clear of it. i see how it makes compassion and accumulation of wealth somewhat mutually exclusive

 

[docB]

i see what you guys mean about bias. to me "compassion" has a negative stigma since its associated with the left and socialism in all its forms. so i steered clear of it. i see how it makes compassion and accumulation of wealth somewhat mutually exclusive

Zing! Quite Coulteresue.

 

[mshheaddoc]

I don't want both. I object to the biased nature of the question. I think "compassion" is great. Since "compassion" in this instance is being used as a code word for socalized healthcare I suppose I must oppose it.

I have to say I agree.

I'm not after accumulations of wealth and I honestly don't see how that has anything to do with socialized healthcare in the regard that their system although it maybe be based on "spreading" the wealth and allowing everyone equal access, is still flawed in that most can't get the access that they need therefore they turn to private insurance anyway (in most of the countries where socialized medicine is implemented).

I'm not going to vote because I don't think it makes sense. As I'm not for socialized care due to other issues. I'm not going to say I want a stable salary and I feel I'm a very compassionate person, but to compare the two in this context isn't the root of the question.

 

[QuikClot]

"their system although it maybe be based on "spreading" the wealth and allowing everyone equal access, is still flawed in that most can't get the access that they need therefore they turn to private insurance anyway (in most of the countries where socialized medicine is implemented).

This is a myth. It's utterly baseless. Any number of studies cited ad nauseam by SDNs attest to the fact that universal care provides everyone with the healthcare they need. People "turn" to private healthcare for one of two reasons:

* Private healthcare is part and parcel of the universe care system, as in France and Germany. Many "universal" systems are not nationalized healthcare or single payer; they are universal in that they provide insurance at no cost to those who can't afford it.

* They want (but do not need) more comfort, ease of access, etc. Much the same way people opt out of America's schools (free to all) in favor of private school.

You are, of course, more than welcome to provide evidence to support your account of universal healthcare but, without such evidence, this mythical account of failing national healthcare is one that was been frequently raised and thoughly trashed on SDN.

 

[JakeHarley]

Really, this seems unbiased to you? Go look at the "compassion" in the socialized systems in Canada, there are literally people dying in the ED waiting rooms, ambulance diversions are a huge crisis (and have been for almost 10 years now) and basic definitive care for controllable diseases (e.g., PCTA for MI) is not routinely provided within therapeutic timeframes. Or the "compassion" in South Africa where a dual system of private "insured" hospitals and state run socialized ones exists.
- H

Ditto Quickclot....I don't know where people get this notion of mass tragedy in Canadian hospitals from.

Also, there seems to be a lot of confusion re "socialist" system vs. "single-payer" system.

Canada does NOT have a socialized system--most clinics and many hospitals are private entities. What they do have is a single-payer system, with the government being the single entity that pays for all healthcare. It seems to me this is a huge benefit for the average citizen in a couple of ways:

1) Nobody is without basic care
2) Tax cost of the single-payer system is offset by the reduced economic burden on workers and employers to cover healthcare costs
3) A couple of profit making entities, namely managed care organizations and healthcare insurers, are eliminated from the system, lowering the cost of care for the single-payer (who is spending your tax dollars on it.)

Face it, socialized medicine is not "compassionate" any more than the U.S. system is based on wealth accumulation.

I wonder about your assertion that the U.S. system isn't based on wealth accumulation--the majority of the system is made up by entities whose sole purpose is making money for shareholders! Drug companies, insurers (health and malpractice), managed care, hospitals, physicians, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying that we have to eliminate the free-market aspects of our system, as others have pointed out it is surely responsible for many great innovations that we enjoy. However, I am curious about the possibilty of making alterations that will allow us to cover everyone....in essence, approaching basic healthcare as a right rather than as a priveledge, which is how our system is currently set up.

Guess which actually provides timely treatment, preventative care, etc.

Well, the Canadians et al have these covered for everyone. We've got 45 million people with no health insurance coverage, and our government is still paying more of our GDP on healthcare costs than theirs are!

