UFC's Lesnar berates Canadian health care...

[wyly]

The other half of the story is revascularization in the USA at 5 times the rate in Canada. Many Canadian patients go to the USA, as described above.

Why they run for the border:

Canadians seek health care in the United States for:

• Heart care.

• Imaging tests.

• Bariatric surgery.

• Multiple injuries from an accident.

• Cancer.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U.S.-to-get-health-care

.01% of canadians seek medical care in the US

and we live nearly 3 years longer at half the cost

Edited February 2, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Who said anything about "superior?"

if it's not superior why bring it up? you made a point of racial/ethnic differences I did not...you made race a medical issue for shorter lifespan...

As I already pointed out, women have a higher life expectancy than men do. Is that because men are poorer? Is that because women have superior genetics? Is it because men have less access to medical care in the U.S.?

men lead higher risk lifestyles in any culture...

You might want to educate yourself a bit before claiming/believing you have all the answers.

You might want to educate yourself a bit before claiming/believing you have all the answers.

I see. When Canada has only a slighter higher percentage of whites, the differences are insignificant, but when Canada has a slightly higher life expectancy than the U.S., it's oh-so-wonderfully significant.

Got'cha.

there you go making implying racial superiority again, Canada is healthier because we have more whites...

when your time comes that three 3 years of life you may have gained by living in Canada will be very significant....3 years longer at half the cost

Edited February 2, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

The real area needing improvement in this country, and where we should look to the US as a world leader, is in the area of early detection. When looking at their higher recovery rates with severe chronic illnesses, much of the victory lays here. Otherwise, at similar points of intervention, patients have similar outcomes in both countries.

obviously you haven't noticed repeated TV infomercials from the health authorities urging Canadians to get screened for various ailments, Canadians are bad for not going for regular testing...it's not the fault of the government it's the fault of the individual..individuals wait until they don't feel well before they see their MD, then complain when the testing doesn't get done fast enough...schedule regular check ups and testing before you're ill not after...my MD is constantly after me to get screened every time I see her and I put it off, my wife gets a testing regularly...

we do not have similar outcomes, we live longer...although with me dislike for testing I'll be one of those Canadians(mostly men)who bring the average life expectancy down...

[dizzy]

obviously you haven't noticed repeated TV infomercials from the health authorities urging Canadians to get screened for various ailments, Canadians are bad for not going for regular testing...it's not the fault of the government it's the fault of the individual..individuals wait until they don't feel well before they see their MD, then complain when the testing doesn't get done fast enough...schedule regular check ups and testing before you're ill not after...my MD is constantly after me to get screened every time I see her and I put it off, my wife gets a testing regularly...

we do not have similar outcomes, we live longer...although with me dislike for testing I'll be one of those Canadians(mostly men)who bring the average life expectancy down...

I'm not talking about life expectancy. I'm talking about survival rates from chronic illness, like cancer. The US survival rates are much higher than in Canada or Europe, which I believe is attributable to early detection. It's something they do better and I'd like to learn from the best in each system.

It's true that canadians don't go to the doctor enough, but 33% of men and 20% of women in the US don't even have a GP, so I don't think that this has anything to do with the higher survival rates in the US.

It's not enough to keep falling back to the life expectancy. We live longer because we are generally a healthier people. This can not be attributed to medicare alone. There are a lot of factors behind this including poverty, violent crime, and nutritional habits.

[Gabriel]

As such, health care systems should be judged by their elements rather than with broad brush statements.

There are a lot of things that work well in the 'canadian' system. I quote canadian because, having spent most of my life in toronto but the last 10 yrs in quebec, I'd note some big differences, but those aren't my point in this post.

Overall, I'm less concerned about waiting times for non-essential procedures in Canada because, for the large part, doctors tend to compensate by putting patients in the line earlier, thus getting them to their procedure at about the time when its needed. My mother has had two knee replacements, physio, work on her tear ducts and a host of other non essentials that she received in a timely manner and with quality in-home follow up care. I did have some trouble getting an FP after moving to Quebec because I was anglo. Solution: Learn to speak french (however poorly) and receive service in my second language. Problem solved. I actually have an anglo doctor now, but I'll generally get into whichever line will get me served first. Within the french lineup, I've had doctors, nutritionists, etc. who have gone to incredible lengths to accommodate me, even attempting to serve me in english to the best of their linguistic ability.

