What if the government makes turning down Medicare patients illegal for doctors?

[skiddoc]

comparison of most recent intentional homicide rates

I edited out the countries not on the above chart (most of the ones with higher homicide rates than the USA were 3rd world countries)

Mexico 10.0 (homicides per 100,000 people per year)
Turkey 6.23
United States 5.4
Portugal 2.50
Switzerland 2.26
United Kingdom 2.03
New Zealand 2.00
Canada 1.83
France 1.59
Czech 1.33
Slovakia 1.31
Spain 1.20
Australia 1.2
Italy 1.06
Germany 0.88
Denmark 0.88
Austria 0.73
Norway 0.71
Japan 0.44

** Obviously correlation =/= causation. But when you consider the ages of people most commonly killed, 18-25ish, it makes sense that it could skew the data by the 1-2 years needed to make your graph misleading. That combined with the MVAs and trauma.

Also longevity can vary according to inherent factors of ethnicity. sickle cell anemia, etc.

Not to mention the fact that American culture seems to tolerate obesity more than other cultures. If American obesity rates were to drop, I think health expectancy would shoot way up.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gymtanlaundry]

MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS, BY COUNTRY (MOST RECENT)



# 1 United States: 15.5 deaths per 100,000 people ...we're #1!! GO USA!
# 2 Belgium: 15.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 3 New Zealand: 14 deaths per 100,000 people
# 4 France: 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people
# 5 Italy: 12.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 6 Ireland: 11.6 deaths per 100,000 people
# 7 Austria: 10.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 8 Australia: 10 deaths per 100,000 people
# 9 Germany: 9.8 deaths per 100,000 people
# 10 Canada: 9.6 deaths per 100,000 people
# 11 Denmark: 9.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 12 Japan: 8.8 deaths per 100,000 people
# 13 Norway: 8.7 deaths per 100,000 people
= 14 Finland: 8.6 deaths per 100,000 people
= 14 Switzerland: 8.6 deaths per 100,000 people
# 16 Netherlands: 7.2 deaths per 100,000 people
# 17 Sweden: 5.6 deaths per 100,000 people

 

[startswithb]

He was being sarcastic. But you see the absurdity!!!!

please....

make it stop.


How? is the single payer going to strap patients onto treadmills? Will they ration food? How exactly does a single payer systerm force people to stop eating, start exercising, stop smoking, and stop killing each other?

You have a government fetish. It's just going too *solve everything*...?

The delusion on display here is simply staggering.

 

[gymtanlaundry]

He was being sarcastic. But you see the absurdity!!!!

Thank God for that... the things being said by lochktard drastically reduced my expectations for intelligence in this thread.


OBESITY BY COUNTRY

# 1 United States: 30.6%
# 2 Mexico: 24.2%
# 3 United Kingdom: 23%
# 4 Slovakia: 22.4%
# 5 Greece: 21.9%
# 6 Australia: 21.7%
# 7 New Zealand: 20.9%
# 8 Hungary: 18.8%
# 9 Luxembourg: 18.4%
# 10 Czech Republic: 14.8%
# 11 Canada: 14.3%
# 12 Spain: 13.1%
# 13 Ireland: 13%
# 14 Germany: 12.9%
= 15 Portugal: 12.8%
= 15 Finland: 12.8%
# 17 Iceland: 12.4%
# 18 Turkey: 12%
# 19 Belgium: 11.7%
# 20 Netherlands: 10%
# 21 Sweden: 9.7%
# 22 Denmark: 9.5%
# 23 France: 9.4%
# 24 Austria: 9.1%
# 25 Italy: 8.5%
# 26 Norway: 8.3%
# 27 Switzerland: 7.7%
= 28 Japan: 3.2%
= 28 Korea, South: 3.2%

 

[startswithb]

Or....we could just have a single payer.

What are the realistic benefits of a single payer system in the US? Why do you firmly grasp this idea as the ideal solution?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

What are the realistic benefits of a single payer system in the US? Why do you firmly grasp this idea as the ideal solution?

Because we know it works fairly well in other countries. Other solutions are untested comparatively.

However, single payer is not going to happen in the US without major unrelated upheaval (war, massive terrorist attack, huge unparalleled depression) as the private health care industry is to large a part of the US economy to make removing it a good idea.

