I'm not going to try to make a comprehensive list, but I know that there are differences in some of the diseases that are inoculated against between the US and the UK, as well as very different views on how to treat injuries with surgery and physical therapy.
Why would anyone believe a statement like that if you are not going to put in the effort to prove it with a little research?
As I said, these examples came straight from a health care provider that started her career in the UK and relocated to the US. It's not just opinion, but you can choose to believe that I'm lying about it if you wish.
Like they say on this forum about guys results in drag race times and tuned dyno runs "without the paper your claim is lame".
I see little that you offer in the way of proof. You have a very minor difference in mortality according to the WHO and you are attributing the entire difference to socialized health care despite numerous examples that show you can't simply claim that to be the cause.
You might have misunderstood my message here. I am saying that stats prove that universal health care is cheaper and people live longer, babies and mothers survive more often when then have more access to doctors than under a system where people are reluctant to see a doctor because they have to pay for them out of their pocket and not through taxes. Do you really disagree with that?
The drive is heading south, Panama and Meridia are the next big destinations. Because when '41 Million' new enrollees are 'eligible' for care AND they are covered under 'MEDICAID', private physicians are RETIRING Early, new graduates are OPTING OUT of General Practice - Medical Tourism will indeed blossom and boom.
You don't want to know the percentage of auto deaths in the total population.
I didn't . I took the number of people dying in crashes and compared that to the population. You have .01 of one percent of your population dying each year in crashes. That is not a significant contributor to having a lower life expectancy.
Xdot, Getting back to the auto deaths thing. I have it right. You are looking at the per capita deaths from auto accidents. That tells you exactly bupkis about comparing our health care systems. What you want to do is take the number of auto deaths per year and take that out of the total deaths per year as I originally stated. That will give you a slightly better number to compare health care systems. Keep removing deaths that aren't related to health care and eventually you will get to accurate numbers that are useful in comparing deaths related to the health care systems. Got it? It's basic marketing analysis. I wrote code for that stuff for years.
I'll just pick a couple of things that I've already pointed out that you seem to dispute.
quote:
A 2004 study found that Canada had a slightly higher mortality rate for acute myocardial infarction (Heart Attack,) because of the more conservative Canadian approach to revascularizing (opening) coronary arteries.
This would be an example (by no means a comprehensive list) of a difference in the practice of medicine. Rest assured that a comprehensive list would be extensive. I just haven't got a clue who would ever try to compile such a thing.
quote:
The U.S. and Canada differ substantially in their demographics, and these differences may contribute to differences in health outcomes between the two nations.
It continues on that thought for a few paragraphs, but that sentence sums up what has been stated and you seem to argue against. Does it need to be said again? The U.S. and Canada differ substantially in their demographics, and these differences may contribute to differences in health outcomes between the two nations.
Sifo, darn it you just don't get it! Free health care is better. it's FREE! How much better can you get? You want doctors to pay you to practice on you? ( ok, you can join a medical study...where they will )
But Free! How can you beat that? "Single payer", that's Free! right?
Unless, just a horrible thought here, that the single payer is.... you. No way would someone design a system that only people who actually worked for a living would pay for everyone else....... would they?
No, that's silly. Next you'll be telling me that the President, who tells us time and again, he supports Israel, wants to make them return to the 1945 borders.
When I saw the title the first thing that came to mind was Socialized Medicine would lead to a much higher death rate, dropping the number eligible for Social Security. Am I wrong?
And you replied: "Dead right."
This is the statement that drew me into this thread to share the fact that socialized medicine does NOT lead to a higher death rate.
Sifto supports this (not intentionally perhaps) by pointing above to preventable and treatable health issues that are currently taking a it's toll in the US which could be somewhat abated by early medical intervention. Early intervention comes from not having to pay out of pocket for a doctors visit. Making a doctor a partner in your life health plan is smart. If it is not affordable, people won't do it as often. This is supported again by the reference Sifto makes above to the Congressional Research Service ( can it get any more politically motivated!!!) In termsof quantity, OECD data indicate that the United States has far fewer doctor visits per person compared with the OECD average Population Risk Factors. The United States had a lower than average proportion of the population that is elderly in 2004, and lower than average rates of smoking and drinking. The United States consumes more calories and sugar per capita than any other OECD country: the United States consumes 156 pounds of sugar per person per year, compared with 99 pounds in the average OECD country. In 2004, 34% of Americans were overweight and an additional 32% were obese. Obesity is associated with a 77% increase in consumption of medications and a 36% increase in inpatient and outpatient spending, according to one study. Quality. In terms of quality of health care, a five-country study found that each of the five countries studied (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand) had the best and worst health outcomes on at least one measure, but no country emerged as a clear quality leader. For example, the United States had the highest breast cancer survival rate but the lowest kidney transplant survival rate. A six-country study (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany) found that Americans were most likely to report receiving specific recommended preventive services for diabetic and hypertensive patients, but were most likely to complain that their doctor did not spend enough time with them and did not have a chance to answer all of their questions.}
The ONLY way for the U.S. to have Canadian style medicine is if Canada invades and takes over.