The real area needing improvement in this country, and where we should look to the US as a world leader, is in the area of early detection. When looking at their higher recovery rates with severe chronic illnesses, much of the victory lays here. Otherwise, at similar points of intervention, patients have similar outcomes in both countries. Of course, early detection comes at a cost. It is one of the reasons behind the high cost of care in the US and a part of the overutilization cycle. What I don't want to see in this country is people getting wheeled in for invasive procedures to correct things that could first be addressed by changing behaviour. Nor do I want a poorly regulated private healthcare system, where stakeholders' financial interests favour intervention (doctors with shares in labs, hospitals, etc). But, I do want those machines in greater numbers and I want people's access at that level improved! We're starting to see this idea gaining ground. In Toronto, same day breast cancer detection is now available. In quebec it's been facilitated more through private sector solutions. I'd love to hear what's happening in other provinces.

I'm a photographer and count many americans in my trade as colleagues and friends. Most of them are self-employed and, despite having coverage and making good coin ($250k+/yr), they simply can not afford the kind of comprehensive care that we get. Most take catastrophic coverage and, with a deductable that ranges in the thousands, can only get medical care if something big in the machine breaks. Other than one annual, trips to the doctor and specialists are not covered. Out-of-jurisdiction care (such as another state) is not covered. Even those with full insurance are limited to smaller pools of expertise and a growing list of deinsured services (a list that sometimes grows as people become ill with them i.e. you're covered until you need it). Yet, technically, according to the american stats, these people are covered because they have some form of insurance. So, when I say two-tiered care I am not advocating for something like this but rather for systems like exist in France, Germany, Switzerland. Canada is largely a single payer system, so most of the participants are already private sector entities. Changing the nature of the system can happen without damaging the spirit of the medicare. And we need to slay the sacred cow - The Canada Health Act.

Well said. I also agree that wyly needs to be continually challenged on his simplistic assertions that Canadian healthcare is all-around better simply because our life expectancy is half a few percent higher. I'm not sure what role differing quality and/or access to healthcare between Canada and the USA has to do with this life expectancy discrepancy, if any at all. My judgement tells me it's much more related to a healthier lifestyle lived among more Canadians, for whatever reason(s).

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[Guest American Woman]

if it's not superior why bring it up? you made a point of racial/ethnic differences I did not...you made race a medical issue for shorter lifespan...

Ummmmm. I brought it up because it's relevant.

men lead higher risk lifestyles in any culture...

Bull. Men are at higher risk in some areas and more prone to problems and women are more at risk in others. Just as certain races are more at risk in some areas and more prone to different problems.

You might want to educate yourself a bit before claiming/believing you have all the answers.

You might want to learn to read. I never said I had all the answers. I said statistics/numbers alone don't tell the complete story, and they don't. I then brought up the fact that life expectancy varies by race, and it does, and brought up the fact that it could be a factor in our differing life expectancies. And it could.

But good for you just repeating what I said. That took a lot of thought on your part.

there you go making implying racial superiority again, Canada is healthier because we have more whites...

Is there something wrong with your ability to understand what's been said? You brought up how diverse Canada is, I pointed out that you have a higher percentage of whites than we do. You then made light of the difference, saying it was insignificant because it's such a small difference, as you go on and on about the small difference in our life expectancies.

when your time comes that three 3 years of life you may have gained by living in Canada will be very significant....3 years longer at half the cost

"Half the cost" is again a mere statistic, and as I already pointed out, statistics alone don't tell the whole story.

We may pay more, but we have more: The US has a 29.3% higher disposable income and the US dollar is 11.8% greater in value.

So again, it's all relative.