 

[link2swim06]

Thank God for that... the things being said by lochktard drastically reduced my expectations for intelligence in this thread.


OBESITY BY COUNTRY

# 1 United States: 30.6%
# 2 Mexico: 24.2%
# 3 United Kingdom: 23%
# 4 Slovakia: 22.4%
# 5 Greece: 21.9%
# 6 Australia: 21.7%
# 7 New Zealand: 20.9%
# 8 Hungary: 18.8%
# 9 Luxembourg: 18.4%
# 10 Czech Republic: 14.8%
# 11 Canada: 14.3%
# 12 Spain: 13.1%
# 13 Ireland: 13%
# 14 Germany: 12.9%
= 15 Portugal: 12.8%
= 15 Finland: 12.8%
# 17 Iceland: 12.4%
# 18 Turkey: 12%
# 19 Belgium: 11.7%
# 20 Netherlands: 10%
# 21 Sweden: 9.7%
# 22 Denmark: 9.5%
# 23 France: 9.4%
# 24 Austria: 9.1%
# 25 Italy: 8.5%
# 26 Norway: 8.3%
# 27 Switzerland: 7.7%
= 28 Japan: 3.2%
= 28 Korea, South: 3.2%

This is because our genius government is making it easier for poor people to eat crap....

 

[Lokhtar]

What are the realistic benefits of a single payer system in the US? Why do you firmly grasp this idea as the ideal solution?

Because it has been shown to work in every other first world country. I've lived under both, and single payer is superior in terms of what I think a health system should do.

 

[circulus vitios]

please....

make it stop.


How? is the single payer going to strap patients onto treadmills? Will they ration food? How exactly does a single payer systerm force people to stop eating, start exercising, stop smoking, and stop killing each other?

You have a government fetish. It's just going too *solve everything*...?

The delusion on display here is simply staggering.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Cancel out violence and MVAs and I bet it would be lower, yes. We also share a border with a 3rd world country, and treat their intruders for free under EMTALA. We are also one of the most overweight/obese countries in the world. Is that the HCR system's fault?? Would we REALLY be in better shape if we all had a PCP telling us to lose weight? Give me a break. Even doctors are fat.

The USA is a very unique country- 300 million people and one of the most socioeconomically and culturally diverse. It is comparing apples and oranges.



Local reform is pretty weaksauce. The defensive mindset is entrenched. Local fixes won't affect national education and training.



There are hidden costs everywhere. R&D is one of them.



I'm done talking about this because I don't think you're worth the time.

Yet you continue to post.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I don't see where they control for the variables I listed- violence, traumatic accidents, MVAs, etc.

It mitigates infant mortality, obviously, and violent/accidental deaths are much more common in younger populations. By the time you hit 65 the risk of death from disease >>> all other causes.

You mention obesity (as everyone who wages this argument does), but how about smoking? Smoking is consistently ranked as the #1 cause of preventable death in the US (obesity was #7 as of 2004 numbers), and we aren't even in the top 100 nations in terms of smoking prevalence. Rather convenient to ignore, eh?

 

[gymtanlaundry]

Yet you continue to post.

People are just too stupid. I can't resist pwning them.

It mitigates infant mortality, obviously, and violent/accidental deaths are much more common in younger populations. By the time you hit 65 the risk of death from disease >>> all other causes.

You mention obesity (as everyone who wages this argument does), but how about smoking? Smoking is consistently ranked as the #1 cause of preventable death in the US (obesity was #7 as of 2004 numbers), and we aren't even in the top 100 nations in terms of smoking prevalence. Rather convenient to ignore, eh?

right, because no one in the US smokes. considering only the countries in the chart (which is what we're talking about....)

the chart

# 37 Japan: 46.9 % 2003 Time series
# 61 Spain: 39.2 % 2001 Time series
# 71 Germany: 37.3 % 2003 Time series
# 83 Austria: 33.9 % 1999 Time series
# 92 Czech Republic: 31.1 % 2004 Time series
# 93 Denmark: 31 % 2003 Time series
# 95 France: 30 % 2003 Time series
# 111 Finland: 25.7 % 2003 Time series
# 115 United States: 24.1 % 2003 Time series
# 118 New Zealand: 23.7 % 2004 Time series
# 125 Canada: 22 % 2004 Time series
# 137 Australia: 18.6 % 2004 Time series
# 141 Sweden: 16.7 % 2003 Time series
# 150 Mexico: 12.9 % 2003 Time series


don't confuse significance of "causes of predictable death" with determinants of longevity.

also, tobacco is a difficult variable because it might be highly prevalent, but not very extensive, or vice versa. it can't be ignored, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Parts Unknown]

it can't be ignored, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd say everything here has to be taken with a grain of salt, including labeling homicide and accident rates as a signficant factor in overal US life expectancy statistics.

