[ThaDocta]

How many times I've heard the comparison between nationalized healthcare and the fire department, police dept., etc.
The message always is that "they're all socialist so what are you complaining about with Obamacare".

To that I say (finally), read this: http://sasoc.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/a ... d-a-reply/

The gist of it is that each service has different attributes, such as degree of complexity. Socialism (i.e., government controlling the process) tends to work better when complexity is at a minimum (how many fires are burning at any one time? = fire department can handle it). Also degree of personal choice involved (how many personal decisions do you make every day about putting out fires? = ZERO. How many personal healthcare decisions do you make = MANY).

I like this analysis.

[andyt]

Then please explain why in the US healthcare costs 1/3 more than in Canada while giving poorer outcomes? Our life expectancy is higher and infant mortality is lower. We have better outcomes for cardiac and cancer care. All that and we don't bankrupt anybody, don't refuse coverage for preexisting conditions and don't have a huge number of uninsured. And yet, still, 50% of the US system is "socialist" ie medicare, medicaid and military. Canada is at 70%. The US is the only system of all developed nations tho, where the average citizen can't access "socialist" health care. It is an outlier of all those systems in terms of costing more and having poorer outcomes.

Theory is nice, but practice is what counts.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

Then please explain why in the US healthcare costs 1/3 more than in Canada while giving poorer outcomes? Our life expectancy is higher and infant mortality is lower. We have better outcomes for cardiac and cancer care. All that and we don't bankrupt anybody, don't refuse coverage for preexisting conditions and don't have a huge number of uninsured. And yet, still, 50% of the US system is "socialist" ie medicare, medicaid and military. Canada is at 70%. The US is the only system of all developed nations tho, where the average citizen can't access "socialist" health care. It is an outlier of all those systems in terms of costing more and having poorer outcomes.

Theory is nice, but practice is what counts.

Too funny.

You folks complain about our (pre-Obama) healthcare being so expensive but now it will cost an additional ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR so I'm at a loss as to how this is going to save us any money.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

Then please explain why in the US healthcare costs 1/3 more than in Canada while giving poorer outcomes? Our life expectancy is higher and infant mortality is lower. We have better outcomes for cardiac and cancer care. All that and we don't bankrupt anybody, don't refuse coverage for preexisting conditions and don't have a huge number of uninsured. And yet, still, 50% of the US system is "socialist" ie medicare, medicaid and military. Canada is at 70%. The US is the only system of all developed nations tho, where the average citizen can't access "socialist" health care. It is an outlier of all those systems in terms of costing more and having poorer outcomes.

Theory is nice, but practice is what counts.

Too funny.

You folks complain about our (pre-Obama) healthcare being so expensive but now it will cost an additional ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR so I'm at a loss as to how this is going to save us any money.

I didn't say it would, because you really haven't changed the system - the insurance companies are still gobbling up huge amounts of money, as is big pharma. You've basically got the worst of all possibilities, and seem determined to hang on to it. Don't emulate Canada, we're by far not the best system. But take a look at what France does. But then I guess a nation that has to re-name French fries to freedom fries is going to be just too proud or stupid to emulate the French on anything.

[ThaDocta]

For the millionth time, the life expectancy in Canada being greater than that in the USA has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the different healthcare systems. It is a result of the greater gun violence in the USA. When the statistics are normalized for America's more violent society, the US healthcare system is by far the best.

But don't take my word for it: just ask the Premier of Newfoundland.

[andyt]

ThaDocta wrote:

For the millionth time, the life expectancy in Canada being greater than that in the USA has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the different healthcare systems. It is a result of the greater gun violence in the USA. When the statistics are normalized for America's more violent society, the US healthcare system is by far the best.

But don't take my word for it: just ask the Premier of Newfoundland.

Does that also apply to infant mortality and better outcomes in cardiac and cancer care? How about bankruptcies due to health care costs - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US. Not so much in Canada.

[BartSimpson]

ThaDocta wrote:

For the millionth time, the life expectancy in Canada being greater than that in the USA has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the different healthcare systems. It is a result of the greater gun violence in the USA. When the statistics are normalized for America's more violent society, the US healthcare system is by far the best.

But don't take my word for it: just ask the Premier of Newfoundland.

Our principle problems with 'gun violence' are mostly confined to unassimilated minority groups that, so far, are not demographically significant in Canada. Canada's significant gun violence is also concentrated in populations of unassimilated minorities. Our problems with life expectancy skew because of immigrant and illegal immigrant populations from third world countries. These people arrive in our country with problems that affect their longevity.

When 'gun violence' and life expectancy figures are compiled for native born and then white and Asian populations then the USA looks pretty darn good.

