US dead last in health care

[Wilber]

Therein lies the difference.....U.S. insurers and providers are completing colonoscopies on a routine basis, bypassing the older (and less reliable) fecal occult screenings. Turn age 50...you get scoped. This is considered a preventive procedure and is much cheaper than fighting CRC incidents.

I think you misunderstand. Most doctors in Canada consider being over fifty a reason to get a colonoscopy. At least it was for me and it showed nothing. Further testing will depend on the result. Fecal testing is an augmentation, not a replacement.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you misunderstand. Most doctors in Canada consider being over fifty a reason to get a colonoscopy. At least it was for me and it showed nothing. Further testing will depend on the result. Fecal testing is an augmentation, not a replacement.

I am not convinced that FOB has been substantially replaced by colon sigmoidoscopy in most provinces, just as it is not standard in all U.S. states.

https://www.cancercare.on.ca/pcs/screening/coloscreening/

Either way....have a happy colon day!

[Guest American Woman]

That they have the means to do so? If you can afford it why wait in line?

It tells you that our health care services are not inferior to Canada's - in fact, quite the opposite. As I said, there are aspects of our health care system that we don't want to lose.

If you cannot afford it you wait in line... rather than if you can afford it you get healthcare if you cannot afford it you die.

You think people have to pay for medical care up front, before they receive the care they need? It's not "if you can't afford it, you die" - it's if you can't afford it, you make payments.

[bush_cheney2004]

It tells you that our health care services are not inferior to Canada's - in fact, quite the opposite. As I said, there are aspects of our health care system that we don't want to lose.

Agreed...there is ample evidence that the U.S. develops and delivers some of the best health care treatment in the world. There is far more medical R&D in the U.S. compared to Canada as a percentage of GDP. Canadian doctors and other health care professionals voted with their feet.

You think people have to pay for medical care up front, before they receive the care they need? It's not "if you can't afford it, you die" - it's if you can't afford it, you make payments.

That's the funny part...Canadians do pay up front in the way of taxes.

[Canuckistani]

Where does it say we are last in "health?"

You might actually want to read the article you are trying to refute:

But a fresh report, out Wednesday, tapped vast stores of data to compare the health of affluent nations and delivered a worrisome new message: Americans' health is even worse than we thought, ranking below 16 other developed nations.

"The news is that this is across the lifespan, and regardless of income," said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, who was not an author of the study. "A lot of people thought it was underserved populations that were driving the statistics -- the poor, the uninsured. They still are a big part of our challenge, but the fact that even if you're fairly well-to-do you still have these problems shatters that myth."...

The results surprised even the researchers. To their alarm, they said, they found a "strikingly consistent and pervasive" pattern of poorer health at all stages of life, from infancy to childhood to adolescence to young adulthood to middle and old age. Compared to people in other developed nations, Americans die far more often from injuries and homicides. We suffer more deaths from alcohol and other drugs, and endure some of the worst rates of heart disease, lung disease, obesity, and diabetes.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Guest American Woman]

You might actually want to read the article you are trying to refute:

Thank you, in spite of the insult, but more specifically, I want to know where it shows we are last in health, I realize people are making that deduction, but I'd like to know what it's based on. The quote you provided says " Compared to people in other developed nations, Americans die far more often from injuries..." so it includes accidents and injuries, which has nothing to do with health. I've pointed out that the study seems to be in regards to "total deaths," even posting the graph, which is different from "health," so I'm wondering what the "last in health" deduction is based on.

[bush_cheney2004]

The quote you provided says " Compared to people in other developed nations, Americans die far more often from injuries..." so it includes accidents and injuries, which has nothing to do with health.

Right...we already demonstrated that falls are the leading cause of unintended injury and death not related to disease.

[Signals.Cpl]

It tells you that our health care services are not inferior to Canada's - in fact, quite the opposite. As I said, there are aspects of our health care system that we don't want to lose.

I don't think the problem is inferior healthcare, the problem is inaccessible healthcare for a large segment of Americans. If 15% of Americans do not have access to healthcare and another 15% getting mediocre care means that your system doesn't work too well. In Canada I know that I will get medical treatment no matter what which is more then can be said about millions of Americans, to me personally I believe that it is better to have good healthcare for all rather than the best healthcare for some and no healthcare for others.