The simple fact is that our nation is hit with a triple whammy of abundant unhealthy indulgences, poor individual choices, and a health care system that has substandard access and poor coordination. You can only realistically legislate one of those.

 

[Parts Unknown]

This article underscores some of the issues nicely:

U.S. Losing Ground on Preventable Deaths

 

[TheFlashMD]

I found this handy life expectancy database that can mitigate the factors you listed above. I selected some of the countries from Lokhtar's graph above and looked up life expectancy at age 65 (average number of years remaining if you make it that far):

Japan
M 18
F 23

Australia
M 17
F 21

France
M 17
F 21

Canada
M 17
F 20

USA
M 16
F 20

UK
M 16
F 19

Mexico
M 16
F 18

Poland
M 14
F 18

Slovakia
M 13
F 17

Regardless, our expensive, cobbled together "system" would suck no matter what the personal habits of the patients within it happen to be.

These statistics are better than overall life expectancy, bc from my understanding each country calculates them differently. (Some include MVA, homicide, etc. and some don't) They aren't infallible though. Lifestyle choices still play a role. I'd like to see these numbers at Age 30, 40, and 50. What about the sickest ones who don't make it to 65?

 

[elektroshok]

Except for the fact that everyone is REQUIRED TO BUY INSURANCE.

OR pay a much smaller fine in lieu of purchasing insurance.
Then, since you can't be denied, buy insurance should you get sick.

Watch it happen...

 

[startswithb]

OR pay a much smaller fine in lieu of purchasing insurance.
Then, since you can't be denied, buy insurance should you get sick.

Watch it happen...

So since the govt doesn't want to "fine people for being poor," are they getting subsidies to pay the fine or subsidies to buy the insurance?

 

[elektroshok]

So since the govt doesn't want to "fine people for being poor," are they getting subsidies to pay the fine or subsidies to buy the insurance?

They'll get subsidies to pay for insurance.

Tax increases.

 

[Hoody]

Oh yeah you're right. I forgot that as soon as I get an MD, I lose all my freedom and I am obligated to treat every sick person. Why not make it illegal to charge anything for medical care? We should just force all MD's to treat patients free of charge because then we'd get to treat even more patients! F*** it, let's mandate a new law that requires doctors to PAY patients for treating them! Let's not stop there - let's require all doctors to bi-annually go to Africa and work on treating people there out of our own pockets.

:cry::cry::cry:

I did three so i could see them crying in unison.

Man, the quicker we get to a single payer the better, so we can stop having these inane debates all the time.

+ 1

 

[TheFlashMD]

OR pay a much smaller fine in lieu of purchasing insurance.
Then, since you can't be denied, buy insurance should you get sick.

Watch it happen...

That's what I'd do.

 

[jturkel]

please....

make it stop.


How? is the single payer going to strap patients onto treadmills? Will they ration food? How exactly does a single payer systerm force people to stop eating, start exercising, stop smoking, and stop killing each other?

You have a government fetish. It's just going too *solve everything*...?

The delusion on display here is simply staggering.

+1000000000000000

 

[Mandiblespeaks]

Tell the patient we only take referrals. lol

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Why hasn't this thread been merged with the one, true thread?

 

[randombetch]

Honestly, there are people who think life expectancy is a good measure of health care quality? How? Do the meds they give in Japan work better? Are the old people here ignored and unable to get medicine to the extent that our life expectancy is that much lower?

It's obviously the diets and lifestyle differences between Japan (FISH is way healthier than big macs) and the United States.

 

[Squeal]

OR pay a much smaller fine in lieu of purchasing insurance.
Then, since you can't be denied, buy insurance should you get sick.

Watch it happen...

Of course. People are always looking for ways to game the system, and there's no way we can stop it.