As for whether or not I'd live longer if I lived in Canada, I don't think so. As I said, there are a lot of factors going into the life expectancy statistics. You just refuse to see it.

Edited February 2, 2010 by American Woman

[wyly]

I'm not talking about life expectancy. I'm talking about survival rates from chronic illness, like cancer. The US survival rates are much higher than in Canada or Europe, which I believe is attributable to early detection. It's something they do better and I'd like to learn from the best in each system.

It's true that canadians don't go to the doctor enough, but 33% of men and 20% of women in the US don't even have a GP, so I don't think that this has anything to do with the higher survival rates in the US.

first let's put this in the proper perspective cancer isn't the biggest killer...plus when survival rates are mentioned is misleading we are speaking of "surviving" 5 years, not quite the same as beating the cancer, you're only gaining time...and there has been virtually no change for survival in many cancers for the last 15 years...in actual cancer mortality rates USA does not fair so well...thailand of all places leads the world with the lowest cancer mortality rates...

much higher survival rates in the USA? Cuba has the highest survival rate for breast cancer(poor country but universal healthcare)...Japan is first in survival rates for colon and rectal cancers in men and in women it's France that leads...and within the US survival rates vary widely by state and by race, some very good some bad...Canada is quite consistent accross provinces we're actually good no matter what stories you've been told...

It's not enough to keep falling back to the life expectancy. We live longer because we are generally a healthier people. This can not be attributed to medicare alone. There are a lot of factors behind this including poverty, violent crime, and nutritional habits.

we're healthier people? take another look, we're fat slobs...and life expectancy is the only stat that is relevant we have universal medicare to thank for it...in the US wealth equals health, with universal medicare we've broken the link between poverty and poor health, I don't make this up every health organization will tell you the same thing... Edited February 2, 2010 by wyly

[dizzy]

"Half the cost" is again a mere statistic, and as I already pointed out, statistics alone don't tell the whole story.

We may pay more, but we have more: The US has a 29.3% higher disposable income and the US dollar is 11.8% greater in value.

So again, it's all relative.

I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of the shell game that you two are playing, but since I challenged wyly on the life expectancy thing, I want to also interject on a couple of your points.

The comparison between US and Canadian per capita spending is made in US dollars and adjusted for purchasing power parities. It is about USD7200 per capita in the US vs USD3800 in Canada. Further, Americans actually use their system a lot less than Canadians, so if the comparison was made on a per 'hit' basis as opposed to per person, the disparity would actually be much greater.

Second, I'm sure you know that disposible income is a reflection of money after taxes. Considering that we pay for our healthcare in our taxes, personal spending on healthcare in the US would have to be subtracted from disposable income to make the comparison apples to apples. I usually include energy costs in all cross-national income comparisons too, as it's a necessary expense for which there is not a capital investment (unlike a house). All of these things considered, when I did Quebec to NYC and Toronto to San Fransisco comparisons (at different times over the past 10 yrs when different gigs came up for my girlfriend and me) I actually found that I would actually have a little less free change at the same income level. Mind you, those were comparisons of places where I had opportunities/wanted to live. I'm sure places like montana or texas are much more favourable on these fronts.

I'm also not saying that there aren't great things about the american healthcare system, just that you won't find them in the financial arena.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of the shell game that you two are playing, but since I challenged wyly on the life expectancy thing, I want to also interject on a couple of your points.

The comparison between US and Canadian per capita spending is made in US dollars and adjusted for purchasing power parities. It is about USD7200 per capita in the US vs USD3800 in Canada. Further, Americans actually use their system a lot less than Canadians, so if the comparison was made on a per 'hit' basis as opposed to per person, the disparity would actually be much greater.

Second, I'm sure you know that disposible income is a reflection of money after taxes. Considering that we pay for our healthcare in our taxes, personal spending on healthcare in the US would have to be subtracted from disposable income to make the comparison apples to apples.

I realize that disposable income is "after taxes," but since wyly is pointing out that we pay more for our public health care, I'm pointing out that in spite of that fact, we still have a 29.3% higher disposable income, because of course our public health care programs come out of our taxes, too. Furthermore, many people have health coverage as a benefit, on top of their higher disposable income.

