HealthCare

[Chavez]

You know better. Sure it is related, but it is far from the sole contributer. Lifestyle is just as important if not more important. $1 hamburgers, disposable income allowing you to sky dive, mountain climb, jet ski, etc.. also have a lot to do with it. We are the most obese nation in the world. This doesn't have anything to do with our health care system, it has more to do with relatively cheap food, relatively stagnant lifestyles, and and a stressful work environment. Yes, health care is related to longevity, but it is naive to say that is the determining factor.

 

Of course, since we're talking about ENGLAND and CANADA, I don't think the accusations of cultural differences are exactly on solid footing.

[Clubfoothead]

 

 

 

It's not complicated.

[dmarc117]

No - you started yapping about funding and how we'd have to raise taxes, blah blah ablh. Well taxes werent' raised for the war right? So we squandered our chance with that decision.

 

dmarc - I don't care what your bigoted ass has to say so just f off.

 

 

 

dont cry lucy

[AtomicCEO]

Of course, since we're talking about ENGLAND and CANADA, I don't think the accusations of cultural differences are exactly on solid footing.

 

 

 

We are the most obese nation in the world. This doesn't have anything to do with our health care system

 

 

It could be argued that healthcare should be more related to prevention and overall health than just emergency surgery and medicine.

 

There is very very little money in prevention compared to emergencies and medicine. As a profit-based system of health, it doesn't surprise me at all that heart bypasses are routine with no waiting lists and that people are generally more obese. If it wasn't about making a dollar, and actually about health, there should be a positive effect on the overall health of Americans and our life expectancy.

 

Maybe I'm crazy. But not so crazy that I'd actually believe a government run program would be more expensive than the current system. That's seriously demented.

[dmarc117]

It could be argued that healthcare should be more related to prevention and overall health than just emergency surgery and medicine.

 

There is very very little money in prevention compared to emergencies and medicine. As a profit-based system of health, it doesn't surprise me at all that heart bypasses are routine with no waiting lists and that people are generally more obese. If it wasn't about making a dollar, and actually about health, there should be a positive effect on the overall health of Americans and our life expectancy.

 

Maybe I'm crazy. But not so crazy that I'd actually believe a government run program would be more expensive than the current system. That's seriously demented.

 

 

 

come on now, are you trying to say that our health care system is making people fat just for a buck. this is a free country and people know what is good and bad for them. people know a big mac isnt healthy, they still eat it. people know a big gulp of sugar water isnt healthy, they still drink it. people know smoking causes cancer, they still smoke. its free will....people generally dont care until it smacks them in the face and they need that bypass. to say the health care system is to blame is a bit of a stretch.

[AtomicCEO]

come on now, are you trying to say that our health care system is making people fat just for a buck.

 

 

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm always trying to say the craziest thing that you can think of.

[dmarc117]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm always trying to say the craziest thing that you can think of.

 

 

 

hows the mental health system in your area?

[Perchoutofwater]

Of course, since we're talking about ENGLAND and CANADA, I don't think the accusations of cultural differences are exactly on solid footing.

 

 

Really, how much disposable income to the English and Canadians have compared to the average American? What is the average work week in each of the countries? What types of foods do they eat? After all we are what we eat.

 

We eat 45.3#s of beef per capita. Canada and England are at 32.1#s and 19.7#s respectively. So we eat almost 50% more red meat than are norther counterparts and over twice as much as are brothers across the pond. Canadians eat 0.3#s more of pork than we do, but we eat almost 7#s more than the English. We eat 49.4#s of poultry, where as the Canadians eat 33.4#s and the English eat 28.6#s. Care to guess who eats more fried chicken? So each year we eat roughly 30% more meat than Canadians, and 68% more meat than the English.

 

What about fast food? Each year the average American eats $566 in fast food as compared to Canada and England which came in at $456 and $390 respectively. So we eat 24% more fast food than Canadians and 45% more than the English.

 

In the US, the average worker works 4% more hours than the average Canadian, and 7% more than the average Brit.

 

 

Link for meat statistics.

 

Link for fast food statistics.

[Perchoutofwater]

:lol:Maybe I'm crazy. But not so crazy that I'd actually believe a government run program would be more expensive than the current system. That's seriously demented.

 

 

You actually think the government can do it more efficiently? How much does public education cost per student vs private? How much does the government pay for a hammer? I'm actually on your side on this, as I think we should go to socialized medicine, so that everyone is paying for their health care through taxes in lieu of only those of us responsible enough to buy health insurance. But to say it can do it more efficiently is laughable.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Perchoutofwater

[cliaz]

This is why we need to get ride of a democracy and install a totalitarian government.

