START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Canadians Flocking to the US for Care
5 years ago

I saw "Jeffery W" make an assertion along these lines recently. In a few personal messages with each other, I have asked him to provide reliable proof for this claim, but he has yet to do so. Supposedly, if I come to this thread, he says he will enlighten me publicly to show me exactly how many Canadian citizens are forced to come to the US for essential services due to Canada's inability to care for them. This should prove ot be enjoyable... especially if he tries to bring up the Spurious "Fraser Institute" study that uses easily refuted data based on manipulated numbers... So, without further ado, jeffery w...

5 years ago

Someone seems a bit over-caffeinated. Let me straighten out the twists presented above. The person who posts under the above profile, and cowardly as anonymous on other threads here, displays the all-too-familiar tactics of deflection, personal attack and denial of basic facts contradictory to their prejudice.

 

The issue he refers to is an exchange that took place here:

 

http://www.care2.com/causes/health-policy/blog/why-the-rush-on-health-care-reform-families-are-being-clobbered/

 

That link leads to an article in the "Causes" section purporting that the rush urged by Obama to vote on the quickly sinking health care "reform" stems, not from the daily increase in popular opposition, but rather to the urgent need to save lives of those not currently insured.

 

Some discussion arose as to the distinct disadvantages of government-managed health care as seen in Canada - a system often held up as a model by those who favor a government take over of healt care. One of those disadvantages is the severe rationing and shortage of care in Canada, which results in egregiously long wait times. One of the ways that Canadians overcome this problem is to travel to the US for the care they cannot get in Canada, or at least not in time.

 

The poster above tries to deflect this point by twisting the question to one asking the exact number of Canadians who come to the US. Of course, there is no official statistic to point to, but I did present an article with statements from the several major US clinics stating the percentage of their patients who come from Canada, and the Frasier Institute survey of wait times in Canada.

For example:

 

Why is the hip replacement center of Canada in Ohio -- at the Cleveland Clinic, where 10 percent of its international patients are Canadians?

 

 

Why is the Brain and Spine Clinic in Buffalo serving about 10 border-crossing Canadians a week? Why did a Calgary woman recently have to drive several hundred miles to Great Falls, Mont., to give birth to her quadruplets?


http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/09/01/uh-oh,_canada?page=full&comments=true

 

I could also have referenced this:

 

Dr. Richard F. Davis, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, described what's happening to patients waiting for coronary bypass surgery. In one year while waiting for this one operation, 71 patients died,



One-hundred twenty-one became too sick for surgery and 44 left to have the operation in the United States. The Calgary Herald reported that 25,000 Calgary residents were waiting for surgery or scans at just four city hospitals. Alberta Health's Web site lists the following surgery wait times: 15 months for hip replacement, 15 months general surgery, 13 months for knee replacement, three months for cardiac surgery and 13 months for an MRI scan.



According to the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich., since February 2007 Ontario hospitals have sent 421 heart patients, 75 pregnant women or their babies and 25 women with high risk pregnancies to U.S. hospitals to receive care that they could not provide. And that's just Ontario! There are nine more provinces up there!

 

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/07/23/let_541768.shtml

 

There are many other reports that spring to mind of Canadians coming to the US because of the lack of service in Canada. Universal coverage is not the same thing as universal access, just as in the old Soviet Union, everything was free, but there was nothing available. The point is that, while the exact number is impossible to determine,  Canadians do come to the US out of desperation. I challenge anybody to find a Canadian hospital with any significant number of people who traveled there from the US.

 

This leads to the next point: that this influx of Canadians stems from the rationing and insufficient supply of health care services, equipment and facilities that is directly attibutible to single payer systems. For that, I referenced the Faser Institute's annual survey of wait times, which should shock any reasonable person, and readily explains why Canadians come here:

 

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/PayingMoreGettingLess2007.pdf

 

The poster above merely resorts to ad hominem by attacking me as a paid troll ( how many times have I heard that one?), distorting the issue by deflecting to the question of the exact number of Canadians coming here rather than the the question of why they come here at all while Americans don't go to Canada, and more ad hominem by dismissing the wait times because the Fraser Institute had published them. Of course, the Fraser Institute cited the source of their statistics, which anybody can easily verify. But instead, the above poster lazily and dishonestly dismissed them by attacking the messenger to deflect attention from the message.

