[x togepi x]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

So, what about the people who have rare and almost unknown diseases that could be misdiagnosed as something else, risking the patient's life because you can only go to the everyday shmuck of a doctor that the government forces you to see?

How is that different than people being forced to see shitty doctors because the crappy insurance program that their job gives them (since they can't afford anything else) isn't accepted everywhere? See, I can cherry pick examples too.

I don't think your scenario actually happens in socialist healthcare countries, or at least at a level that justifies not having national healthcare. But if we want to talk about facts, here's some examples of how the United States actually ranks lower than most socialist healthcare systems.

We rank last out of 19 industrial nations in preventable deaths (France, a socialized medicine country ranks first)

Oh yeah, we also rank 49th in the World in longevity (even though we spend the most money on healthcare)

We also ranked last out of 7 industrialized nations over all in healthcare

[x togepi x]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

60 minutes did a report on Americans who travel to India to get medical procedures done for something like 1/10 the cost, because the doctors are paid much less. It was pretty amazing. Two Indian doctors, who were educated in the U.S., passed up jobs here to move back to India, to live below the poverty line in order to become the only doctors in their community.

don't a ton of people in california do the same thing in mexico? i heard someone who lived there talking about going south of the border to get cheaper dental work.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by x togepi x

How is that different than people being forced to see shitty doctors because the crappy insurance program that their job gives them (since they can't afford anything else) isn't accepted everywhere? See, I can cherry pick examples too.

I don't think your scenario actually happens in socialist healthcare countries, or at least at a level that justifies not having national healthcare. But if we want to talk about facts, here's some examples of how the United States actually ranks lower than most socialist healthcare systems.

We rank last out of 19 industrial nations in preventable deaths (France, a socialized medicine country ranks first)

Oh yeah, we also rank 49th in the World in longevity (even though we spend the most money on healthcare)

We also ranked last out of 7 industrialized nations over all in healthcare

America has the best healthcare in the world, if you can afford to pay for it. However, this country also faces some of the toughest challenges to its medical system from the unhealthy, reckless lifestyle that many Americans lead.

My argument is that socialized medicine does not produce any better results other than that it is more equitable.

[knash9]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

My argument is that socialized medicine does not produce any better results other than that it is more equitable.

what about australias healthcare plan

[David87]

Any link to that report, scrandon? would love to show that to some people

[x togepi x]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

America has the best healthcare in the world, if you can afford to pay for it. However, this country also faces some of the toughest challenges to its medical system from the unhealthy, reckless lifestyle that many Americans lead.

My argument is that socialized medicine does not produce any better results other than that it is more equitable.

my argument is that it being more equitable is what makes it better.

[tdunks523]

i like romney, we need obama out of office cause it has shown that he is an AWFUL LEADER! all he knows how to do is campaign and give speeches. Pres Bush raised the debt ceiling no problem when he needed to because he was a good leader. we need a moderate republican, like romney. not some extreme liberal or for that matter extreme conservative, like bachman. for god sakes, obama wasn't even siding with his senate about the debt ceiling. he's an idiot who has gotten nothing done and this country while has made little progress, his policies have had nothing to do with it. his stupid stimulus package was a bust and he claims that he's creating so many jobs but he's not. everyone with a brain knows that presidents have nothing to do with the economy so i don't know why he's trying to take any credit for it rebounding somewhat. especially when the unemployment rate is still so high. i am a firm believer that we need to vote all the incumbents, republican or democrat outta office too. vote romney in for pres then have all new people in the house and senate that are up for re-election. we need to show our leaders that they can't get away with this anymore. i know this rant was pretty random but overall, i am a romney supporter

[J.C.]

Originally Posted by tdunks523

i like romney, we need obama out of office cause it has shown that he is an AWFUL LEADER! all he knows how to do is campaign and give speeches. Pres Bush raised the debt ceiling no problem when he needed to because he was a good leader. we need a moderate republican, like romney. not some extreme liberal or for that matter extreme conservative, like bachman. for god sakes, obama wasn't even siding with his senate about the debt ceiling. he's an idiot who has gotten nothing done and this country while has made little progress, his policies have had nothing to do with it. his stupid stimulus package was a bust and he claims that he's creating so many jobs but he's not. everyone with a brain knows that presidents have nothing to do with the economy so i don't know why he's trying to take any credit for it rebounding somewhat. especially when the unemployment rate is still so high. i am a firm believer that we need to vote all the incumbents, republican or democrat outta office too. vote romney in for pres then have all new people in the house and senate that are up for re-election. we need to show our leaders that they can't get away with this anymore. i know this rant was pretty random but overall, i am a romney supporter

Go blow a goat.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by tdunks523

i like romney, we need obama out of office cause it has shown that he is an AWFUL LEADER! all he knows how to do is campaign and give speeches. Pres Bush raised the debt ceiling no problem when he needed to because he was a good leader. we need a moderate republican, like romney. not some extreme liberal or for that matter extreme conservative, like bachman. for god sakes, obama wasn't even siding with his senate about the debt ceiling. he's an idiot who has gotten nothing done and this country while has made little progress, his policies have had nothing to do with it. his stupid stimulus package was a bust and he claims that he's creating so many jobs but he's not. everyone with a brain knows that presidents have nothing to do with the economy so i don't know why he's trying to take any credit for it rebounding somewhat. especially when the unemployment rate is still so high. i am a firm believer that we need to vote all the incumbents, republican or democrat outta office too. vote romney in for pres then have all new people in the house and senate that are up for re-election. we need to show our leaders that they can't get away with this anymore. i know this rant was pretty random but overall, i am a romney supporter

Well, if anything, this post proved to me that ears really can blow out steam.

[apoemtothedead]

Best level of all time or worst post of all time?