IMHO any U.S. created socialized medicine program will be a bigger, far more expensive, and even less workable than the existing medicaid & medicare programs.
Pelosicare ( the guy with the big ears doesn't like it called after him.... he doesn't like people to pick on his ears either, which I understand ) takes a half billion away from existing programs. It also has those "death panels" that the "stupid Alaskan ex Gov" told us about. Yeah, Pelosi & company deny they have "death panels"... and it's true. They have a different name for the rationing board that will deny us care. The Prez himself has said that in some cases they will just give you pain meds and let you die with no treatment..... ( he didn't phrase it quite like that but that's what he said. )
Then Krugman outed the whole deal claiming that only Obama's death panels will save us from economic ruin.
Now krugman also spouts the propaganda that "bush's tax cuts for the rich are the problem" When the truth is everyone got a tax cut, who pays income taxes. I did. He did. In fact it makes more sense if you are trying to stimulate the economy to give tax cuts to the rich. They're the ones that hire people. But, alas, Bush didn't. He gave all the people who pay income tax a break. Also.... the cut in taxes actually grew the revenue. We took in MORE money with the tax cuts than before. That's what happens when you do it right. J.F. Kennedy did it, R.Regan did it, GWB did it, and it worked every time. I note in passing that Krugman did NOT predict the housing bubble, the market collapse, or the current double dip depression. ( I may have missed it, I find him full of it. If he did, feel free to correct me. )
So. We have a new, multi trillion dollar program for badly designed socialized medicine. It will not do most of the things claimed for it, like actually cover all the people without health insurance. ( to do that would be far cheaper, require only a few more people to administer, and be doable in a month, not the Pelosicare system of not kicking in until after Obama gets re-elected )
Pelosicare will, in time, destroy private health care companies, as intended. It will cost so much that it would actually be CHEAPER to have socialized medicine.
So, sorry dude. Socilaized med in the US will lead to higher death rates from over bureaucratizing an already screwed up system.
The reason health care here is expensive has a few simple reasons. One, we have new stuff that just is expensive. Drugs to Whole body imaging machines that can show a tiny tumor in the brain or liver. New. Improved. Chrome. ( actually sprayed metallic plastic ) Shiny. Expensive. Two, like college costs, when the govt. subsidizes something, it costs more. I could reference page after page, but just freaking believe it. While the most quoted examples of govt overspending actually have justification. ( beryllium alloy hammer$, for example for explosive work ) The simple fact is that of every dollar taken from taxpayers, about 25 cents actually goes to do more than pay the people administering the programs. So any US program is going to cost what it does now....times at least 4. And, it won't work.
I love Canada. Great folk, a few odd customs, and a scary leaning towards totalitarian rule over free speech. But besides that, awesome. Couldn't ask for a better neighbor. Let us know when the social programs collapse. Also if they are ever going to do something as messed up and awesome as Lexx.
But we are never getting that health care system. Never.
for those of you that would were wishing I would do a blog or a website, I am, it goes live this next week. The 'death panels' were my first E publishing, My next one is medical math - and why your doctor aint rich.
I have ten other papers that I did for graduate study that I will widdle down from 20-30 pages and make them 10 page nuggets that are digestable lay speak that directly analyze the Bill - because a year later, I am weekly amazed at how many have not read it - and I MEAN clinical practitioners, insurance providers, group benefit administrators and plan auditors- nor accountants.... and you should be very afraid at how they are 'training' the new 2600 IRS 'health enforcement' officers. DAMHIK
Xodot, your quoted material proves the point of different demographics in America being a major factor in life expectancy. Again, I dare anyone to compare American health stats on a state by state level to those of other nations. Compare the top five American states to the top five healthiest nations of the world having populations larger than Lichtenstein.
I dare you.
I suspect all here have a pretty good idea of the results. It turns out that a more healthy diet and more active lifestyle makes a huge difference. Perhaps the Mormons are on to something that places like inner city Detroit and wides swaths of the old South could learn from. But is that really something that people don't already know? We need nanny state to take over medical care? Huh?
