Republicans have given up on healthcare

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s not true at all!  

It is 100 percent true.  And not only do you not provide your own evidence you gloss over the facts provided. 

Quote

1) Unless they’re very rich, Americans will have to buy Health Insurance 

So?  in canada you have to buy it even if you are rich. That's part of your taxes. You don't even get a choice. 

And you may wind up buying it twice - once with the gov't and once privately to actually get good coverage. 

And of course in both countries the very poor usually get coverage for free through gov't programs. 

Not even a little bit relevant. 

 

Quote

2) Americans who buy Health Insurance pay more for coverage than Canadians pay in healthcare taxes and private supplementary coverage 

Yes - i've been showing that since the beginning.

Exactly how stupid do you have to be to point out what i'm saying is true as if it was your idea? They pay more and have much more access and choices. 

Quote

3) Americans who have Health Insurance still have less coverage than Canadians, many have such poor coverage they still can’t afford access the  healthcare they need or go bankrupt as a result

You've provided no evidence of that, and in canada lack of access means people die. It's become a chronic problem due to shortage of healthcare workers and assets. So it's no different here - the papers have been full of stories about people dying because they couldn't get to an er due to closures, and with our wait times many die before they get the care they need. 
So what's your point?

Quote

4) Americans who pay for drugs and healthcare services pay more for the same service than Canadians 

Nope. Sorry but that's a lie.  And again - not a drop of proof at all. 

 

So you've proven nothing and your entire argument seems to be that i was right all along for the most part. 

Americans pay more and get more, canadians pay less and get less. 

And until you can answer that simple question of why someone who can afford to pay should give up their health or life for someone who can't, you've got no argument at all as to why public health care makes sense. 

Edited August 21, 2024 by CdnFox

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

in canada lack of access means people die.

A far bigger problem in the US.

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

AND as an added advantage it costs less than the states because the price controls for drugs and other factors that contain costs in the medical system also contain costs on the dental system

What would you say a routine dental visit costs in Canada? Or something bigger like a crown?

[herbie]

27 minutes ago, Matthew said:

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

in canada lack of access means people die.

A far bigger problem in the US.

Yeah those that die because they can't afford it are way more. And don't listen to the guy's BS about we pay so much. I had to review and approve payroll and it was $75 for a single and $125 a family a month. Those that got extended and dental cost about $75-$100 extra.
I pay $75 mo. for extended & dental Blue Cross myself now. Which disqualifies me from those 'free benefits' as they are now.

Remember half these people own 2 cars and a single family home but talk like they live in a cardboard box under the overpass and are 'taxed to death'.
Hell, I'd bet all the ones moaning loudest about that increase here in Capital Gains Tax have never even cl;aimed a Capital gain. Lived with a CGA and most people had ONE T4 from the only job they'd worked in their lives and paid her $80, $100 to do their taxes every year. The rest went to those H&R outfits and had no idea they paid at all, just saw the money in their hand.

Edited August 22, 2024 by herbie

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

A far bigger problem in the US.

So you say.  Show me. 

Here's canada

Number of Canadians who died while waiting for medical procedures reaches five-year high - The Hub

Here's the us

More than 26 000 Americans die each year because of lack of health insurance - PMC (nih.gov)

So - 17,032 Canadians died last year due to lack of health care, and 26,000 americans did.  And america has TEN TIMES the Canadian population.  So that's like 170,000 americans vs 26 000

And that's not even all the canadians! Some large areas had to be excluded from that study - so it's even higher! 

You and @BeaverFever  keep saying these things but whenever i look up your claims they appear to be false.  
 

FAR more Canadians per capita died waiting for care than those in the states.  It does not appear to even be close. 

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Yeah those that die because they can't afford it are way more. And don't listen to the guy's BS about we pay so much. I had to review and approve payroll and it was $75 for a single and $125 a family a month. Those that got extended and dental cost about $75-$100 extra.
I pay $75 mo. for extended & dental Blue Cross myself now. Which disqualifies me from those 'free benefits' as they are now.

Remember half these people own 2 cars and a single family home but talk like they live in a cardboard box under the overpass and are 'taxed to death'.
Hell, I'd bet all the ones moaning loudest about that increase here in Capital Gains Tax have never even cl;aimed a Capital gain. Lived with a CGA and most people had ONE T4 from the only job they'd worked in their lives and paid her $80, $100 to do their taxes every year. The rest went to those H&R outfits and had no idea they paid at all, just saw the money in their hand.

They're not. See my last post. It's actually far higher in Canada. 

Sorry kiddo.  Yet another one of your leftie talking points burst. 

[User]

16 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Ok well now something definitely doesn’t add up

No, he came down for a crown. Whatever services were in his area did not offer same-day crowns. 

His waiting in lines was for health care. 

