RE: HEALTH CARE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 9:05:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the total (individual and employer's) cost of health insurance of an individual with an income of $70,000 is $1265 - $1965 per year. 
Impossible. Something is being hidden somewhere.


quote:

Oh and your bizarre idea about paying 30 million times their own costs just simply makes no sense whatsoever, you can do better willbuer. I have given you the costs in Ontario so there really is no point in trying to say they are higher, they are not, they are less (I got my figures from the tax departments' websites).


It makes as much sense as his 5x claim, because thats the logical extension of it. I dont agree with either number.

quote:

I am sure by now you are all heartily sick of hearing about the Canadian health care system, but I am simply astounded that there are those who continue to maintain that a government run single payer health insurance program cannot work. All you have to do is look North to see
just such a system that does work, and it does so for less money.


I dont even have to look North to know that your opinion is far from universal, just across the hall. My partner is from Toronto originally. His parents split their time between Toronto, Nova Scotia and California. Guess where they go if they need health care? Guess the last place my partner would go for his health care? Guess where the 3 examples I gave earlier would prefer to get their health care?

As I said, there are good and bad in both systems. Taking the worst of the Canadian system and at the same time decreasing the quality in ours is not the way to go.


quote:

Willbuer, your arguments are mostly groundless, based on incorrect assumptions that are obviously incorrect to anybody who has the wherewithal to open their eyes and see what is actually happening all over the globe, in many countries.


No, they arent, and your repetitive whining about it doesnt change the facts.



Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 9:14:36 PM)

quote:

No, they arent, and your repetitive whining about it doesnt change the facts.
Like I said willbuer, your saying its so don't make it so.



rulemylife -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 9:43:17 PM)



You've not offered one single fact in rebuttal.

All you've done is claim he is wrong.







Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 9:48:38 PM)

quote:

All you've done is claim he is wrong.
That's pretty much the extent of his arsenal when it comes to debating a point.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 10:04:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the total (individual and employer's) cost of health insurance of an individual with an income of $70,000 is $1265 - $1965 per year. 
Impossible. Something is being hidden somewhere.





In 2006 the per capita total health care spending in Canada was $3,850. The average family size in Canada is 3, so the average medical cost per family was 11,550. Even if they were all two household incomes thats 5k+ per wage earner. There is no chance in hell the 1265-1965 reflects the true cost of health care.

Care to come up with another misleading/wrong number?

You should also note that "health care spending" does not give a complete picture of the economics of health care. Longer wait times and longer recovery times in Canada lead to more time out of work or in less productive jobs. Access to the latest technology is one of the major complaints about Canadian care, and it is largely technology that leads to the shorter recovery times and better outcomes here. (the mortality from cancer is 16% higher in Canada for example).

Also Canada's pharmaceutical costs are subsidized by other countries, primarily the US, due to their price controls.

Sorry, the more you look North the more its up somebodys posterior.



Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 10:58:16 PM)

quote:

There is no chance in hell the 1265-1965 reflects the true cost of health care.
Those numbers are the amounts of the premiums paid by the individual and his employer, as I stated in both posts. The average cost of health care for an employer in the US in 2008 was $4700 (and remember the Canadian numbers are in Canadian dollars)...that is just the employers share of the premiums!

Your number is not what I was dealing with. However I will address the issue of total per capita spending on health care, in 2007 the number in Canada was $3359, while the per capita health care expenditure in the US for that year was $6401. As you can see on a per capita basis the US spent nearly twice what was spent in Canada and yet roughly 18% of Americans under the age of 65 had no health insurance in that year. In that same year the US had a higher infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy at birth. And despite the lower overall spending on healthcare per capita, Canadians see their doctors nearly twice as often as do Americans.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20071205/
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

The reason your arguements are so easy to dismiss is because they are the same bullshit that was trotted out when Clinton took a stab at reforming the mess. they were bogus back in 93 and they are bogus in 09.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 11:50:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

There is no chance in hell the 1265-1965 reflects the true cost of health care.
Those numbers are the amounts of the premiums paid by the individual and his employer, as I stated in both posts.