You think people have to pay for medical care up front, before they receive the care they need? It's not "if you can't afford it, you die" - it's if you can't afford it, you make payments.

And what happens to the people who cannot afford it and try to get through it without going to the doctor or go to the hospital too late because they couldn't afford it? People who cannot afford insurance are unlikely to be able to pay down tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

[Guest American Woman]

Right...we already demonstrated that falls are the leading cause of unintended injury and death not related to disease.

Exactly. But even looking at the "deaths from all causes," Denmark* is virtually tied with the U.S., but does anyone outside of Denmark care in the least that the Danish have "such poor health?" Citizens of other countries aren't sitting around talking about it, singing the virtues of their own country, saying how much Denmark's health care sucks. I wonder why that is - as there's so much criticism of Americans/the U.S. Perhaps there's just more concern about American's health - because we're so loved. I know I feel the love.

*There are other countries, too, not far behind - and in fact, there isn't a huge difference among the 16 nations.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think the problem is inferior healthcare, the problem is inaccessible healthcare for a large segment of Americans.

Health services are a big part of health care, and like I said, I don't care to see that aspect of our system suffer. But again, the health care is not "inaccessible" - as I pointed out, one need not pay up front for health services.

If 15% of Americans do not have access to healthcare

They do have access to health care. People without insurance are not denied access to health care.

and another 15% getting mediocre care means that your system doesn't work too well.

15% are getting mediocre care? Really? As compared to the superior care that all Canadians are receiving?

In Canada I know that I will get medical treatment no matter what which is more then can be said about millions of Americans

No, it isn't more than you can say about millions of Americans. Again. People are not denied health care because they can't pay for it up front.

to me personally I believe that it is better to have good healthcare for all rather than the best healthcare for some and no healthcare for others.

I believe it's more important to have facilities/services available to all - and we do. Canada doesn't. Canada does rely on the U.S. to cover what Canada cannot provide.I don't want to see us in that position, as there would be no 'safety net.' People are not denied health care - they make payments, as I said. Until we can find an answer that isn't at the expense of our health care services or at the expense of people who have good coverage, I can't see jumping into something just for the sake of having something. I know I do not want a single payer plan like Canada's - I can't see that working in the U.S.

And what happens to the people who cannot afford it and try to get through it without going to the doctor or go to the hospital too late because they couldn't afford it?

What happens to people in Canada who aren't seen in time, and suffer the consequences? As I've said, there are problems within both of our systems. I'd like to see a solution to ours, but as I've already said, it's not an easy fix. We are a large, diverse country - some of our states - some of our cities - are larger than entire countries. It's going to take time to do it right. In the meantime, our health care does not suck, we are not in "such poor health" compared to other nations, and people are not dying because they were denied medical care.

People who cannot afford insurance are unlikely to be able to pay down tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Then they declare bankruptcy, same as they do in Canada when they can't handle their debt. If bankruptcy due to medical bills were such a problem in the States, then our rate of bankruptcy should be much higher than Canada's - but it's virtually the same. Canadians declare bankruptcy due to medical problems, too - it's one of the top three reasons. It's not just medical bills that takes its toll - its the out of pocket expenses, loss of income, etc - in both of our countries. The vast majority of Americans who file bankruptcy due to medical problems have insurance - making them not a whole lot different from Canadians with medical problems that file for the same reasons.

I'm not saying our system doesn't need some improvement, but it's not the only system that does; and our health care is not a piece of crap - it's among the best in the world. That I don't want to see that compromised by hasty 'solutions' isn't that difficult to understand, as people are not being denied health care. Those who truly cannot afford it are covered by medicare/medicaid and many more are covered by programs within their states that pay for a percentage of their care based on need. Many people who do not live here have no idea of the benefits that are available.

I've been told that the Fraser Institute in Canada is biased - but there's bias on both sides of the coin.

[Moonlight Graham]

There's still no evidence of Americans being in "such poor health."