His friend broke foot in car crash, they go to Hospital ER, wait for 8 hours into 3am before getting an X-ray, but they can't cast it, so they just wrap it and send home. They are still waiting a week later for a cast. 

Something you could walk into just about anywhere here and have done in less than an hour, even pay out of pocket for almost nothing. 

 

[Deluge]

On 8/17/2024 at 12:25 PM, Matthew said:

Healthcare is in the top 3 of concerns for Americans.

For you Canadians, here's how it works in the US. Through my employer I pay about $1500 per month to an insurance corporation for a mediocre family health insurance plan. In the event that i need some kind of medical treatment, I must pay about $5000 out of my own pocket before the insurance pays anything. It doesnt cover dental or many eye expenses.

Increase in these insurance costs has been steady and linear for many decades. To try to address this, in 2010 democrats passed the ACA, which required everyone to buy insurance, created a subsidized insurance marketplace for lower income people, and made many very popular restrictions on what insurance corporations can no longer do to their insurance customers.

Meanwhile, since the 1960s through Medicare, older Americans (who are mostly republican, by the way) can just go to the doctor and the government pays for most of it. This is the model that most democrats would like to see expanded for everyone. In 2010 democratic party leaders went with an existing republican market-based plan in a doomed hope of getting some of them on board with the legislation.

Since 2010, the ACA is widely appreciated for what it does do, but it has shortcomings. Republicans have long vowed to end the ACA. When they controlled the entire congress and the presidency from 2016-2018 they had an easy pathway for doing anything they want to do to change or improve healthcare, but did not do so. They attempted a straight repeal of the ACA, it failed, and that was it.

Today, the republican platform has just this minimal and vague 3-sentence statement on the subject of healthcare:

Is it now safe to say that Republicans have no major ambitions for trying to do anything with Healthcare?

Democrats have given up on America, so...

[Matthew]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you say.  Show me. 

Here's canada

Number of Canadians who died while waiting for medical procedures reaches five-year high - The Hub

Here's the us

More than 26 000 Americans die each year because of lack of health insurance - PMC (nih.gov)

So - 17,032 Canadians died last year due to lack of health care, and 26,000 americans did.  And america has TEN TIMES the Canadian population.  So that's like 170,000 americans vs 26 000

Alright, a few things:

1. Both of these numbers you've provided are claims by advocacy group, so of course any "study" they publish is probably not an actual peer reviewed scientific study.

2. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that these numbers are correct, they are still comparing two completely different things: people who died while waiting for a medical procedure vs people who died due to lack of insurance. These aren't comperable and for the US it leaves out a lot of people.  People with severe illnesses die in the US while scheduled for an upcoming scan or operation too. There are also people who simply don't seek medical care due huge to costs even if they are insured. Also in both canada and the US doctors can decide that you're too old or too sick to have an operation. The Canadians in this boat are certainly among those "waiting" while in the US they are simply denied and just have to wait for death.

3. If you want an indisputable cold hard statistic, the easiest one is life expectancy. Canadians live several years longer.

4. One way to know this is heavily connected to healthcare access is that Canadian life expectancy has far less of a gap between rich and poor compared to the massice gap between rich and poor life expectancy in the US (source).

 

Edited August 22, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

6 minutes ago, Matthew said:

3. If you want an indisputable cold hard statistic, the easiest one is life expectancy. Canadians live several years longer.

That is hardly an indisputable cold-hard statistic. The way life expectancy is measured is different across countries, AND America has an obesity problem compared to many other countries that heavily impacts life expectancy. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Alright, a few things:

1. Both of these numbers you've provided are claims by advocacy group, so of course any "study" they publish is probably not an actual peer reviewed scientific study.

2. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that these numbers are correct, they are still comparing two completely different things: people who died while waiting for a medical procedure vs people who died due to lack of insurance. These aren't comperable and for the US it leaves out a lot of people.  People with severe illnesses die in the US while scheduled for an upcoming scan or operation too. There are also people who simply don't seek medical care due huge to costs even if they are insured. Also in both canada and the US doctors can decide that you're too old or too sick to have an operation. The Canadians in this boat are certainly among those "waiting" while in the US they are simply denied and just have to wait for death.

3. If you want an indisputable cold hard statistic, the easiest one is life expectancy. Canadians live several years longer.

4. One way to know this is heavily connected to healthcare access is that Canadian life expectancy has far less of a gap between rich and poor compared to the massice gap between rich and poor life expectancy in the US (source).

 

 

So your counter argument.... 

1  blame the source

2 lie about what the numbers represent

3 bring up a number that is completely irrelevant

4 repeat 3 because it probably wasn't believable if you just say it once. 

Life expectancy is a meaningless number. It doesn't take into account things like crime, health trends and weight tendencies in both countries, and a host of other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. 

