Out of luck, eh?
If we adapt a single-payer health-care system in the United States, where will
Canadians go to receive quality health care?
Jim Carr, Broomfield
Being foriegners they will be able to jump i line in front of American citizens. The precedent has been set for this over the last 20 plua years. Those who are Illegal from south of the boarder have done so. SO why not Canadians as well. After all the rest of the world counts before America, or so say the left.
Posted by on November 6, 2007 05:52 AMJim has obviously not been sick yet. Wait until he gets a good dose of our healthcare system. Probably need to sell his house and declare bankruptcy.
Posted by on November 6, 2007 07:38 AMAnother lament about those poor Canadians, who somehow manage to provide coverage to everyone while spending far less on health care than we do. Funny, I don't see them in a big rush to adopt our system.
Posted by Romulus on November 6, 2007 08:37 AMActually if those Canadians are smart they'd do well to avoid the American health care system and go straight to Cuba since they can still travel there without interference from their government.
Posted by patrick on November 6, 2007 08:40 AMJim,good point.
Posted by Keith on November 6, 2007 08:57 AMThe United States spends some $6,697 per person on health care.
Canada spends some $3,128 per person on health care.
The United States spends some 16% of its GDP on health care.
Canada spends some 9.5% of its GDP on health care.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 10:17 AMThanks for the truth, Truth: You get what you pay for.
Somehow, paying less to get less isn't what the collectivists have in mind. But they'll get the picture eventually.
Posted by prima facie on November 6, 2007 11:04 AMMy family is from Newfoundland Canada they come here for anything but a cold. This is how they figure out if you get care:
What it will cost.
How old are you:
Then if your not too old and its not going to cost alot you are put on a list.
Fact most die before coming up on the list if you need major surgury or transplant.
And just to let you know its a crime for a doctor to treat you without their approval even if you have the money to pay for the surgury that why they come here.
Here are the facts that prima facie offers to support his assertion that Canadians get less health care:
Did I overlook any?
Do people make broad statements such as prima facie made because they don't have any facts or because they are too lazy to support their own statements? Or perhaps because, rather than wanting to say something intelligent, they just want to rant a little?
In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the health care systems in various countries. The United States ranked 37th. Canda ranked 30th.
People will debate the accuracy of the poll. But it is probably a tad more reliable than prima facia's in-depth "study".
You have to wonder. If Canada spent as much as the U.S. on health care, how much higher would it rank than 30th?
And if the United States spent as little on health care as Canada, how much lower would it rank than 37th?
Sorry to take up so much room. But it takes a good deal more time, and research, and use of the brain to post facts than it does to blandly say that the Canadian system is worse than that in the U.S. If you don't believe me, just ask prima facie.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 11:40 AMI don't doubt that there are many Canadians who come to the U.S. for health care because I think that the United States likely has the best health care system in the world, for those who can afford it, despite the fact that a number of Americans go to India for health care because it is cheaper. So, if your interest is in those for whom money is not a big problem, you naturally would tout the U.S. system. If your interest is in the far larger number of people for whom money is a big problem, you would tout a country with universal health care.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 11:58 AMI have 2 friends who are Canadian citizens and they go to Quebec and Nova Scotia when they need to have a medical procedure performed. The U.S. probably has better treatments but that doesn't help if you can't afford them.
Posted by Stan B on November 6, 2007 01:43 PMHard to make fun of anything Canadian anymore since their dollar is now worth $1.08 and change! gas used to be $4.00 in Montreal when ours was only $3.00. Now the reverse is probably true. Health care? guess who gets more money for research now (unless someone thinks Americans are innately smarter than anyone else in the world).
Also, I wish people would use "health care" instead of "health care system" when talking about how great ours is. The system itself sucks! I shouldn't have to pay $20.00 for the same Pfizer or Merk pill that I pay 20 cents for in a third world country and $10 for in Canada. I also shouldn't have to wait till next week to see a doctor when I have an infection on tuesday.
Ah the argument de jour..
Statement of selective "fact":
The Canadians spend less on health care than we do.
OK one fact and a question. Canadian doctors are prohibited from treating people without approval even if the people pay for it themselves.
