How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system

How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (Full Version)

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

Message

Brain -> How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 3:35:19 PM)
How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/28/how-the-us-measures-up-to-canadas-health-care-system/3783/

Lucylastic -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 4:17:38 PM)
Very interesting ......not so much the figures and problems but the way insurance companies work things out, the part about the price of a colonoscopy, Uwe Reinhardt: Well, I once did a dumb thing: I asked an insurance executive “What do you pay in New Jersey for a colonoscopy?” And he just laughed at me and said, “What a silly question. There is no price for a colonoscopy. We have a different price for every hospital. And for the same hospital, we might have six prices depending on the insurance product, is it an HMO, etc.” So I said, “This is mad. How many could there be?” He says, “There could be 30, 40 for us, but then with Aetna, they could have another 30, and everyone has a different contract, so a hospital might receive 60, 80,100 different prices for a colonoscopy, depending on which insurance company and what contract it is. So when you say ‘What are the private market prices?’ there is no price.” And I said, “Well how, when you have consumer-directed health care, where people are supposed to shop around, what are you going to tell them?” And he said, “We can’t, really. What would you tell them?” bloody craziness Lucy

DomImus -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 4:23:40 PM)
Just hope you don't get cancer.

mcbride -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 4:41:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus Just hope you don't get cancer. Very true, DI, assuming you have lots of cash. As you've noted, cancer rates are one of the very few areas where the US slightly outperforms Canada's public, universal system, largely because your for-profit corporations chase the money, and rich, older males get lots of cancer. If, for example, you get pregnant, though...that's a problem. Pregnancy doesn't happen to rich, older males, and infant mortality in the US is far worse than the rest of the developed world, worse than Cuba, and, in fact, worse than the rate in some of India's poorest states. Let me know if you want to compare Canada's health care system versus the US in other areas.

mnottertail -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 4:47:01 PM)
Yeah, cool your jets on the x-ray bombardment Dr. Zhivago........ from the same article: Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: 3 For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada. For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada. That sort of differntial does not warrant a one-liner scare tactic. Besides, why would our cancer treatments change? If we are number one, I would expect we would keep that going the way it is. One liner? Try infant mortality rates between us and Canada. Ron

Lucylastic -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 4:51:32 PM)
Both my Brother in law and Mother in law had cancer, both had chemo, both had excellent care, MIL was 84 when she died, BILs unfortunately had metastisized thru the lymph system AND bone but their health care was impeccable. Tell me what do the poor get as "emergency care" for cancer in the US???? sorry Ron that wasnt aimed at you it was aimed at DI Lucy

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 5:06:14 PM)
Is infant mortality a health care issue or is it a drug abuse issue? Maybe we just need to intennsify the war on drugs... quote: Infant mortality is associated with many factors, including the health and economic status of the mother, her race or ethnicity, access to quality medical care, and such cultural problems as rising obesity and drug use. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html (Yes, I know it's a questionable source, but its the best I could do in a pinch).

mnottertail -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 5:15:56 PM)
The question is far more questionable than the source. Nevertheless, I can without doubt claim that more people in the US stick themselves in the tonsils and bleed to death than do in Canada. How can I say this? There are more people in the US. The trouble with highlevel stats and conclusions like that is they are a fulminate of asswipe. By example, one reasonable cause for this (since their drugs are cheaper) is that the interior of Canada is very sparsely populated, and hauling to a doctor for some is a very big thing in some of the Provinces........it would also reasonably explain the small difference in numbers between women US/CA and the larger difference in numbers between men US/CA. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to pencil out the logic of that. Ron

mcbride -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 5:32:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Is infant mortality a health care issue or is it a drug abuse issue? Maybe we just need to intennsify the war on drugs... quote: Infant mortality is associated with many factors, including the health and economic status of the mother, her race or ethnicity, access to quality medical care, and such cultural problems as rising obesity and drug use. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html (Yes, I know it's a questionable source, but its the best I could do in a pinch). "The health and economic status of the mother, her race or ethnicity, access to quality medical care", indeed. "Infant mortality rates tend to trend with socio-economic status," said Dr. Nancy Green, medical director for the March of Dimes. "African-Americans have much, much higher rates of infant mortality than other groups." Yup. Kinda makes my point for me: While for-profit corporations swarm to rich, older guys with cancer, poverty, in that system, kills. Just for fun, go and check the numbers on the correlation in Canada between health care outcomes and income.

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 5:42:59 PM)
It doesn't matter what kind of health care may be available if mom is a crack head, a meth fiend, or an alcoholic. But the cause isn't given in the article, there are only questions - which is why I phrased my original post in the form of a question. Are you claiming you have all the answers? If so, give us some specifics. What are the exact causes of infant mortality in the United States. Exactly what part does health care or a lack thereof play? Do you know?

