US dead last in health care

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope we all agree Pliny has been making stuff up as he goes along.

So have provincial health care "ministers".....like this one in British Columbia:

For a week, Daybeak's series Backbone, has highlighted the stories of two Okanagan teenagers who required spinal surgery, but did not get it here in B.C. because of long delays.

Instead, they turn to Shriners Hospitals in the U.S.

For one of the teens, Walid Khalfallah, the delays had heartbreaking consequences. He is now paralyzed from the waist down.

----------- Sorry! -----------------

http://www.cbc.ca/da...surgery-delays/

Edited January 14, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Canuckistani]

NIce. Wonder how many people there are in the same boat in the US because they lack coverage?

G

Going without health insurance can delay when people obtain primary and preventative care, potentially resulting in poorer health. Even more gravely, a lack of private health insurance brings an increased risk of death; uninsurance is to blame for some 44,789 adult deaths across the U.S. every year, according to a new study published online today in theAmerican Journal of Public Health.

http://www.scientifi...than-2009-09-17

We analyzed data for 7577 participants. The 717 continuously uninsured participants and the 825 intermittently uninsured participants were more likely than the 6035 continuously insured participants to have a major decline in overall health between 1992 and 1996 (21.6 percent, 16.1 percent, and 8.3 percent of the three groups, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). According to a multivariate analysis, the adjusted relative risk of a major decline in overall health was 1.63 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.26 to 2.08) for continuously uninsured participants and 1.41 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.78) for intermittently uninsured participants, as compared with continuously insured participants. A new difficulty in walking or climbing stairs was also more likely to develop in the continuously or intermittently uninsured participants than in the continuously insured participants (28.8 percent, 26.4 percent, and 17.1 percent of the three groups, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The adjusted relative risk of such a new physical difficulty was 1.23 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.47) for the continuously uninsured participants and 1.26 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.54) for the intermittently uninsured participants.

http://www.nejm.org/...56/NEJMsa002887

Lack of health insurance is a major problem in the United States, and it has significant health consequences.^1,2 Compared with the insured, uninsured individuals have a higher prevalence of chronic medical illness, greater physical morbidity, and higher mortality.^3,4,5 They face greater barriers to accessing care—they are less likely to have a regular source of medical care, less likely to see a physician when acutely ill, and more likely to delay needed care due to concerns about cost.⁶ Even when they achieve access to care, it is often a lower quality of care than that received by people with health insurance coverage.^7,8,9

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1071459/ Edited January 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[punked]

So have provincial health care "ministers".....like this one in British Columbia:

For a week, Daybeak's series Backbone, has highlighted the stories of two Okanagan teenagers who required spinal surgery, but did not get it here in B.C. because of long delays.

Instead, they turn to Shriners Hospitals in the U.S.

For one of the teens, Walid Khalfallah, the delays had heartbreaking consequences. He is now paralyzed from the waist down.

----------- Sorry! -----------------

http://www.cbc.ca/da...surgery-delays/

Let me tell you a secret Canadians left the country before we had single payer and the numbers of Canadians leaving the country dropped once we got single payer. So fact is if that is measure of a good system then we have a better system now then when we had one that reflected the American system. Don't let that stop your dumb argument though. Want me to post a picture of Sarah Palin who had to go to Canada to get some real health care though and talk about how crappy your system is under your own logic? Nope? Great.

So now that your one argument has been destroyed what do you have?

[bush_cheney2004]

Let me tell you a secret Canadians left the country before we had single payer and the numbers of Canadians leaving the country dropped once we got single payer.

Canadians still leave for the U.S. by the thousands each year for all kinds of reasons regardless of "free health care"....there is more opportunity in the United States. There is more to life than free, collectivist health care, believe it or not.

So now that your one argument has been destroyed what do you have?

There is no argument....I don't care what you do in Canada, just don't try to take my choices.....in another country....away. I live very close to Canada, but it would never occur to me to cross the border for health care, while many Canadians keep the U.S. option in their back pocket for when the waiting becomes too long to bear. It is now standard procedure to go to the media and embarrass provincial health care with stories like the one above to get some attention and action.