Why would they have to have such a law if there weren't people willing to pay? Why would there be enough of a demand for "outside the line" health care that they needed a law? Why would people want to "jump the line"? Is this law a product of imagination or a signal that the Canadian system depends on people being stuck in a line and either going elsewhere on their own dollar or dying in line while they wait their turn for treatment?
Anyone wondering about the cost of things in Canada can just pick up a magazine. The cover has two prices: one for the US and one for Canada. Our price is lower. We pay less because there are higher taxes in Canada that are deliberately ignored when comparisons are made. That is why the price is lower here. Add that little bit more to everything you buy and see if you think it is a lower cost.
Posted by momma y on November 6, 2007 02:35 PMmomma y: "Canadian doctors are prohibited from treating people without approval even if the people pay for it themselves."
I presume that the reason for the law is so that health care will not go just to the high bidders. One might compare it to, say, foreign aid. We send food and other necessities over there and instead of going to the poor it goes to the high bidders. The whole purpose of universal health care is to keep health care from going to the high bidders to the exclusion of the common folk.
Nobody is saying we should copy the Canadian system. I advocate using the best parts of all of the health-care systems, including our own, and coming up with a better plan.
In France, you have the option of purchasing private insurance if you can afford it. Sounds like a good compromise.
What everyone seems to agree on is that this system isn't working, so let's approach the issue with an open mind- the way brainstorming sessions are supposed to work. Stand down your proclamations of "no this" or "no that" and let's work out the details. Compromise is necessary to solve the problem.
Momma Y:
"Anyone wondering about the cost of things in Canada can just pick up a magazine. The cover has two prices: one for the US and one for Canada. Our price is lower. We pay less because there are higher taxes in Canada that are deliberately ignored when comparisons are made. That is why the price is lower here. Add that little bit more to everything you buy and see if you think it is a lower cost."
Your premise that the relative cost of a magazine in our respective countries correlates in any way to overall health-care spending is faulty.
Nobody "deliberately ignored" Canadian taxation rates when calculating health-care costs. If that were the case the cost would be zero.
Perhaps misunderstandings such as these are the genesis of your categorical dismissal of any government involvement in health-care.
Posted by Charles B on November 6, 2007 04:20 PMTruth, "In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the health care systems in various countries."
The WHO's rankings were skewed in a way that had nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. A socialized health care system was automatically weighted higher just for being socialized. A market driven system was automatically weighted lower just for being market driven.
"I presume that the reason for the law is so that health care will not go just to the high bidders."
The only way that could be the case is if there was not enough health care there to go around.
Posted by Dave on November 6, 2007 06:06 PMTruth, "We send food and other necessities over there and instead of going to the poor it goes to the high bidders. The whole purpose of universal health care is to keep health care from going to the high bidders to the exclusion of the common folk."
Food production and distribution in this country is handled by the market place, and there is no worry that high bidders will buy up all the food at the expense of the common folk. The result of that market is that there is so much high quality and low priced food here that we can export it as foreign aid and still have more than enough for ourselves.
Instead of having a universal health care system, where laws would have to be created to insure that what little health care there is wouldn't go only to high bidders, I think it would be better to have a system that would provide enough health care to go around for everyone -- a market driven system that would do for healthcare what it has done for food.
Posted by Dave on November 6, 2007 06:36 PMDave: "The WHO's rankings were skewed in a way that had nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. A socialized health care system was automatically weighted higher just for being socialized. A market driven system was automatically weighted lower just for being market driven."
I'm sure Dave realizes that he has no idea of what he is talking about. That's why he provides only his own uninformed opinion, and no facts.
There are certainly people who argue that the WHO rankings are misleading. But you won't find anyone with a working brain who will make such wild-eyed statements that the rankings have "nothing to do with the quality of heathcare".
And it is simply not true that everybody recognizes that the health care system in the United States needs fixing, whether through universal healthcare or reformed private health care. Not everybody. There will always be people like Dave.
I list the people below who think that the status quo in health care is good enough because everyone is getting the health care they need and no reforms are necessary:
Dave
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 07:33 PMCharles callously spouts to Momma Y;
"Perhaps misunderstandings such as these are the genesis of your categorical dismissal of any government involvement in health-care.'