Except that US life expectancy is lower than pretty much every other highly economically developed country I believe, minus some ex-Communist states. Should such a rich country rank so low? Something is clearly wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except that US life expectancy is lower than pretty much every other highly economically developed country I believe, minus some ex-Communist states. Should such a rich country rank so low? Something is clearly wrong.

Why does Canada lag behind top rated Japan? Something is clearly wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

Except that US life expectancy is lower than pretty much every other highly economically developed country I believe, minus some ex-Communist states. Should such a rich country rank so low? Something is clearly wrong.

I've pointed out many times now that Canada has the "healthy immigrant effect" in it's favor, but something is clearly wrong with Canadian born citizens.

As for the differences in life expectancy between countries, we're not talking about that great of a discrepancy. Obviously, unless the rates are exactly the same, some countries are going to be ahead of others as some are going to be behind. Say of the top ten scores on a test in a large classroom, one is a 100%, a couple are a 99%, and so forth - with the lowest score of the ten being a 96%. Do we say - 'My God that kid is stupid. Clearly there is something wrong with him. Look at that 96% when others clearly scored higher.'

I've pointed out several reasons why studies might show such discrepancies, but people would rather focus on what "poor health" the U.S. is in and how sucky our health care is. For the record, all of those people living just a bit longer aren't living the good life during that last year or two.

Why does Canada lag behind top rated Japan? Something is clearly wrong.

Yep. And why does top rated Japan have such a high suicide rate? Something is clearly wrong.

Edited January 13, 2013 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

I've pointed out many times now that Canada has the "healthy immigrant effect" in it's favor, but something is clearly wrong with Canadian born citizens.

Canada also has a brain-drain effect working against us where many of our best doctors have emmigrated to the US because they can make more money in that system.

"One in nine doctors trained in Canada are practising medicine in the United States, according to a study published recently in the Canadian Medical Association Journal."

http://www.northernl...07-docsUSA.aspx

[Signals.Cpl]

Health services are a big part of health care, and like I said, I don't care to see that aspect of our system suffer. But again, the health care is not "inaccessible" - as I pointed out, one need not pay up front for health services.

One only needs to look at the potential price of visiting the emergency room and they may decide to stick it out.

They do have access to health care. People without insurance are not denied access to health care.

And I am not saying that they are being denied healthcare all I am saying is that healthcare is so expensive that many people who can't afford insurance might want to avoid getting in to tents if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

15% are getting mediocre care? Really? As compared to the superior care that all Canadians are receiving?

Yes, I doubt that those that qualify are getting the top notch healthcare reserved for the rich. And yes our healthcare is superior to the healthcare that nearly 30% of the American population gets

No, it isn't more than you can say about millions of Americans. Again. People are not denied health care because they can't pay for it up front.

Yep they get care the first time around, what happens when they need care again and they still have about 20 years till they payoff the first time around?

I believe it's more important to have facilities/services available to all - and we do.

You are right its not like the US has 49million people who are uninsured and just the thought of the money it would cost to go to the hospital brings on a heart attack all on its own.

Canada doesn't. Canada does rely on the U.S. to cover what Canada cannot provide.

If it is cheaper to send the individual cases why not use it?

I don't want to see us in that position, as there would be no 'safety net.'

They are not mutually exclusive.

People are not denied health care - they make payments, as I said.

Great but it still does not make it any more affordable or enticing to go to the doctor when sick since you know at the end of the day you are ruined.

Until we can find an answer that isn't at the expense of our health care services or at the expense of people who have good coverage, I can't see jumping into something just for the sake of having something. I know I do not want a single payer plan like Canada's - I can't see that working in the U.S.

I am sure at least 49million Americans do not share your desire to wait.

What happens to people in Canada who aren't seen in time, and suffer the consequences?

Probably the same thing that happens to Americans who cannot afford to go to the doctor.

As I've said, there are problems within both of our systems.

At least I know that my family is going to get healthcare when needed, unfortunately I have had to have some first hand experience with the healthcare in Canada and I can safely say that it is not great and without its problems but it is good for everyone rather than great for some and not so great for the rest.