[Bronco Billy]

This is why we need to get ride of a democracy and install a totalitarian government.

 

 

I think some here would think that would be a huge improvement, as long as it is disguised as communism.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", comrades!

[AtomicCEO]

You actually think the government can do it more efficiently?

 

I grow weary of defending myself against things that I didn't actually say.

 

Red Sox #1, losers! Boooya!!!!

[Azazello1313]

Maybe I'm crazy. But not so crazy that I'd actually believe a government run program would be more expensive than the current system. That's seriously demented.

 

You actually think the government can do it more efficiently?

 

I grow weary of defending myself against things that I didn't actually say.

 

so you're convinced socialized medicine would be less expensive, but not more efficient? i suppose that is possible, if services were drastically cut back. hmm, maybe you're on to something there...

[Ursa Majoris]

so you're convinced socialized medicine would be less expensive, but not more efficient? i suppose that is possible, if services were drastically cut back. hmm, maybe you're on to something there...

Would it be a plus or a minus that companies no longer had the massive health care benefit anchor dragging on them? I wonder if the increased profits (and the resulting reinvestment) would go some way towards mitigating the tax hit? Just wondering is all.

 

BTW, I just finally received closure on an open issue since I had a spinal cortisone shot last September. The billing got royally f'd up by the oh-so-efficient private sector. The billing between hospital, pricing agency and insurance company is f'd up 50% of the time. Also, the "operating room", which was actually a room with a bed in it (I had to sit on the edge of said bed) and a bunch of cardboard boxes stacked up in two corners, cost $550 - it was in use for 20 minutes. Real efficient.

[Bronco Billy]

Would it be a plus or a minus that companies no longer had the massive health care benefit anchor dragging on them? I wonder if the increased profits (and the resulting reinvestment) would go some way towards mitigating the tax hit? Just wondering is all.

 

BTW, I just finally received closure on an open issue since I had a spinal cortisone shot last September. The billing got royally f'd up by the oh-so-efficient private sector. The billing between hospital, pricing agency and insurance company is f'd up 50% of the time. Also, the "operating room", which was actually a room with a bed in it (I had to sit on the edge of said bed) and a bunch of cardboard boxes stacked up in two corners, cost $550 - it was in use for 20 minutes. Real efficient.

 

 

There's a lot more to health care than what you are putting forth here, and knowing you, you know that and are for some reason being utterly disingenuous.

 

There is no question that companies have put profit ahead of all other concerns in regard to healthy care. Stock value has become the driving force in the way a lot of companies are run these days.

 

Do I concede that things can be run better, more effectively, more economically, and more efficiently? Absolutely. Do I think the government can accomplish that goal by taking over the system? Absolutely not. It would be great to see health care costs curbed in. But to do that effectively, we need to start with 2 items that are extermely unlikely to change: 1) We need to get health care providers relief from exhorbitant insurance costs, and 2) We need all parties to kick into the system instead of having private firms in the U.S. do the heavy lifting (ie - like Canada getting significant cost breaks in prescription medicine, forcing prices in the U.S. up to cover insurance and R&D).

 

If someone can come up with a way to address those 2 items initially, we might be able to get people to the table to discuss some serious reform. As long as those 2 swords of Damacles are hanging over health care, nothing short of total socialism is going to change the current M.O. And it has been amply demonstrated that socialized medicine is not a way we want to go.

[AtomicCEO]

so you're convinced socialized medicine would be less expensive, but not more efficient? i suppose that is possible, if services were drastically cut back. hmm, maybe you're on to something there...

 

 

How do socialized medicine programs around the world compare to the US system with regard to cost? More expensive or less expensive? By what degree?

 

Now, you and Ponies seem to be indicating that a new US Socialized Healthcare system would buck that trend in magical ways. Care to elaborate on that? Either of you?

 

When you guys explain point #1 of your argument, then you can masturbate to the semantic arguments of mine.

[Bronco Billy]

How do socialized medicine programs around the world compare to the US system with regard to cost? More expensive or less expensive? By what degree?

 

 

 

You try to simplify things that can't be simplified. I don't understand whether you do that through ignorance or intentionally.

 

That can't be answered unless you also talk about level of service. If waiting 6 months for a heart bypass is acceptable, like it is in Canada, costs can be lowered since staffing can be reduced (people will do their share of dying while waiting to get an operation - or they will go elsewhere where they can be serviced immediately like Canadians come to the U.S. for immediate care). If we are going to have our current level of service, where issues are addressed within a week, costs are going to be significantly higher.