===========================================================================

B.C. teen paralyzed after 27-month wait for surgery

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ery-report.html

Edited January 14, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Canuckistani]

Canadians still leave for the U.S. by the thousands each year for all kinds of reasons regardless of "free health care"....there is more opportunity in the United States. There is more to life than free, collectivist health care, believe it or not.

Weasel words and a dodge.

There is no argument....I don't care what you do in Canada

The number of posts by you about Canada would seem to put a lie to this.

, just don't try to take my choices.....in another country....away.

paranoid much? How exactly would we do that?

I live very close to Canada

You claimed you live in Texas, and you feel it's your duty to post on this forum because it's hosted in Texas. So is this more American ignorance about geography? Or, since you also said you are in Tel Aviv, just more of your bs?,

===========================================================================

B.C. teen paralyzed after 27-month wait for surgery

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ery-report.html

Quote

Lack of health insurance is a major problem in the United States, and it has significant health consequences.^1,2 Compared with the insured, uninsured individuals have a higher prevalence of chronic medical illness, greater physical morbidity, and higher mortality.^3,4,5 They face greater barriers to accessing care—they are less likely to have a regular source of medical care, less likely to see a physician when acutely ill, and more likely to delay needed care due to concerns about cost.⁶ Even when they achieve access to care, it is often a lower quality of care than that received by people with health insurance coverage.^7,8,9

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1071459/

Edited January 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[bush_cheney2004]

....You claimed you live in Texas, and you feel it's your duty to post on this forum because it's hosted in Texas. So is this more American ignorance about geography? Or, since you also said you are in Tel Aviv, just more of your bs?,

Buy a vowel...get a clue (you should recognize this reference to yet another American television program). I do not and have never lived in Texas, nor have I ever stated that I was in Tel Aviv. I have stated that I live close to the Canadian border, so it is you who could use some remedial geography lessons:

[segnosaur]

To be fair, on many markers, Cuba has better care than we do to. They have the lowest infant mortality rate in the western hemisphere...

That might not necessarily be the case.

The problem with infant mortality statistics is that they are not handled consistently on a country-by-country basis.

The U.S. follows a strict WHO definition... any baby that's born/takes a breath and dies is considered an 'infant death'. However, other countries (I believe Cuba is one of them) use slightly different criteria... a baby that is born but dies in the first few hours is often recorded as a 'stillbirth' (and is thus not counted in the 'infant mortality' statistics.)

There are other reasons why the statistics might be 'skewed'... how the statistics are gathered (direct counting vs. household surveys, ethnic demographics, etc..)

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-10-03/infant-mortality-ranking-misleading/50647210/1

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

(note: the second reference is not from a mainstream news site, but it is supported by the 'USA today' reference; it just goes into more details.)

...the second most doctors per capita in the world too.

This figure might be a bit misleading too...

Simply counting doctors is indicates nothing about the quality of their medical education. (According to one reference I found, the vast majority of students trained in the Cuban system cannot pass tests required to practice in the U.S.)

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrcuba.htm (note that this is from a web site run by an organization of private health care doctors. However, I see no reason to see their statistics were incorrect.)

I've also been to Cuba several times, and I've got freinds who live there. I'm familiar with how their system works, and it's essentially similar to Canada's, except that it costs a lot less, and they have more doctors than we do.

Keep in mind that being a tourist (or even a foreigner with some sort of residency status) might result in a better quality of health care than that provided to the average Cuban citizen.

[Canuckistani]

Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries. Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others. If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

http://ije.oxfordjou...t/35/4/817.full

Distribution of years of life lost by cause (%)

Place Communicable Non-communicable Injuries

Cuba 9 75 16

World 51 34 14

High income countries 8 77 15

United States 9 73 18

Low income countries 68 21 10

Source: World Health Organisation. World Health Statistics 2009, Table 2, "Cause-specific mortality and morbidity".

Cubans live 2 months longer than Americans. Or, if you want to be picky, it’s a wash, and Cubans and Americans live about as long as each other.