I usually include energy costs in all cross-national income comparisons too, as it's a necessary expense for which there is not a capital investment (unlike a house). All of these things considered, when I did Quebec to NYC and Toronto to San Fransisco comparisons (at different times over the past 10 yrs when different gigs came up for my girlfriend and me) I actually found that I would actually have a little less free change at the same income level. Mind you, those were comparisons of places where I had opportunities/wanted to live. I'm sure places like montana or texas are much more favourable on these fronts.

I'm not sure what expenses you are referring to, so I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. I've traveled in Canada, too, (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, as well as small towns) and have always found costs for entertainment, food, liquor, etc, to be quite a bit higher than in the U.S., with the higher taxes on top of that.

I'm also not saying that there aren't great things about the american healthcare system, just that you won't find them in the financial arena.

And I have clearly said that there are good things about the Canadian system, but it's not something people want to see repeated here, and understandably so for those who have good coverage. I've had experience with all ends of it -- from good coverage provided to crappy purchased coverage to no coverage at all to medicaid paying for the birth of my grandson since my daughter was a university student without coverage, and that was paid in full, including a neonatal equipped helicopter ride to the nearest neonatal center when he was born with lung/breathing issues.

So my point all along has been that there are reasons why people don't want to give up what they have and there are many people for whom Canada's health care system wouldn't be better. Some are saying that in some areas it is two tier, but is that ever covered when people chose the private care over the public, for what I'm assuming is better care, after all, why else would they be choosing it-- or is it always out-of-pocket?

I do believe in public health care, but I think some who have good coverage worry about losing it for inferior care if we were to get it. I'm just saying it's not an easy thing to change something that's so good for so many. But we do need changes. And from my observations, so does Canada. Wyly seems to think the sun rises and sets by Canada's health care, he thinks it adds years to people's lives, and there's no room for any argument and counter-points in his thinking. I happen to think that numbers/statistics alone don't tell the whole story, and that's been the purpose of the issues I've brought up, which are all legitimate points.

Edited February 2, 2010 by American Woman

[dizzy]

first let's put this in the proper perspective cancer isn't the biggest killer...

My perspective is to not make summary statements about either system but to look at what aspects are working well in each.

plus when survival rates are mentioned is misleading we are speaking of "surviving" 5 years, not quite the same as beating the cancer, you're only gaining time...and there has been virtually no change for survival in many cancers for the last 15 years...in actual cancer mortality rates USA does not fair so well...thailand of all places leads the world with the lowest cancer mortality rates...

No one 'beats' cancer. 5 yr survival rates are the best measure we have of the healthcare system's ability to diagnose and resolve chronic illness.

much higher survival rates in the USA? Cuba has the highest survival rate for breast cancer(poor country but universal healthcare)...Japan is first in survival rates for colon and rectal cancers in men and in women it's France that leads...and within the US survival rates vary widely by state and by race, some very good some bad...Canada is quite consistent accross provinces we're actually good no matter what stories you've been told...

I don't think our rates are bad. But, They are higher in the US. I want them improved. Early detection technology is a key to this in the US, Japan and France.

we're healthier people? take another look, we're fat slobs...and life expectancy is the only stat that is relevant we have universal medicare to thank for it...in the US wealth equals health, with universal medicare we've broken the link between poverty and poor health, I don't make this up every health organization will tell you the same thing...

Yeah, I've seen more than my share of too chunky people here but, in fact, we're generally healthier. Obesity rates are less than half of those in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

I also mentioned violent crime and should add car accidents as factors in the US numbers. The impact of poverty is softened here in part through health care but also through income security programs and public education (which facilitates less multi-generational poverty). I do agree the healthcare is a factor, but so are many other things.

[Gabriel]

I realize that disposable income is "after taxes," but since wyly is pointing out that we pay more for our public health care, I'm pointing out that in spite of that fact, we still have a 29.3% higher disposable income, because of course our public health care programs come out of our taxes, too. Furthermore, many people have health coverage as a benefit, on top of their higher disposable income.