The OECD itself states that socialized medical care means longer waits and reduced availability of services, greater rationing of medical treatment. The "benefit" that they tout is the "accessibility" of medical care too the "poor."
the government will find new and inventive ways to pander, bilk, waste, philander, and suck funds for 'public health programs'....
like the 250K initial FEDERAL grant that the State of Washington received to promote 'washing your hands' as a public health 'crisis'....
enjoy, y'all paid for it; and because you are not smart enough to know to wash your hands and cover your sneeze.
this is public 'health' at work.....
oh, and care to guess how my portfolio faired from the run on Roush during the H1N1 and the manufactured 'crisis'.... My dividends appreciated your paranoia - theres another 'epidemic' coming this fall; I hope you will contribute then as well
Xodot, Let me first start with an apology. I just noticed that you spell it Xodot, not Xdot. I assume that's you you are consistently misspelling Sifo. Touche. Nothing was meant by it on my part. Back to health care...
I earlier said that your debating on this topic was much like global warming advocates. It seem you have now made it to "climate change". You have gone from claiming that Canada has the same obesity problems as the US, therefor the countries medical systems can be fairly compared to Canada has less obesity because of a superior medical system. This change came after stating that for the last decade eating habits in Canada have been becoming more like the US. I'm betting that part is true and it will catch up with your population. Your position on this, frankly, is all over the place. You have defeated your own argument. Why don't you see if you can find some data to support any of your positions. You should post a link when citing info too. It would be nice to see the context of what you posted above.
Here's the thing, the US has a life expectancy of 79 years out of a world wide range of 47 to 83. http://tinyurl.com/4ceraur That has us pretty high up there despite some pretty serious poor health habits that seem to come from modern living in a wealthy nation. Clearly our health care system is doing some things pretty well. Well above average. We are only 2 years shy of your life expectancy in Canada where your population is just starting to follow our poor eating habits.
You still haven't addressed the fact that the Canadian system is largely dependent on the US system in a number of ways. First Canada regularly sends patients over the border simply because they don't have the capacity to treat them. This is a failing of your system that if the US followed we would both be in a crisis to find health care. Numerous references have been provided earlier in this thread.
Secondly, the technology that provides health care innovation just doesn't come from the socialized systems the way it does in a for profit system. This was discussed earlier with new drugs that Canada refuses to pay for the development costs of the drugs. It's called price discrimination. http://tinyurl.com/3wkks52
There are other areas where the US is providing innovations that the rest of the world reaps the benefit of. Modern medical imaging is a great example of this. Even so Canada lags severely behind the US in this area as referenced earlier. This from your latest favorite source... http://tinyurl.com/3h2x2ac
quote:
The intensity of service delivery is a different story: the United States uses more of the newest medical technologies and performs several invasive procedures (such as coronary bypasses and angioplasties) more frequently than the average OECD country. In terms of price, the OECD has stated that “there is no doubt that U.S. prices for medical care commodities and services are significantly higher than in other countries and serve as a key determinant of higher overall spending.”
They go on to say...
quote:
What does the United States get for the money it spends? Said slightly differently, does the United States get corresponding value from the money it spends on health care? The available data often do not provide clear answers. For example, among OECD countries in 2004, the United States had shorter-than-average life expectancy and higher-than-average mortality rates. Does this mean that the U.S. system is inefficient in light of how much is spent on health care? Or does this reflect the greater prevalence of certain diseases in the United States (the United States has the highest incidence of cancer and AIDS in the OECD) and less healthy lifestyles (the United States has the highest obesity rates in the OECD)? These are some of the issues that confound international comparisons.
Did you catch that part about "confounding international comparisons"? This has been the crux of the discussion I've had with you. You have been shown incorrect numerous times now.
Here's the bottom line. Both the US and Canada have health care systems that are among the best the world has to offer. They certainly differ in how they administer their respective systems. A big difference between them is that one is dependent on innovations from outside sources to keep advancing and the other rewards innovations that advance HC. That single difference alone is enough for me to desire our HC system. Be glad that your neighbors to the south have been so generous in sharing these advancements.
It's true, you cannot compare life expectancy or mortality rates and get any kind of meaningful information concerning effectiveness or performance of a nation's health care system.
What you want to measure is how effectively the medical systems are treating folks (keeping them alive and healthy when they get sick). The two leading causes of death in most developed nations are cancer and coronary heart disease.
So....
Compare cancer survival rates.
Compare coronary heart disease survival rates.
No contest.
USA #1.
Don't even think about looking at the top five states in the nation; it is too embarrassing for other nations.
Figure 20. CRS-30. Of that Cornell report on OECD comparo.....
I take that as confirmation of my view that the U.S. spends too much on bureaucrats. If we fired them all and gave the job to criminal trespassers/future voters at Golden Arches pay... we might pull a surplus on the national budget.
A few surprises in there for me, thanks. Canada's system looks pretty darn good, compared to most places, not just 3rd world hells where the statistics are wrong because the govt. won't admit how many they murder. Like China. Burma. Vietnam. etc.