Cuba’s rates of maternal mortality (a very important figure), infant mortality and child mortality rates are above that of the 3rd World and are at about the level of the 1st World. In that sense, Cuba is a 1st world country.

What is incredible is this:

Cuba spends 4 cents on health care to every one of our dollars. Yes, Cuba gets better outcomes for 96% less cost. Does that make any sense at all?

32% of all US health care dollars go for overhead, while with Medicare, only 2% is spent on overhead. This is probably why the rightwing wants to get rid of Medicare: it’s too efficient. That 2% figure really gets their goat. If they wiped out Medicare and forced the elderly to buy their own, that 2% would go up to 32%.

http://robertlindsay...us-health-care/ Edited January 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[segnosaur]

Doesn't seem to be the same opinion of Elizabeth Warren... in her books she seems to put blame on medical bills for many bankruptcies.

Kinda misleading don't you think? Bankruptcy due to medical problem means you lost your job due to illness and can't pay your bills, not declared bankruptcy because you child was sick and you had to take him to the doctor and the bills overwhelmed you...

Actually, while some people do get overwhelmed by medical bills, its not the most common problem.

In fact, in one study, only 27% of people declaring medical bankruptcy for 'medical reasons' had outstanding medical bills over $1000. The vast majority of people owed far less, and their bankruptcy was due to things like being out of work due to their illness, something that would probably have happened even if health care were 'free'.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex2.gif

[Canuckistani]

According to the study, a number of circumstances propelled many middle-class, insured Americans into bankruptcy. For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy. Many families with continuous coverage found themselves under-insured, responsible for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families: $26,971 for uninsured patients; $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset; $14,633 for those with Medicaid; $12,021 for those with Medicare; and $6,545 for those with VA/military coverage. For patients who initially had private coverage but lost it, the family's out-of-pocket expenses averaged $22,568.

Because almost all insurance is linked to employment, a medical event can trigger loss of coverage. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter does so within a year. Income loss due to illness was also common, but nearly always coupled with high medical bills.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604095123.htm

We found two categories of problems. Some people were too sick to work and lost their jobs. Along with their jobs, they lost their insurance. The second group had continuous coverage, but their policies had so many co-pays, deductibles and loopholes that they were bankrupted in spite of having coverage. Most of those who declared bankruptcy were in the latter group.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/

[segnosaur]

According to the study, a number of circumstances propelled many middle-class, insured Americans into bankruptcy. For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy.

http://www.scienceda...90604095123.htm

Keep in mind that the article you quoted does not mention just how high their medical bills were.

I'm sure most people here, if they were really in need, could probably scrape up $1000 (Roughly 3/4 of the people with 'medical bankruptcies' owe less than that.) But, I guess its a lot easier to say "Medical bills drove me into bankruptcy" rather than "I missmanaged my money and couldn't afford a debt that most others could handle".

[Canuckistani]

Keep in mind that the article you quoted does not mention just how high their medical bills were.

I'm sure most people here, if they were really in need, could probably scrape up $1000 (Roughly 3/4 of the people with 'medical bankruptcies' owe less than that.) But, I guess its a lot easier to say "Medical bills drove me into bankruptcy" rather than "I missmanaged my money and couldn't afford a debt that most others could handle".

Actually if you read the whole quote that you snipped your quote from, they tell you exactly how high their bills were, on average. What's wrong with you?

Read:

Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families: $26,971 for uninsured patients; $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset; $14,633 for those with Medicaid; $12,021 for those with Medicare; and $6,545 for those with VA/military coverage. For patients who initially had private coverage but lost it, the family's out-of-pocket expenses averaged $22,568.

Amazing how high the out of pocket medical costs were for the people who had medical insurance. So you pay huge premiums for coverage (or your employer does, so he can't pay you more salary) and then you pay huge sums as co-pays. Nice.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[segnosaur]

Actually if you read the whole quote that you snipped your quote from, they tell you exactly how high their bills were, on average.