The numbers I gave are absolutely correct and you still haven't provided a single number. Not one source.

Kid.  i've given you the numbers.  This is not really an argument anymore. 

Canadians spend a little less on their health care, but get much less of it as a result with much longer wait times and access to critical services.  

Americans pay a little more, but have better access sd

And contrary to the bullshit previously spouted, the vast majority of americans have access to health care plans. 

So really it's more of a 'personal preference' thing rather than one being better that the other 

And neither of you two screwballs could answer the fundimental underlying question -  Why should a person who can afford it be asked to go without or die so that someone who can't gets access? As happens in Canada ,

And unless you can answer that reasonably then it's not right to force people down that route for no reason 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And unless you can answer that reasonably then it's not right to force people down that route for no reason 

The underlying stupidity of their whole argument is that they want to tear down health care that is great for the vast majority of people because the extreme minority do not have it...

Just focus on the extreme minority then. You don't have to ruin the whole system. 

Its as dumb as saying that people in America still go hungry, so we must abolish all grocery stores for profit and the entire for profit food industry and create bread lines so that no one goes hungry. 

Or, hear me out, we can give people food stamps and other assistance to make sure they don't starve instead of ruining it for everyone else. 

 

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, User said:

The underlying stupidity of their whole argument is that they want to tear down health care that is great for the vast majority of people because the extreme minority do not have it...

Just focus on the extreme minority then. You don't have to ruin the whole system. 

Its as dumb as saying that people in America still go hungry, so we must abolish all grocery stores for profit and the entire for profit food industry and create bread lines so that no one goes hungry. 

Or, hear me out, we can give people food stamps and other assistance to make sure they don't starve instead of ruining it for everyone else. 

 

Well this is the correct argument of course.

The fact is Canada always had government provided Healthcare. Long before the canadian health act came about in the seventies each province had its own health care system. So chances are we are going to tweak that system rather than scrap it for a completely private system.

But the states is the opposite. They've always had private health care with a little bit of social safety net health care thrown in to help the less fiscally able. And sure, the conversation can be had with regards to providing a base level of service for those under a certain income level, or even possibly a government backed insurance policy which is very generous and affordable to be offered for certain low-income groups that may not be in a position to get additional coverage through their work. But that does not mean the entire system has to be torn down, just as you say. 

[Matthew]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

lie about what the numbers represent

Nope, try again. Wait time isn't the same as not having insurance. Comparing those two numbers doesn't mean anything.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Life expectancy is a meaningless number. It doesn't take into account things like crime, health trends and weight tendencies in both countries, and a host of other factors

Obviously not meaningless, but yeah many variables. That's why the study cited in #4 is useful. It compares socioeconomic status and life expectancy. Not many things would explain the relative equity in canadian cities between rich and poor people's life expectancy beyond the realm of health policy.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Nope, try again. Wait time isn't the same as not having insurance. Comparing those two numbers doesn't mean anything.

 

LOL liar.    It's the ability to get access to health care in either case.  Tell me  whats the difference between "Have insurance but can't use it and get no health care" and "Don't have insurance so can't use it and get no health care"?

 Seriously - maybe you need to go back to arguing with your friends about whether cyclops could beat up wolverine. 

Quote

Obviously not meaningless, but yeah many variables. That's why the study cited in #4 is useful. It compares socioeconomic status and life expectancy. Not many things would explain the relative equity in canadian cities between rich and poor people's life expectancy beyond the realm of health policy.

Meaningless because of the variables and there's just wayyyyy too much beyond status to even make it remotely relevant. 

It's  like picking the average repair costs of a model of car and one of a model of truck and trying to figure out which has the best mecahnics working on it. Well how often was it serviced, how hard was  it driven, how is the truck built what gas was used - there's just too much in there for it  to be useful. 

But how much was spent on health care is real.  How many people died due to a lack of access to health care is real. 

If you're done and you're just down to childish debate tactics which are obviously better suited to an elementary school environment then we're pretty much done here and if you continue to press that kind of ridiculousness then I'll just make fun of you. Either go find some real statistics that are actually relevant or move on.

Or just for fun answer the key underlying question which you would need to in order to make a case for Public insurance. You know the one.

And just out of curiosity do you even remember what your point was?

[Matthew]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Tell me  whats the difference between "Have insurance but can't use it and get no health care" and "Don't have insurance so can't use it and get no health care"?

Good question. Your comparison assumes that having insurance = having access to healthcare.    Everyone having insurance but limited access to timely procedures includes almost everyone in canada. But in the US, "not having insurance" is only one extremely narrow set of people out of the much larger population that does not have access to the care they need, even for those who do pay for health insurance. For example those who can't afford the co-pays, deductables, or pharmaceuticals required. Also those who have insurance but are straight up denied coverage for a test, procedure, or medication that their doctor says they need.