United States: 15% GDP on healthcare costs--not everyone covered
Canada: 10% of GDP--everyone covered
Germany: 11% of GDP--everyone covered
Switzerland 11% of GDP--everyone covered
France: 9% of GDP--everyone covered

Thoughts?

 

[QuikClot]

Perhaps that is the real flaw in pitting compassion against wealth creation; the current system is so inefficient and wasteful, as well as cruel, that a strong case can be made that it is a major competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace and hence hinders bright young things' efforts to accumulate wealth.

Thus a fairer question might be:

Do you value either compassion or the ability to accumulate wealth, or is your passionate attachment to right-wing idealogy more powerful than both?

 

[red dot]

Your poll choices assume that compassion and wealth accumulation can not both be valuable to someone. It's pretty transparent that you lean toward "compassion" which in this arena I expect will be equated with universal health care.

i like your signature. hilarious but sadly true.

 

[trustwomen]

Go look at the "compassion" in the socialized systems in Canada, there are literally people dying in the ED waiting rooms, ambulance diversions are a huge crisis (and have been for almost 10 years now) and basic definitive care for controllable diseases (e.g., PCTA for MI) is not routinely provided within therapeutic timeframes.

Compared to the US, where people go on the internet for home remedies to treat gallstones and cure infections etc. because they have no access to health care at all? And I'm sure ambulance diversions are not a big deal for the US middle and upper class, but what about everyone else? I've waited longer, on average, in US emergency rooms than in Canadian ones before being seen.

I'm SICK of people comparing the American system for the wealthy with the Canadian system for everyone. Yes, if that is the comparison, you win. But we vaccinate ALL our children, damnit, and we have a public health program that actually works. The Canadian system provides a level of care that is far far better than what the AVERAGE American receives. I've worked in health care in the US. I've seen the discrepancies between "rich care" and "poor care". I could NEVER EVER be a part of that inhumane system. Up here, I may earn half of what you will earn down there, but I will sleep twice as soundly. I may pay a lot more taxes, but I will do so gratefully, knowing that by doing so I'm helping out my fellow Canadians and not feeding a monstrous war machine. And I will never have to discharge a dying man because his insurance ran out.

I'm done.

 

[Squad51]

Compared to the US, where people go on the internet for home remedies to treat gallstones and cure infections etc. because they have no access to health care at all? And I'm sure ambulance diversions are not a big deal for the US middle and upper class, but what about everyone else? I've waited longer, on average, in US emergency rooms than in Canadian ones before being seen.

I'm SICK of people comparing the American system for the wealthy with the Canadian system for everyone. Yes, if that is the comparison, you win. But we vaccinate ALL our children, damnit, and we have a public health program that actually works. The Canadian system provides a level of care that is far far better than what the AVERAGE American receives. I've worked in health care in the US. I've seen the discrepancies between "rich care" and "poor care". I could NEVER EVER be a part of that inhumane system. Up here, I may earn half of what you will earn down there, but I will sleep twice as soundly. I may pay a lot more taxes, but I will do so gratefully, knowing that by doing so I'm helping out my fellow Canadians and not feeding a monstrous war machine. And I will never have to discharge a dying man because his insurance ran out.

I'm done.

Actually EVERYONE in America has access to healthcare. A law called EMTALA provides for the emergency treatment for anyone who is ill. All they have to do is show up at a hospital. And there are extreme limits on the hospital's ability to pursue the bill. The problem is not access to emergency care for infections or gallstones but rather to the basic routine care that might prevent the emergency in the first place. And if you work in Canada you are right, you will never "have to discharge a dying man because his insurance ran out" - because the elderly don't get the heroic surgeries that might save their lives, they die at home (which is another debate altogether). BTW - the same law (EMTALA) prevents the discharge, for any reason other than "against medical advice", of any unstable patient. I think "dying" would de facto be unstable.

As for the anti-Bush, anti-war rant in your post, those are other arguments I'm not going to get into here.

BTW - How's the seal hunt going?

