US dead last in health care

cybercoma · June 15, 2014

Hey, maybe we can talk about comparative Canadian health care in the Canadian federal politics forum. Last I checked we were discussing comparative US healthcare in the US politics forum. Please try to stay on topic here.

bush_cheney2004 · June 15, 2014

Hey, maybe we can talk about comparative Canadian health care in the Canadian federal politics forum. Last I checked we were discussing comparative US healthcare in the US politics forum. Please try to stay on topic here.

No....by definition...if the U.S. is "dead last", then the question becomes "compared to what ? " Nice try.....

You and others routinely refer to the U.S. in the Canadian Federal Politics area of the forum regardless of the topic.

On Guard for Thee · June 15, 2014

Hey, maybe we can talk about comparative Canadian health care in the Canadian federal politics forum. Last I checked we were discussing comparative US healthcare in the US politics forum. Please try to stay on topic here.

Psst, good idea but don't tell rah rah America that.

cybercoma · June 15, 2014

No....by definition...if the U.S. is "dead last", then the question becomes "compared to what ? " Nice try.....

You and others routinely refer to the U.S. in the Canadian Federal Politics area of the forum regardless of the topic.

Compared to what? Have you read any of the posts or supporting evidence in this thread? What a ridiculous thing to ask.v

bush_cheney2004 · June 15, 2014

Since many of those members are on my ignore list because of personal attacks and/or abusive forum messaging, I have no idea what "evidence" may or may not have been offered. See earlier discussion about same.

waldo · June 16, 2014

Since many of those members are on my ignore list because of personal attacks and/or abusive forum messaging, I have no idea what "evidence" may or may not have been offered. See earlier discussion about same.

bunk. Well before this thread was resurrected (in response to you playing the wait-time card in another thread)... well before your latest victimhood act and ignore-list ploy, you are well aware of what has been put forward within the prior ~50 pages or so. Oh wait... although you're aware of what "evidence" has been offered prior to your latest victimhood act/ignore-list ploy, you've simply ignored all that evidence through the complete thread... from the American studies (by Americans for American introspection).

waldo · June 16, 2014

Compared to what? Have you read any of the posts or supporting evidence in this thread? What a ridiculous thing to ask.

bloody amazing! He asks "compared to what"! Oh wait, of course... when he ignores the studies and critical posts/graphics that reference to them, that detail and list the compared countries (as, of course, all the studies do)... well, certainly, then with all that ignoring, he can legitimately ask that question! :lol:

waldo · June 16, 2014

Clearly getting your facts straight doesn't matter either, since you said earlier that your contention is the US is not dead last in health care, bringing up OECD comparisons. Now I tell you the OECD comparisons shows the US system as an utter failure amongst comparable nations, being the most expensive and bloated system with the least return, and now you respond with some utter nonsense about how the government isn't responsible for healthcare, it's not a right, and people are free to make choices blah blah blah.

nice job calling him on his false OECD claim... which has already been done previously in this thread. As I said, he's recycling now.

monty16 · June 16, 2014

I rather enjoy it because we can assume that his fellow Americans are about the same. Now that's something to be proud of isn't it!

waldo · June 16, 2014

But it is not designed to serve the "entirety of the US population". It is not a universal, single pay health care system.

ah yes, one of your regular go-to fallbacks! Along with your "cash is king" accompaniment to that. Clearly, as I've stated several times now - to you, there are degrees of being an American. Like those poorer Americans on Medicaid (those 50 million+) regularly running into medical access/care problems... like those millions of Americans with insufficient healthcare coverage... like those millions of Americans with no insurance (~15 million today - still)... like those thousands of U.S. military veterans currently being profiled in recent weeks, like those hundreds of thousands of Americans that annually travel outside the U.S. for their medical care, etc, etc, etc.

yes, with all the Americans you ignore (in your claimed libetarian best), while touting the U.S. "best in breed" healthcare system, you quite conveniently pull out that the "U.S. is not a universal, single pay health care system"... and you presume to do that while at the same time continually, thread after thread, disparaging the Canadian health care system (in comparison to your claimed "U.S. best in breed" system) with your stoopid wait-time bullshit. Of course, you clearly didn't like me bringing forward those U.S. wait times that show the highest wait times in Massachusetts... no, you didn't like that at all, and so you summarily dispatched the 7 million people of Massachusetss cause they have that "CommieCare" (as you called it; i.e., RomneyCare)... the same CommieCare labeling you quite regularly attach to Canada's health care system. Hey now, apparently universal care has consequences - go figure!

guyser · June 16, 2014

I have no idea what "evidence" may or may not have been offered. See earlier discussion about same.

'Yay, so I 'll ignorantly argue against the wind.'