I'd like to see a solution to ours, but as I've already said, it's not an easy fix. We are a large, diverse country - some of our states - some of our cities - are larger than entire countries. It's going to take time to do it right. In the meantime, our health care does not suck, we are not in "such poor health" compared to other nations, and people are not dying because they were denied medical care.

No, some Americans are in poor health while others are in great health simply because of the accessibility to healthcare. You keep bringing this up but paying it off in instalments does not make healthcare accessible and it still scares many people away in many cases I would assume until too late. It is one thing for me to go to the doctor and get healthcare that is covered by a government plan and a whole other thing to go to the doctor for the exact same problem sit in a hospital for a week and come out owing a ton of money, one unlucky year and it buries you financialy decades.

Then they declare bankruptcy, same as they do in Canada when they can't handle their debt. If bankruptcy due to medical bills were such a problem in the States, then our rate of bankruptcy should be much higher than Canada's - but it's virtually the same.

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.

Canadians declare bankruptcy due to medical problems, too - it's one of the top three reasons.

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...

It's not just medical bills that takes its toll - its the out of pocket expenses, loss of income, etc - in both of our countries. The vast majority of Americans who file bankruptcy due to medical problems have insurance - making them not a whole lot different from Canadians with medical problems that file for the same reasons.

And that is understandable but going in to bankruptcy because you took your child to the doctor seems a little ridiculous especially for a nation like the US.

I'm not saying our system doesn't need some improvement, but it's not the only system that does; and our health care is not a piece of crap - it's among the best in the world.

And I am not saying its a piece of crap, I am saying that it is great for those who have the money or are insured, for those who cannot afford the insurance or are on the government programs the healthcare they receive is ever so slightly different and in at least 15% non existent.

That I don't want to see that compromised by hasty 'solutions' isn't that difficult to understand, as people are not being denied health care. Those who truly cannot afford it are covered by medicare/medicaid and many more are covered by programs within their states that pay for a percentage of their care based on need. Many people who do not live here have no idea of the benefits that are available.

And it is interesting how you keep bringing up that people are not being denied healthcare yet it is so prohibitively expensive in many cases that people choose not to go to the doctor rather than putting their family out on the street.

[dre]

Canada also has a brain-drain effect working against us where many of our best doctors have emmigrated to the US because they can make more money in that system.

"One in nine doctors trained in Canada are practising medicine in the United States, according to a study published recently in the Canadian Medical Association Journal."

http://www.northernl...07-docsUSA.aspx

That is a problem for sure. The UHC system in Canada is also harmed by the UPG system in the US.

[Guest American Woman]

One only needs to look at the potential price of visiting the emergency room and they may decide to stick it out.

One only needs to look at the wait times in Canada and they may decide to go elsewhere and suffer consequences. I read an account of a woman with cancer who didn't want to wait for treatment so she went to the U.S. and suffered financially because of it. I'm just saying that there are people on both ends of our systems that don't get the quality of care that they need - or they choose to forego what's available for different reasons. The end result is the same. People in the U.S. suffer the consequences of the cost and people in Canada suffer the consequences of the wait. Some in both nations decide to go elsewhere. "Medical tourism" does exist in both of our countries.

And I am not saying that they are being denied healthcare all I am saying is that healthcare is so expensive that many people who can't afford insurance might want to avoid getting in to tents if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

And I'm saying I would rather have the services/facilities available and go into that kind of debt - than not have the facilities/services available. What choice would you make under the circumstances - go into debt or no choice?

Yes, I doubt that those that qualify are getting the top notch healthcare reserved for the rich. And yes our healthcare is superior to the healthcare that nearly 30% of the American population gets

30%? You do realize that 15.7% are uninsured, not 30%. And no, I don't believe that your healthcare is superior even to 15.7%, as some of the uninsured do still go to the doctors - and some are getting assistance other than medicare or medicaid - and that's not reflected in the numbers. As I said, unless one lives here and uses the system or knows many other people, they aren't aware of the total picture. And for the record, "top notch health care" is not "reserved for the rich." Not by a long shot. If it were, the whole country would be for reform, but the majority have coverage and get care, and it's why change is difficult and why the vast majority don't want a single pay system.