And as I said that is a misleading number because that is just a surcharge introduced in 2004 and accounts for only a small portion of what you pay, the rest through income and other taxes. Nice try though.



mcbride -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/24/2009 11:52:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

(the mortality from cancer is 16% higher in Canada for example)



Oh, willbeurdaddy.  You were so close to having a fact right that I just wanted to acknowledge it, because it's likely to be a long time before it happens again.

Cancer mortality is marginally better in the US.  Not 16% better, but the US is in second place among 30 countries, with Canada slightly behind, in third, so congratulations on that.

In first place? Cuba.  

But willbeurdaddy, let's talk about mortality.

US mortality rates, both general and infant, are much higher than in most industrialized countries, including Canada. 

One recent study compared mortality rates in private for-profit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. "Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals," it found, "revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals."

That study also found that, in the US health care system, poverty kills.  "Even a one percent increase in income resulted in a mortality decline of nearly 22 out of 100,000."

And willbeurdaddy, here's the funny bit.  Canada's mortality rates used to closely mirror yours....until 1970, when we introduced universal, singlepayer coverage up here in -- what did you call it? "Somebody's posterior"?

In 1971, death rates "suddenly plummeted, maintaining a steep decline to their present rate."   So, today, willbeurdaddy, the richest country on earth has an overall mortality rate of 8.4 per thousand, compared to Canada's 6.5.

And infant mortality, since you brought up mortality rates: some of the poorest states in India have better infant mortality rates than the richest country on earth.  In fact, if, somehow, you could just manage to match the infant mortality rate here in our little "socialist" health system, about 15,000 more babies would survive in your country. Every year.

Let me know if you want to talk about comparable mortality rates any more, willbeurdaddy.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 12:16:02 AM)

Mortality rates may have declined in Canada since 1970, which is only a commentary on how poor they must have been before. As already discussed, life expectancy birth is marginally better in Canada vs the US after all that improvement. However the entire difference in life expectancy at birth is explained by infant mortality rates, which in turn is totally explained by the higher prevalence of at risk births. Ie the differences in life expectancy have nothing to do with the health care system, and everything to do with lifestyle and demographics. Life expectancy at age 5 is higher in the US than Canada and every Western European country.

As far as the cancer survival rates goes, from CTV:

"The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent.
In Canada, the five Canadian provinces included in the study had almost identical results.
The range of survival rates across the five provinces was quite narrow, from a low of 79.3 per cent in Nova Scotia to a high of 85.4 per cent in British Columbia."

The average of those rates is about 82.4%. 91.9/82.4=12% better in the US.

The 16% figure, which is in a written report in the office, is based specifically on cancers that require radiation therapy, where 25% of Canadian patients have to wait longer than the benchmark maximum waiting time.




Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 12:28:27 AM)

Inside Jim DeMint's Alternative Universe of Political Discourse


Sen. Jim DeMint says President Obama has "lowered the discourse" because of a new ad that blasts DeMint over his "Waterloo" comment. That prompted Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo to run down highlights of DeMint's own contributions to civil discourse over the past year

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/inside-jim-demints-alternative-universe-of-political-discourse.php?ref=fpa



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 1:06:33 AM)

This is a hilarious. Watch it until the end when he makes excellent jokes and comments about healthcare.

Real Time with Bill Maher New Rules July 24 2009 302 views - 3 hours ago

As per Chris Matthews, Bill Maher is the funniest man on the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/user/thealxndr



Lorr47 -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:10:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

(the mortality from cancer is 16% higher in Canada for example)



Oh, willbeurdaddy.  You were so close to having a fact right that I just wanted to acknowledge it, because it's likely to be a long time before it happens again.

Cancer mortality is marginally better in the US.  Not 16% better, but the US is in second place among 30 countries, with Canada slightly behind, in third, so congratulations on that.

In first place? Cuba.  

But willbeurdaddy, let's talk about mortality.

US mortality rates, both general and infant, are much higher than in most industrialized countries, including Canada. 

One recent study compared mortality rates in private for-profit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. "Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals," it found, "revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals."

That study also found that, in the US health care system, poverty kills.  "Even a one percent increase in income resulted in a mortality decline of nearly 22 out of 100,000."

And willbeurdaddy, here's the funny bit.  Canada's mortality rates used to closely mirror yours....until 1970, when we introduced universal, singlepayer coverage up here in -- what did you call it? "Somebody's posterior"?

