Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20 Jul 2013, 06:13 PM   #482248 / #1
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,387
Default The US is behind others in health care -- the American Medical Association

JAMA Network | JAMA | The State of US Health, 1990-2010: *Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors

I have to congratulate the American Medical Association for being willing to publish a study that the right wing will likely denounce as unpatriotic.

Quote:
From 1990 to 2010, the United States made substantial progress in improving health. Life expectancy at birth and HALE increased, all-cause death rates at all ages decreased, and age-specific rates of years lived with disability remained stable. However, morbidity and chronic disability now account for nearly half of the US health burden, and improvements in population health in the United States have not kept pace with advances in population health in other wealthy nations.

The United States spends the most per capita on health care across all countries, lacks universal health coverage, and lags behind other high-income countries for life expectancy and many other health outcome measures. High costs with mediocre population health outcomes at the national level are compounded by marked disparities across communities, socioeconomic groups, and race and ethnicity groups. Although overall life expectancy has slowly risen, the increase has been slower than for many other high-income countries. In addition, in some US counties, life expectancy has decreased in the past decades, particularly for women.
Figure 4 in it is very revealing. It's a comparison of how well the 34 OECD nations handle 25 notable diseases. The countries are, in order of their overall performance:
Iceland, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy
Israel, Spain, Australia, Norway, Netherlands
Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, Canada, New Zealand
France, Ireland, Greece, South Korea, United Kingdom
Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Slovenia, Denmark
Czech Republic, Chile, United States, Poland, Slovakia
Estonia, Hungary, Mexico, Turkey

The US is well below average, instead of being #1.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 06:23 PM   #482254 / #2
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
I have to congratulate the American Medical Association for being willing to publish a study that the right wing will likely denounce as unpatriotic.
Since the 1990's or so, the right wing pretty much despises the AMA as a "liberal" organization anyway. Which may explain why we are not exactly leading the world of medical practice.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 06:27 PM   #482258 / #3
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

The life expectancy stat is false as they are not comparing the same thing. In the US, stillborns are counted as a dead human age zero at a smaller size than the vast majority of nations to which the stat is being compared.

That stat also does not account for young people that are murdered (much higher violence in the US), this also lowers the life expectancy stat, it has nothing to do with health-care.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 06:30 PM   #482259 / #4
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Why would a Canadian Cabinet member fly to the US for cancer treatment if Canada has a better system?
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 11:22 PM   #482294 / #5
Wizofoz
Just this Guy, you know?
Mod: Introductions, Lounge, LU&E, Misc. Disc.
 
Wizofoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Why would a Canadian Cabinet member fly to the US for cancer treatment if Canada has a better system?
'Cause he can afford it- could a working class American?
__________________
When it comes to truth, there is no "Opposing opinion"
Wizofoz is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 07:03 PM   #482267 / #6
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,928
Default

The US system is superior for rich people, but inferior for the middle class and almost as bad as the 3rd world for the poor.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 10:48 PM   #482289 / #7
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
The life expectancy stat is false as they are not comparing the same thing. ....
Evidence? I'd like to see you work it out in detail. Yes, in detail. It should be E-Z for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Why would a Canadian Cabinet member fly to the US for cancer treatment if Canada has a better system?
Who and when?

Kinds of Health-Care Systems - Secular Café

The US has an awkward hybrid of 4 systems:
  • The Veterans Administration - Beveridge (UK National Health Service)
  • Medicare, Medicaid - National Health Insurance
  • Employer-Based Health Insurance - Bismarck
  • Not covered by those systems - Out-Of-Pocket
Romneycare / Obamacare is a version of the Bismarck model
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 12:34 AM   #482304 / #8
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
The life expectancy stat is false as they are not comparing the same thing. ....
Evidence? I'd like to see you work it out in detail. Yes, in detail. It should be E-Z for you.
Yep, pretty E-Z.

USA: 350 grams or 20 weeks or if parents want a birth certificate.
Scotland: 24 weeks completely expelled
England: 24 weeks completely expelled
Ireland: 24 weeks and 500 grams
Germany: 500 grams
Austria: 500 grams
Australia: 400 grams


Mean stillbirth rate

USA: 1 in 115 births
Australia,England, Wales, Ireland: 1 in every 200 births
Scotland 1 in 167

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 05:11 PM   #482386 / #9
Loren Pechtel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
The life expectancy stat is false as they are not comparing the same thing. ....
Evidence? I'd like to see you work it out in detail. Yes, in detail. It should be E-Z for you.
Yep, pretty E-Z.

USA: 350 grams or 20 weeks or if parents want a birth certificate.
Scotland: 24 weeks completely expelled
England: 24 weeks completely expelled
Ireland: 24 weeks and 500 grams
Germany: 500 grams
Austria: 500 grams
Australia: 400 grams


Mean stillbirth rate

USA: 1 in 115 births
Australia,England, Wales, Ireland: 1 in every 200 births
Scotland 1 in 167

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stillbirth
While you're gathering data also try comparing the stillborn + infant mortality rates.
Loren Pechtel is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 12:41 AM   #482306 / #10
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Why would a Canadian Cabinet member fly to the US for cancer treatment if Canada has a better system?
Who and when?
Belinda Stronach in 2007.

