US dead last in health care

[bud]

46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011

that's 0.12% of the population of people. yay?

[guyser]

First off...the Fraser Institute has been trying to kill our system for some time. I dont expect you to get that but it is akin to Republicans putting out a paper on why Obamacare sucks.

It would hardly be balanced.

But the papers headline doesn not match the contents.

Report: Thousands fled Canada for health care in 2011

A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have

seen patients fleeing

the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.

“Some of these patients will have been sent out of country by the

public health

care system

Flee....but sent and paid for.

Major disconnect.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has one of the most expensive and poorest performing universal access, single payer systems in the world. Why would the Americans touch it with even a disinfected ten-foot pole ?

If this OP holds Canada up as the health care system to emulate, no wonder so many seek care in the U.S.A.

[Guest American Woman]

that's 0.12% of the population of people. yay?

I doubt if the entire population of Canada needed the type of care the report was referring to, so your comparison to the entire population of Canada is rather meaningless.

[Guest American Woman]

First off...the Fraser Institute has been trying to kill our system for some time. I dont expect you to get that but it is akin to Republicans putting out a paper on why Obamacare sucks.

It would hardly be balanced.

It's a Canadian study, a nonpartisan group. What's biased, however, about a report giving facts and numbers? And what makes the reports you approve of any less "biased?"

If this is all you can come back with, it says a lot.

Flee....but sent and paid for.

Major disconnect.

The fact that they were sent and paid for changes nothing; it in fact reinforces what I've been saying.

Edited January 11, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

It most definitely is a contradiction. You can't say you use our system because it makes more economical sense while denying that you would have to pay out a greater portion of your GDP for health care to provide said services in Canada. You also can't say your stats wouldn't change if you didn't use our services and didn't have the services in Canada.

Sure I can and its not a contradiction.

We could simply not have those procedures available and the little amount the numbers change would be insignificant. But we make every possible chance to take care of the patient, wherever that may be, and pay for it.

Think of it as an HMO, without pre-existing clauses, pre screening, not calling in to see if covered, cheaper cost, easier to use,....on second thought, not like an HMO at all.

It's not quite so "odd" as you might think.

So 0.12% is huge?

Nope, and therefore odd.

It shows nothing of the sort. As I said, it would be ludicrous to keep sending people to the U.S. if it would be just as economical to treat them in Canada - which you've already clearly admitted it wouldn't be.

Oh come one, if half the 0.12% of the people who get treatment in the US died, what amount of change would that make to these figures.

Largely none. and thats the point.

Yes, you do rely on ours. If you don't have the facilities/services, therefore send people to the U.S. rather than do what's necessary to provide said facilities/services in Canada, then you are relying on ours. How you can't think otherwise is difficult to understand.

We utilize, not rely. Rely connotes dependence. We dont.

We can build what we want but we make pragmatic decisions to see what economies of scale work.

If the US govt decided to hurt the hospitals with their overgrown capacity by denying any Canuck access, then we would simply build our own.

My neighbour doesnt have a wheelbarrow. He almost never needs one. So ,....he calls me and asks can I use it.

When I move, he already says he"ll likely buy one.

Whether or not its welcomed by those American hospitals changes nothing that's been said.

But they like the money!

[Guest American Woman]

My neighbour doesnt have a wheelbarrow. He almost never needs one. So ,....he calls me and asks can I use it.

When I move, he already says he"ll likely buy one.

And it'll cost him a greater percentage of his income than borrowing yours does. In the meantime, he's relying on yours.

You're just confirming what I've said.

If the US govt decided to hurt the hospitals with their overgrown capacity by denying any Canuck access, then we would simply build our own.

And you would be spending a greater portion of your GDP on health care. Just as I've said.

Edited January 11, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

It's a Canadian study, a nonpartisan group.

They are not non partisan. Thats the problem with them.

If the KKK put out a paper and described themselves as non partisan.....yea, neither would I believe it.

But I doubt you know much about Fraser Inst so I nunderstand.

What's biased, however, about a report giving facts and numbers? And what makes the reports you approve of any less "biased?"

What report?

If this is all you can come back with, it says a lot.

It says you dont understand and thats not to be a slag. You are not familiar with Faser.

Do you know World Net Daily? Do you roll your eyes when they make a claim?

There you go.

The fact that they were sent and paid for changes nothing; it in fact reinforces what I've been saying.