 

So, are we talk about our current level of service or are we talking about a Canada/England level of service?

Edited June 27, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Whiskey Pimp]

OK, from a Canadian here are some of my thoughts/opinions on our system. As most said, if you have a cold or something fairly minor then it's great because there is no cost but you also can't just show up at your family physician to get seen. In some cases by the time you get an appointment, the minor cold is gone and you no longer need to see the doctor. I used to work in a doctor's office when I was 16 and I saw the same patients there almost on a daily basis because they just find something they need to have looked at just because they can and they're lonely so at least they have the doc to talk to.

 

On the more serious issues or needing imaging (MRI, etc) it's a terrible process. I had a doc take an xray of my knee from a soccer injury (waited 4 weeks for this appointment). Then when the xray wasn't good enough he sent me for an MRI of which I waited 6 months to get. The good news is that I had no damage necessary of needing surgery and I didn't have to pay a dime for this but if I was say 70 years old and needed a hip looked at by the time it was seen and then finally operated on I may have done further damage.

 

So there are pluses and minuses to our system and we do have at least 1 private clinic here in Winnipeg where I could just pay the price tag for an MRI and get it done much quicker or drive to North Dakota and get it done there.

[AtomicCEO]

That can't be answered unless you also talk about level of service.

 

 

That's not true. You said it would be more expensive.

 

It wouldn't.

 

Now you want to change the subject.

[Bronco Billy]

That's not true. You said it would be more expensive.

 

It wouldn't.

 

Now you want to change the subject.

 

 

 

Yeah, and you said the health care in Canada & England was top notch - that is if you are talking about getting a flu shot as we have found out from numerous people posting here.

 

There is no change of subject. If we want the same level of service that we currently get, there is virtually no question (from rational people, at least) that the cost would be much greater if socilaized medicine were to be put into effect.

 

If you don't mind waiting months, hoping the whole time that you don't die during your wait, for significant operations, the cost could probably be curtailed somewhat.

 

Of course, since you can't rationally refute that, you decide to take a typical tactic of trying to keep extremely relevant information out of the topic in order to simplify it enough to think you have a valid argument. You don't, as much as you would like to think that you do. Level of service & cost are directly correlated and equally important in this discussion.

[AtomicCEO]

 

Yeah, and you said the health care in Canada & England was top notch - that is if you are talking about getting a flu shot as we have found out from numerous people posting here.

 

 

You continue to put words in my mouth and intentionally miss my point. I'm glad I didn't put much effort into changing your mind.

[Bronco Billy]

You continue to put words in my mouth and intentionally miss my point. I'm glad I didn't put much effort into changing your mind.

 

 

So now you claim you didn't state that the life expectancy in Canada & Engalnd was longer than that in the United States and also that it was directly attributable to the quality of health care? I can quote you if you would like me to.

 

You didn't put any effort into changing my mind. That would take some presentation of facts and a logical argument based upon those facts. Thus far your entire argument has based upon false premises & poor correlation of data - as has been amply pointed out by several people.

[AtomicCEO]

So now you claim you didn't state that the life expectancy in Canada & Engalnd was longer than that in the United States and also that it was directly attributable to the quality of health care?

 

 

Actually what I said was that life expectancy was the result of a health care system with the purpose of maintaining good health rather than maximizing profits.

 

I did not say that Canada and England were "top notch", or "directly attributable" to anything.

 

It is my opinion that someone out to make money does not necessarily make decisions in the customer's best interest.

 

And I'm not putting down doctors here. They aren't all saints, but I would say that doctors and nurses are mostly looking out for the people they serve (understatement), but I would also say that doctors and nurses make up a minority of the healthcare corporate/insurance conglomerate industry. There are an awful lot of people out there trying to squeeze pennies out of you.

 

See my previous posts for more of my opinion. Or, just consult whatever stereotype you already have about my opinion and respond directly to that. Either way.

[Bill Swerski]

If I had to choose between the two extremes, I'd rather have an easy time finding job, low taxes, and the burden of paying for healthcare out of my pocket (the current system) than a difficult time finding a job, high taxes, and the government paying for all of my healthcare issues. I'd much rather take the initiative to live a healthy lifestyle and have control over my own income than an entitlement from the government.

 

Consider also that socialized healthcare will involve price-fixing in the spam and biotech sectors, killing funding for R&D. Since American-based companies produce the vast majority of the new therapies, everyone would suffer.

[Yukon Cornelius]

if i had to choose between 2 extremes i would choose to annex the south... they are much more stupider than those in the north...