MrRodgers -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 5:55:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, cool your jets on the x-ray bombardment Dr. Zhivago........ from the same article: Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: 3 For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada. For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada. That sort of differntial does not warrant a one-liner scare tactic. Besides, why would our cancer treatments change? If we are number one, I would expect we would keep that going the way it is. One liner? Try infant mortality rates between us and Canada. Ron Very nice numbers. Now what would they be if our govt. DIDN'T pay for those cancer patients ? The comparison is superfluous as MOST of the cancer survival in the US is directly because the patients over 65 and on Medicare. (govt.) so what are we comparing ? The comparison is the Canadian govt. paying for ALL cancer treatment and survival VS the US govt. paying 80-90% of the cost of cancer survival in this country. Medicare pays for cancer screening and thus the US has discovered cancer earlier when it is treatable. The medicare hypocrites are out in force deciding that it is somehow NOT govt. run health care. So with each govt. dominating the influence in cancer survival rates...where is the debate ?

mcbride -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 6:04:11 PM)
I'd be happy to post your own source back to you, Sanity, and, as you may know, there are many, many others that say the same thing. "Infant mortality rates tend to trend with socio-economic status." Please feel free to argue with the source. Interestingly, the one cause you suggested pinning it on, (in jest, perhaps), rising obesity and drug use, represent areas in which Canada and the US are very close. And yet, if the US infant mortality rate was as good as Canada's, about 15,000 more babies would survive in your country, every year. I'd love to see that happen.

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 6:23:55 PM)
If you don't have any specifics then just say you don't have them. Infant mortality in the United States may have very little to do with health care at all, which was your original claim, but it turns out you were only guessing, at best.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 6:36:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus Just hope you don't get cancer. I do. In fact, I think it's safe to say most people do.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 7:07:38 PM)
quote: It doesn't matter what kind of health care may be available if mom is a crack head, a meth fiend, or an alcoholic. But the cause isn't given in the article, there are only questions - which is why I phrased my original post in the form of a question. Actually, I can speak to this with 15 years' experience as a midwife. It -absolutely- matters what kind of health care is available, ESPECIALLY when you have moms who are crack-heads, meth fiends, or alcoholics. Outstanding prenatal care can help to ameliorate some of the most serious damage from drug use during pregnancy, -and- can improve outcomes for infants even when their mothers have extensive histories. I can say this with some impunity, because during the 15 years that I was a midwife, one thing that I did was provide care through several free clinics in both interior Alaska (Fairbanks area-high level of alcoholism) and El Paso, TX (which included a huge number of women who crossed the border to have their babies, -and- a very, very large drug and alcohol addicted population). The women who came to us throughout their pregnancies consistently had healthier pregnancies and healthier babies than their counterparts who came to the clinic to give birth (because our outcomes and lower rates of intrapartum, postpartum, and neonatal infection, even for moms who -hadn't- had prenatal care were better than the local charity birth wards at the public hospital). On the average, at one of our clinics, we saw some 60-70 women a week. Our moms who had prenatal care throughout their pregnancy had three times the chance of delivering -at term-, and delivering a baby who was normal or only slightly low birth-weight, and, if they also brought their infant for well-baby care, their baby had twice the chance of surviving the first year than the women who had both no prenatal care and who did not bring their babies in for well-baby care. While pregnancy is significantly riskier for women who use drugs, alcohol, or who smoke, good nutrition and skilled prenatal care make a -significant- difference in the health and survival of mother and baby -- and reduce the long-term cost of these babies, who, in women who do not have prenatal care, often suffer from significant and devastating birth defects. Dame Calla PS: Strictly informationally, the clinics that I worked in were funded from private donations. The midwives donated their time, and supplies and space were provided through the donations. DC

Brain -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 7:21:20 PM)
I don’t want to get bogged down debating statistics on Infant mortality and cancer all I know is overall Canada is getting better results than the United States and spending less money, at least according to the professor from Princeton University. Senate Democrats Consider Tactic to Push Through Government Health Plan - NYTimes.com Appearing Sunday on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said a public insurance plan was “essential to getting the costs down, which is our No. 1 problem.” Proponents of a public plan say it would drive down costs because it would not have a profit motive and would have lower overhead costs and lower executive salaries than private insurance companies. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/health/policy/24health.html?th&emc=th

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 7:39:13 PM)
Have you had any negative experiences with the WIC program, or were they mostly positive? And what can you say about the availability of WIC to mothers and expectant mothers. It's a very good program, and it's freely available, right?

Sanity -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 7:53:43 PM)
You want to hijack your own thread. [sm=lame.gif] You can hardly know "How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care" without debating statistics on cancer and infant mortality, etc.

Brain -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 8:05:28 PM)
I HATE MOM! (and the government, too) Start of Uwe Reinhardt’s guest blog To provide a proper backdrop for my lecture on “The Government’s Role in the Economy” in Econ 100, I always preface it with the question: “Who in this class has a mother?” In a good year, as many as 25% of the students raise their hand. The rest won’t admit it, because regulating mothers, like regulating government, are the ultimate buzz kills in the human experience. http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/03/i-hate-mom-and-the-government-too/

Brain -> RE: How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system (8/24/2009 8:14:52 PM)
Edie Magnus: What do you think of Canada’s national health care system? Uwe Reinhardt: I think it’s a high performer in the following sense: Canadians spend half as much per capita on health care as we do in the U.S., and yet if you go up there, sure you have to wait for some MRI image or for some heart procedures, but overall the system produces very good health outcomes. People are more satisfied there with their care than Americans are with theirs. So if you diagnosed it like a physician, you’d give that system an A and you’d have a hard time giving more than a B to ours. Good enough for me[:D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625