Nice touch Charles.
Maybe it was the treatment she received via the govt for her unfortunate health issues , including having her foot amputated?
YA THINK?
Jim, I still don't understand why you think a single-payer healthcare system would be bad. Sure, you obviously hate and distrust the American government (can't say that I blame you some days) but what if we just said United Healthcare handles it all and get rid of the rest. Surely you don't think the payors price-slashing competition and bloated salaries are HELPING our healthcare system?
Posted by Mac on November 6, 2007 10:21 PMI'm sorry this post is so long but please read it, especially if you tend to make the claim that you are concerened with facts (yes I'm talking to you "Truth")
I'm weighing in late in the game today but in response to earlier comments made by "Truth" in regards to the WHO rankings that placed the US at 37th I have to point out some of that facts that "Truth" claims to enjoy so much.
2 of the 5 main criteria used involve how health care is paid for (instead of quality of care where the US ranks extremely high). 1 of those is called "fairness of financing". WHO basically says thay you get a higher rank in this category if higher income people pay proportinately more for EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL of HEALTHCARE. (basically if a guy makes $100 a year and spends $1 for Penecillin guy 2 who makes $10000 a year must pay$100 or more for the same Penecillin in order to receive a higher ranking in this category). The other category is public financing vs. private financing which does not really have anything to do with whether or not I actually get that Penecillin.
Also, they weigh heavily life expectancy and infant mortality (more heavily on the life expectancy). And not just a bland blanket life expectancy but life expectancy in certain situations such as people with disabilites and expectancy from birth and at different ages. Unfortunately health care is not the only factor that contributes to life expectancy. There are many other factors including lifestyle issues, diet, murder, auto accidents, etc.... Although quality health care is a major contributor to life expectancy there are enough other factors that the WHO didn't take into account. As to infant mortality most other countries don't condemn young parents as ours does. A large portion of our infant mortality rate is due not inadequate health care but to inadequate care and concern and education to young parents by families and friends (as can be found naturally in countries that accept young and teenage parents as part of the natural order).
9:13,
Thanks for the support but my foot was amputated due to complications of diabetes. I probably could have flustered my way into a partial amputation but I had researched the problem and asked the doctor about the alternatives. What he said matched what I'd read. I was in about 10% of the pain after surgery as before.
VA hospital system's treatment of my husband and father-in-law convinced me that mixing government and health care made as much sense as mixing Democrats and unmarked money.
My ability to think for myself, in addition to my experience with the Work Comp system in this state, makes me think that individuals will be the solution to the problem and the government IS the problem.
Those here , like Truth, don't understand that the higher prices in Canada, pre-printed on books and magazines, are higher because the overall cost of living in Canada is permeated with taxes that exist, like the corporate taxes here, in the shadows to be paid by consumers. But, even if the higher prices had nothing to do with health care, the other question remains unanswered: Why do they have to prohibit private health care? The answer, both obvious and deadly to those favoring socialized medicine, is that if people could pay for better access to health care only those unable to pay would be in the government run system and that system depends on voters. The danger would be if the majority of people opted out of government run health care so that many would begin to wonder why so much money for so little benefit? Since there is no way Americans would ever permit such an unconstitutional prohibition, there would still be two levels of health care here. One for those with money and one for those without enough to pay. We need to offer opportunity, not lock step stupidity. Single-payer, government sponsored health care, VA hospitals or Socialized Medicine all mean that the power to make decisions is denied individuals unless they have the money to buy their way to a different level. In true socialized medicine you have to also buy your way out of the country.