At the end of the day, your healthcare is dead last....if you remove Somalia, Mongolia and the like that is,so yeah, you have that going for you, and at the end of the day, some ignorant lackey in a cubicle is deciding who will get treatment or not.

monty16 · June 17, 2014

If Americans have poor health care and it effects them negatively, then it's god's will. god has a plan for America. There can be no other explanation. god has a reason for seeing little American children die in so high numbers as infants. god has a good reason for Americans dieing at a younger age than all other first world countries' people. god has a reason to deny good and affordable health care to 50 million Americans. Obama is working his evil against god!

bush_cheney2004 · June 17, 2014

Indeed...God is most powerful, as demonstrated in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”.

So one can only conclude that it is God who is punishing Canadians with long wait times for elective surgeries, ER visits, diagnostic services, and a shortage of doctors and nurse practitioners. It is God's way....to send them to the "dead last" United States for relief after they have suffered enough.

Edited June 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

On Guard for Thee · June 17, 2014

Indeed...God is most powerful, as demonstrated in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”.

So one can only conclude that it is God who is punishing Canadians with long wait times for elective surgeries, ER visits, diagnostic services, and a shortage of doctors and nurse practitioners. It is God's way....to send them to the "dead last" United States for relief after they have suffered enough.

Take a look at your currency. Perhaps all this trust in god hasn't helped you health care system. We tend to seperate church and state up here. We try to use more realistic methods. Edited June 17, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

waldo · June 17, 2014

Take a look at your currency. Perhaps all this trust in god hasn't helped you health care system. We tend to seperate church and state up here. We try to use more realistic methods.

:lol: the guy has played that same tune many times over... remember, he's the "king of recycling"... and, he has also received back the same "In God We Trust" retort several times! As for the rest: "In the United States, the federal constitution makes no reference to God, but the constitutions of the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, and Massachusetts, and the U.S. territory Puerto Rico, do."

On Guard for Thee · June 17, 2014

the guy has played that same tune many times over... remember, he's the "king of recycling"... and, he has also received back the same "In God We Trust" retort several times! As for the rest: "In the United States, the federal constitution makes no reference to God, but the constitutions of the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, and Massachusetts, and the U.S. territory Puerto Rico, do."

and 10 of those 16 states you mention still flaut at least one of the basic tenets of the god they respect by putting people to death.

cybercoma · June 17, 2014

Who cares about religion and politics. I thought this thread was about US health care?

Michael Hardner · June 17, 2014

If Americans have poor health care and it effects them negatively, then it's god's will. god has a plan for America.

That trope is tired. While religion may have more influence in America than other nations, it's declining. That doesn't stop people on the left side of the spectrum from using the Elmer Gantry type as a caricature for every right-thinking American.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3123890/posts

waldo · June 17, 2014

That trope is tired. While religion may have more influence in America than other nations, it's declining. That doesn't stop people on the left side of the spectrum from using the Elmer Gantry type as a caricature for every right-thinking American.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3123890/posts

Michael, that might make for an interesting separate thread... let the waldo "inspire you". I trust this thread will not derail further... than the great deflector has done (and continues to do so).

now, setting aside your graph is from the freeper site (I kid, I kid), it's a rather ambiguous graph with little detail (average???... what; statistical significance... huh!... etc.). A googly suggests the graph associates with this study, covering a period between 1952 and 2005... which begs the liberty taken to extend the graph to 2012!

in any case, the trope you speak of has degrees of certainty... a few quick googlies also shows Pew Research surveys showing an increase in secularism. However, I also read there are still some 20 million evangelical Americans, principally concentrated in southern U.S. states... there is still 'some room' for that caricature you speak of. That graph you posted certainly can't speak to geographic anomolies; nor might it offer anything in regards other googlies that suggest to me a widening separation with increases in both secularism and "fundamentalism"... leaving fewer and fewer "in the middle ground of religiosity". Does religious conservatives still carry any influence in the political arena - the last U.S. federal election might suggest a declining influence.... but still one that seems to shape one-side of the formal 2-party split.

but let me take the liberty to at least apply and keep the religious departure on this thread's track: How the religious right is interfering in medicine and putting patients in danger --- Faith is on the decline in America, but religious institutions are somehow still making life-or-death decisions

Religious belief is on the decline in the U.S., and medical knowledge is on the increase. This makes it particularly ironic that so much of our health care system is accountable at the highest levels not to science or patient preference but to the dictates of faith and of theology. Metaphorically, more and more medical decisions get made with the Catholic Bishops in the room, regardless of whether the patient wants them there. Not only that, but the Bishops have a religious veto that can trump both doctor and patient.

James Glickman from Sturbridge, Massachusetts, became a legal witness for aid in dying after watching his father scream for someone to kill him during his last forty-five minutes of life. Darcy Burner chose to end a pregnancy that would have killed her, and then advocated for patient rights during a congressional run. Judy Nicastro risked the life of one twin in utero to abort the other who would have painfully suffocated at birth. Each of these individuals, together with loved ones, wrestled with some of the most difficult decisions any of us can face. In all cases, the response of the Catholic Bishops would have been to deny them options—to fall back on the current position of the Church hierarchy: “we believe life is sacred from conception to natural death.”