In 1971, death rates "suddenly plummeted, maintaining a steep decline to their present rate."   So, today, willbeurdaddy, the richest country on earth has an overall mortality rate of 8.4 per thousand, compared to Canada's 6.5.

And infant mortality, since you brought up mortality rates: some of the poorest states in India have better infant mortality rates than the richest country on earth.  In fact, if, somehow, you could just manage to match the infant mortality rate here in our little "socialist" health system, about 15,000 more babies would survive in your country. Every year.

Let me know if you want to talk about comparable mortality rates any more, willbeurdaddy.



Love it.  Those pesky facts just seem to always get in the way.



Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 8:27:42 AM)

quote:

Life expectancy at age 5 is higher in the US than Canada and every Western European country.
Proof please. Your saying its so don't make it so.



Lucylastic -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 8:30:45 AM)

in 2008 based on income of $60,000. Tax paid, 12,500..(these are rounded up to nearest $500) That was on a family of four. Thats total income tax paid at source. I have no separate data for how much went to paying health care out of that amount....
Canadian Pension plan stood at $2,500
Employment insurance was $1,200.
No other deductions paid out.
During the year, Family went to the doctor a total of 32 times
Tests performed.ten blood tests five xrays, 1 cat scan, two emergency room visits, stitches, IV antibiotics, four complete physicals, two specialists (urologist, gynaecologist)
Medication for the year was $3,600(covered by employer health insurance)=0$ out of pocket
No bills, no hassles, no paperwork.
just a workin joe
Lucy         





Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 8:41:53 AM)

quote:

And as I said that is a misleading number because that is just a surcharge introduced in 2004 and accounts for only a small portion of what you pay, the rest through income and other taxes. Nice try though.
Please explain why in the US the per capita health care expenditures are nearly double that in Canada, and yet nearly 18% of the population under 65% is not covered.

quote:

However the entire difference in life expectancy at birth is explained by infant mortality rates, which in turn is totally explained by the higher prevalence of at risk births.
And why does the US have this higher prevalence of at risk births? Is this also why the infant mortality rates are better in Cuba, Slovenia, Greece, South Korea, etc.?  just what factors unrelated to health care that is not exostant in these other countries puts these pregnancies at risk?

quote:

Ie the differences in life expectancy have nothing to do with the health care system, and everything to do with lifestyle and demographics.
Kindly explain and provide proof. One would generally think that the health care system in a country would be in some way related to the infant mortality rate, so I am very interested to learn how the two are in no way related.



mcbride -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 9:02:52 AM)

So, we're agreed, then, that, as i said, you were close on that one fact, but still got it wrong. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Mortality rates may have declined in Canada since 1970, which is only a commentary on how poor they must have been before.


Yes, as it says, before Medicare was introduced in 1970, our figures were very close to the US numbers.  If you think of those as poor, who am I to argue?

Just to recap, since you didn't acknowledge the fact,  the US has an overall mortality rate of 8.4 per thousand, compared to Canada's 6.5.  That, as discussed, is a large difference.

I'm afraid I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say to explain the huge gap in infant mortality in the US, compared to Canada. Maybe you can explain it to the mothers of those 15,000 babies.

Thanks for the chance to shed some light on this for Americans who may need an accurate comparison.



mcbride -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 9:08:09 AM)

quote:

Love it. Those pesky facts just seem to always get in the way.


Oh, my pleasure, Ma'am, truly. To be fair, though, it's much, much harder for anyone having to defend the other side.



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 9:43:11 AM)

White House sees healthcare bill by year's end


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090724/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_33



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 10:06:42 AM)

House Democrats Spar Over Health Care

WASHINGTON (July 24) - House Democrats announced agreement Friday on far-reaching steps designed to rein in the relentless growth of Medicare, part of a concerted effort to counter the impression that President Barack Obama's health care legislation is in deep trouble.


http://news.aol.com/article/house-dems-clear-one-health-obstacle/583038?cid=12



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 10:18:01 AM)

Waxman Says There May Be No Alternative To Bypassing His Committee


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/waxman-says-there-may-be-no-alternative-to-bypassing-his-committee.php?ref=fpb



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875