Truth et al will never understand the value most have of self determination and individual responsibility. They really think it would help people like me to get my health care expenses covered by the government. Financially they might be correct but they aren't right. I would not be alive if I lived in Canada. The delay in the definition of the need and the special heart surgery I received is at least a year. I had the surgery in July. Was diagnosed last November, changed insurance companies in December, and was hospitalized in April, May, June and July for heart attacks. In August, after the defibrillator was implanted, it shocked my heart back in the middle of the night. I was asleep and had to be told by the hospital monitoring service. Happened again in October. Either one would have resulted in my just dying in my sleep. Hey, I'm safe. I'm already older than the experts predicted several times. Socialized medicine wouldn't really hurt me. I'm thinking of those who will come after me, like my granddaughter. Unless we change a lot of things and prevent many others, she will grow up in a country where the independence, integrity and love of honest effort are oddities. Her life will be controlled in many aspects by "good for you" regulations and "you need our help" bureaucracies. Her teacher and special education teacher remarked on how she is frustrated by any kind of clutter or mess. I was advised to get less perfectionist in my housekeeping. (This was last year after I spent a month in cardiac intensive care with two men and a 7 year old girl in charge of my house. I'm still looking for some of my good cake pans. They used my good Wilton tart pans as cat dishes!!!)
We've done what we can. I introduced her, accidentally to Rush Limbaugh and she pesters me all weekend until she gets to listen to part of an archive. What we can do in our society is limited. But I'll do it up to the limit. We just finished our bankruptcy examination, medical bills. Lawyer said I would need to apply for disability and early retirement. Doctor was ecstatic because now I'll have to stop trying to find a job. He gets calls from all employers because I tried to find a part time desk job to stretch money and let them know I had a heart condition and the doctor has a signed release slip for any and all employers who have my ssn. So I am sentenced to the government in charge of my health care no matter what I wish. \
Just tired of those who think we should all turn to the government and trust "mommy" to know best. Change tired to terrified. More accurate.
momma y does not know me from Adam. She does not know what I have done with my life, how responsible a life I have lived, what contribution I have made to society, to what extent my life has been one of self-determination.
Yet, this unthinking, clueless woman has the gall to say this:
"Truth et al will never understand the value most have of self determination and individual responsibility.
You get some idea from that of how unimportant honesty and integrity are to her. It is more important to her to rant and rave irrationally than to use her brain.
Posted by Truth on November 7, 2007 07:14 AMGood letter, Dleef. No rant and rave. No name-calling. While some time back I looked at the way WHO arrived at its rankings in the past, I'll have to refresh my recollection before I can respond to your points. Thanks for your civility and for a post that reflects that you have done some homework and are not just barking hot air.
Posted by Truth on November 7, 2007 07:20 AMAbout my post at 07:14AM. On the other hand, I do think I got a little carried away. I withdraw the post.
Posted by Truth on November 7, 2007 08:16 AMmomma y:
I think you would agree that people should not coddle you because they rightfully sympathize with your medical issues right?
That said, there is nothing in your diatribe resembling a coherent argument against government involvement in health-care.
You use arguments by anecdote. You paint anyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush implying they have no personal accountability.
You have your tunnel vision focused on Canada when they only offer one way to deal with the issue and conveniently neglect other countries who do it better than Canada in many ways.
All of your arguments start from a point of view that you have already settled on and you embellish with information that you think will bolster this point of view.
So what's the point of debating the issue?
Posted by Charles B on November 7, 2007 09:10 AMTruth,
You showed some class when complimented Dieef on his in depth research of the WHO report, and thanked him for his civility. You also stated that he appeared to have done his homework and not just barking hot air.
With this in mind, can we expect from you the same. Stop barking hot air about how "other countries do it cheaper and better". I have stated on numerous occasions that the numbers in the WHO report were distorted and inaccurate. Their study was grossly slated to push for Universal Health Care worldwide.
Posted by jgd777 on November 7, 2007 09:56 AMI honestly did not expect the response that I recieved for my previous post so I was pleased when I read it.
Also, in respect to the WHO rankings and the US health care system in general I would like inject some personal opinion. I do not believe that a Universal Healthcare program is the answer to America's healthcare financing problem. (I would like to point out that we do not have a healthcare problem we actually have a healthcare financing problem). I think that American's are different than Canadians or French or British or any of these other countries that are used as models for a Universal Healthcare program. First off we are greedy. When someone doesn't have to pay for something here we abuse the crap out of it. I know far too many people who run to the doctor every time they sprain an ankle or have an instance of diarreah or a tiny sniffle or headache. Why do they run? Because they don't have to pay for it (or so they think) because insurance or Medicaid pays for it. Secondly in America we regulate the crap out of the insurance industry and medical professionals. We let the AMA (a good organization by the way) and federal legislaots dictate how how doctors diagnose, treat and protect the privacy of their patients. In many of these other countries the reasons their health programs work is because their doctors are allowed to treat patients how they see fit (within reasonable guidelines). Doctors in these countries are allowed to tell the sprained ankle patient to go home and get an ACE bandage.