 

[QuikClot]

Technically, three words ("monsterous war machine") is not a "rant." Maybe an "allusion" but certainally no more than that. 😉

You are correct that we have universal healthcare via the emergency room . . . which is a crappy, inefficient way to provide healthcare, which is why we spend twice as much as other rich nations and get worse care (measured by outcomes.)

Periodically people pop in with anecdotal evidence of people waiting a long time or denied care in Canada or some other universal-care nations (which includes virtually every wealthy nation in the world). Studies have repeatly debunked these criticisms, but the facts have no effect on the ideologues (which is also, coincidently, why they can continue to defend the blundering idiot directing our monsterous war machine 😀 ). The simple, irrefutable comparison is between outcomes; Canadians live longer, lose fewer days to sickness and injury, have lower infant mortality, etc.

Since we do, in a sense, cover everyone, there ought to be no barrier to society-wide comparisons. And we lose, every time.

 

[Squad51]

Periodically people pop in with anecdotal evidence of people waiting a long time or denied care in Canada or some other universal-care nations (which includes virtually every wealthy nation in the world). Studies have repeatly debunked these criticisms, but the facts have no effect on the ideologues (which is also, coincidently, why they can continue to defend the blundering idiot directing our monsterous war machine 😀 ). The simple, irrefutable comparison is between outcomes; Canadians live longer, lose fewer days to sickness and injury, have lower infant mortality, etc.

Since we do, in a sense, cover everyone, there ought to be no barrier to society-wide comparisons. And we lose, every time.

While the outcomes measures might support the Canadian system, I would argue there are FAR too many possible confounders to draw accurate comparisons. As for the so-called studies that "prove" the efficacy of the Canadian system, none have supported the idea for a nation the size of the U.S. Nor would the rural U.S. population accept the lack of access to emergency care that plagues most of Canada (on a geographic basis). It is simply a different culture. Since you are an EMS guy, here is some interesting reading for you: http://www.winnipeg.ca/fps/pdfs/emergency_response_risk_analysis.pdf. I quote from page 126,

"Canada’s medical system has been described as “under siege” in popular media
reports. Recent changes to the healthcare system have cut the capacities of many of the
nation’s hospitals, including those in Winnipeg. It is not uncommon for 15 of 20
emergency department (ED) beds to be occupied with patients waiting for space to
become available elsewhere in a hospital. As a result, patients often “stack up” in the
ED, spilling out into the hallways. This has given rise to the use of the term “hallway
medicine” to describe Winnipeg’s EDs. When ambulances arrive “there is just no place
to put [the patients],” according to one charge nurse. Paramedics have documented waits
as long as an hour and a half while transferring patient care.

A recent tragedy highlighted this (and other) problem(s). A man who was
transported to the hospital by a police officer died while awaiting treatment in a
Winnipeg ED. The officer had transported the patient because no ambulance was
available. The ED was dealing with a rapid influx of patients, including victims of a
serious automobile crash, and bed availability in the ED was very limited.

Drop time accounts for nearly half of the time needed to complete EMS calls in
Winnipeg, as shown in Figure 21.

Winnipeg has, on several previous occasions, attempted to institute a hospital
“bypass” system, whereby hospitals could reroute ambulances to other facilities when
they are operating beyond their capacity. These attempts have been unsuccessful.
Problems ranged from inefficient communication of hospital status to the havoc created
when no hospital was “available” to receive patients. Recent problems with a hospital
bypass system in Toronto were widely reported in the media as the cause of at least one
death."

 

[trustwomen]

All they have to do is show up at a hospital. and there are extreme limits on the hospital's ability to pursue the bill.

