Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

So while we wait for 1.12c5, lets debate health care! I think Obama's plan sucks, how about you?

DarnYak

I dont even know his plan.

I think obama should just be impeached.

I'm all for a republic. Oligarchies, fascists, socialists, dictators, etc follow nobama.

Check the debt.

So while we wait for 1.12c5, lets debate health care! I think Obama's plan sucks, how about you?

DarnYak

Incidentally enough, my dentist mentioned this the other day while filling my teeth. Let's just say he's rather scared. Too, I personally know several doctors, and my mom is an OT.

Agree with Yak, it's going to wreak everything.

It sucks.

Serbia has universal health care, and it works great.

I don't know anything about Obama's plan tho.

So does canada, it's still a bunch of [crap]

[Reaper]: Settle down

So does canada, it's still a bunch of socialist nazi bullshit.

Amen brother.

I'll be moderating this thread as well I suppose.

So does canada, it's still a bunch of socialist nazi bullshit.

I have no idea how it's Nazi, but I question how much either of you know about Canada's healthcare plan. Seeing as how our life expectancy is a good 2 years higher then the United States, our infant mortality rate lower, the fact that every Canadian has guaranteed coverage (though our government does a shitty job with really poor people) and that we spend only 2/3rds of what the American system costs, I imagine we're doing a lot of things right.

We do have problems which your news networks have (embarrisingly) exaggerated; like the average wait time in Canada for an MRI being 4 months (it's actually about 2 weeks and can be done sooner if life threatening), how Canadians suffer from a lack of organ donors (common in all Industrialized nations; our population is 10% of America and our system isn't based on who's richest, but who needs it most) and something like "lots of Canadians seek health treatment outside of Canada" (we don't, unless we wanna skip the line and pay the thousands of dollars it costs in the U.S). It's a bit ridiculous watching Senators and Congressman talking about it as if they really knew anything about it but whatever.

When you talk to most Canadians most of us can find things wrong with the system (there are a lot of problems). I don't think it'd work for America if you just imported it (there's lots of stuff we have to fix) but I think some things we do would definitely be better than what you have down there. There were a few polls done here and the vast majority of Canadians (between like 85%-92%) said that preferred our system to the American system.

our infant mortality rate lower

This number is actually crap. The US is near the bottom of infant mortality rates, but there's an obvious reason for it. Premature babies don't usually count as infant deaths, unless the baby survives to 48 hours. The US is at the top of permitting premature babies to survive - but a significant number of them make it past 48 hours and not much longer. This skews the numbers.

Seeing as how our life expectancy is a good 2 years higher then the United States

Similarly, this doesn't directy mean health care is better, the general life style could be (and almost certainly is) better.

and that we spend only 2/3rds of what the American system costs

You probably spend less than that...which is why i'm severely opposed to any sort of health care 'reform' that just throws money at the problem, such as this one. Its not really reform, its just now manditory that we all throw money at this theiving industry.

DarnYak

You probably spend less than that...which is why i'm severely opposed to any sort of health care 'reform' that just throws money at the problem, such as this one. Its not really reform, its just now manditory that we all throw money at this theiving industry.

I agree, you guys are spending a ridiculous amount of money on health care for the coverage most Americans are getting.

This number is actually crap. The US is near the bottom of infant mortality rates, but there's an obvious reason for it. Premature babies don't usually count as infant deaths, unless the baby survives to 48 hours. The US is at the top of permitting premature babies to survive - but a significant number of them make it past 48 hours and not much longer. This skews the numbers.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of the fudging involved in infant mortality, but I was just defending Canada's with whatever ammo I had offhand that wasn't incredibly long.

I have no idea how it's Nazi, but I question how much either of you know about Canada's healthcare plan.

Actually, I know quite a bit, as I have friend's relatives who came hear after Canada's wonderful health care didn't provide sufficient care. And one of my relatives grandpa had to fake a heart attack so the doctor would see him! Yes, in Canada. So I can speak about it. And one could argue the same about you (Ion) and our health care, just a tip, nothing more.

I agree, you guys are spending a ridiculous amount of money on health care for the coverage most Americans are getting.

Yes, we do. Too much probably. Why? Because it has too much government in it. If they would just let the private insurers do their jobs without interfering, it would be a hell of alot cheaper. Too, with quality comes higher prices.

being 4 months

Even if this were totally accurate, it is way quicker here in the states. Within a week usually. Why switch?

few polls done here and the vast majority of Canadians (between like 85%-92%) said that preferred our system to the American system.

Interesting, we Americans had a similar view about your system. Something like 87% of Americans said (in the polls) that they were happy with they current coverage. Similar numbers also stated the Americans by a huge majority do not support either Obama's plan or one that is heavily socialized. And every person I know who works in the medical field hates the idea, and we are going to trust a man who has had, what, a couple of years as a community organizer vrs. doctors who actually know what they are talking about? Could be me, but that doesn't seem right.

Doctors have a degree in medical care, not in the organization of health care. To put it another way, whether Obama's plan is good or not, a doctor has no qualifications to have a better plan. Any opinion they have on the matter is almost certainly primarily influenced by how it affects their paycheck.

I'm not writing over 9000 words just to reply to you Dark.

Without going into incredible detail, I think the problem with America's healthcare system compared to Canada's is that American medicare seems to be profit driven, while Canada's is utility driven (in theory; it's also the unfortunate source of interprovincial rivalries, autonomy struggles and a battle ground for people getting elected but none enough to learn those thing about Canada so w/e).

Also thanks for fishing out the ad verecundiam ^_^ I'm glad someone got there before me.