I won't advocate any specific health care financing program here (I know what works best for myself and my family) but I will say that I don't believe that in any way a Universal Healthcare program will work in the long term in the United Sates. It will fail because we will abuse it to the point that it either overwhelms us with costs (believe it or not, it's not actually free) or will cause us to cut costs by lowering the quality of our health care.
Just my opinion.
I mentioned in my 10:38am post that my comments were in regards to the WHO rankings but the comments had nothing to do with those rankings. When I started writing I intended to move in a different direction. (oops)
Anyway, one more point in my opinion agains a Universal Healthcare program is that type of system like many other socialized programs creates a dependancy on the government. It creates a sense of entitlement in citizens that transfers to a frame of mind that "why should I do something if the government will do it for me". This is just another small step on the way to a Big Brother type of society. I know that sounds like a radical extremist statement but if you are paying attention to what the government has been doing and trying to do, you will see that the US Big Brother does not jump on our heads screaming and yelling but rather has been creeping up on us little by litte. Look at the Patriot Act, seatbelt laws, smoking bans, "military tribunals", red light cameras, speeding cameras etc... Really look at those and similar laws and you'll see where I'm coming from (even if you disagree). Maybe I am being extremist but I don't see any reason we, as hardworking Americans should want to stand in line and ask the government to give us our daily dose of group-think or our daily dose of anti-biotics.
Posted by Dleef23 on November 7, 2007 11:02 AM"With this in mind, can we expect from you the same. Stop barking hot air about how "other countries do it cheaper and better". I have stated on numerous occasions that the numbers in the WHO report were distorted and inaccurate. Their study was grossly slated to push for Universal Health Care worldwide.
Posted by jgd777 on November 7, 2007 09:56 AM"
Good God, jgd. Who the hell do you think you are? You say that you have criticized the WHO study so I have no business reporting what it says. All you do is to state your naked opinion without trying to support it with any facts or analysis, as Dleef did, and I am supposed to consider that as definitive?
Try thinking before you post, you might like it.
Talk about barking hot air.
Posted by Truth on November 7, 2007 12:01 PMI can't get over what an asinine post Jgd provided.
Here is what I posted:
"In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the health care systems in various countries. The United States ranked 37th. Canda ranked 30th.
People will debate the accuracy of the poll. But it is probably a tad more reliable than prima facia's in-depth "study". "
I posted a simple statement of facts and allowed as how people will debate its accuracy.
And this bona fide idiot jgd comes along and claims that is barking hot air.
And why? Because jgd doesn't think the rankings are accurate. So I am not supposed to even post the information.
What an ignorant egomaniac this guy is.
Posted by Truth on November 7, 2007 12:08 PM"truth"
What do you think about Anthony Garcia?
Why are you running from this VERY simple question? I submit it's because you're afraid of your own truth. Once again;
YOUR SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT YOUR LACK OF CREDENCE IN YOUR VIEW
Posted by RickyLee on November 7, 2007 12:29 PMHi, Ricky, I hope you're having a nice day.
Posted by Truth on November 7, 2007 03:25 PMFrom Forbes magazine in September 2006:
U.S. Health-Care System Scores a D for Quality
09.20.06, 12:00 AM ET
WEDNESDAY, Sept. 20 (HealthDay News) -- The American health-care system falls short of what's available in other developed countries, a new report claims.
After measuring 37 areas of quality, the United States only garnered a score of 66 out of 100, according to a report issued Wednesday by the Commonwealth Fund. The report was also published online Wednesday in the journal Health Affairs.
Despite spending the most on health care of any of the countries examined, the United States often ranked below Iceland, France, Japan, Italy, Sweden and many others, according to the report. Moreover, health care varied dramatically from state to state, and from hospital to hospital.