Yep they get care the first time around, what happens when they need care again and they still have about 20 years till they payoff the first time around?

What happens when one finally gets care and then they need care again and have to wait so long again that they suffer the consequences? Mostly they choose to go elsewhere, and are still left with bills. In effect, they are paying for healthcare twice - through their taxes for care that they didn't receive - and for the actual care.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Canada's system is better for a certain segment of society and our system is better for a certain segment of society. If we were to just throw in the towel, we would be screwing over a different segment of society, and I don't see that as a 'fix.' I just see it as trading one set of problems for another, serving one segment of society better while doing the opposite to more.

You are right its not like the US has 49million people who are uninsured and just the thought of the money it would cost to go to the hospital brings on a heart attack all on its own.

If we're going to be mellow dramatic, just the thought of the wait times in Canada could bring on a heart attack all on its own. It's just as likely as your scenario.

Again. All of those people aren't going without needed medical care - and some are getting assistance that isn't factored into the scenario.

[Guest American Woman]

If it is cheaper to send the individual cases why not use it?

Sure, why not? It does, however, keep your health care costs down, so I don't appreciate the "more of your GDP" comments from some - and if our system ever ended up like yours, there would be no safety net for either Americans or Canadians - which was my point. I don't want to see that happen. I'll always opt for debt over no choice. I'm sure most people would.

They are not mutually exclusive.

There's no proof of that. There's a reason Canada chooses not to be entirely self sufficient, but rather to rely on facilities/services in the U.S. If Canada couldn't do that, and if the U.S. found itself in the same position, it's difficult to say what that would do to both of our systems - and the lives it would affect.

Great but it still does not make it any more affordable or enticing to go to the doctor when sick since you know at the end of the day you are ruined.

"Going to the doctor when sick" hardly "ruins" one, any more than your higher taxes for health care "ruins" Canadians. A doctor's visit doesn't put one in the poorhouse.

I am sure at least 49million Americans do not share your desire to wait.

For the record, I"m one of the uninsured, but I had a sick daughter (age 9 at the time), treated at Mayo; she was covered by insurance, and I'd like that immediate top notch medical care to remain available. I called on Friday, her appointments began the following Monday. All covered. Proof that one not need be among the "rich" to receive "top notch care." It doesn't get more top notch than Mayo. I also had a daughter pregnant, receiving medicare because she was a university student. Her newborn needed to be helivaced to a neonatal emergency facility - which was just minutes away. It cost her nothing. In our own country. I'd like to be ensured that the same quality of service remains available. It was, again, top notch care.

If we are not going to wait to get it right, and we just end up screwing over a different segment of society, how is that a good thing? Why is waiting to get it right not a better option?

Again. It's not our health care that's a problem, and I don't feel any better about lowering our standard of care and people suffering the consequences than I do about people being uninsured. I want a solution that helps everyone - not just shifts the problem from A to B.

[Guest American Woman]

Probably the same thing that happens to Americans who cannot afford to go to the doctor.

Exactly my point. It's just a different problem with the same results.

At least I know that my family is going to get healthcare when needed,

Not necessarily "when" needed - which is why so many choose to go elsewhere for their care - and this in spite of the fact that their care in Canada is already paid for, through their taxes.

unfortunately I have had to have some first hand experience with the healthcare in Canada and I can safely say that it is not great and without its problems but it is good for everyone rather than great for some and not so great for the rest.

No, it's not "good" for everyone. People have suffered the consequences of not having had treatment sooner. People have endured debt by going elsewhere for the quality of care they didn't feel they could get in Canada. People have been sent out of the country for their care, and I consider that to be in the "good for everyone" category. If my country had to send people out of the country for emergencies, I wouldn't consider that "good for everyone," either- and I would consider them fortunate that a neighboring country, so easily within reach, gave them access in an emergency and had the facilities to treat them. But of course Canada sends patients to the U.S. for care in non-emergency situations due to lack of facilities/care, too. Again, that cuts down on Canada's health care costs, which helps keep your system operating where it's at. Also, if some have to wait too long for their treatment/procedure, as wait times do vary across Canada, I don't consider that to be in the "good for everyone" category.