 

 



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jul, 20:40
Jeffery
5 years ago

You are correct in what you say but I am also concerned at how many here in our own back yard that can not pay for there meds or get in to even see a Doctor. I dont know if your Mother is living, mine is and can not afford her meds. Let alone keep going back and forth to find the right ones without the side effects. I have also seen where people in are own Country go to other country's because of certain kinds of surgery, and because of affordability. But that is the point, so much of it is broken, fixing only one aspect of it all is not going to fix the slowly crumbling health care. It is crumbling no matter what you or I say. This will fall on our children no matter what we say or do at this point.


It will also get worse because of how work issued insurance has pushed back how long before you have coverage, that has only been going on for the last 4 years or so. When I started work at 18 I had health care 3 months into my job, now my 18 year old has to wait 18 months up to 2 years. Meanwhile he has none, he has to pick between health care to pay for or getting a car to get back and forth to work and car Insurance. Minimum wage does not cover everything.


I think your information could be of value if used properly and applied to what we could do and improve on. We have one advantage on Canada, we could learn from there mistakes and if we were to build health care from the ground up, in a sense it would give us great opportunities to fix how it all works. As it stands now, what we are doing now is not working.





This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jul, 21:39

This post was modified from its original form on 26 Jul, 21:40
5 years ago

Hi Brenda, and welcome. I'm glad you're here.

 

I share your concerns, and am in no way denying the need to change health care in the US. But there are worse solutions than our present system, and single-payer, or governemnt-run health care would be far worse for most Americans.

 

What we really need is insurance reform. There is no good reason for health insurance to be tied to employment. There are ways of making it portable, and to make health care costs more responsive to supply and demand, which it isn't under the current form of insurance.

5 years ago

The only bad thing is everything that is connected to health care and Insurance and everything related would need to be broken down and built back up again. I like the way are Insurance is now but peoples hands in each others pocket will stop the changes needed because they can. Its like the credit card companies that raise interest rates because they can. Some how they need to make it where one does not profit off another but then your faced with influence, like money under the table that no one knows about, or I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Right now I am just going to keep on praying because no matter which way we go , we will be going on a ride.

5 years ago

Hi Jeffrey.

 

What reforms would you recommend? 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about makiing health care costs more responsive to supply and demand.  Enlighten me?

 

By the way, what do you think of requiring everyone to have health insurance?

5 years ago

First, eliminate the tax deduction to employers and transfer it to individuals. Second, legalize the ability to purchase insurance offered in any state. Third, create tax-free medical spending accounts.This should help break the link between a job and health insurance.

 

For most people, it would make more sense to contribute money to the savings account than to insurance for everyday medical and drug needs, and the individual would get the tax break to do so. This would be augmented with catastrophic insurance, which is available relatively cheaply, for hospitalization.

 

The spending accounts would, for the first time, introduce the efficiencies of supply and demand. Since you have a set amount to spend tax free, you would make smarter medical decisions. As long as the cost is something just foisted off on the insurance company, the consumer has no incentive to rationalize his decisions, and the price mechanism disappears. Without the price mechanism, costs quickly spiral out of control, or alternatively, supply doesn't meet demand. If I only have $3000, for example, to spend tax free, I'm likely to put more thought into generic vs. brand name drugs, tests, elective procedures, etc. And I'm also going to shop for doctors who provide value for the dollar spent. Suddenly we would have real competition for health care dollars, and providers would need to increase value, or lower prices.

 

In addition, we need tort reform to cap some of the absurd judgments and the many frivolous suits that cause malpractice insurance to add so much to health care costs. That, plus public flogging of all lawyers. (You might just get a gentle spanking, though.)