I stick with the opinion we can't do the Canadian system without them taking over. ( couldn't then, either. They could never afford it while paying for the war against the rednecks and Quebecois. }
you might want to include the number of deaths in the American Health care system from surgical errors, failed infection control, and secondary/terteriary complications, drug interaction conflicts-allergies-misadministration......
THE judge on 'Quality' of healthcare measures none of those; and certainly reports none of those numbers back to the public. The HOSPITAL is simply one of the most germ ridden, disease infected, dangerous places to ever be; I don't understand why so many are all fired up to garner access into the system. The national determinant for 'Quality' is you sought care, care was provided and maybe you were told to quit smoking advised to get exercise and eat better. (no determination of curative processes or outcomes, readmits, misdiagnosis or failed treatment protocols) ARHQ is your source, or you can look at the new www.Healthcare.gov and see what they 'measure' quality by.
Its a measure of quantative instance -NOT a qualatative success matrix - what did you expect from an over encroaching self feeding beauracracy that cant even pin down a number on its budgetary 'medical spending'
it is way more than just Medicare, Medicaid
..... WAY more. /youtube{3-Ilc5xK2_E} IF you are using ANY of this for your basis of your arguement on what 'reform' is; or how it will 'work' There are only 15 critical errors with it; see if you can find them.
You'll forgive me if I want the solicitor to earn far less money. His boss too.
So, with the jobs we don't have we're supposed to buy cars that get better mileage to buy the fuel this admin won't drill for. But not too much, so we can pay less for Pelosicare......... and take more from others who work & pay taxes......
I('d do a rant here on out of touch hypocritical authoritarian &*(^&%'s..... but I'm too pissed.
Join a union, be Muslim, Native American, 'Undocumented', a Prisioner, 'Religious' but only certain ones (Christain Science and Jehovahs Witness), a member of Congress, Senate -or their staff, a prisioner, or active duty military.
Of course if you are dead ass poor, and of the 'entitlement' crew not only do you not need a waiver - you will be getting 'credits' to offset your enrollment costs and premium expenses!
Yes comrade, all animals are equal, just some more equal than others. Go stand by the barn, I understand they are changing the paint again
Last count there were over 200 corporate ENTITITES that were granted waivers... the number of those 'sanctioned out'.... is nearly encroaching the number of 'uninsured' that this bill was supposed to help.....
Hollywood more than has the capabilities to turn that into a movie.... I bet they NEVER touch it .... dont want to let the Sheep know that they are indeed out in the field grazing. and o howdy was the Rand movie in and out of theaters fast !
You have to realize that movie theaters are on a 2 week schedule. If it's not a blockbuster, it cycles through on it's way to foreign release and DVD's. The actual film is scheduled as to it's location weeks in advance, and doesn't actually live that long. There's a major push to go to secure digital, and the cost is too high for small theaters. And small towns.
Atlas Shugged Pt.1 pulled ok numbers, sorta midpack, but not enough to crank out more copies and displace something else at the Omniplex. Hollywood's an Industry. They crank out product, ( most of it bad ) and there's lots of stuff in the pipeline. It's a progression to wring the cash out of the product, from Theater release to Nexflix download.
So..... gone in a couple of weeks. Don't know if they are going to pull enough profit to get financing for Pt.2. Don't really follow that stuff.
I've been reading the book and am almost to the end of part 1 where the movie leaves off. The book is great, but I was thinking that the views of some of the characters didn't really seem possible. Then I hear of the lady that wants to sue her law school because she didn't get the job she thought she should get fresh out of law school. Suddenly the views of the characters in the book seem right out of today's world events. The book is much better than reality. I can set the book aside at any time. Reality just won't go away!
GDR German Demogratic Republic; was actually COMMUNIST East Germany - the political monikers mean little; watch what industry, banking and government do. It is the social progressives that will be the down fall of capitalism, innovation, and productivity - they have just over 5 years to see if they can 'recreate' it on the anniversary of the first Soviet Socialist Revolution - Don't think they aint trying.
Such things happen. When I was younger, only in third world dictatorships, and Soviet countries and client {slave} states. I suppose that's still true, in a way.
As an aside..... one reason that many drugs work is that there are already chemical receptors, (lock and key) in the body & brain for identical or very close chemicals. An Israeli study showed that one of the parts of "merryjane" is near identical to a hormone produced in a women during labor. It lets her forget how much pain she was in. This hormone is the only reason the human race is alive today since no women would EVER have a second baby without it. Not sure if the current crop of hypnotic anesthetics is related. Certainly explains why pot isn't legal. The stoners keep forgetting there's a vote.
um, pot is legal; you just need a 'prescription' It breaks down like this, its illegal to grow it, its illegal to have it above a certain gram weight, its illegal to distribute it, but if you are the propreiter of a 'hash clinic' you can 'dispense' it with the proper 'RX'...... and life again imitates Pulp Fiction.
but that's what he said. ) 