"The U.S. spends 16 percent of its gross domestic product on health care," Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said during a press conference announcing the results. "That's more than twice the average of industrialized nations."
"As other studies have shown and as our ever-growing uninsured rates underscore, we are not getting good value for that investment," Davis added. In fact, 40 percent of Americans have said that they had experienced inefficient, uncoordinated or unsafe care, she noted.
The report covered five basic areas of health care -- health outcomes, quality of care, access to care, efficiency and equity. To come up with the results, the report authors used benchmarks of excellence drawn from the top 10 percent of U.S. hospitals, health plans and states. They compared these with the same benchmarks in other countries.
"Overall, the U.S. scores poorly. An overall score of 66 out of a possible 100," said Commonwealth Fund senior vice president Cathy Schoen. "These low scores are reflections of the gaps between national averages and benchmarks of high performance."
The gaps exist in all the core areas that the report takes into account, Schoen said. "The consequences of these are not just numbers," she said. "We have lives at stake, both in terms of mortality and quality of life. And we are wasting resources."
Schoen estimated that 150,000 lives and $100 billion could be saved each year if the entire U.S. health-care system was functioning up to the benchmarks set in each area.
Compared with other countries, the United States is ranked near the bottom on life expectancy and last on infant mortality. In addition, barely half of Americans are getting the recommended preventive care, and this is true across all income levels, Schoen said.
In terms of chronic care, the report found that two conditions, diabetes and high blood pressure, are not well-controlled. "If we could move up to the benchmarks of higher performance, we could save up to $2 billion a year in health-care expenditures and up to 40,000 lives, and this doesn't count millions of sick days and productivity loss," Schoen said.
Lack of coordination of care drives up costs by duplicating services, Schoen said. Moreover, patients are put at risk through medical errors. "We miss opportunities to deliver the right care," she said.
Some U.S. hospitals deliver nearly 100 percent of benchmark care, but many others fall far short, Schoen said.
The increasing number of uninsured patients is also a major problem that limits access to care. "We have an epidemic on our hands," Schoen said. "The number of uninsured is up 6 million over the last five years. The number of states with 23 percent uninsured is now 12, up from four just five years ago. This is moving across the country, and is getting worse every year."
In addition, costs to run the health-care insurance system are far higher in the United States compared with other industrialized countries that have universal health-care coverage. Also, the United States is lagging behind in converting to electronic medical record systems, which could increase efficiency and reduce medical errors. "Only a quarter of doctors report using electronic systems, compared with 80 percent of doctors in other countries," Schoen said.
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 06:55 AMHere is the way Business Week characterizes the above report:
U.S. Health-Care System Gets a "D"
A new report from the Commonwealth Fund points out shameful inconsistencies and inadequacies in the care given in the richest nation
The U.S. health-care system is doing poorly by virtually every measure. That's the conclusion of a national report card on the U.S. health-care system, released Sept. 20. Although there are pockets of excellence, the report, commissioned by the non-profit and non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, gave the U.S. system low grades on outcomes, quality of care, access to care, and efficiency, compared to other industrialized nations or generally accepted standards of care. Bottom line: U.S. health care barely passes with an overall grade of 66 out of 100.
The survey was carried out by 18 academic and private-sector health-care leaders, who rate the system on 37 different measures. The poor grade is particularly discomfiting, the researchers note, because the U.S. spends more on medicine, by far, than any other country. Approximately 16% of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) is devoted to health care, compared with 10% or less in other industrialized nations.
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 07:01 AMWell, you can't get any more conservative than Forbes.
Posted by Mac on November 8, 2007 07:17 AM"(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report."
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 07:58 AMMy response to Dleef's health care comments:
About the WHO rankings: It would be impossible to have a perfect ranking system because there are too many intangibles, too many differences, some subtle, some obvious. So maybe if the rankings had a basis more sympathetic to the United States, the United States would rank higher, maybe twentieth or even tenth rather than number thirty-seven. But since the United States spends twice as much as many higher ranked countries, that certainly is not good news.
Dleef: "(basically if a guy makes $100 a year and spends $1 for Penicillin guy 2 who makes $10000 a year must pay$100 or more for the same Penicillin in order to receive a higher ranking in this category)."