When the blacks and Mexicans stop killing each other then our gun violence issues will virtually disappear. And if we stop letting in immigrants who come here infected with AIDS, tuberculosis, and etc. then our life expectancy will look pretty good too.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

How about bankruptcies due to health care costs - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US. Not so much in Canada.

Frankly, people in the USA have been free to go without health insurance and that means they're also free to go bankrupt because of that choice.

Please note that indigent and low-income people have long had access to free or low-cost health care in the USA. The bankruptcies affect people who have significant incomes but who choose to spend their money on new cars, nice TV's, ski vacations, and etc. instead of first taking care that their health is assured by paying for proper and adequate health insurance.

What changes now is that the government will require them to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

[fifeboy]

ThaDocta wrote:

For the millionth time,

Wow, for your 16th post, you must repeat yourself a lot

ThaDocta wrote:

the life expectancy in Canada being greater than that in the USA has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the different healthcare systems. It is a result of the greater gun violence in the USA. When the statistics are normalized for America's more violent society, the US healthcare system is by far the best.

I am calling bullshit on this unless you can come up with some stats. Gun violence must be significant in places like Columbia but in the U.S. they aren't banging off people that often, except in a few places.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

How about bankruptcies due to health care costs - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US. Not so much in Canada.

Frankly, people in the USA have been free to go without health insurance and that means they're also free to go bankrupt because of that choice.

Please note that indigent and low-income people have long had access to free or low-cost health care in the USA. The bankruptcies affect people who have significant incomes but who choose to spend their money on new cars, nice TV's, ski vacations, and etc. instead of first taking care that their health is assured by paying for proper and adequate health insurance.

What changes now is that the government will require them to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

Wow, ain't freedom grand

[ThaDocta]

fifeboy wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

How about bankruptcies due to health care costs - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US. Not so much in Canada.

Frankly, people in the USA have been free to go without health insurance and that means they're also free to go bankrupt because of that choice.

Please note that indigent and low-income people have long had access to free or low-cost health care in the USA. The bankruptcies affect people who have significant incomes but who choose to spend their money on new cars, nice TV's, ski vacations, and etc. instead of first taking care that their health is assured by paying for proper and adequate health insurance.

What changes now is that the government will require them to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

Wow, ain't freedom grand

It is grand, though people often make the wrong choices. You prefer to have the government do it for all of us though, right? So much easier. I guess there will always be groups who prefer jack-booted thugs telling them and everyone what to do.

[andyt]

ThaDocta wrote:

I guess there will always be groups who prefer jack-booted thugs telling them and everyone what to do.

Well we don't actually have the militias here, so jack booted thugs aren't as much of a problem for us.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson wrote:

You folks complain about our (pre-Obama) healthcare being so expensive but now it will cost an additional ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR so I'm at a loss as to how this is going to save us any money.

We're not complaining. None of us up here in Canada really care how much you spend on your healthcare or how you deliver it. But, add $1T per year in spending on healthcare through taxation. Subtract $1.35T per year in spending on private insurance premiums. Surely you can do the math.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

How about bankruptcies due to health care costs - 50% of all bankruptcies in the US. Not so much in Canada.

Frankly, people in the USA have been free to go without health insurance and that means they're also free to go bankrupt because of that choice.

Please note that indigent and low-income people have long had access to free or low-cost health care in the USA. The bankruptcies affect people who have significant incomes but who choose to spend their money on new cars, nice TV's, ski vacations, and etc. instead of first taking care that their health is assured by paying for proper and adequate health insurance.

What changes now is that the government will require them to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

Being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, isn't much of a freedom. Losing your coverage because you're too sick to work isn't much of a freedom. Going broke from co-pays, or because the insurance company sues you for not declaring a pre-existing condition such as acne isn't much of a freedom. I guess you're channeling Kris Kristofferson again: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ThaDocta wrote:

How many times I've heard the comparison between nationalized healthcare and the fire department, police dept., etc.
The message always is that "they're all socialist so what are you complaining about with Obamacare".

To that I say (finally), read this: http://sasoc.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/a ... d-a-reply/

The gist of it is that each service has different attributes, such as degree of complexity. Socialism (i.e., government controlling the process) tends to work better when complexity is at a minimum (how many fires are burning at any one time? = fire department can handle it). Also degree of personal choice involved (how many personal decisions do you make every day about putting out fires? = ZERO. How many personal healthcare decisions do you make = MANY).

Really, we make MANY personal health care decisions every day? Besides personal hygiene and maybe popping some vitimans, what else could one possibly have to make decisions about EVERY day?
And really, when it comes down to it, when one removes the PRIVATE insurance aspect and goes with viable public option, the only real decision you have to make is, 'am I hurt/sick enough to even bother going to the hospital?', or, 'should I make a Dr appointment about this rash?'
And unless there is something seriously medically wrong with you, that decision sure isn't going to be anywhere near daily.