UFC's Lesnar berates Canadian health care...

[wyly]

You say "no" as if you know, and you don't. It very well could be a factor. And fyi, pointing out that different races have different life expectancy rates is no more "racism" than pointing out that men and women have different life expectancies is "sexist."

Furthermore, I'm not "justifying" anything by my input; simply stating a fact and pointing out that it could be a factor in our differing life expectancies.

Canada actually has a slightly higher percentage of whites than the U.S. does.

if it's a factor it's because people of colour have less access to medical care than others, there's no denial that poverty and lower life expectancy go together and in the USA Hispanics and Blacks are the two poorest groups...it's not because whites have superior genetics...and then I add that technically there is no such thing as race, racial distinctions are purely social inventions...many immigrants come to N America with healthier lifestyles than ours, it's when they pick up our sedentary ways and junk food diet their health goes to shit...

and as you point out Canada has only slightly higher percentage of whites so the differences are insignificant, the colour is not the indicator poverty is and the limits it puts on access to healthcare...in Canada poverty does not affect the amount of care you receive...

So what? "More immigrants" doesn't automatically mean "more diverse." If an immigrant comes from England, it's not making you more diverse. Furthermore, we may have been more diverse than Canada to begin with, so even if you do take in more immigrants per capita than we do, and looking at your population and birth rate compared to ours it makes sense that you would, it doesn't mean you are more diverse.

we get very few immigrants from england our immigration is one of many colours, europeans are not the majority, and what the USA or Canada's was originally is irrelevant now intermarriage blurs all lines and universal healthcare provides a level playing field...

Since Gabriel already clearly explained how all of this could be a factor in our life expectancies, I'll leave it at that.

I don't read his posts...I have no time for someone who claims only people with a degree in engineering have a relevant opinion...

[Gabriel]

Canada is one of the most decentralized federations on the planet. That exact example you just gave is very common here. Every province has different paramedic standards.

When compared to the USA, we are more centralized. You're not going to dispute that, are you? I should have been more clear, I am aware that there is no national standard in Canada for paramedic licensing, but we'll see more uniformity among the various provinces with respect to educational standards (length of education, material covered, etc) than in the USA. Perhaps this is inevitable because of Canada smaller size, of course we have less provinces and less people than the USA has states and people. Either way, you'll see greater variation in standards for paramedics, and other medical professionals, in the USA between states than in Canada between our provinces. I think we've got a CMA list of "approved" school which train paramedics, as well, and I think this is recognized by most is not all of our provinces (and territories, of course) - allowing graduates from these programs to have easier mobility between provinces. Again, this mobility, generally speaking, is higher in Canada than in the USA. Simply put, we've got more uniformity here. Whether or not that's a good thing is another discussion altogether.

[Gabriel]

Wyly again goes off on serious tangents that are way too broad in scope to be addressed in this thread. For example, race being entirely a social construct (which isn't true) is an entirely separate discussion.

Wyly may have a point about persons of colour having a lower life expectancy due to the tendency that they tend to have poorer living conditions as they are overly represented in poverty statistics, and by extension are probably more likely to develop heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. If the USA has a higher poverty rate than Canada (does it?) then this could perhaps explain the slight difference in life expectancy between Canada and the USA. Also pointed out is that impoverished Canadians still have access to healthcare, whereas in the USA their access is possibly more limited. Although those who are poorest qualify for Medicaid, right? This gives them increased access to healthcare over a medium-earner without benefits who earns more than is permitted to be eligible for healthcare. I'm thinking those who are stuck with the shortest end of the stick in the USA are not those at the bottom of earnings, but those in the lower middle, those who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (or is it Medicare?) yet whose employment provides them little to no benefits with respect to healthcare.

[blueblood]

and as you point out Canada has only slightly higher percentage of whites so the differences are insignificant, the colour is not the indicator poverty is and the limits it puts on access to healthcare...in Canada poverty does not affect the amount of care you receive...

Have you not heard about sickle cell anemia?

My link

Apparently its a pain in the ass if your black with ancestors from sub saharan africa. Interesting to note it was a mutation to help curb malaria.

I don't think poverty is going to affect that little issue.

Edited February 2, 2010 by blueblood

[Smallc]

When compared to the USA, we are more centralized. You're not going to dispute that, are you?

I very well might. It depends what we're talking about. Canada is considered to be more decentralized than the US. Premiers are considered to be more powerful than governors from what I've always read and heard. Canada's provinces though have managed to find common ground, something that seems less common in the US.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Smallc

[Gabriel]

I very well might. It depends what we're talking about. Canada is considered to be more decentralized than the US. Premiers are considered to be more powerful than governors from what I've always read and heard. Canada's provinces though have managed to find common ground, something that seems less common in the US.