While it is true that the WHO rankings strongly favor countries with universal health care because that imposes a greater burden on the wealthy, Dleef's statement has no connection with reality. It is pure propaganda and reflects to me that whatever Dleef says will be highly biased with little attempt to be objective. I also have a bias in the opposite direction. That is why I prefer to quote from more objective sources.
The way universal health care nations impose a greater burden on the wealthy is the same way we in the United States impose a greater burden on the wealthy in practically everything the government spends money for, from the building of roads to the military, to everything else. That is, by taxing the wealthy at a higher rate. Dleef's claim that a rich person might pay 100 times more than a poor person for Penicillin is pure poppycock. Medicare is an example. All the patients pay the same amount of copay. But because Medicare is government funded, and because we have a progressive tax system, the wealthy pay more to finance Medicare.
Dleef: "The other category is public financing vs. private financing which does not really have anything to do with whether or not I actually get that Penicillin."
Wrong. With private financing, if a patient doesn't have the money, he doesn't get the medicine.
Dleef: "Also, they weigh heavily life expectancy and infant mortality (more heavily on the life expectancy)."
An incomplete statement which says nothing. What part does Dleef think life expectancy should and what part does he claim that it plays in those rankings? No way to tell from that statement. I find nothing in the WHO material stating that it is giving a certain weight to life expectancy.
Dleef: "Unfortunately health care is not the only factor that contributes to life expectancy."
Of course that's true. As I said, there is no way the criteria can account for all the factors. But how does Dleef think the rankings should be adjusted because of that?
Dleef: "As to infant mortality most other countries don't condemn young parents as ours does."
I have no idea what Dleef means or is trying to claim.
Dleef: "As to infant mortality most other countries don't condemn young parents as ours does. A large portion of our infant mortality rate is due not inadequate health care but to inadequate care and concern and education to young parents by families and friends (as can be found naturally in countries that accept young and teenage parents as part of the natural order)."
Dleef is simply pulling "facts" out of thin air. No support at all. Just his naked opinion, or rather his naked and highly biased opinion. I have to question the integrity of that kind of thing, stating something as an actual fact when he has no evidence whatsoever to base it on.
Dleef: "(I would like to point out that we do not have a healthcare problem we actually have a healthcare financing problem)."
If a person cannot get health care because he cannot afford it, he obviously has a health care problem.
Dleef: "I think that American's are different than Canadians or French or British or any of these other countries that are used as models for a Universal Healthcare program. First off we are greedy."
Dleef is certainly entitled to his opinion which seems to be either that the Canadians, French and British are not greedy, or are much less greedy than we are. Again, no evidence to support stating his highly biased opinion as fact.
The fact is that drug companies, insurance companies, and even people in the medical professions are among the Americans Dleef claims are overly greedy. Greed is a reason why we need universal health care, not a reason we don't need it.
Dleef: "In many of these other countries the reasons their health programs work is because their doctors are allowed to treat patients how they see fit (within reasonable guidelines). Doctors in these countries are allowed to tell the sprained ankle patient to go home and get an ACE bandage."
Again, Dleef seems to feel free to make such controversial statements as fact when they are clearly simply his opinion, based on what? He doesn't say. But to the extent there is a problem, and that would have to be based on facts nor opinions in thin air, the law and regulations could clearly address that.
Dleef claims that too many people will run to the doctor without any real need. How, then, can the universal health care nations survive when then spend as little as half of what we do? Doesn't make a bit of sense. Likely, what may be a bigger problem is that of people putting off seeing a doctor because of the cost until they develop a major medical problem that could have been prevented with early care. Preventive medicine is much cheaper than curative medicine.
I'll conceed that you make some good points (although I still believe that WHO rankings are severely flawed even if I can't convince you of that).
As to my bias I freely admit to that. It is based on my belief that the job of the government, specifically the US government is not to buy stuff for people. Not health care not food not video games not housing not clothes not cars not gas not electricity not cds not mp3s not books not US flags not anything.
Dleef, there are countries that come pretty close to your ideal. They're called third world countries. There isn't a first world country on the planet that pursues anything close to your philosophy. I think that should tell us something important.
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 03:22 PM