Thanks to corporate mergers and laws that privilege religious institutions, many communities across the United States have few or no secular options when it comes to medical care and no legal mandate that patients be told about the full range of medically appropriate services. In Washington State, to cite one egregious example, almost half of hospital beds and affiliated care systems fall under the authority of the Catholic Church, and many counties have no alternative.

.

.

.

We need a medical system with one singular mission—to ensure everyone has affordable, easy access to effective care. To maximize the ability of American women, men, and children to live and die as well as we can. We need a system that respects our individual ideas about what that means, a system in which decisions are made based on medical science and our preferences, a system where no institution or provider gets a religious veto over another person’s most intimate decisions.

Today, thanks to science, modern health facilities looks nothing like those early hospitals where care was limited to brow wiping and bed changing and prayer. They are also different from those early missions in another way: today, the dollars that fund Catholic health care come from us. Almost half of the funds flowing through religious hospitals come from taxpayers, with the next largest chunk coming from private pay patients or their insurance companies, often in situations where patients have no choice about where to go. And contrary to popular myth (and the Catholic hospitals’ own self-promotion), Catholic hospitals provide less charity care than the industry average. We pay for these institutions, and we have the right to expect medical care that respects our personal ethical and religious priorities, including the right to manage our own bodies. It’s time to get religious institutions out of the healthcare business.

bush_cheney2004 · June 17, 2014

Thank God for Catholic health care facilities and nursing homes in Canada, or the infamous wait times would be even worse.

waldo · June 17, 2014

wait-time deflector... still waiting for you to put up those U.S. wait times... those that include all manner of U.S. coverage categoizations (government and private)... that present measurable equivalencies to other countries... you know, like that OECD study (that didn't include the U.S.) that spoke of the difficulties in country comparisons given no lack of standardized measure. You know, that OECD study that offers up Canada as a reference guide for other countries to consider as the basis for their own process/procedures in monitoring/publishing wait times. Is there a problem? Is there a reason you won't... you can't perhaps... put those U.S. wait time figures forward?

wait time deflector... would you like me to re-quote that post that shows the charade your wait time deflection is? You know, the one that highlights the need/risk assessment that exists within Canadian wait times (you know, that prostate cancer surgery example). And, of course, let me once again reinforce that Canadians do not go on a wait list for emergency medical care.

keep on deflecting, wait-time deflector! Keep avoiding all the American studies (by Americans for American introspection) presented in this thread that speak to the significant comparable American healthcare/health outcomes disadvantage... dead last/near the bottom as compared to other representative countries.

cybercoma · June 17, 2014

That trope is tired. While religion may have more influence in America than other nations, it's declining. That doesn't stop people on the left side of the spectrum from using the Elmer Gantry type as a caricature for every right-thinking American.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3123890/posts

That graph is lousy. There's no scale on the Y axis, nor does it even tell you what the y-axis actually is. I assume it's some sort of religiosity index, which itself needs to be explained. But for all we know that could be a narrow band across the entire index.

cybercoma · June 17, 2014

The author of the study that this graph is based upon even says there is no consensus, some studies show religious stability while other show decline, and the author of the study that the graph is based upon essentially created his own aggregate measure of religiosity. He goes on to explain that there are no annual measures of religiosity, meaning researchers need to "fill in the gaps" to say anything meaningful. To overcome this, the aggregate he created uses people's public policy "mood" as a proxy for religiosity. Social conservatism is more religious than social liberalism.

Here's the study. You can read it for yourself, since I don't have time at the moment. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02732170802205973

I'm not saying religiosity isn't falling, but this graph is inaccurate at best.

GostHacked · June 17, 2014

I just browsed through the last 10-15 pages of rehashed crap and nothing new added to the thread.

On Guard for Thee · June 17, 2014

wait-time deflector... still waiting for you to put up those U.S. wait times... those that include all manner of U.S. coverage categoizations (government and private)... that present measurable equivalencies to other countries... you know, like that OECD study (that didn't include the U.S.) that spoke of the difficulties in country comparisons given no lack of standardized measure. You know, that OECD study that offers up Canada as a reference guide for other countries to consider as the basis for their own process/procedures in monitoring/publishing wait times. Is there a problem? Is there a reason you won't... you can't perhaps... put those U.S. wait time figures forward?

wait time deflector... would you like me to re-quote that post that shows the charade your wait time deflection is? You know, the one that highlights the need/risk assessment that exists within Canadian wait times (you know, that prostate cancer surgery example). And, of course, let me once again reinforce that Canadians do not go on a wait list for emergency medical care.

keep on deflecting, wait-time deflector! Keep avoiding all the American studies (by Americans for American introspection) presented in this thread that speak to the significant comparable American healthcare/health outcomes disadvantage... dead last/near the bottom as compared to other representative countries.

Could it be that a situation has evolved were the wait time for the "wait times" is getting excessive?