Flee and sent in this context are not the same, thus the headline and the body dont match up

[bud]

looks like dc2004 and aw are once again going at it against facts and reality.

statistics are great. check this out:

A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia.

more stats? how about some about preventable deaths?

In 2009,

lack of health insurance

was responsible for about 45,000 excess preventable deaths in the U.S. Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.

[bush_cheney2004]

A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia

...no mention of Canada....of course.

[guyser]

And it'll cost him a greater percentage of his income than borrowing yours does. In the meantime, he's relying on yours.

You're just confirming what I've said.

And you would be spending a greater portion of your GDP on health care. Just as I've said.

Ok....it went up 1%.

OH MY GOD! the increase will kill us ....and my poor nieghbour has to spend 1% on a wheelbarrow.

Can you imagine.?

Thats plain dumb

Of those supposed 46,000, how many were elective? How many simply didnt want to wait any period of time? How many were not necessary medical procedures? Want to say 16thou out of 46000? And what cost would those 30,000 demand?

[dre]

looks like dc2004 and aw are once again going at it against facts and reality.

statistics are great. check this out:

A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia.

more stats? how about some about preventable deaths?

In 2009,

lack of health insurance

was responsible for about 45,000 excess preventable deaths in the U.S. Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.

They appear to have no comment at all, besides bewildered attempts to trash the Canadian system... Too bad that wasnt some Americans on MLW that would offer a candid appraisal of things happening in the US instead of just inane deflection. Now the thread has now been derailed by talk of Canadians visiting US hospitals Something that has nothing to do with the OP, and nothing to do with United States Politics.

[bud]

[/indent]

...no mention of Canada....of course.

canada has problems. canada's healthcare system is not perfect. these are things most canadians have no problem acknowledging and discussing.

watching you and the rest of the 'patriots' try to convince people and themselves that the u.s. healthcare system is not so bad and that the canadian healthcare system is somehow below america's is yet another display of why your culture and society is crumpling from within.

[guyser]

If this OP holds Canada up as the health care system to emulate, no wonder so many seek care in the U.S.A.

The OP didnt mention Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

The OP directly challenged the American "system" to adopt a Canadian-style single payer system. Ergo, comparisons to Canada are on point.

[bush_cheney2004]

canada has problems. canada's healthcare system is not perfect. these are things most canadians have no problem acknowledging and discussing.

So does the American "system" (it's not a system at all), but the remedies for the USA sure as hell ain't what's found in Canada.

watching you and the rest of the 'patriots' try to convince people and themselves that the u.s. healthcare system is not so bad and that the canadian healthcare system is somehow below america's is yet another display of why your culture and society is crumpling from within.

And yet you and others here worry immensely about that, while most Americans don't give a damn what happens in Canada.

Edited January 11, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

The OP didnt mention Canada.

..." Going to a single payer system like ours"....

[bud]

So does the American "system" (it's not a system at all), but the solution for the USA sure as hell ain't what's found in Canada.

i know that you like to turn everything about canada vs u.s. but since you mentioned it:

canada's healthcare system > u.s. healthcare system

statistics don't lie.

And yet you and others here worry immensely about that, while most Americans don't give a damn what happens in Canada.

many americans don't give a damn what happens anywhere, so what?

why do you get so sensitive and jumpy whenever someone criticizes the u.s.? calm down. it's not good for your health.

Edited January 11, 2013 by bud

[guyser]

..." Going to a single payer system like ours"....

Sorry

I stand corrected.

Edited January 11, 2013 by guyser

[guyser]

So does the American "system" (it's not a system at all), but the remedies for the USA sure as hell ain't what's found in Canada.

I do not think it would work in the USA for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with healthcare.

But the facts are the US could look outside their own boundaries and see what works better, study it , implement some things and improve what they want to improve.

Our CPP was and is a model to many......not the US though. Internal politics played a game.

Economics and banking regs could have been curtailed as we did. We survived pretty well this recession.

The point is, with this frame of mind "sure as hell ain't what's found in Canada' it will remain the same.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok....it went up 1%.

OH MY GOD! the increase will kill us ....and my poor nieghbour has to spend 1% on a wheelbarrow.

Can you imagine.?

Thats plain dumb

And I think comparing neonatal intensive care units and health care facilities/services to a wheelbarrow is plain dumb. I also think you pulled the 1% figure out of ... thin air.

Of those supposed 46,000, how many were elective? How many simply didnt want to wait any period of time? How many were not necessary medical procedures? Want to say 16thou out of 46000? And what cost would those 30,000 demand?