You're right... I should have said outstanding medical bills (i.e. what the patient actually owes at the time of bankruptcy) . Go back to post 234. That was the phrase I used there.

The other thing I'd keep in mind is that the numbers that were in your reference were averages. Given the fact that some medical procedures are extremely pricey, its possible that the average is dragged up by a few very expensive procedures. Thus, one heart/lung transplant (costing $1 million) and 3 cases of the flu might result in a bankruptcy for all 4 cases, and the average bill for those would be $250,000, but that doesn't mean the people who had the flu can blame their bankruptcy on $250,000 medical bills.

What's wrong with you?

I like to deal with facts. Sometimes those facts are not what you expect or want them to be.

[Canuckistani]

The other thing I'd keep in mind is that the numbers that were in your reference were averages. Given the fact that some medical procedures are extremely pricey, its possible that the average is dragged up by a few very expensive procedures. Thus, one heart/lung transplant (costing $1 million) and 3 cases of the flu might result in a bankruptcy for all 4 cases, and the average bill for those would be $250,000, but that doesn't mean the people who had the flu can blame their bankruptcy on $250,000 medical bills.

Explain how having the flu would cause bankruptcy?

I also posted this:

The second group had continuous coverage, but their policies had so many co-pays, deductibles and loopholes that they were bankrupted in spite of having coverage]Most of those who declared bankruptcy were in the latter group

Nice try tho.

And there's this:

Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051848/-Medical-bills-cause-62-percent-of-nbsp-bankruptcies# ie 8 percent became bankrupt due to loss of income. Edited January 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Argus]

You guys are wasting your time trying to convince an American that anything about their country isn't the best in the world. It doesn't matter that they don't know anything much ABOUT the rest of the world, they've been indoctrinated since birth with the idea that "America" is the greatest nation the world has ever known and is tops at EVERYTHING.

You'd do better trying to convince a North Korean that their great leader isn't the sexist man on earth...

[Guest American Woman]

You guys are wasting your time trying to convince an American that anything about their country isn't the best in the world. It doesn't matter that they don't know anything much ABOUT the rest of the world, they've been indoctrinated since birth with the idea that "America" is the greatest nation the world has ever known and is tops at EVERYTHING.

You'd do better trying to convince a North Korean that their great leader isn't the sexist man on earth...

The ironic - and humorous - thing about this post is that you're accusing Americans of being ignorant .

Edited January 15, 2013 by American Woman

[Pliny]

Load of crap. Per capita health care costs are almost double in the US vs Canada.

Total crap. Canadians pay about 30% of total healthcare costs not thru the medicare system, whereas Americans pay about 53% privately.. But the cost per GDP or cost per capitat calculations are based on total healthcare expenditures. Where do you get this bs from?

We, in Canada, have close to zero in medical tourism. The US has a significant amount of medical tourism that is part of their GDP and I would say ups the percentage. Is that right or not?

Arguing the statistics on a national comparative basis is unworkable as the systems are so vastly different and I would not trust studies from the UN which is biased towards socialized systems. It is almost impossible to determine in a socialized system what each individual is paying for healthcare.

It has to be averaged out, the poor will pay the least and the rich will pay the most. Is the Fraser institute wrong saying a family of four with a household income of $103,000 pays about $11,000 in taxes to health care which is comparable if not more than what the same size family with the same income in the US would pay.

All in all, I think Americans see they have problems with their system and that is why they are implementing change, change in a wrong direction as far as I'm concerned, whereas we ignore our problems and our only change seems to be to increase funding. Obama is working on making their system unsustainable as well.

Seems you are a big fan of the Cuban system, private hospitals and personal doctors only for its leaders and dignitaries. Is that fair?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Pliny

[cybercoma]

I would not trust studies from the UN which is biased towards socialized systems.

You ever think that maybe it's not biased and socialized healthcare just works better?

It is almost impossible to determine in a socialized system what each individual is paying for healthcare.

No it isn't.

[Mighty AC]

Some people without insurance suffer under the US system, but most of us would receive better care if we lived south of the border. It won't be long until enough boomers are sucking up health services at the same time, our level of care will deteriorate further, and we demand a better model in Canada.