Centralization/decentralization in Canada and the USA isn't really a subject I want to discuss, as it's obvious that Canada is more centralized (generally speaking). We can use generalities like the PM being more powerful than the President or other examples, but it's not something I want to talk about. Besides, this thread isn't really about that although I did touch on it in an earlier post.

EDIT - Premiers being more powerful than Governors isn't a fact that supports the assertion that Canada is more decentralized. You need to ask the question - more powerful with respect to what? They're more powerful with respect to their provincial legislatures than their Americn Governor counterparts are with respect to their legislatures. It's not about power with respect to the central government, but about power with respect to their provincial/state legislatures.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[Smallc]

I think we're talking about this in different ways, but you're right, this isn't the place.

[wyly]

Have you not heard about sickle cell anemia?

My link

Apparently its a pain in the ass if your black with ancestors from sub saharan africa. Interesting to note it was a mutation to help curb malaria.

I don't think poverty is going to affect that little issue.

have you not heard of Tay-Sachs, one in 30 Jewish americans or French Canadians carry the gene...each ethnic group inherits medical problems no one group is any healthier or weaker than another...

70,000 out of 40,000,000 people of black ancestry in the USA, insignificant...in many of those 70,000 it is very mild and most live normal lives...and of those 40 million americans of african ancestry a full 30% are of mixed race(white) so there must be a corresponding number of white americans who are also of mixed descent, so making a health assessment based on skin colour is wrong...average life expectancy has nothing to do with ethnic makeup and everything to do with access to proper healthcare...

In Canada poverty does not limit one's access to healthcare

Edited February 2, 2010 by wyly

[Gabriel]

I think we're talking about this in different ways, but you're right, this isn't the place.

In a super general way, I am so damn thankful that I was born and raised in this country. For all of our healthcare system's flaws (and there are many!), I wouldn't have it any other way.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[wyly]

delete

Edited February 2, 2010 by wyly

[Smallc]

In a super general way, I am so damn thankful that I was born and raised in this country.

I look around the world and I see so much wrong...and then I look here, and despite our problems and our disagreements, we have so very much right. I can't think of anywhere that I'd rather live.

For all of our healthcare system's flaws (and there are many!), I wouldn't have it any other way.

Definitely flaws. Still, it's served my family well so very many time.

[blueblood]

have you not heard of Tay-Sachs, one in 30 Jewish americans or French Canadians carry the gene...each ethnic group inherits medical problems no one group is any healthier or weaker than another...

70,000 out of 40,000,000 people of black ancestry in the USA, insignificant...in many of those 70,000 it is very mild and most live normal lives...and of those 40 million americans of african ancestry a full 30% are of mixed race(white) so there must be a corresponding number of white americans who are also of mixed descent, so making a health assessment based on skin colour is wrong...average life expectancy has nothing to do with ethnic makeup and everything to do with access to proper healthcare...

You are the one crying about how only poverty makes people more succeptible to disease, I proved that little theory wrong, genetics has a hand in it.

In Canada poverty does not limit one's access to healthcare

Only wait times do. Welcome to the world of Trade offs. Hell the Premier of Newfoundland couldn't get heart surgery in the USA fast enough!

[Smallc]

Only wait times do. Welcome to the world of Trade offs. Hell the Premier of Newfoundland couldn't get heart surgery in the USA fast enough!

We don't know any of the circumstances around that yet. I would put many of the heart centres in Canada (none of which are in N.L. btw) up against any in the US....that includes those in Edmonton, Ottawa, and Winnipeg.

[blueblood]

We don't know any of the circumstances around that yet. I would put many of the heart centres in Canada (none of which are in N.L. btw) up against any in the US....that includes those in Edmonton, Ottawa, and Winnipeg.

Danny Williams sure as heck didn't! He's getting the best heart surgery his money can buy!

Can you say express lane?

[Smallc]

And that's his choice. As I said, we don't know anything about the situation. Still, the facility in Alberta is brand new, and better than probably any other in the world. The facility in Ontario is very good also, and the one here is still under construction, but is a smaller model of the one in Alberta.

[Gabriel]

Danny Williams sure as heck didn't! He's getting the best heart surgery his money can buy!

Can you say express lane?

Feel like linking any relevant stories? Perhaps he had some unusual underlying condition or rare circumstances which were more likely to be better treated in the USA.

EDIT - I found one, here.

From the article, Robert Bell, chief executive officer of University Health Network, one of Canada's largest groups of hospitals.... [said] there could be good reason for Mr. Williams to have the operation in the United States if he has a complex heart condition that requires special expertise.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

We don't know any of the circumstances around that yet. I would put many of the heart centres in Canada (none of which are in N.L. btw) up against any in the US....that includes those in Edmonton, Ottawa, and Winnipeg.