You tell me. What's the cost of building and staffing and maintaining just one neonatal intensive care unit? I figure it must be high enough that Canada is choosing not to do it.

So again. If the cost is sooo insignificant, why does Canada choose to rely on the U.S. health care system instead of upgrading its own to be self sufficient?

[dre]

And I think comparing neonatal intensive care units and health care facilities/services to a wheelbarrow is plain dumb. I also think you pulled the 1% figure out of ... thin air.

You tell me. What's the cost of building and staffing and maintaining just one neonatal intensive care unit? I figure it must be high enough that Canada is choosing not to do it.

So again. If the cost is sooo insignificant, why does Canada choose to rely on the U.S. health care system instead of upgrading its own to be self sufficient?

WHo cares? This whole line of reasoning is pointless in comparing the US and Canadian systems because way more Americans get care in foreign countries than Canadians.

An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008.

This is all a complete red herring, and does absolutely nothing what-so-ever to mitigate the difference in per capita spending between Canada and the US.

Why dont you post something about this topic?

[Guest American Woman]

But the facts are the US could look outside their own boundaries and see what works better, study it , implement some things and improve what they want to improve.

Because, of course, "the U.S." never does that ............

Edited to add:

And again, why is the life expectancy for your First Nations people so low? - five to eight years less. They do have the same access to the same health care as other Canadians, right?

Edited January 11, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

And I think comparing neonatal intensive care units and health care facilities/services to a wheelbarrow is plain dumb. I also think you pulled the 1% figure out of ... thin air.

I compared neo ICU's to a wheelbarrow?

It was an analogy, And it fits. No one is relying on anyone excpet CDN' s rely on CDN healthcare to pay.

BTW , avg income is $46G , a wheelbarrow costs $400.

You are right, it was pulled out of thin air because the actual is 0.0086% Sorry for the mistake and even sorrier for guessing it so high.

You tell me. What's the cost of building and staffing and maintaining just one neonatal intensive care unit? I figure it must be high enough that Canada is choosing not to do it.

Economic costs suggest it isnt prudent, When status quo demands it.....poof...there it is. We do build hospitals in burgeoning suburbs and cities because the demand is there.

Do we rely on US hospitals to take all of those new suburbians that may not have a hospital close by? No...we build one.

So again. If the cost is sooo insignificant, why does Canada choose to rely on the U.S. health care system instead of upgrading its own to be self sufficient?

It is self sufficient.

See dre for more info that can be turned around

Why does the US population that travels outside the US , including Canada, rely on the worlds hospitals to make them better?

The simple answer is they dont.

Edited January 11, 2013 by guyser

[guyser]

Because, of course, "the U.S." never does that ............

As CPP goes, the US didnt want to.

As for banking regs, the US didnt want to.

Why be so dramatic? Not every single time, not on every single occassion, but the gist remains. Plenty of Wall St thinks Canucks are back water hicks.

Fine....but the hicks are doing some things much better and could teach a thing or two. As in reverse no doubt.,

And again, why is the life expectancy for your First Nations people so low? - five to eight years less. They do have the same access to the same health care as other Canadians, right?

Sigh...

Why? For some of the same reasons your American Indians have much worse results.

Health: It is significant to note that American Indians/Alaska Natives frequently contend with issues that prevent them from receiving quality medical care. These issues include cultural barriers, geographic isolation, inadequate sewage disposal, and low income.

Some of the leading diseases and causes of death among AI/AN are heart disease, cancer, unintentional injuries (accidents), diabetes, and stroke. American Indians/Alaska Natives also have a high prevalence and risk factors for mental health and suicide, obesity, substance abuse, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), teenage pregnancy, liver disease, and hepatitis.

Other Health Concerns: American Indians and Alaska Natives have an infant death rate 60 percent higher than the rate for Caucasians. AI/ANs are twice as likely to have diabetes as Caucasians. An example is the Pima of Arizona, who have one of the highest diabetes rates in the world. AI/ANs also have disproportionately high death rates from unintentional injuries and suicide. In 2010, the tuberculosis rate for AI/NAs was 5.8, as compared to 2.0 for the White population.

The bolded parts apply to this country as well.

You asked this Q three times now, I ignored it as it is immaterial to the discussion .Anyhow I have now, and this subset of people have problems unto their own. Unless of course you thought your Indian population was all peaches and cream.