I like the Swiss system:

- Like auto insurance, health insurance is mandatory.

- The cost of the insurance changes with your tax bracket.

- The government also invests in a catastrophic illness fund to cover long term conditions.

- Health services are government regulated and 40% privately delivered.

Healthcare is universal, government subsidized, but more efficiently administered. Despite an older population, the Swiss have greater choice, are receiving better care, without waiting and for the same money Canada is spending. win, win, win.

http://www.huffingto..._b_1896852.html

Edited January 16, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Pliny]

You ever think that maybe it's not biased and socialized healthcare just works better?

It doesn't work better. It, like all socialist programs, stultifies progress. It becomes ultra-conservative, resisting change, which is detrimental in some instances and is not, over the long run, economically sustainable, but until its collapse it invites the adoption of further fascistic measures to maintain it.

[Argus]

The ironic - and humorous - thing about this post is that you're accusing Americans of being ignorant .

And its ironic and humorous that you don't realize most of the world would agree.

[Argus]

It doesn't work better. It, like all socialist programs, stultifies progress. It becomes ultra-conservative, resisting change, which is detrimental in some instances and is not, over the long run, economically sustainable, but until its collapse it invites the adoption of further fascistic measures to maintain it.

Socialists are conservative? Who'd a thunk it.

I come from neither a left nor right perspective in terms of things like health care. I like what works, what works efficiently and effectively.

On a scale of that (efficiency and effectiveness) it's hard to come up with a worse system in the world than the American system. You can say, well, health care is better in America than in, say, Botswana, but if Botswana poured as much money into their system as the Americans did, well, it'd surely do better than the one south of us. On the scale of efficiency and effectiveness, then, the US system is probably dead last in the world.

[Canuckistani]

Some people without insurance suffer under the US system, but most of us would receive better care if we lived south of the border. It won't be long until enough boomers are sucking up health services at the same time, our level of care will deteriorate further, and we demand a better model in Canada.

I like the Swiss system:

- Like auto insurance, health insurance is mandatory.

- The cost of the insurance changes with your tax bracket.

- The government also invests in a catastrophic illness fund to cover long term conditions.

- Health services are government regulated and 40% privately delivered.

Healthcare is universal, government subsidized, but more efficiently administered. Despite an older population, the Swiss have greater choice, are receiving better care, without waiting and for the same money Canada is spending. win, win, win.

http://www.huffingto..._b_1896852.html

How is that so different than here? Our system also is based on you paying for it depending on your tax bracket. Health insurance in BC is mandatory. Doctors in our system are private, and they are a very large part of the system.

They do have co-pays for treatment. That can reduce costs by making people more careful about seeking it. It can also raise costs by people deferring treatment until it becomes much more serious and expensive.

Healthcare is Switzerland costs 10,8% of GDP, we're at 11.4%.

I think you may have a bit of grass is greener here.

We can learn from the European systems. Most seem to use non-profit insurers instead of government, with mandatory insurance. I'm not sure how that's better than what we do. They have a much denser population that we do - our stats are dragged down by the people living in remote areas.

Single payer is a much more efficient system. We could allow private hospitals, we could look at what else the Europeans do better than us. But we have unique challenges compared to them.

[Mighty AC]

Healthcare is Switzerland costs 10,8% of GDP, we're at 11.4%.

I think you may have a bit of grass is greener here.[/Quote] The Swiss have more choice, almost no waiting and they pay less despite an older population; the grass is actually greener in Switzerland.

[guyser]

The Swiss have more choice, almost no waiting and they pay less despite an older population; the grass is actually greener in Switzerland.

I wonder how many sq Km's Switzerland is. Probably huge like Canada. Oh? only 41,285 sq k ?

Thats probably bigger than....oh wait, a lot smaller than Manitoba. (649,000 sq K)

Hey maybe pop density will work better....Switz - 196 vs CDN - 3.75 Guess not.

Maybe that explains a few things?