 

I'm libertarian, and would oppose requiring anybody to have health insurance. For younger, healthier people, not having insurance could be a rational decision worth the risk. As a libertarian, however, I would also insist that individuals bear the consequences of these decisions.

 

Now that I've solved the health care problem, what else can I help with?

 





This post was modified from its original form on 27 Jul, 10:41
Fraser Inst.
5 years ago

Wow, Jeffery cant even respond without first descending into character assassination...

shocking indeed...

As surprising as his desire to paint anyone who questions his assertions, as somehow being in support of Obama, not to mention the SPECIFICS of the Current health care plan being presented in the house...

now, I am no supporter of Obama's current health care plan, per se, (how many people here have actually read it?? not jeffery, obviously), but to make the kind of absurd, obviously false claims that the health care system in France, Canada, and England are somehow WORSE than the current Privitized options in the US is just Patently False.

This is how people like Jeffery work. They are not interested in debate, they merely want to derail a productive conversation with outright lies and disinformation. For anyone who questions this assertion of mine, I strongly encourage you to research some of the links he has so kindly provided

NOW, as for the "Debate" he claimed he would engage me in...Jeffery's initial assertion was that "hundreds of thousands" of Canadians "Flock" (what are they, birds?) to The US for Care. I have asked him repeatedly to provide proof of these claims, but all he has done, as he does above, is provide vague links that do not prove this at all. In fact, the links provided merely serve to obscure the issue by directing the reader to yet even more spurious,, once-sided claims, without proving first the intitil claim.

As for the "Fraser Institute" study Jeffery keeps quoting, i strongly urge all of you to go read it yourself here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/researchtopics/health.htm
Make no question about it, the Fraser Institute is a pro-business lobby that doesnt want corporations to pay taxes.

It should be noted that nothing in the study jeffery points out actually implies that Canadian are "Forced" to seek care elsewhere. It merely shows that some Canadians CHOOSE, for their own reasons, to seek care outside of their government-sponsored system. The main irony here being that Jeffery is attempting to claim that a Government-run program will give you NO CHOICE, yet this study chows that, in fact, Canadians DO INDEED have a choice between a private doctor and a Gov. Doctor.

I am a Duel Citizen of both The US and Canada. I grew up in the states, and have lived on and off in Canada for years. So, let me say from personal experience, that Canadians, in general are happy with their system. They are often truly dumbfounded to try and comprehend how those of us in the States can end up going bankrupt for basic medical care. All of you know this experience, nless you are fabulously independently wealthy. As I doubt most here are.

Did you know, for example, that over 50% of bankruptcy claims in the US are related to not being able to pay health care bills? http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

So, obviously there are problems with aspects of "Obama's" health care plan, but to obscure the issues with fear and lies, as I have proven Jeffery indeed does certainly does not contribute to an informed debate. I encourage all of you to do your own research, question your sources, and come to your own EDUCATED conclusion about how to fix the obvious holes in our current health care "system" in this country.


And remember that Jeffery's Profile proudly lists himself as an agent provocateur

a little more
5 years ago

Jeffery Said:


>>>>>"There are many other reports that spring to mind of Canadians coming to the US because of the lack of service in Canada. Universal coverage is not the same thing as universal access, just as in the old Soviet Union, everything was free, but there was nothing available. The point is that, while the exact number is impossible to determine, Canadians do come to the US out of desperation. I challenge anybody to find a Canadian hospital with any significant number of people who traveled there from the US.




This leads to the next point: that this influx of Canadians stems from the rationing and insufficient supply of health care services, equipment and facilities that is directly attibutible to single payer systems. For that, I referenced the Faser Institute's annual survey of wait times, which should shock any reasonable person, and readily explains why Canadians come here:"<<<< end quote




No, this proves nothing along the lines of what you CLAIM it proves. Nothing in ANY of the links you provide implies that any significant portion of patients in Canada are "Forced" to seek essential care outside fo their country. Some Canadians (an obvious minority, even based on the numbers you provide) seek care outside of their government system, and AT TIMES, that care is in th eUS. This is often the case for NONESSENTIAL procedures, like facelifts, breast enhancement, etc. Peopel are not put ona waiting list when they are dying of cancer. That is just not true, which is why you can not provide any specifics to back it up.


As for your comparing the Canadian Health Care system to the former Soviet Union, I have to laugh. Jeffery is reall showing his Red-Scare stripes, there. Canada's Health Care System is not "Communist" by any rational sense of the word, any more than the US Postal System or Interstate Infrastructure is "Communist".


People, it is very important to remmeber that for-profit insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue shield kaiser, etc, astand to lose TRILLIONS if they lose their Monopoly on our current health care system. Obviously, they are running scared from any "Socialized" plan and will employ every tactic they can think of, including lies, fear, and intimidation.


Just ask yourself, can our current system in the US possibly get any worse? Will providing a Public OPTION (oh no!, choice!) really be worse than the majority of Americans having to go to the Emergency room for basic care?


A Socialized program may have many flaws, I it is important for all of us to read up and study all the possible options on the table. But to spread fear and lies obviously helps no one, and merely serves to muddy the waters in favor of those Private Health Care providers who currently control the game.



This post was modified from its original form on 27 Jul, 11:31
5 years ago

"All lawyers" would have to include the insurance companies' lawyers.

5 years ago

I think you have some good ideas.  And I agree completely that nobody should be required to buy health insurance -- a recent development (I believe) that absolutely freaks me out.  But, I must say, I sympathize with those who make the choice simply because they can't afford insurance, rather than because they don't want or need it.  (But if the healthy and low-risk folks don't buy insurance, wouldn't that mean that rates would have to be higher than it would be otherwise for those who need it?)  And I agree in principle that people should take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences, but as a bleedin' heart, y'know, I can't just see turning our backs on those in need.  But caring for them should be the role of churches, not government, shouldn't it?

 

I can't agree with you on tort reform, though.  Victims of negligence have to have some recourse for justice to be served.  Those with the ability to harm others need to have the incentive to take proper precautions and not gamble with others' wellbeing.

 

But of course I would say that....

5 years ago

"All lawyers" would have to include the insurance companies' lawyers."

 

Of course.

5 years ago

So you're for indiscriminate flogging?

 

I guess that makes sense; the defense lawyers need work too, so they can't be entirely opposed to "frivolous" lawsuits.

5 years ago

One lawyer is like another. The defense lawyers tend to file a whole lot of frivolous motions, especially for prisoners. Not related to health care, but annoying just the same.

5 years ago

Yeah, don't you just hate those whiny accused people insisting on their rights to due process and not being punished if they're actually innocent and all that?

 

5 years ago

I think you have some good ideas.

 

Of course, although I would quibble with the word "some".

 

But, I must say, I sympathize with those who make the choice simply because they can't afford insurance, rather than because they don't want or need it.

 

Feel free to help them out as much as you want. In principle, I hold each individual responsible for taking care of this himself - do what you have to to be able to afford it. People aren't helpless, but some will act that way if somebody else supports them.  I would compromise, though, for some sort of aid for those who really can't take care of themselves, or short-term aid for those at the poverty level.

 

But if the healthy and low-risk folks don't buy insurance, wouldn't that mean that rates would have to be higher than it would be otherwise for those who need it?

 

Yep. Still, the large majority of the healthy would self-insure through the medical accounts and have catastrophic, or maintian traditional policies because most of us won't remain healthy forever. (Unlike me - I'm indestructible.)

 

 

But caring for them should be the role of churches, not government, shouldn't it?

 

Exactly, as well as friends, relatives and other private citizens. I don't belong to any church, but I help out quite a few people. Don't tell anybody, though. In reality, my heart bleeds so much I often require blood transfusions.

 

I can't agree with you on tort reform, though.  Victims of negligence have to have some recourse for justice to be served.  Those with the ability to harm others need to have the incentive to take proper precautions and not gamble with others' wellbeing.

 

I agree completely, and fully understand the need for malpractice suits to keep providers responsible for their actions. But there needs to be more rationality in this process, rather than the current sweepstakes approach, where you might get nothing at all, or you might hit the jackpot. And there really are a lot of frivolous and dishonest malpractice suits. Those who file those need to bear the costs of it.






This post was modified from its original form on 27 Jul, 12:57
5 years ago

Yeah, don't you just hate those whiny accused people insisting on their rights to due process and not being punished if they're actually innocent and all that?

 

I can probably ignore their whining; it's the guilty who insist wasting our time and money who really bug me. We should probably taser them more.



This post was modified from its original form on 27 Jul, 12:58
5 years ago

I think you have some good ideas.

 

Of course, although I would quibble with the word "some".

 

Okay, you're right.  You have EVERY good idea.  Every good idea that ever existed originated in your brilliant mind!

 

But, I must say, I sympathize with those who make the choice simply because they can't afford insurance, rather than because they don't want or need it.

 

Feel free to help them out as much as you want. In principle, I hold each individual responsible for taking care of this himself - do what you have to to be able to afford it. People aren't helpless, but some will act that way if somebody else supports them.  I would compromise, though, for some sort of aid for those who really can't take care of themselves, or short-term aid for those at the poverty level.

 

In the same breath you say that people should do what they must to be able to afford it (whatever they must, really? stealing?), and then acknowledge that there are some who really can't.  Which one is it?  They can if they really try, or they can't?  Oh, and I would love to be able to help people more than I do, but I can't afford to.

 

But if the healthy and low-risk folks don't buy insurance, wouldn't that mean that rates would have to be higher than it would be otherwise for those who need it?

 

Yep. Still, the large majority of the healthy would self-insure through the medical accounts and have catastrophic, or maintian traditional policies because most of us won't remain healthy forever. (Unlike me - I'm indestructible.)

 

So taking the healthy out of the insurance pool does leave those who really need insurance with higher premiums, yes?  So isn't that a cause for concern?  Isn't the whole idea behind insurance that most people paying in won't need to take money out, but the funds from everyone are enough to cover the small portion who do need to take?  And isn't that kind of messed up if we lose funds from more of the ones who won't need to take, and have a higher portion who will draw money out?  Am I missing something here?

 

But caring for them should be the role of churches, not government, shouldn't it?

 

Exactly, as well as friends, relatives and other private citizens. I don't belong to any church, but I help out quite a few people. Don't tell anybody, though. In reality, my heart bleeds so much I often require blood transfusions.

 

Some of us don't have friends or relatives.


Why would you require transfusions if you're indestructible?

 

I can't agree with you on tort reform, though.  Victims of negligence have to have some recourse for justice to be served.  Those with the ability to harm others need to have the incentive to take proper precautions and not gamble with others' wellbeing.

 

I agree completely, and fully understand the need for malpractice suits to keep providers responsible for their actions. But there needs to be more rationality in this process, rather than the current sweepstakes approach, where you might get nothing at all, or you might hit the jackpot. And there really are a lot of frivolous and dishonest malpractice suits. Those who file those need to bear the costs of it.

 

You mean if the plaintiffs lose, they pay the other side's legal costs?  As they do in merry old England?  Eh well, there's no telling what goes through the minds of some juries.  They, after all, are not held accountable for being asinine.

Response?
5 years ago

So jeffery, you arent going to respond to my post, or back up your claim that Canadians "Flock" to the US for care they can not receive in Canada?



I guess expecting you to engage in the debate that is actually the topic of the thread is unreasonable for someone so stuck in theory and pre-determined, black and white philosophy.

I guess holding your hands over your ears saying 'lalalalalala obama's a socialist' is easier...



Tell me, jeffery, who is your insurance provider? Blue Cross? Keiser Permanente?

This post was modified from its original form on 27 Jul, 16:14
Not Waiting
5 years ago

Since he doesnt want to debate, I'll just use his statements from this thread: http://www.care2.com/causes/health-policy/blog/why-the-rush-on-health-care-reform-families-are-being-clobbered/


Jeffery W said:<<"Most Americans have access to the very best and most advanced health care in the world. It is a relatively small percentage of US citizens who are uninsured, and a significant number of those are only temporarily uninsured or uninsured by choice. And they still cannot be denied treatment.">>


I respond: There are about 46 million people in the US with no coverage at all.. that is more than ten percent of the population, and that does not include people on medicare medicaid. As for the statement that these people are uninsured by "Choice", that is just untrue. I would love to some documentation supporting that. And, no, they cannot be "Denied" treatment. But they will be billed for it, leaving many people in bankruptcy. leaving the burdan upon the Emergency room is certainly not a "Plan". It is a lack of a plan.


Jeffery W said:">>The idea that many Americans live in dread of financial disaster due to health care is untrue, and a propaganda bit that doesn't resonate for most most Americans. In fact, most Americans are very happy with their insurance and current health care."<<


I respond: Really? That certainly isnt the America I know. I dont have health insurance in the states, because I am an indipendant contractor, and i am not particularly, "happy" about it. Again, any stats to back up your opinion?


Jeffery W said:>>"That is why most Americans oppose Obama's health care plans. They recognize this would increase taxes while diminishing the quality and availability of health care for the large majority to address an exaggerated concern for a small minority. And that is why Obama can't get it passed even in a Democrat-controlled Congress."<<


I respond:Really, where have you seen a statistics that says "most Americans oppose Obama's health care plans" I saw an ABC poll recently that had the number at about 50/50. That hardly constitutes a "majority" by any reasonable measure of the term. As for why Obama has yet to pass said Plan, obviously that is speculation, since there are many, many factors wrapped up in the issue.


Jeffery W Says: ">>

And meanwhile, more and more Canadians come to the US for the care they can't get at home. "<<


I respond:Again, STILL waiting for you to prove that " more and more Canadians come to the US for the care they can't get at home. " Why cant you prove it? Is it because it is anecdotal evidence that is not based on fact?



I wont hold my breath for those statistic to back up your baseless assertions...

This post was modified from its original form on 27 Jul, 16:34

5 years ago

The opening poster once again betrays an inability to offer any more than ad hominem, distortion and denial. He not only repeats the original distortion of the issue I raised, but doubles down on it:

 

Jeffery's initial assertion was that "hundreds of thousands" of Canadians "Flock" (what are they, birds?) to The US for Care.

 

You are a liar - you put quotes to attribute to me words I never wrote in order to deflect from the point I actually made. You then further invented this:

 

"So jeffery, you arent going to respond to my post, or back up your claim that Canadians "Flock" to the US for care they can not receive in Canada?"

 

Right here, I'm calling you a liar. Try to prove me wrong: produce the thread and quote where I said that. I did explain again in my first post in this thread what I had actually said, and the point I was making. You persist in dishonestly trying to divert to a strawman instead.

 

 

There are about 46 million people in the US with no coverage at all.. that is more than ten percent of the population, and that does not include people on medicare medicaid.

 

There are fewer than 10 million Americans uninsured for a period of 12 months or more, and many of them are by choice.  That number is trivial, and certainly not worth destroying the health care system that the majority are satisfied with. In addition, even the uninsured cannot be denied care. In contrast, the insured in Canada can't find care.

 

Even if we were to use your incorrect figure of 43 million, we would still be looking at a small fraction of the population, just as I had claimed - about 14%.

 

In addition to attributing to me fictitious quotes in order to create a strawman, you lazily dismiss through ad hominem the wait time statistics presented in the Fraser Institute report:

 

As for the "Fraser Institute" study Jeffery keeps quoting, i strongly urge all of you to go read it yourself here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/researchtopics/health.htm
Make no question about it, the Fraser Institute is a pro-business lobby that doesnt want corporations to pay taxes.

 

What you continue to evade is that outside sources cited by the report for those wait time figures. You know you cannot impeach the statistics, so you again resort to dishonest through ad hominem. In reality, it matters not at all what the bent of the institute is - what matters is the veracity of the statistics and the logic of the argument - which you don't dare address.

 

As for opposition to government-run health care:

 

I respond:Really, where have you seen a statistics that says "most Americans oppose Obama's health care plans" I saw an ABC poll recently that had the number at about 50/50. That hardly constitutes a "majority" by any reasonable measure of the term. As for why Obama has yet to pass said Plan, obviously that is speculation, since there are many, many factors wrapped up in the issue.

 

Most Americans do not see universal coverage as an important issue, whereas they do see cost as an issue:

 

"Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters nationwide say that cost is the biggest health care problem facing the nation today. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% believe the lack of universal health insurance coverage is a bigger problem.

 

Only 10% believe the quality of care is the top concern, and two percent (2%) point to the inconvenience factor of dealing with the current medical system."

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/cost_not_universal_coverage_is_top_health_care_concern_for_voters

 

In addition, the vast majority are satisfied with the quality of care and convenience of dealing with their insurance.

 

And for the clincher, 54% of Americans prefer no change at all to changing their current insurance arrangements:

 

"Given a choice between health care reform and a tax hike or no health care reform and no tax hike, 47% would prefer to avoid the tax hike and do without reform. Forty-one percent (41%) take the opposite view.

 

The opposition is stronger when asked about a choice between health care reform that would require changing existing health insurance coverage or no health care reform and no change from current coverage. In that case, voters oppose reform by a 54% to 32"

 

 

All we have seen from you so far is dishonesty, personal attack and evasion. Not very impressive, really.

5 years ago

In the same breath you say that people should do what they must to be able to afford it (whatever they must, really? stealing?), and then acknowledge that there are some who really can't.  Which one is it?  They can if they really try, or they can't? 

 

The elderly, children and the sick or some disabled cannot look after themselves and a case could be made to make them dependent on the state. All others need to provide for themselves. I could accept short term assistance, I suppose for those capable of work.

 

So taking the healthy out of the insurance pool does leave those who really need insurance with higher premiums, yes?  So isn't that a cause for concern?

 

To  the degree it happens, it is a cause for some concern, but not a fatal flaw. There are problems inherent in any approach, but I very much doubt that more than a small amount of young healthy people would go without insurance, and not for more than a few years. The large majority of people, regardless of current health will continue to get coverage just as the do now. It really isn't much of a change from what we have now.

 

Some of us don't have friends or relatives.

 

I'll be your friend.

 

Why would you require transfusions if you're indestructible?

 

I don't actually require them - that was exaggeration. They do make me feel better more quickly, though.

 

 

You mean if the plaintiffs lose, they pay the other side's legal costs?  As they do in merry old England? 

 

Exactly.

 

Eh well, there's no telling what goes through the minds of some juries.  They, after all, are not held accountable for being asinine.

 

Which is where my skull-crushing prowess can be useful.

A little help from Paul Krugman
5 years ago

5 years ago

Some of us don't have friends or relatives.

 

I'll be your friend.

 

I thought you were already my friend.  Why do you assume I was speaking of myself?

 

What does "p3wned" mean?  I don't even know how to pronounce that.

 

Pity I can't get audio on this computer.  He might be saying something interesting.

Poor Jeffery
5 years ago

"So jeffery, you deny saying this?:

""And meanwhile, more and more Canadians come to the US for the care they can't get at home. "<<

Please, for the 4th time, can you prove that in fact Canadians are coming to the US for essential care that the Canadian system will not provide?

You sure employ a lot of bluster and out-of-context quotes for a man who thinks he has truth on his side. I would think you could argue your point without calling names.

again, I ask you: "Who is your health care provider"?

The Fraser Institute are lying to you
5 years ago

I said: As for the "Fraser Institute" study Jeffery keeps quoting, i strongly urge all of you to go read it yourself here: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/researchtopics/health.htm
Make no question about it, the Fraser Institute is a pro-business lobby that doesnt want corporations to pay taxes.



Jeffery Said: "What you continue to evade is that outside sources cited by the report for those wait time figures. You know you cannot impeach the statistics, so you again resort to dishonest through ad hominem. In reality, it matters not at all what the bent of the institute is - what matters is the veracity of the statistics and the logic of the argument - which you don't dare address."

No, in fact I very clearly laid out exactly how the Fraser Institute's study obscures the numbers to attempt to make their own pre-determined point. They cherry-pick statistics from different years, depending on what serves their argument more, and leave out enormous gaps in logic in order to paint a very one-sided picture. There is no need for me to repeat it here, it is all in my original post.

As for the "Ad Hom" attack, that is more bluster on your part without any evidence. the Fraser Institute is a Pro-"Free-Market" think tank. That isnt 'character assassination', it's on their website!

Freedom Works
5 years ago

Wow, what a surprise. The paid employee of Freedom Works can't defend his asanine assertions.

("Freedom Works"--look them up, they are a lobby group that pays people to spread pro-business disnifo. they are the same folks organizing "citizens" to pretend to be locals at town hall meetings, often being bussed in from hundreds of miles away)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5217554.shtml

5 years ago

Defend myself against what? All you did was repeat your denial of statistics and continue with ad hominem. You made A false claim that you exposed the obfuscations by the Fraser Institute, but in fact you did no such thing. You merely repeated an empty accusation. You did not give us one example or argument. Anybody who actually looked at the charts would know your claim that the Fraser Institute cherry picks the months to compare would immediately recognize that as nonsense. The Fraser Institute publishes the statistics every year, and using full year statistics, which makes your claim impossible.

 

I also provided evidence from major US clinics giving percentages of their patients from Canada. You simply choose to ignore it.

 

My claim still stands that you are a liar - you obviously failed to provide the citation where you falsely quoted me.

 

What we are witnessing now in the Administration and among the radical left is anger and desperation. And I have to admit, I'm really enjoying the show. They tried to ram through a radical health care bill before the public could realize what was being foisted on them. It didn't work, and now the public is angry - so angry that many Democrat congressmen are afraid to go home and face their constituents. They have been caugth in lies about the true intent of the plan to bring about government-run single payer, about the taxes required to support the scheme, and about the astonishing deficit it will create.

 

The administration's desperation has led it to one of the weirdest reactions I have ever seen: they claim that the visible and angry opposition to their plan is manufactured and phony. The polls, on the other hand, show the American public solidly against the plan, and this opposition continues to grow and become angrier. The stupidest move a politician facing public opposition can do is to insult the voters. Denying the validity of the voters is political suicide, and the Democrat Congressmen are caught in this trap.

 

Here are the most recent polls:

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1357&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890178435291341.html

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111194032&ps=cprs

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176.html

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121814/More-Disapprove-Than-Approve-Obama-Healthcare.aspx

 

http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide

 

 

All show the public having turned against Obama's health care initiative. It is impossible to rationally dismiss that as simply noise coming from the insurance industry and Republican operatives. The polls show the opposition and anger to be genuine and growing.

5 years ago

Of course I'm your friend, Sally. And p3wned is what how all of us cool guys write "owned". But by hanging with me, you'll soon know all that.

 

The video takes place at a health care debate. Paul Krugman asked for a show of hands of all the Canadians in the audience. He then asked how many of them thought their healthcare was terrible, and to his horror and surprise, all of them again raised their hands. He should get out more often, I guess.

5 years ago

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.  Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care.  Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex.  However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1:  Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1]  Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.  Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway.  The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2:  Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2]  Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3:  Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3]  Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease.  By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. 

 Fact No. 4:  Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4]  Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

  • Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
  • Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
  • More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
  • Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5:  Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.  Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent).  Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

 

Fact No. 6:  Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.  Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6]  All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7]  In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7:  People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.   More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8:  Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.  When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

5 years ago

Fact No. 9:  Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.  Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11]  [See the table.]  The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain.  The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12] 

Fact No. 10:  Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13]  The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14]  Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15]  In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize.   Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16]  [See the table.]

Conclusion.  Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.