Where are you getting this number from, that Americans have 29.3% higher disposable income? Even if this number is accurate, one of the most relevant facts in the comparison of Canadian and American healthcare is the cost. With America spending twice as much per capita on healthcare, something is wrong and needs correction. I don't see how the 29.3% higher disposable income figure (if accurate) can play down a 200% increase in healthcare costs, which are largely inelastic goods and services. I also don't see how it's relevant - perhaps you can elaborate. Remember as well that the quality of Canadian medical services is largely on par with those in America.

As an aside, yes things definitely become more expensive in Canada for unknown reasons. Even similar or EXACT products at big box chains like Costco or Best Buy simply cost more in Canada, before factoring in our typically higher sales taxes. I've never understood it.

[dizzy]

Where are you getting this number from, that Americans have 29.3% higher disposable income? Even if this number is accurate, one of the most relevant facts in the comparison of Canadian and American healthcare is the cost. With America spending twice as much per capita on healthcare, something is wrong and needs correction. I don't see how the 29.3% higher disposable income figure (if accurate) can play down a 200% increase in healthcare costs, which are largely inelastic goods and services. I also don't see how it's relevant - perhaps you can elaborate. Remember as well that the quality of Canadian medical services is largely on par with those in America.

As an aside, yes things definitely become more expensive in Canada for unknown reasons. Even similar or EXACT products at big box chains like Costco or Best Buy simply cost more in Canada, before factoring in our typically higher sales taxes. I've never understood it.

I hadn't questioned the income comparison, but now that you ask... I just did a quick wiki and found household median incomes between the US (2007 data) and Canada (2005 data) at USD50,233 and USD50,111 respectively...

[Gabriel]

I hadn't questioned the income comparison, but now that you ask... I just did a quick wiki and found household median incomes between the US (2007 data) and Canada (2005 data) at USD50,233 and USD50,111 respectively...

To get a good sense of context, I think it's also important to partially redefine "disposable income". Generally speaking we all know it refers to net income after taxes, but perhaps we want to take into account likely expenses that most folks don't have the discretion to deny - healthcare costs, for example. So for every dollar we in Canada are putting towards healthcare, via our taxes and out-of-pocket expenses (for both individuals and businesses), our neighbours to the south are spending about two dollars, also via taxation and out-of-pocket expenses (for both individuals and businesses). I'm sure most Americans are alarmed at this, given the reality that standards of quality for healthcare goods and services are largely the same between Canada and the USA. Like you, I'm sceptical of American Woman's claim of disposable income. Even if the ~29% disparity is accurate according to a particular definition of disposable income, we need to put it in the context of healthcare spending comparisons between our two countries - which again puts America way out ahead of us without much good reason.

[Guest American Woman]

I hadn't questioned the income comparison, but now that you ask... I just did a quick wiki and found household median incomes between the US (2007 data) and Canada (2005 data) at USD50,233 and USD50,111 respectively...

It wasn't an income comparison; it was a disposable income comparison, and as you already pointed out, the difference is "after taxes."

link

Edited February 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

It wasn't an income comparison; it was a disposable income comparison, and as you already pointed out, the difference is "after taxes."

link

I can't find the date of that study. Many of these studies were done a few years ago when Canadians had lower income than Americans and paid higher taxes. Disposable income is also a debatable quantity depending on what's included in disposable.

[dizzy]

It wasn't an income comparison; it was a disposable income comparison, and as you already pointed out, the difference is "after taxes."

link

You're right, my response was not apropos to your statement. A couple of notes about your link:

1. You quoted a website with the stated goal of uniting our continent democratically by helping Canada's provinces join the USA! I didn't realize such a movement was afoot but this wouldn't strike me as the most reliable source. Also,its source reference quotes a website (for a think tank I've never heard of) but not a specific document. I passed my 5 minute tolerance there (realizing that most of their research was based on 1990s and early 2000s data) before searching elsewhere. Before I left, I did find a report based on OECD info that Americans spend more than double their private disposable income (after government and employer contributions) on health care than does canada or european countries.

http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2009-11.pdf

2. Searching in other sites, I found these:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/01/taxes_and_dispo.html

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2009/09/c4320.html

Which show that the average worker's diposable income is presently the same and that a trend since 2005 shows that canadian disposable income has doubled the US and continued to outpace.