 

[Siggy]

And how far we still have to go

Because health care is about getting a new high score in life expectancy like some sort of game. Meanwhile, those same countries ration so called "elective" surgeries that make a huge difference in lifestyle. You know, if I had to choose between living 10 more years but be bound to either a wheelchair or a walker because of a bad hip or 5 years and be able to walk because I got an "elective" surgery, then I'd so pick the 5 years of having a higher quality of life. Additionally, it doesn't help that many of those countries are having huge health care problems themselves. According to the Frontline: Health Care Around the World special from a few years ago, something like half of the hospitals in Japan are facing bankruptcy. There simply is no grand panacea.

 

[Siggy]

please....

make it stop.


How? is the single payer going to strap patients onto treadmills? Will they ration food? How exactly does a single payer systerm force people to stop eating, start exercising, stop smoking, and stop killing each other?

You have a government fetish. It's just going too *solve everything*...?

The delusion on display here is simply staggering.

Obama's hope and change will make it happen. What are you, some sort of fascist for not believing what Comrade Obama says?

 

[Parts Unknown]

Honestly, there are people who think life expectancy is a good measure of health care quality?

Perhaps because the largest determinants of life expectancy are sanitation, vaccination, access to antibiotics, and control of blood pressure, blood sugar, and blood lipids. Perhaps one could add C-sections to the list. All but one of those factors is dependent on a functioning health care system.

Does life expectancy tell you everything? No, of course not. But if a nation is an outlier in expenditure without high life expectancy, it should raise eyebrows that something is up.

Another way to look at it is that for the money we spend, we should have the world's highest rates of prenatal care and vaccination. Every person in the nation should have clear and reliable access to a primary care physician and an electronic medical record. Everyone with fairly basic chronic health problems (high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc.) should have easy and reliable access to treatment.

But we can't even pull that off.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

So...

There are some doctors who hate to deal with NY medicaid so they don't take medicaid patients.

The patients still need medical care, so now these poor folk have to drive an hour and half to the next closest doctor (in this example this is northern, rural NY).

The other doctor is in northern VT, who still has to deal with NY medicaid and it is still a hassle. But the other doctor feels obliged to treat poor, sick patients...so what is the solution?

1. Improve Medicaid re-imbursement.

2. Take away the liscense (or fine) of the doctor who selfishly refuses care to the sick, so that another doctore can pick up the work.

3. Do nothing. Have some doctors look after the well being of the poor and other doctors look after themselves.

My choice would be number 1 followed by number 2.

Number 3, let the saints help everyone no matter what the cost. Sounds good to me.

 

[bravofleet4]

this thread is completely ridiculous...along the same fear and phobia as the 9/11 conspiracies. The day this happens I guarantee you that the last thing anyone will be worried about will be doctors salaries (ex. country becomes insolvent).

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

OR pay a much smaller fine in lieu of purchasing insurance.
Then, since you can't be denied, buy insurance should you get sick.

Watch it happen...

That's my plan. I believe it's $695 a year or 2% of your income, whichever is higher.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

this thread is completely ridiculous...along the same fear and phobia as the 9/11 conspiracies. The day this happens I guarantee you that the last thing anyone will be worried about will be doctors salaries (ex. country becomes insolvent).

I know, i know, it's like thinking they're going to fine us for not having health insurance. I mean come on, our government is crazy.



You honestly think there's absolutely no way it could ever happen? I don't find it highly probable, but I have no faith in our government. A move like this wouldn't shock me in the least.

 

[Cleavername]

We just passed a bill that plans on making it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. It seems to me that making it illegal to turn down Medicare patients wouldn't be much harder. Is this feasible?

Of course, then doctors would try their best to move out of the poorest neighborhoods with the highest percentages relying on Medicare. And only the doctors who can't find jobs would end up in the poorest neighborhoods, furthering the disparity between the health care quality received by the rich and the poor.

i am just wondering, does the bill also pose a limit on how much extra can those people be charged?

 

[Lokhtar]

We just passed a bill that plans on making it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. It seems to me that making it illegal to turn down Medicare patients wouldn't be much harder. Is this feasible?

No, it would not. I mean if we go to a single payer, you may not have any choice in the sense that that's all there is in terms of insurance, but you still have the option of going to a concierge service, etc. Some physicians do that already.

And the only reason it will be illegal for health insurance companies to deny new customers with pre-existing conditions is that there'll be a tax on all who don't have insurance, so the hope is that this situation won't happen all that often because people would already have and be paying for insurance.

 

[jturkel]

Honestly, there are people who think life expectancy is a good measure of health care quality? How? Do the meds they give in Japan work better? Are the old people here ignored and unable to get medicine to the extent that our life expectancy is that much lower?

It's obviously the diets and lifestyle differences between Japan (FISH is way healthier than big macs) and the United States.

the liberal government and obama administration haha......

i love the life expectancy argument. america is ranked below all these countries in so and so and clearly our health care system sucks.......WELL then, why does ANYONE who IS somebody or ANYONE who needs some MIRACLE procedure come to the US for medical treatment/care? Eh? Reason me THIS, people.....if CUBAs has such a higher life expectancy, why don't we all fly out to CUBA or some other random country for the amazing procedure's and care they clearly perform and provide to clearly affect the high life expectancy....oh wait....that's what we might have to do anyway with the passing of the new healthcare bill.....i probably should just stop there.

 

[TexasPhysician]

It won't. Illegalizing refusal of Medicare patients very well might though.

Who made you the messiah?

 

[IDBasco]

Why is it that expectancy is the only number people look at? Aside from the fact that they need a crisis in order to make a claim for change. I have seen outcome numbers for some type of cancer, I think it was breast cancer, and our numbers made the UK's system look pretty bad. We either extended life by 2x or had twice the cure rate, I forget now. You never hear that type of statistic repeated anywhere. Which is why I don't remember it now...

 

[Parts Unknown]

Why is it that expectancy is the only number people look at?

It's not, but we live in a sound bite world.

I have seen outcome numbers for some type of cancer, I think it was breast cancer, and our numbers made the UK's system look pretty bad. We either extended life by 2x or had twice the cure rate, I forget now. You never hear that type of statistic repeated anywhere.

That actually was trotted out in the debate last year, in the context of what would happen to US medicine if we "socialize" care. This argument falls apart on several levels, not the least of which is that while cancer care in the UK sucks, other nations with "socialized" health care systems have stats comparable to ours with much less expenditure. That suggests the problem isn't "socialized" medicine per se, but a specific dysfunction within the UK system.

Essentially it's the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

[thamsenman]

And how far we still have to go

The ones in red don't have government healthcare.

Well the high PPP for health care spending is indicative of a very rigid US legal system that makes drug delivery, delivery of care, and proper accounting of that care extremely wasteful.

We have to spend 8x the amount of money for junk lawsuits, drug trial after trial, and mountains of paperwork that never get read.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Well the high PPP for health care spending is indicative of a very rigid US legal system that makes drug delivery, delivery of care, and proper accounting of that care extremely wasteful.

We have to spend 8x the amount of money for junk lawsuits, drug trial after trial, and mountains of paperwork that never get read.

If anyone would like an explanation that didn't just drop out of someone's ass, try reading the four part "High and Rising Health Care Costs" series by Dr. Thomas Bodenheimer (who also authored the standard intro health policy textbook):

Part 1
Part 2 (download the PDF)
Part 3
Part 4

 

[randombetch]

Perhaps because the largest determinants of life expectancy are sanitation, vaccination, access to antibiotics, and control of blood pressure, blood sugar, and blood lipids. Perhaps one could add C-sections to the list. All but one of those factors is dependent on a functioning health care system.

Does life expectancy tell you everything? No, of course not. But if a nation is an outlier in expenditure without high life expectancy, it should raise eyebrows that something is up.

Another way to look at it is that for the money we spend, we should have the world's highest rates of prenatal care and vaccination. Every person in the nation should have clear and reliable access to a primary care physician and an electronic medical record. Everyone with fairly basic chronic health problems (high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc.) should have easy and reliable access to treatment.

But we can't even pull that off.

The #1 killer in the United States is cardiovascular disease. We're also ~twice as obese as every other developed country except Mexico.

Sure, life expectancy is related to quality of health care. But you're forgetting about the confounding factors.

We also spend the most money on health care because we're one of the richest nations in the world, so we have the extra money to spend on health care. If GDP went up by 3x tomorrow, then expenditures on health care would go up 5x since we have the extra money (which causes demand for health care to increase higher than the rest - called an "income effect" in economics).

 

[randombetch]

It's not, but we live in a sound bite world.