Did a bit of research. EMTALA does not prohibit a hospital from going to collections and pursuing its debtors as far as they wish. It's a debt (and often an overinflated one), which is just as "pursuable" as a cell-phone debt or a credit-card debt. The point is, some people WON'T go to the ED because they can't afford to pay the bill and are too honest to lie about their identity and defraud the hospital. When I had gallstones and was scared of my impending (free Canadian) surgery, I went online to check out possible alternative treatments. I found a large self-help community out there, consisting of Americans without insurance, advocating all manner of home remedies for all manner of acute and chronic conditions; how to self-induce an abortion, how to pass your gallstones at home, how to cure an infection without antibiotics, how to set a broken bone, danger signs to look for in case of a head wound, how to treat an overdose, what to take to lower blood sugar when you can't afford your insulin - EVERYTHING. It shocked, scared, and saddened me. I fail to see how some people can fail to see what they are living in.

BTW Quikclot, thanks for your support 🙂

 

[QuikClot]

Squad51: I don't doubt that the Canadian system has its problems but, again, this is all anecdotal evidence. In parts of the US, the average wait time in the ER is 16 hours. You could dredge up any number of horror stories about the results of that.

If you don't like Canada as a model, you can look at France, which is a larger nation with a signifigant underclass, much like us. Or Germany. Or Italy. Or Britian. The World Health Organization recently ranked us 37th in the world in the quality of our healthcare system, and 72nd in the overall heath of the population, so there's no derth of countries to compare us to. We spend, of course, by far the most of any country, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the GDP. Yet, dozens of countries have better healthcare systems, and scores of countries have healthier populations. They are not all small, or all homogenous, or all wealthy.* I do not believe that they are all so different as to admit of no comparison with our country.

* The one thing they all share is that they have decided that, as with fire departments, or K-12 education, it is sensible and practical as well as moral to provide healthcare to everyone, even if they cannot afford it.

 

[Squad51]

Did a bit of research. EMTALA does not prohibit a hospital from going to collections and pursuing its debtors as far as they wish. It's a debt (and often an overinflated one), which is just as "pursuable" as a cell-phone debt or a credit-card debt. The point is, some people WON'T go to the ED because they can't afford to pay the bill and are too honest to lie about their identity and defraud the hospital. When I had gallstones and was scared of my impending (free Canadian) surgery, I went online to check out possible alternative treatments. I found a large self-help community out there, consisting of Americans without insurance, advocating all manner of home remedies for all manner of acute and chronic conditions; how to self-induce an abortion, how to pass your gallstones at home, how to cure an infection without antibiotics, how to set a broken bone, danger signs to look for in case of a head wound, how to treat an overdose, what to take to lower blood sugar when you can't afford your insulin - EVERYTHING. It shocked, scared, and saddened me. I fail to see how some people can fail to see what they are living in.

BTW Quikclot, thanks for your support 🙂

How is it that the fact that people spew "self-help" advice on the web translates to uninsured Americans. Look, Americans are notoriously bad at seeking or following medical advice. We have a thriving chiropractic community here. These are folks who pay, out of pocket large sums of money to have their backs cracked because they think they "know better" than their doctors what treatments will help. The "self help" advice you found has nothing to do with this debate.

 

[LADoc00]

I feel all the people who think Canada and the rest of Marxist world are so awesome should really go there. There is nothing stopping you, I feel we should buy you all a one way ticket and/or bus pass. Heck, I would even let you check out a % of your social security $ early on condition you never return. For the people who stay, this is country is based on CAPITALISM, not Marxist socialism, communism or any other of the evil -isms.

if you want a different form of economy and government, then leave. Its that simple. There is nothing to discuss. If this country does adopt universal healthcare and becomes socialist, I will be one of the first to become a guerilla fighter fo sure.

 

[JakeHarley]

I feel all the people who think Canada and the rest of Marxist world are so awesome should really go there. There is nothing stopping you, I feel we should buy you all a one way ticket and/or bus pass. Heck, I would even let you check out a % of your social security $ early on condition you never return. For the people who stay, this is country is based on CAPITALISM, not Marxist socialism, communism or any other of the evil -isms.

if you want a different form of economy and government, then leave. Its that simple. There is nothing to discuss. If this country does adopt universal healthcare and becomes socialist, I will be one of the first to become a guerilla fighter fo sure.

It doens't sound like you have a clue what you are talking about.