It was one of the more treatable forms of cancer, yet she needed to come to California. Apparently Canada doesn't treat one of the more treatable forms of cancer as well as the USA.

Also, lol @ there is a cancer care facility in Canada named after her family, but she didn't think it was good enough for her.

Quote:
Belinda Stronach, the MP for Newmarket-Aurora and former cabinet minister, travelled outside Canada's health-care system to California for some of her breast cancer treatment earlier this year.

"Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there," said Greg MacEachern, Stronach's assistant and spokesperson.

Speed was not the issue, MacEachern said – it was more to do with the type of surgery she and her doctor agreed was best for her, and where it was best performed. The type of cancer Stronach had is called DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ, one of the more treatable forms.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...treatment.html
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 01:19 AM   #482313 / #11
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Why would a Canadian Cabinet member fly to the US for cancer treatment if Canada has a better system?
Who and when?
Belinda Stronach in 2007.

It was one of the more treatable forms of cancer, yet she needed to come to California. Apparently Canada doesn't treat one of the more treatable forms of cancer as well as the USA.

Also, lol @ there is a cancer care facility in Canada named after her family, but she didn't think it was good enough for her.

Quote:
Belinda Stronach, the MP for Newmarket-Aurora and former cabinet minister, travelled outside Canada's health-care system to California for some of her breast cancer treatment earlier this year.

"Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there," said Greg MacEachern, Stronach's assistant and spokesperson.

Speed was not the issue, MacEachern said – it was more to do with the type of surgery she and her doctor agreed was best for her, and where it was best performed. The type of cancer Stronach had is called DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ, one of the more treatable forms.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...treatment.html
She had one procedure done in California - all the rest in Toronto.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 01:32 AM   #482318 / #12
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
She had one procedure done in California - all the rest in Toronto.
Why was the cancer hospital named after her in Canada not good enough for her, but good enough for the citizens she rules?
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Jul 2013, 10:56 PM   #482293 / #13
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,928
Default

Employer based varies widely - lots of employers (especially in low paying jobs) don't provide it at all. Many provide horrible HMO type insurance - cheap but only covers certain things, makes it VERY difficult to see a specialist and has high copays. You can also forget about having dental insurance most jobs. And dental care in the US is hideously expensive unless you live near a clinic or dental school. Dental care has become an unaffordable luxury for many Americans. Then there was how if you got sick with an expensive condition they could drop you (or refuse to start covering you after) before Obamacare.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 12:35 AM   #482305 / #14
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,928
Default

Doesn't a higher rate of stillbirths show there's a problem?
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 12:46 AM   #482307 / #15
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Doesn't a higher rate of stillbirths show there's a problem?
There is a higher rate of stillbirth because the same circumstance is counted differently in different countries.

A dead baby at 21 weeks is counted in the US, and not counted anywhere else.

Hell, in the US, any parent can request a birth certificate regardless the parameters.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 05:13 PM   #482387 / #16
Loren Pechtel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Doesn't a higher rate of stillbirths show there's a problem?
No, it shows that different countries use different yardsticks.

The first OCED report that dissed US healthcare even admitted the numbers couldn't be compared because of measurement differences but then proceeded to use them anyway.

The second report changed this to saying some nations' data couldn't be compared. Bury the truth as deep as possible.
Loren Pechtel is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 02:17 AM   #482319 / #17
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,928
Default

Maybe her doctor told her that the best doctor in the world for doing that procedure works at the hospital in California and she can afford him?
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 04:17 AM   #482327 / #18
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
Maybe her doctor told her that the best doctor in the world for doing that procedure works at the hospital in California and she can afford him?
Then she should have paid those funds to the 'free' system in canada so that the citizens could get better care.

Did you know that a generation ago Canada restricted the amount of people that could go to school to become doctors? They did this to reduce the ability of their citizens to access care because they knew the system was a ponzi scheme that would not be able to pay for needed care.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 04:20 AM   #482328 / #19
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

lpetrich, do you want me to source that claim too?
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 12:02 PM   #482352 / #20
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,387
Default

medical science - Does the AMA limit the number of doctors to increase current doctors' salaries? - Skeptics Stack Exchange
Quote:
This USA today article from 2005 confirms that the AMA and other organizations were indeed actively seeking to limit the number of new physicians being trained to prevent a projected surplus.
USATODAY.com - Medical miscalculation creates doctor shortage

So if that was happening in Canada, it could be for the same sort of reason, and not some sort of villainous coverup.


Seriously, Jerome, do you really think that what we have in the US is the best of possible worlds? Tying medical insurance to employment. Medical-insurance companies refusing to insure anyone with a pre-existing condition. Medical-insurance companies requiring an elaborate bureaucratic song-and-dance. Etc.