That actually was trotted out in the debate last year, in the context of what would happen to US medicine if we "socialize" care. This argument falls apart on several levels, not the least of which is that while cancer care in the UK sucks, other nations with "socialized" health care systems have stats comparable to ours with much less expenditure. That suggests the problem isn't "socialized" medicine per se, but a specific dysfunction within the UK system.

Essentially it's the fallacy of hasty generalization.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba649.pdf

No I'm pretty sure the United States's survival rates are significantly higher. Germany is right in the middle of the list you gave us, and they still had a 52% higher mortality rate.

 

[Parts Unknown]

The #1 killer in the United States is cardiovascular disease. We're also ~twice as obese as every other developed country except Mexico.

Sure, life expectancy is related to quality of health care. But you're forgetting about the confounding factors.

I am not forgetting about anything. I do not think life expectancy is a good proxy measure for a health care system. I was merely explaining how the two are not entirely divorced from each other.

We also spend the most money on health care because we're one of the richest nations in the world, so we have the extra money to spend on health care. If GDP went up by 3x tomorrow, then expenditures on health care would go up 5x since we have the extra money (which causes demand for health care to increase higher than the rest - called an "income effect" in economics).

Please see the above links I made to Bodenheimer's series. What you are talking about no doubt has a role, but the whole picture is far more complex. There are deep structural inefficiencies within our system.

 

[Parts Unknown]

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba649.pdf

No I'm pretty sure the United States's survival rates are significantly higher. Germany is right in the middle of the list you gave us, and they still had a 52% higher mortality rate.

That link is to a pamphlet written in an emotionally charged style by a fellow from the right wing Hoover Institute. Go find some real numbers.

 

[Tutmos]

Haha, the sky is fallllllllllling.

Man, the quicker we get to a single payer the better, so we can stop having these inane debates all the time.

It's pretty funny how some of the trolls in the other thread were holding you up as some unbiased grad student that was an authority on the health care issue. You're as much of a fringe left wing proponent of socialized medicine as any of the others. Nice job of pretending to be objective previously.

 

[Tutmos]

And how far we still have to go

The ones in red don't have government healthcare.

I think I've seen that exact same graphic recently. Oh yeah I did. It was showing the nations of the world most likely to become insolvent based on national debt to GDP ratio. They were in almost exactly that same order as well.

Why isn't Ireland on this? They have a single payer system and also have the worst national debt situation. Greece also seems to be missing and essentially has single payer. Maybe you left wing guys can explain why there appears to be such a correlation between national insolvency and socialized health care? Where's Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea and the other socialist countries on the chart?

 

[Tutmos]

I found this handy life expectancy database that can mitigate the factors you listed above. I selected some of the countries from Lokhtar's graph above and looked up life expectancy at age 65 (average number of years remaining if you make it that far):

Japan
M 18
F 23

Australia
M 17
F 21

France
M 17
F 21

Canada
M 17
F 20

USA
M 16
F 20

UK
M 16
F 19

Mexico
M 16
F 18

Poland
M 14
F 18

Slovakia
M 13
F 17

Regardless, our expensive, cobbled together "system" would suck no matter what the personal habits of the patients within it happen to be.

What stands out to me on this data set is the vast cultural differences between the countries on the list. There seems to be almost ZERO correlation between a single payer system and outcomes based on this. Canada is the most similar country to the US with respect to lifestyle, diet etc. and has a single payer system. Oddly enough Canada seems to have almost exactly the same life expectancy as the US without a single payer system. Can you explain this please? Aren't Canadians also considered to have a "healthier" lifestyle with less violence? So is their single payer system actually shortening what would otherwise be a longer life expectancy?

 

[thamsenman]

If anyone would like an explanation that didn't just drop out of someone's ass, try reading the four part "High and Rising Health Care Costs" series by Dr. Thomas Bodenheimer (who also authored the standard intro health policy textbook):

Part 1
Part 2 (download the PDF)
Part 3
Part 4

Yup, a lot of beautiful things emerge from my ass. Things that inspire.

 

[Tutmos]

I had to look them up myself, those bastions of socialism and health care for all.

China 73 years #108
Russia 66 years #162
North Korea 63 years #170
South Africa 48 years #212 for perspective
Angola 38 years!!!!! #224 Holy crap