Canada, and much of what you are referring to as the "marxist world," are fully functioning CAPITALIST countries which happen to have found ways to provide more for their people while maintaining their free-market.

Its not as black and white, good vs. evil as you make it sound.

Also, your values are not held universally in this country, not even close, and they never will be. If you can't accept that, maybe its you who should consider leaving.

EDIT:
P.S. No culture exists unchanged forever. It is clear, if you are willing to face the evidence, that things will have to change here, especially considering the non-sustainibilty of our current way of life. We can either blindly pursue our miserable end, or we can start looking for and being open to new ways of living and being.

Honestly, which path seems more reasonable to you?

 

[JakeHarley]

duplicate

 

[LADoc00]

It doens't sound like you have a clue what you are talking about.

Canada, and much of what you are referring to as the "marxist world," are fully functioning CAPITALIST countries which happen to have found ways to provide more for their people while maintaining their free-market.

Its not as black and white, good vs. evil as you make it sound.

Also, your values are not held universally in this country, not even close, and they never will be. If you can't accept that, maybe its you who should consider leaving.

Hmm, maybe we should have a civil war to settle this then.

Personal and professional autonomy IS always good while government interference in business is nearly (some exceptions) always bad. America would not be the leader in healthcare today if it had adopted the Canadian system. In these socialist nations, the best and brightest are the not the ones going into medicine.

And most certainly Canada is not a "fully functioning" capitalist economy, a fully functioning economy does not have an entire industry controlled, owned and operated by the STATE.

What you obviously seemed enthralled by is the "command economy model" of healthcare controlled by the state. That IS Marxism. You are Marxist healthcare advocate, just admit it.

I think the 20th century has shown that what people get for free from other people's taxation is never much appreciated because it dampens the incentive to be productive. Look at France, millions in the street protesting business reform with a 25% unemployment rate, chaos and they have no idea they are ones the government is trying to help!!!

Nothing, NOTHING in life is truly free and certainly not healthcare. Universal healthcare runs counter to the libertarian self sufficient pioneer spirit of this nation. Maybe you are ignorant of the early origins of the US, go read a book about it. Certainly the founding fathers never said "and let there be free unlimited healthcare for everyone".

 

[LADoc00]

"P.S. No culture exists unchanged forever. It is clear, if you are willing to face the evidence, that things will have to change here, especially considering the non-sustainibilty of our current way of life. We can either blindly pursue our miserable end, or we can start looking for and being open to new ways of living and being."

Umm what the hell are you talking about?? Im not miserable, nor are my neighbors or patients....The miserable end is in Europe, turn on the TV bro, they are rioting in the streets every other week now. The end draws near for world socialism...

 

[MarzMD]

Im passionate about providing for my family, therefore I value accumulating wealth through my profession.

 

[JakeHarley]

Personal and professional autonomy IS always good while government interference in business is nearly (some exceptions) always bad.

Exactly, you said it. In some exceptions government involvement in business is needed, and hapens ALL THE TIME in America. The issue is, is it possible to solve our health care problems by allowing the government to step in?

Why do we need to talk about it? Because the premise of this statement you made is blantantly false:

America would not be the leader in healthcare today if it had adopted the Canadian system. In these socialist nations, the best and brightest are the not the ones going into medicine.

Our RD and med-tech development may be marginally better than in Canada, for example, but by almost every measure we have WORSE overall health and healthcare system of any rich nation on the planet:

-By measure of lifespan
-By number of people not covered for basic care
-By measure of chronic illness
-By cost to consumer
-By cost to the government

etc. etc. etc.

Now...

And most certainly Canada is not a "fully functioning" capitalist economy, a fully functioning economy does not have an entire industry controlled, owned and operated by the STATE.

My point was that they enjoy the nearly the same quality of life and freedom to pursue business and wealth that we do, yet provide more for their people. Without using the labling tactic ("you're a marxist!!!!") to divert attention from the discussion, how can you say that this isn't true?

What I am proposing is that the specific issue of providing healthcare could conceivably be one of the services that our government provides for us, along with things like national security, highways, police, a postal service, etc. etc. etc. You don't consider those things "Marxist", do you?