In the United States it is frankly not even plausible to consider Universal Health care (yet some do) namely because of the enormous financial burden it would entail. Firstly it would ruin the majority of private health care businesses as no one would want to pay twice, first in taxes and then for private care, to get the care they need unless they were in a critical time-sensitive condition. Secondly the population of the United States, including illegal immigrants is much too large for a stable government run anything, considering how little the government does right anyway I would rather not let them get their hands any closer to my life-line. The last downside would be the degradation of care, and oh yes we would lose a great deal of quality as doctors/nurses/specialists look elsewhere for job opportunities where they will be payed in accordance to what they feel is owed. The negatives far outweigh any potential positives that may come from having Universal Health care and those suggestion it in this country are living in some kind of fantasy world or are simply ignorant (in the best case scenarios).

Personally, I don't think much should be done to provide health care to anyone over 18 or, if attending a university, until 24ish, HOWEVER, I think that the overall standards, procedures, and model of health care needs to be altered to provide a more aggressive and capitalistically competitive system.

I think the realistic approach to providing universal health care is:
1) Open, computerized standards for medical records
2) Increased automated or even self service medical scanning, diagnostics, and treatment
3) More aggressively paced testing for futuristic drugs and treatments
4) Government investment in preventing/curing diseases and ailments which put an undue burden on social security/medicare/medicaid, such as diabetes, cancer, obesity, etc. Not grants. Literal investment, as if they were giving money to the CDC to fight ebola.

Further, I don't think anyone who habitually smokes (as in, smokes enough to noticeably statistically increase the chance of cancers) or who is obese (in the case of persons over 18) should receive treatment unless they make a marked effort to drastically improve their conditions. This is coming from someone who was once obese, so yes I know the difficulty and the work that goes into changing your entire situation.

Oh yea, I meant to post this a while back and just randomly remembered, cancer surival rates

Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%)

DarnYak

It's that wonderful, socialized medicine, Yak, it making everyone healthier.

And Lanthis still needs to post more.

If that "Europe" includes eastern europe countrys like Notlikeyouknowthiscountry, its propably easy to have a better quota.

edit:

For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment.

That Yak is doing selective information posting now...

You'll notice what Yak posted also mentioned words like:

Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report.

Meaning it wasn't significant in all cancers, but the deadlier ones mostly. Also, you are kind of missing the point here. One of the main arguments against the U.S. free-market based health care is that it's vastly inferior to that of European and other countries, and thus, needs a drastic overhaul. The studies clearly say otherwise. And even if they were comparable on all fronts, the claims would still stand out as a total fallacy.

In short, the U.S health care is superior because it is free-market based and not socialized or heavily regulated. I've heard some horror stories from Canadian friends of mine of Canada's supposed, "high quality" system.

Isnt one point that america spends about thrice as much money for the same results and thus needs an overhaul?

I don't think we spend 3 times as much, and if those claims are from the same people that said European care is better, then you know they are not accurate.

And the results, as Yak posted, are superior, not equal. You'll find out that in life that with quality often comes a high cost. This isn't to say we don't spend too much, we do. But its directly related to too much government intervention, much the same as education. How then, can you improve something by giving the reins to that very problem?

Dekar wrote:If that "Europe" includes eastern europe countrys like Notlikeyouknowthiscountry, its propably easy to have a better quota.

I remember hearing it broken down by country, although maybe not in that article, and i don't believe any eastern countries were mentioned.

Isnt one point that america spends about thrice as much money for the same results and thus needs an overhaul?

It's more of a rebuttle to the concept that we spend a shitload yet have shitty service. We don't. We have pretty amazing results (even when those who dont have insurance are included), but the costs are absurd.

DarnYak

Bah, i just found out the site i linked requires registration (it didn't through google), sorry about that. So google it instead.

DarnYak

It's more of a rebuttle to the concept that we spend a shitload yet have shitty service. We don't. We have pretty amazing results (even when those who dont have insurance are included), but the costs are absurd.

Exactly my point.

I've heard some horror stories from Canadian friends of mine of Canada's supposed, "high quality" system.

I seriously doubt you have any friends in Canada. However dismissing our healthcare system based on the experiences of a small sample of individuals is hardly justifiable. Here's some decent articles on some of the shit being said about our healthcare system:

Small article on misrepresentation of Canadian healthcare
Article by an associate professor at the University of Waterloo (one of Canada's top institutions)
Response to Conservative claims about NHS (Britain)
Person's experience with the Canadian healthcare system
Phat article on the NHS and British anger at conservative American caricatures of their system
Article briefly summarizing some really extreme views on American healthcare in the US (BBC)

Our system is far from perfect and I'd agree with the NHS defense article; it's pretty much a national pass-time for Canadians to grill our system. Unlike the British I think we're a bit worse off and could do with reform ourselves but certainly looking at European systems would be far more desirable then anything resembling American healthcare.

I don't think we spend 3 times as much, and if those claims are from the same people that said European care is better, then you know they are not accurate. And the results, as Yak posted, are superior, not equal. You'll find out that in life that with quality often comes a high cost. This isn't to say we don't spend too much, we do. But its directly related to too much government intervention, much the same as education. How then, can you improve something by giving the reins to that very problem?

Just because it comes from a person opposing your views does not automatically make it wrong, sorry that's not how the world works. Dekar is quoting simply from medical expenditures documented at the bottom of this page.

I'd like to see a comparison of cancer recovery rates between France, Sweden, Germany, Britain and the US; as these countries (minus the US) are pretty well known for having heavily subsidized but very effective systems. -.-