But I'm with you - I'm not saying our system is great for everyone and is not without it's problems, but again, I don't want to trade problem A for problem B. I don't see that as a fix - I just see it as a smoke-screen that simply shifts the problem from one set of people to another.

No, some Americans are in poor health while others are in great health simply because of the accessibility to healthcare. You keep bringing this up but paying it off in instalments does not make healthcare accessible and it still scares many people away in many cases I would assume until too late.

And I assume your wait times scare many people and assume that sometimes treatment is too late. I also assume that some are in poor health because of the wait times. So we're both making assumptions that may, or may not, be true.

But for the record, not all Canadians are in great health, either. I've pointed to your First Nations people as an example. Availability of universal health care isn't a magical cure. Furthermore, I see no evidence that Americans are suffering the poor health being claimed.

I'm not cutting your system down. I'm saying that I don't see it working for us, and I don't want to find us in the same position Canada is in. I see Canada's system as obviously better for some and our system as obviously better for some - and I don't want to simply shift the problem, cutting down on the quality and availability of health care services in the process. I keep repeating that, because I think it's crucial.

[Guest American Woman]

It is one thing for me to go to the doctor and get healthcare that is covered by a government plan and a whole other thing to go to the doctor for the exact same problem sit in a hospital for a week and come out owing a ton of money, one unlucky year and it buries you financialy decades.

Or one could buy disaster insurance with the money they aren't paying out in taxes for health care like Canadians are. That's a life choice, in some instances. But one unlucky year waiting for health care services in Canada, unable to work during the wait, can also take its toll,

Again, I"m not arguing that our system is perfect or doesn't need some change. We just have to figure out what changes work best for us before jumping into the fire.

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.

That's the thing - it's not just medical bills - it's bills incurred because of illness. I've pointed out that the majority of those filing bankruptcy in the U.S. for medical reasons had insurance - yet it's portrayed as "medical bills" rather than 'medical conditions.' I pointed out that bankruptcy due to medical conditions is one of the top three reasons people file for bankruptcy in Canada. I've pointed out that Canada's bankruptcy rate isn't lower than the U.S.'s. In other words, there could be bias regarding how things are presented about the U.S. system, just as guyser claimed the Fraser Institute is biased against Canada's system in that regard.

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...

It can also mean you've been off of work due to illness, waiting for treatment - or needing more treatment, because the initial treatment wasn't timely. Either way, as I pointed out, the end result is the same - bankruptcy due to illness. And again. 78% of Americans filing bankruptcy for medical reasons had insurance. It's usually not the medical bills themselves that take the toll, but the other things you mention - and the end result is the same.

And again. Canada's bankruptcy rate isn't lower than the U.S.'s, so perhaps, if it's not due to medical situations, Canada has "a real problem" elsewhere - if our medical bankruptcy is deemed evidence of "a real problem?" Seems to me that bankruptcy would be stressful regardless of the reason.

And that is understandable but going in to bankruptcy because you took your child to the doctor seems a little ridiculous especially for a nation like the US.

More hyperbole. No one declares bankruptcy because of doctor visit fees.

And I am not saying its a piece of crap,

Many are. My comments in this thread, the points I've raised, haven't just been in regards to what you've said.

I am saying that it is great for those who have the money or are insured, for those who cannot afford the insurance or are on the government programs the healthcare they receive is ever so slightly different and in at least 15% non existent.

I already described the health care my grandson received on a government program upon his birth - and there was no question that he wasn't going to have to leave the country for that care. As for the "15% non existent" care, that's only a notion that some people won't let go of. Again. No insurance doesn't mean everyone isn't getting medical care - and everyone without insurance who pays for their care isn't declaring bankruptcy or living in the streets or suffering poor health or living a substandard lifestyle. I can't see compromising what we have for a non-solution, because that's what anything that just shifts the problem elsewhere is.