In addition, there is all sorts of middle ground between making healthcare a government service and leaving it 99% private like it is today. I want to explore it.

Lastly, that founding fathers crap is bogus. The "founding fathers" purpose was to change a system that wasn't working for them, just like many of us would like to do now. Also, they had a lot of ideas that we've since decided were unjust: slavery, women's rights, etc. Perhaps you should go read a book, you seem to be holding on to some real naive notions of our history.

Umm what the hell are you talking about?? Im not miserable, nor are my neighbors or patients....The miserable end is in Europe, turn on the TV bro, they are rioting in the streets every other week now. The end draws near for world socialism...

Again, maybe you should go read a book or a newspaper...what's going on in France has nothing to do with them being provided with universal healthcare They are exercising a democratic notion that protest is needed to change aspects of their government that are not working for them--specifically, recent capitalist, corporatation-serving legislation that allows employers to can young workers on a whim.

By the way, you and your neighbors of similar class might consider yourselves to be comfortable, but I doubt you know many of your poverty-level patients very well if you think they are all happy.

 

[JakeHarley]

Im passionate about providing for my family, therefore I value accumulating wealth through my profession.

Right on.

 

[LADoc00]

Our RD and med-tech development may be marginally better than in Canada, for example, but by almost every measure we have WORSE overall health and healthcare system of any rich nation on the planet:

-By measure of lifespan
-By number of people not covered for basic care
-By measure of chronic illness
-By cost to consumer
-By cost to the government

.

I love it when Marxist liberals spew out these supposed measures as proof that American healthcare sucks. Hello, there are 12 MILLION illegal aliens here!! This is apples and oranges. Give Canada 12 million immigrants who arrive with crazy unattended chronic and acute conditions and see if their "measures" go down. Cost is higher because you have HUGE segment of the population who simply isnt paying.

I can say unequivocally in my field of practice Canada has made NO significant advancements at all. They are medical dead weight riding off the coat tails of American ingenuity, hard work and innovative spirit.

Fact: People are living longer in Canada because hard working American docs at places like Stanford, Harvard, Hopkins and Mayo created new treatments for Hodgkin's lymphoma, new orthopedic devices, new methods for cardiac surgery...Canada is massive technological leech!! If Canada had to survive only on the treatments they came up with, they would be in one sorry state.

Is that what you want for this country??

You are comical, stop now.

 

[JakeHarley]

LADOC00:

After that last essay I wrote, I went and skimmed some of your previous posts. I realize that we are nearly diametrically opposed in terms of our opinions on several topics, and there's not much point in you and I battling this out--I've got too much work to do at the moment anyway 🙂

Conversely, based on little clues in your profile and sig, I bet we have a lot in common...funny how that works.

Peace.

 

[JakeHarley]

Fact: People are living longer in Canada because hard working American docs at places like Stanford, Harvard, Hopkins and Mayo created new treatments for Hodgkin's lymphoma, new orthopedic devices, new methods for cardiac surgery...Canada is massive technological leech!! If Canada had to survive only on the treatments they came up with, they would be in one sorry state.

Ok, I am getting sucked in again...but this statement of yours just isn't true. The determinants of health and longevity in wealthy nations is a well studied topic. There is an inverse relationship between economic inequality and longevity, with those nations that enjoy more economic equality exhibiting greater average lifespans.

But the issue isn't lifespan, or highly advanced specialized procedures--not that I don't want them to continue to be improved upon. Its about access to BASIC healthcare...management of diabetes, hypertension, common infections, birthcontrol, prenatal and neonatal care, etc.

Again, it seems like you are making an overly black and white assumption, that we can't produce the kind of doctors and medical technology we currently produce AND make strides toward improving access to basic healthcare for ALL american citizens.

I will stop now, as you've requested. I don't agree with what you are saying, but its taking more energy than I'd like to spend to argue it.

Take care.

PS-OFF THE TOPIC-Have you really hunted boar? Where?