Back to the focus of this thread, none of this explains the very high cost of healthcare in the US. Overutilization does.

[Guest American Woman]

I can't find the date of that study. Many of these studies were done a few years ago when Canadians had lower income than Americans and paid higher taxes. Disposable income is also a debatable quantity depending on what's included in disposable.

At the top of the page it says: The following table consists of facts and statistics concerning Canada and the United States, as recent as Jan 1, 2009 (unless otherwise indicated).

So since it's not indicated otherwise, as some of the other statistics are, it's from Jan. 1, 2009.

[dizzy]

At the top of the page it says: The following table consists of facts and statistics concerning Canada and the United States, as recent as Jan 1, 2009 (unless otherwise indicated).

So since it's not indicated otherwise, as some of the other statistics are, it's from Jan. 1, 2009.

If it says it, it must be true? My mama didn't raise me like that! Go to the source (quoted at the bottom) and see for yourself. As per smallc's and my post above, the data is old here (I actually can't even find the specific 'reference'). I provided more current sources.

Edited February 2, 2010 by dizzy

[Guest American Woman]

If it says it, it must be true? My mama didn't raise me like that! Go to the source (quoted at the bottom) and see for yourself. As per smallc's and my post above, the data is old here (I actually can't even find the specific 'reference'). I provided more current sources.

Good for your mamma.

I did go to the source. Now show me where it says the data is old.

[dizzy]

Good for your mamma.

I did go to the source. Now show me where it says the data is old.

I'm not doing your homework for you! (teasing). But seriously, the source references in their research are pre2005 - some to 2007 - (not unusual as most governments' stats are updated every 5-10 yrs). The other info links I provided are from the OECD and CIBC, and provide much more recent data.

Damn, I swore I would get sucked into this shell game because I wanted to stay focused on the healthcare issue...

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not doing your homework for you! (teasing). But seriously, the source references in their research are pre2005 - some to 2007 - (not unusual as most governments' stats are updated every 5-10 yrs). The other info links I provided are from the OECD and CIBC, and provide much more recent data.

Their source references are old where they say they are old, but it doesn't give an older date for the disposable personal income data, so that means it's recent as stated above the stats. I went to the site of the source listed on the bottom of the page and it says: Database of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Investment and Capital Stock Trends: Canada vs United States (Updated: December 3, 2009)

Damn, I swore I would get sucked into this shell game because I wanted to stay focused on the healthcare issue...

[dizzy]

Their source references are old where they say they are old, but it doesn't give an older date for the disposable personal income data, so that means it's recent as stated above the stats. I went to the site of the source listed on the bottom of the page and it says: Database of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Investment and Capital Stock Trends: Canada vs United States (Updated: December 3, 2009)

I'm confused. The source listed for the numbers on disposable income is only listed as http://www.csls.ca/

Did you find the actual stat from which they extracted the 29% difference in disposable income?

Edited February 3, 2010 by dizzy

[Guest American Woman]

I'm confused. The source listed for the numbers on disposable income is only listed as http://www.csls.ca/

Did you find the actual stat from which they extracted the 29% difference in disposable income?

I actually gave you the wrong heading in my last post; should have read: Aggregate Income and Productivity Trends: Canada vs United States, 1961-2008. (Updated: June 25, 2009) , so sorry about that.

I got to it by clicking on the "data" heading on the site I linked to, the one you refer to; the link for that is http://www.csls.ca/data/iptjune2009.pdf and I didn't read through it to find the actual stats from which they extracted the 29% difference in disposable income.

[Smallc]

And so, the cardiologists push back against the bad press from the move that Danny Williams made:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2514581

[Smallc]

,

Edited February 3, 2010 by Smallc