And it is interesting how you keep bringing up that people are not being denied healthcare

Because they aren't denied healthcare, as claimed. So why wouldn't I keep bringing it up?

yet it is so prohibitively expensive in many cases that people choose not to go to the doctor rather than putting their family out on the street.

You think people are choosing to die over being "out in the streets?" FYI, if they reached that destitute point, they would either be on disability for inability to work or declare bankruptcy and still have their income or be on public assistance.

The idea that people are dying rather than put their family out on the streets in the U.S. is comparable to the idea that people are dying in Canada waiting for treatment that they never received.

If you are suggesting that people are putting off treatment because of the idea of the cost, then I will counter with the reality that treatment is being put off in Canada because of wait times - and in both instances, people are suffering the consequences of their health issues in the meantime. As I keep hearing from so many Canadians - if it's not life threatening, what does it ultimately matter?

Anyway - this is turning into a novel to the extent that I'm going to break it down into 'chapters' and post separately for easier reading - I'm having a difficult time going through it to proof read myself.

At least be both agree neither one's system sucks and that both systems have their problems. Where we don't seem to agree is on the idea of jumping into a solution that shifts the problem from A to B over waiting for a solution that eliminates problems rather than shifting them. I'm of the belief that whatever we end up with will be what we have for a long time - so I'd like to see the best solution possible, as I feel it will benefit the most people over the longest period of time. I do recognize that we have great health care, and I don't want to see that compromised.

At any rate, I've enjoyed our discussion and I do think about and understand your points - and don't even disagree with them on the surface, but it goes deeper than that - if we could combine the best of our systems, I think we'd have a really good system.

[WWWTT]

Americans die far more often from injuries..." so it includes accidents and injuries, which has nothing to do with health.

When you make a comment like this,you are realy exhibiting how little you understand health care!!!

I don't know how you're going to spin out of this one,but something tells me I'm wasting time in this thread.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

When you make a comment like this,you are realy exhibiting how little you understand health care!!!

Actually, your response exhibits how little you understand what I said; I was clearly speaking of health, not health care!!!

I don't know how you're going to spin out of this one,but something tells me I'm wasting time in this thread.

So I'm the reason for your being in this thread?

Edited January 13, 2013 by American Woman

[punked]

Actually, your response exhibits how little you understand what I said; I was clearly speaking of health, not health care!!!

So I'm the reason for your being in this thread?

Great you want to talk about "health" now because your health care system sucks ok.

“We expected to see some bad news and some good news,” Dr. Woolf said. “But the U.S. ranked near and at the bottom in almost every heath indicator. That stunned us.”

http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=0

So you are dead last on Health to.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great you want to talk about "health" now because your health care system sucks ok.

Yet it is good enough for many Canadians not wishing to take their chances in provincial wait lines. Why would people who have already paid CHA taxes want to travel to a foreign country for "health care that sucks" and pay even more?

Edited January 13, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Wow. The US spends a much greater proportion of it's GDP on health care than any of the other 16 countries listed, but comes dead last in health.

http://www.theatlant...ad-last/267045/

You might actually want to read the article you are trying to refute:

It is unfortunate you were met by such prolific deflecting deflector responses. Apparently... the deflecting deflectors are loath to actually read the report. You know... the report/study from the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine... the report/study sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report/study that compared the U.S. to 16 peer nations -- affluent democracies that include Australia, Canada, Japan, and many western European countries.

The report/study that concludes there is a comparable U.S. health disadvantage relative to these other world's rich nations. The report/study that shows that the unfavourable U.S. health comparison exists across all ages of the U.S. citizenry - from birth to age 75. The report/study that finds the conclusion also applies to advantaged Americans; those with health insurance, college educations, higher incomes, and healthy behaviors -- that these advantaged Americans appear to be sicker than their peers in other rich nations. The report/study that concludes that the U.S. is at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: infant mortality and low birth weight; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; disability; injuries and homicides; teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections; prevalence of HIV and AIDS and drug-related deaths.

Apparently, the deflecting deflectors within this thread don't recognize evaluating/measuring/comparing health compromises many avenues... health care, disease, injury, behaviour, underlying social values and economic conditions, public policies, physical environments, etc. Go figure!