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by David87

Any link to that report, scrandon? would love to show that to some people

Sure. This paper deals specifically with comparisons between the healthcare of the U.S. and Canada. This won't be too off topic either, as healthcare is likely to be a main issue for Romney's campaign. The paper is relatively new, so you have to pay for it, but I'll drop some of the important screenshots and the intro.

Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.
June E. O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY and NBER
Dave M. O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

Abstract
It is often alleged that Canada's publicly-funded, single payer health care system, delivers better health outcomes, and distributes health resources more fairly than the mainly private U.S. multi-payer system. Our findings contradict these allegations. Differences between the U.S. and Canada in infant mortality and life expectancy --the two indicators most commonly used as evidence of better health outcomes in Canada—cannot be attributed to differences in the effectiveness of the two health care systems because they are strongly influenced by differences in cultural and behavioral factors such as the relatively high U.S. incidence of obesity and of accidents and homicides.
Moreover, direct measures of the effectiveness of medical care, show that five-year relative survival rates for individuals diagnosed with various types of cancer are higher in the U.S. than in Canada as are infant survival rates of low-birth weight babies. These successes are consistent with the greater U.S. availability of high level technology, higher rates of screening for cancers, and higher treatment rates of the chronically ill. The need to ration when care is delivered "free" ultimately leads to long waits.
Waiting times for medical services are a major problem in Canada and a source of unmet needs. In the U.S. costs are more often cited as a source of unmet needs. Nonetheless, with respect to the issue of inequality, we find that the health-income gradient is at least as prominent in Canada as it is in the U.S. When asked about satisfaction with health services and the ranking of the quality of services recently received, more U.S. residents than Canadians respond that they are fully satisfied and rank quality of care as excellent. To address these issues we use the Joint Canada/ U.S. Survey of Health (JCUSH) along with other data sources.

Infant Mortality rates
Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S., however, the researchers aim to prove that it cannot be attributed to the quality of the Canadian healthcare system. Babies born with a low birthweight have a higher risk of infant mortality. The researchers point out that the U.S. has a larger proportion of low birthweight babies as a result of higher rates of teen pregnancy. When this is accounted for, they show that the U.S. healthcare system produces higher quality outcomes.


Compare the 5.4 "birthweight specific" infant mortality rate for the U.S. with the 5.5 observed infant mortality rate for Canada.
Compare the 6.85 observed infant mortality rate for the U.S. with the 7.06 "birthweight specific" infant mortality rate for Canada.

Life expectancy
The researchers found that when accounting for accidents, homicides, and cardiovascular disease, a significant portion (60-90%) of the mortality gap, and therefore life expectancy, between Canada and the U.S. is explained. None of those three factors have anything to do with the quality of the medical system.


With that accounted for, Canada's 11th place life expectancy compared with the U.S.'s 36th place, seems to be less a reflection of the quality of healthcare in either country, but more a reflection of other societal factors.



Waiting times for medical services are a major problem in Canada and a source of unmet needs. In the U.S. costs are more often cited as a source of unmet needs.


There are other studies that back up these claims and some that cite other societal factors as reasons for the differing outcomes, but that took a lot of fucking time lol.
I'd say all in all, this is kind of depressing because it implies that our relatively poor health outcomes cannot be solved by simply reforming our healthcare system, but will require much larger cultural change.

[David87]

thank you for that info. I know a few people that favor NHS type systems and I'm not the biggest fan. I mean I would prefer it to our current system just because I feel like health care for your citizens should be about exactly that, and not about money. However, I feel one-way solutions are not always the best.

A mixed solution like that in NZ and Aussie land seems to work best in terms of covering everyone, lowering the costs, and keeping high quality of care. I think France also employs a public option?

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

My argument is that socialized medicine does not produce any better results other than that it is more equitable.

Well, single-payer systems are not only more equitable but more efficient, a point that seems to get lost in these debates. As one moves from a multi-payer system to a single-payer system, you see vast decreases in health care spending without much being lost in terms of quantifiable health outcomes. I am agnostic as to whether single-payer systems drastically hinder quality or innovation on average but taken together, the benefits of an efficient and equitable system is alluring to me because it defies the traditional economic notion that equity-efficiency are constantly at odds. The effectiveness of the single-payer model demonstrates that, at least in the area of health care, government intervention can provide more efficient outcomes than those generated by the market. This is not surprising, since insurance prices and risk pool sizes seem to be inversely related.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by David87

thank you for that info. I know a few people that favor NHS type systems and I'm not the biggest fan. I mean I would prefer it to our current system just because I feel like health care for your citizens should be about exactly that, and not about money. However, I feel one-way solutions are not always the best.

A mixed solution like that in NZ and Aussie land seems to work best in terms of covering everyone, lowering the costs, and keeping high quality of care. I think France also employs a public option?

I would completely agree, I don't want to see the government limiting anybody's access to healthcare, but I would like to see our society provide the basics to all its citizens. Publicly covered basic healthcare plans with the availability of private insurance plans that go above and beyond sounds reasonable, which is also done in Canada.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by macabre

Well, single-payer systems are not only more equitable but more efficient, a point that seems to get lost in these debates. As one moves from a multi-payer system to a single-payer system, you see vast decreases in health care spending without much being lost in terms of quantifiable health outcomes. I am agnostic as to whether single-payer systems drastically hinder quality or innovation on average but taken together, the benefits of an efficient and equitable system is alluring to me because it defies the traditional economic notion that equity-efficiency are constantly at odds. The effectiveness of the single-payer model demonstrates that, at least in the area of health care, government intervention can provide more efficient outcomes than those generated by the market. This is not surprising, since insurance prices and risk pool sizes seem to be inversely related.

Hmm, I haven't heard of that. Was there some study that followed the implementation of single-payer healthcare in a country?