I would too. No question our facilities are world class in that regard.

[bush_cheney2004]

Feel like linking any relevant stories? Perhaps he had some unusual underlying condition or rare circumstances which were more likely to be better treated in the USA.

The consensus several year ago was that myocardial infarction patients are likely to receive faster revascularization in the USA. This because Canada lacked facilities and staff for more invasive procedures in local community hospitals.

Median revascularization waiting times were significantly shorter at invasive hospitals (12 vs. 48 days, p < 0.001). Patients admitted to invasive hospitals had fewer cardiac re-admissions (41.5 vs. 68.9 events per 100 patients, p < 0.001) before their first revascularization and consumed fewer hospital bed-days (379 vs. 517 per 100 patients, p < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes beyond revascularization.

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/short/42/3/410

[wyly]

You are the one crying about how only poverty makes people more succeptible to disease, I proved that little theory wrong, genetics has a hand in it.

not my theory and it's absolutely true, poverty and access to healthcare are linked 100%, don't believe it go move to Bengla desh live on one or two dollars a day and get back to us in ten years and let us know how you're doing healthwise, genetics balances out every ethnic group has it's issues and is statistically insignificant...

Only wait times do. Welcome to the world of Trade offs. Hell the Premier of Newfoundland couldn't get heart surgery in the USA fast enough!

that the premier of Newfoundland has the cash to jump the que in the USA is a good thing? how many americans were waiting for surgery only to be bumped for the premier?...if you don't think americans have wait times you're being delusional, some wait forever because of pre existing conditions...

[wyly]

The consensus several year ago was that myocardial infarction patients are likely to receive faster revascularization in the USA. This because Canada lacked facilities and staff for more invasive procedures in local community hospitals.

Median revascularization waiting times were significantly shorter at invasive hospitals (12 vs. 48 days, p < 0.001). Patients admitted to invasive hospitals had fewer cardiac re-admissions (41.5 vs. 68.9 events per 100 patients, p < 0.001) before their first revascularization and consumed fewer hospital bed-days (379 vs. 517 per 100 patients, p < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes beyond revascularization.

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/short/42/3/410

nice to avoid the other half of the story, short term the USA, long term stats Canadian patients lived longer...

[bush_cheney2004]

nice to avoid the other half of the story, short term the USA, long term stats Canadian patients lived longer...

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

Edited February 2, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

if it's a factor it's because people of colour have less access to medical care than others, there's no denial that poverty and lower life expectancy go together and in the USA Hispanics and Blacks are the two poorest groups...it's not because whites have superior genetics...

Who said anything about "superior?"

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.?

FYI, I wasn't talking about "just the U.S."

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

and as you point out Canada has only slightly higher percentage of whites so the differences are insignificant, the colour is not the indicator poverty is and the limits it puts on access to healthcare...in Canada poverty does not affect the amount of care you receive...

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.

Edited February 2, 2010 by American Woman

[dizzy]

two-tier system only benefits the wealthy the rest will be worse off with longer waits...

With all respect, your response is a bit rhetorical. Two tier is merely a concept, the application of which can mean anything from what we currently have (considering the private insurance realm of dental and drug care) to completely separate systems. It's true that Canadians live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, etc. than our american friends. But part of this reality is reflective of forces outside of the medicare system, such as the higher levels of extreme poverty and poor nutritional behaviour in the US. Besides, life expectancy is only one marker.

What lessons are there, if any to learn from good systems like those in France, Germany? Or from the NHS/private approach in the UK?

FTR I'm not wealthy, I'm middle class. I'm comfortable enough to be able to afford the $750 for a next day MRI in quebec if I needed one. I'm also aware that the decision to do so would move someone up the line in the public system.

As a parallel, there are some who've argued that the existence of private schools weakens the public school system. But there's no evidence of this within the Canadian experience.

[bush_cheney2004]

With all respect, your response is a bit rhetorical. Two tier is merely a concept, the application of which can mean anything from what we currently have (considering the private insurance realm of dental and drug care) to completely separate systems...

Very true...Canada already has an n-tier health care system, it's just politically incorrect to say so. Similary, the US already has several single payer systems that dwarf anything in Canada (Medicare, VA, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.). It really isn't accurate to even refer to either as "systems", as they are both an amalgam of many elements not beholden to a single design or objective.

[dizzy]

Very true...Canada already has an n-tier health care system, it's just politically incorrect to say so. Similary, the US already has several single payer systems that dwarf anything in Canada (Medicare, VA, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.). It really isn't accurate to even refer to either as "systems", as they are both an amalgam of many elements not beholden to a single design or objective.

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.