As to the Canadian system being a Ponzi scheme, prove that that is never true of medical-insurance companies. Yes, I mean *never*.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 01:48 PM   #482357 / #21
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
So if that was happening in Canada, it could be for the same sort of reason, and not some sort of villainous coverup.
The Canadian government was restricting the amount of doctors to pay individual doctors more? That makes no logical sense. The logical reason was to reduce access so as to pay out less.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea....aspx?id=17350

Quote:
Seriously, Jerome, do you really think that what we have in the US is the best of possible worlds? Tying medical insurance to employment. Medical-insurance companies refusing to insure anyone with a pre-existing condition. Medical-insurance companies requiring an elaborate bureaucratic song-and-dance. Etc.
It was government through the tax code that tied medical insurance to employment, I didn't think this was wise.

Do you expect car insurance to pay for your wrecked car when you buy the insurance *after* you wrecked the car?

If it wasn't for government forcing insurance companies to pay for every little thing, then catastrophic insurance would be cheap and affordable for everyone and 'maintenance' type care would be cheap and affordable to be paid out of pocket for the vast majority of people. Sure, government should fund those that truly can not pay, but the system now is a big government kick-back to big corporations.

Imagine how much oil changes, new tires, and wiper blades would cost if government forced car insurance to pay for these maintenance items.

Quote:
As to the Canadian system being a Ponzi scheme, prove that that is never true of medical-insurance companies. Yes, I mean *never*.
A system which gives big benefit with little cost to the first ones in and little benefit with great cost to the last ones in, this is a ponzi scheme. Insurance is required to pay out based upon what the individual has paid in, this is a contract, it can not be changed like a government program. The government can at any time change what it will pay out and what it will charge.

Government is meant to be the arbitrator between two parties if there is a dispute, putting government in the place of one party is a stacked deck against the citizen with no recourse.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 10:11 PM   #482429 / #22
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
The Canadian government was restricting the amount of doctors to pay individual doctors more? That makes no logical sense. The logical reason was to reduce access so as to pay out less.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea....aspx?id=17350
Given the source, I suspect that that's not the whole story.

Quote:
Quote:
Seriously, Jerome, do you really think that what we have in the US is the best of possible worlds? Tying medical insurance to employment. Medical-insurance companies refusing to insure anyone with a pre-existing condition. Medical-insurance companies requiring an elaborate bureaucratic song-and-dance. Etc.
It was government through the tax code that tied medical insurance to employment, I didn't think this was wise.
As some evil plot, of course.

Seriously, Jerome, you and your fellow right-wing ideologues have a LOT to learn about unintended consequences. I mean unintended consequences of your favorite policies, not policies that you dislike.

I've seen lots of right-wingers and capitalism groupies act as if they've never heard of a tax break that they didn't like. So if one loves every tax break that there ever was, then one ought not to whine and complain about the results.

When Georgia's politicians passed a law for cracking down on illegal immigrants, many of those immigrants fled the state. When that happened, farmers had a hard time recruiting farmworkers, and that state's governor was perplexed at that happening. That's not a very dignified way to act.

Quote:
Do you expect car insurance to pay for your wrecked car when you buy the insurance *after* you wrecked the car?
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.

Quote:
If it wasn't for government forcing insurance companies to pay for every little thing, ...
Citation needed.

Quote:
A system which gives big benefit with little cost to the first ones in and little benefit with great cost to the last ones in, this is a ponzi scheme. Insurance is required to pay out based upon what the individual has paid in, this is a contract, it can not be changed like a government program. The government can at any time change what it will pay out and what it will charge.
Insurance companies can and do weasel out of payment.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 10:53 PM   #482437 / #23
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

lpetrich, the Canadian government did restrict the number of doctors that could be schooled.

Now they have a doctor shortage, hence the costs are down as less care can be given.

What is your rational explanation for the restriction of doctors?
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Jul 2013, 10:55 PM   #482438 / #24
Jerome
Banned
Parachute Panic Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pleasant Living
Posts: 7,504
Default

lpetrich, you did not answer a single point I made.

Seriously, needing a citation that government regulates what insurance companies have to offer! If you are this ignorant about the current system, maybe you should do a bit of basic research before forming your opinions.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Jul 2013, 03:50 PM   #482510 / #25
DMB
Old git
Beloved deceased
 
DMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mostly Switzerland
Posts: 41,484
Default

Jerome, do you ever wonder why the British National Health Service (free at the point of delivery) is so popular. Even Conservative politicians treat it as sacrosanct.

There are people still alive who can remember the bad old pre-NHS days, and the rest can access the statistics that show how the health of the nation has improved. Indicators like maternal and infant mortality declined rapidly after the introduction of the NHS.
DMB is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Decency Association Slams Magic Johnson for Supporting Gay Son phands Human Rights 4 09 Apr 2013 06:22 PM
Uninsured Medical Care, US: a case study cnorman18 Miscellaneous Discussions 37 20 Aug 2011 08:16 PM
British Medical Association talks more sense, this time regarding 'Gay Conversions'. David B Miscellaneous Discussions 20 05 Jul 2010 08:46 PM
Universal health care and US/Canada public health comparisons Redshirt Politics & World Events 9 30 Apr 2010 08:57 AM
will the current health reform bill in the US change health care for the better? Joykins Politics & World Events 20 03 Nov 2009 05:25 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus