Originally posted by FeceMan
I like the health care system the way it is.
So do I ! 😄
I love that you can't get life-necessary surgery unless you have enough Insurance or Cash to pay for it.
I love how the Emergency Room left me waiting for 2 hours with a Dislocated Shoulder, until my mother told them she was a Nurse, and they finally sent me to get my shoulder back in place....
Those were the best two hours of my life...
The Government can't run the Public Schools or Mail let alone anything as complex as Health Care. A Socialized Health Care System would not be the best solution. The US Government already has a safety net for those who need Health Care but can't afford it. The less Government oversight and intrusion into private sectors the better. Bill Clinton started the Welfare Reform 10-12 years ago. His idea was to reduce welfare dependence and have people trained with job skills. To the liberals dismay, the Reform is a huge success with less single parents and families living below the poverty line.
Originally posted by Soleran
Thank you for telling me that! MY point isn't that I am raging against increasing minimum wage, I said this on the first page of this discussion.I am against raising minimum wage because it's an easy target for the layman as the lowest common denominator. How about we give small business owners a tax break for whatever they contribute to employee health benefits (realizing they have to contribute at least 50%.) Now that looks like it does something rather then increase minimum wage for popularity contests that oh by the way won't change where you are at in the income bracket anyway.
Not to mention if you're living on minimum wage thats the point, you're living on the minimum wage, time to make some changes to get away from that income.
I just told you that raising the min wage wont affect that. People on min wage in the States are living beneath the poverty line.
They can increase the min wage to 6.50 without affecting anything.
Originally posted by badabing
The Government can't run the Public Schools or Mail let alone anything as complex as Health Care. A Socialized Health Care System would not be the best solution. The US Government already has a safety net for those who need Health Care but can't afford it. The less Government oversight and intrusion into private sectors the better. Bill Clinton started the Welfare Reform 10-12 years ago. His idea was to reduce welfare dependence and have people trained with job skills. To the liberals dismay, the Reform is a huge success with less single parents and families living below the poverty line.
Thats absolute bullshit.
Govt cant run healthcare.
HMMMMMM Ever heard of Canada?
Originally posted by Smasandian
Thats absolute bullshit.Govt cant run health care.
HMMMMMM Ever heard of Canada?
Now the Canadian Supreme Court has acknowledged the problem of waiting lists. The deleterious effect waiting lists have for Canadians has been recognized as not conferring to Canadians what they were supposed to get from their single-payer, socialized system.
The court recently ruled, in a milestone legal decision involving Canada’s single-payer health care known as Medicare, that a Quebec law banning the purchase of private health insurance is unconstitutional. What is interesting about this case is why they stated it. The majority opinion said: “delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.” Canadians are distressed by their health care system. While vacationing in Canada last summer the headline news in all the papers and broadcasts was the impending conference about the problems of the Canadian health care system. Chief among these problems were waiting lists.
Canada - Population 32,000,000 +- 2005
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Or Australia. Or any number of other nations.
USA - Population 296,000,000 +- 2005 (Illegal immigrants 12,000,000 +-2005)
Yes, it's a good system indeed. Also, check the population number. You'll quickly see a difference. Hundreds of millions is a much larger logistical problem than tens of millions. Opinions are nice but please present a shred of proof to back opinion. The phrase "that's absolute bullsh!t" is not proof.
Absolute population is a poor comparative measure.
Per capita GDP spent on health in the USA is much higher than that of both Canada and Australia, as is private health expenditure.
Yet the latter two countries arguably have better and more accessible healthcare systems. The U.S. is below par in the OECD in number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita. It's not that less money is being spent it's just being spent less well.
Re: Re: What's wrong with being Liberal?
Originally posted by Dr. ZaiusRaising taxes for the rich. The last time we did it, there was a balanced budget. Now that there's a tax cut for the rich, we have a gigantic deficit.
I don't think liberals are necessarily crazed idiots, though some are...I do think that you generally favor raising taxes, penalizing private enterprise, reducing U.S. military strength, redistributing private wealth, subsidizing the continued existence of a government dependent strata of society, weakening prosecutorial power against violent criminals, promulgating laws from the judicial bench, and undermining traditional social norms of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Therefore, I oppose you.
Penalizing private enterprise that oversteps the bounds of private enterprise. Like Enron.
Reducing military strength because the only real fights the US has gotten into lately, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc., have been fights that we picked ourselves without any reason or purpose for entering into a conflict.
and I don't have devolped opinions on the other issues.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Absolute population is a poor comparative measure.Per capita GDP spent on health in the USA is much higher than that of both Canada and Australia, as is private health expenditure.
Yet the latter two countries arguably have better and more accessible healthcare systems. The U.S. is below par in the OECD in number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita. It's not that less money is being spent it's just being spent less well.
Canada lagging in doctors per capita.
OTTAWA -- Canada has one of the lowest ratios of doctors to population in the Western world, according to new figures from an international body.
In 2001, Canada had 2.1 practising physicians for every 1,000 residents, less than half as many as Greece which came in at the top of the scale at 4.4, says a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The list of countries that out-doctor Canada includes the Slovak Republic (3.6), Hungary and Switzerland (both at 3.5) and the Czech Republic (3.4).
France, Germany and The Netherlands all had 3.3 doctors per 100,000, roughly a third more than Canada, according to figures released Thursday.
Despite a significant increase in health spending since the 1990s, Canada's physician workforce remains far below the OECD average of 2.9.
Researchers have been warning for at least a decade that Canada is facing a shortage of doctors, said Sunil Patel, president of the Canadian Medical Association.
"Canadians face a very serious risk of dwindling health human resources," he said.
"There's been no leadership shown by any level of government and especially the federal government."
Among other things, he has called for the fast-tracking of accreditation for foreign medical graduates.
The OECD average for doctors was 2.9 for each 100,000 of population, and the only countries with a lower number than Canada in 2001 were Mexico (1.5), Korea (1.4) and Turkey (1.3).
The study does not provide 2001 figures for the United States or the United Kingdom but in 1999 the U.S. figure was 2.7 for each 100,000 and the U.K. figure was 2.0.
The scarcity of Canadian doctors is in part the result of deliberate government policy. During the 1990s, provincial governments cut enrolment in medical and nursing schools as a strategy to cut medical costs.
In recent years, the federal government has increased health spending and enrolment, but working conditions remain a major complaint.
Patel said there were 11 doctors in Gimli, Man., when he started practising there in 1973, but now there are only five, even though the population has grown.
He said Canada is losing an average of 250 doctors each year, mainly to the United States. Many of them are leaving because they lack the support and facilities, he said.
"The working conditions are abominable.
"Think of it - three million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. That is unacceptable in a developed country. We need more hands on deck."
The study found that Canada has more nurses per capita than the OECD average but the ratio has been dropping while in most other countries it has been
So US homes make more than Canada homes. So couldnt those home's afford public health care?
Population doesnt mean shit. 32 million canadians need health care, well, funny thing, thats 32 million canadians who pay taxes for health care.
American has 296 million americans that could have health care, well, funny thing, it works out to be the same because hey, all those people will pay taxes for it.
It's all equal.
I think your forgetting that alot people cant afford health care, so what happens to them? Are they ****ed because they're not as lucky as you?
I will laugh at the time when you lose your job, or your parents unfortunally lose thier jobs, and when you get injured and need surgery you cant afford it. I think sometimes people need to get thier head out of thier ass and think of others.
Oh, also, the majority of people who complain about Canadian health care are rich, and usually conservative from the West.
Docters, especially family docters (where thier is a problem) are leaving, not because of the working conditions (the article makes it sound that the docters have it so tough in Canada, you know dirty water and all), but because the States pay them alot better. It's just greed.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, being in the ER sucks. Yeah, it sucks if you can't pay for your surgery. Or your medicine. But, you know what? Life sucks. It's full of stuff that sucks.
Medicine is one thing, life saving surgery is another. Im being a tad bit overdramatic, but its appalling for an docter to save a guy's life, and say hey, lucky your alive, here's a bill for $200,000.
Privatization only the helps the rich, or people lucky enough to have medicare. I guess I would be ****ed if I lived in the States.
Originally posted by badabingPopulation is poor comparative measure, when it's used as a sole factor to mitigate poor and/or inaccessible healthcare performance.
No, population is a great comparative measure. The US has 10 times the population of Canada and 15 times that of Australia. It's a HUGE logistical difference. If the Canadian Medicare is so efficient, then why is there so much waiting and misery? The US doesn't have that problem. Maybe it's the Free Market System is just that much more efficient. It costs the USA 5.2% more per household for healthcare than Canada but the average US home makes 8% more than the average Canadian home. Do the math. I'll pay for the superior health care. Canada has 2.1 per 1,000 and the USA has 2.7 per 1,000. I'm ready for some proof.Canada lagging in doctors per capita.
OTTAWA -- Canada has one of the lowest ratios of doctors to population in the Western world, according to new figures from an international body.In 2001, Canada had 2.1 practising physicians for every 1,000 residents, less than half as many as Greece which came in at the top of the scale at 4.4, says a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The list of countries that out-doctor Canada includes the Slovak Republic (3.6), Hungary and Switzerland (both at 3.5) and the Czech Republic (3.4).
France, Germany and The Netherlands all had 3.3 doctors per 100,000, roughly a third more than Canada, according to figures released Thursday.
Despite a significant increase in health spending since the 1990s, Canada's physician workforce remains far below the OECD average of 2.9.
Researchers have been warning for at least a decade that Canada is facing a shortage of doctors, said Sunil Patel, president of the Canadian Medical Association.
"Canadians face a very serious risk of dwindling health human resources," he said.
"There's been no leadership shown by any level of government and especially the federal government."
Among other things, he has called for the fast-tracking of accreditation for foreign medical graduates.
The OECD average for doctors was 2.9 for each 100,000 of population, and the only countries with a lower number than Canada in 2001 were Mexico (1.5), Korea (1.4) and Turkey (1.3).
The study does not provide 2001 figures for the United States or the United Kingdom but in 1999 the U.S. figure was 2.7 for each 100,000 and the U.K. figure was 2.0.
The scarcity of Canadian doctors is in part the result of deliberate government policy. During the 1990s, provincial governments cut enrolment in medical and nursing schools as a strategy to cut medical costs.
In recent years, the federal government has increased health spending and enrolment, but working conditions remain a major complaint.
Patel said there were 11 doctors in Gimli, Man., when he started practising there in 1973, but now there are only five, even though the population has grown.
He said Canada is losing an average of 250 doctors each year, mainly to the United States. Many of them are leaving because they lack the support and facilities, he said.
"The working conditions are abominable.
"Think of it - three million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. That is unacceptable in a developed country. We need more hands on deck."
The study found that Canada has more nurses per capita than the OECD average but the ratio has been dropping while in most other countries it has been
I didn't say Canada had more doctors per capita, I said the U.S. is below par for the OECD, despite spending the most per capita on healthcare (~50% more than any other country). You're likely reading those OECD figures wrong as any country that has 2-3 doctors per 100,000 would never be in the OECD. Physicians per capita is per 1000. The OECD figure for 2001 for the U.S. was 2.4. I've no interest in defending Canada's healthcare performance, however some interesting comparisons can be drawn, despite the assertion that population is the key to inaccessible healthcare and thus no comparisons should be drawn. Waitlists are a problem.
"The U.S. doesn't have that problem." While 15% of the population have no healthcare coverage at all, despite that per person the U.S. spends approximately US $2000 more per capita than Canada.
Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World
While there is no question that the United States spends more than any other country on health care, observers and analysts often disagree about which factors are to blame and which strategies may slow the trend. However, a study published in Health Affairs, supported by The Commonwealth Fund, finds that higher prices for health services such as prescription drugs, hospital stays, and doctor visits, are the main reason for higher U.S. spending. The latest data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which compare trends among 30 industrialized countries, show that the U.S. spent $5,267 per capita on health care in 2002—53 percent more than any other country.
In "Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World" (Health Affairs, July/August 2005), Gerald F. Anderson, Peter S. Hussey, Bianca K. Frogner, and Hugh R. Waters of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, analyze the OECD data in an effort to determine why U.S. health spending is so much greater than that of other countries. They explore—and reject—two commonly proposed explanations: 1) other countries have restricted the supply of health care resources, which has led to waiting lists and lower spending; 2) the threat of malpractice litigation is much more common in the U.S., resulting in increased malpractice insurance premiums and the practice of "defensive medicine"—tests or procedures ordered by physicians to protect against the risk of being sued.
Role of Supply Constraints
Many OECD countries have relied on supply constraints to control health care spending, including limiting the number of hospital beds, controlling the spread of medical technology, and restricting the number of physicians. Does the lack of such constraints in the U.S. account for the vast spending differential? No, say the authors. Using U.S. survey data, they calculated the amount spent in the U.S. on the 15 procedures that represent the largest share of the waiting lists in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Total spending for these procedures was $21.9 billion, or only 3 percent of U.S. health spending in that year.
The authors also compared health spending in OECD countries with waiting lists to spending in those without lists. "Health spending in the twelve countries with waiting lists averaged $2,366 per capita," the authors say, "while in the seven countries without waiting lists, it averaged $2,696—both much less than U.S. spending of $5,267 per capita.
In a surprising finding, the authors discovered that, despite the lack of waiting lists, Americans do not have access to a greater supply of health care resources than people in most other OECD countries. In fact, the U.S. has fewer per capita hospital beds, physicians, nurses, and CT scanners than the OECD median. One area where the United States exceeded the OECD median was the nurse staffing level in acute care hospitals. In 2002, there were 1.4 nurses per U.S. hospital bed, compared with the OECD median of 1.0 nurses per bed.
Role of Malpractice Litigation
Another commonly cited contention is that medical malpractice litigation is driving up U.S. health spending. The authors compared malpractice claims data from the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the U.K., using information from national reports and databases. While the U.S. had 50 percent more malpractice claims filed per 1,000 population than the U.K. and Australia, and 350 percent more than Canada, payments were lower, on average, than those in Canada and the U.K. More important, average payments per capita were only $16 in the U.S. in 2001, compared with $12 in the U.K., $10 in Australia, and $4 in Canada. Including awards, legal fees, and underwriting costs, the total amount spent defending U.S. malpractice claims was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46 percent of total health spending.
Defensive medicine could contribute more to health spending than malpractice payments do, but it is difficult to measure and estimates vary widely, say the authors. Even the upper estimate—9 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—would explain only part of the higher U.S. health spending, they say.
Conclusions
If litigation and waiting lists cannot explain higher U.S. health spending, then what factors are responsible? Part of the difference can be attributed to higher U.S. incomes and cost of living. But the principal factor, say the authors, is higher medical care prices. Not only do they make health care unaffordable for many Americans, the extra dollars spent are not yielding demonstrably better quality of care or patient satisfaction. "Future U.S. policies should focus on the prices paid for health services," the authors say, "and on improving the quality of those services."
Originally posted by Soleran
Since this is so much nonsence we'll just walk right around this hunk of shit
your mentallity of avoiding any turbulance in the economy whatsoever at the cost of ignoring the human condition at home warrants the same smilie. not to mention that your train of thought naturally leads to what i posted, and at its extreme ends: slavery. the sky is not falling and you are wrong to act like it is. the economy will have to adjust, some people will get laid off, but you want me to believe the next great depression is coming because businesses will be forced to give more livable wages for services rendered.
Originally posted by Soleran
Yup I agree that somethings will change and markets will fold that cannot handle the economic burden. Not everyone deserves to make more then minimum wage either so thats not my concern. My concern is with the undue burden placed on the [b]SMALL EMPLOYER we'll say under 20 fully employed compared to the benefit of 1.50$ more an hour.That one daycare I mentioned alone with fica tax and the increase would have its cost go up 27,000 dollars a year. Do that to 10 business's and now its 270,000 a year etc etc. Raising minimum wage is a weak link to "fixing" the economy. [/B]
nobody claimed that it would 'fix' the economy. its about helping the condition of minimum wage earners: the individuals, by giveing them LIVABLE wages. why is that some abstract concept? ...and will you be equally weary the next time minimum wage is raised to something even slightly MORE livable