Also none of what you said discounts the relevance of canada doing what few countries have ever achieved--broadly shared good health outcomes. If access to medical care was actually as dire as you're saying, poorer and lower middle class people wouldn't be living so long.

Edited August 23, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Good question. Your comparison assumes that having insurance = having access to healthcare.   

no, it assumes that if you have insurance but can't get health care you're no better off than someone who doesn't have insurance and can't get health care.  So my comparison assumes the opposite of what you claimed it did. 

Quote

Everyone having insurance but limited access to timely procedures includes almost everyone in canada. But in the US, "not having insurance" is only one extremely narrow set of people out of the much larger population that does not have access to the care they need, even for those who do pay for health insurance. For example those who can't afford the co-pays, deductables, or pharmaceuticals required. Also those who have insurance but are straight up denied coverage for a test, procedure, or medication that their doctor says they need.

Not relevant. Same happens in Canada - you might get a doctor to write you a perscripton and have trouble affording the drugs.  Many are in that boat. 

But what you claimed is that having wait times so long that people die before getting treatment was somehow DIFFERENT than dying because you didn't have insurance. 

ANd as i have pointed out you were wrong. So the numbers i posted were still 100 percent valid and relevant. 

You appear to be trying to shift the discussion now, presumably having realized i was correct.  Which is fine as long as we're clear we're moving on to a new point. 

 

Quote

Also none of what you said discounts the relevance of canada doing what few countries have ever achieved--broadly shared good health outcomes. I

You are patently insane my good man.  MOST of the first and second world countries in the world operate on a public health system and Canadas is FAR FAR from the best example of that.  I believe the best is currently france. 

So you're entirely wrong, and there's no "relevance".  Canada got it wrong.  Now you can argue the states also got it wrong.  But now it's just about which wrong you think is right  

 

And have you managed to come up with a point yet? Or an answer to that question you so desperately avoid because you know you're on the wrong side of it?

[impartialobserver]

Well.. its quite the complex issue. Give someone $1000 free and clear and they most likely spend it on consumption goods such as food, stuff for their vehicle, records, toys for their kids, etc. and not health care unless they have to. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

no, it assumes that if you have insurance but can't get health care you're no better off than someone who doesn't have insurance and can't get health care. 

You admit that having insurance without access to care is the same as not having insurance at all--the reality for many Americans. Yet you insist on trying to compare Canadian deaths from wait times vs US deaths from not purchasing heath insurance as if those are the only Americans without access to healthcare.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

You admit that having insurance without access to care is the same as not having insurance at all--the reality for many Americans.

What do you mean "admit" it? I'm the one who had to explain this to you.   And it's ALSO the reality for many Canadians, many of whom died of it.   That was the point. 

Quote

Yet you insist on trying to compare Canadian deaths from wait times vs US deaths from not purchasing heath insurance as if those are the only Americans without access to healthcare.

Sigh - once again slowly....  if you have insurance (canadians) but die because you have to wait for treatment (canadians) then you are no better off than those who die without insurance (americans) or because they couldn't afford it. 

this is simple. A child in grade 3 could get this. Why am i having to explain it to you more than once? Or at all for that matter?

Canadians who have insurance and die because they can't use it are in exactly the same boat as americans who die because they could have used it but didn't have it.  It's the same thing. For the 7th time or whatever.  They are BOTH DEAD and for the SAME REASON - they couldn't get health care

[Matthew]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

if you have insurance (canadians) but die because you have to wait for treatment (canadians) then you are no better off than those who die without insurance (americans) or because they couldn't afford it. 

Sure, therefore if you have insurance (americans) but die because you can't get treatment (americans) then you're no better off than those who die without insurance (americans). I'm just waiting for you to catch up.

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Canadians who have insurance and die because they can't use it are in exactly the same boat as americans who die because they could have used it but didn't have it.  It's the same thing.

Yup, so then you must also agree that americans who have insurance but they can't use it for the medical care they need are in exactly the same boat as americans who need medical care but don't have insurance. I believe in you buddy, you can do this.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

Sure, therefore if you have insurance (americans) but die because you can't get treatment (americans) then you're no better off than those who die without insurance (americans). I'm just waiting for you to catch up.

 

No, You're not waiting for anyone to catch up.  You've realized your mistake but rather than deal with it  you're just bloviating. That comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the original point.  You've realized you were wrong and now you're just saying whatever pops into your head trying to pretend you still have a point, which you don't. 

We're comparing canada and america. 

So lets go over it again realllly slowly for you. See if we can't find a way to help you cope with it. 

Canadians pay a little less for their health care. Not tonnes, but less. But they get less for it. They die in vastly larger numbers waiting for health care that they will never get both on an emergency basis and long term treatment as well.  They struggle to pay medical bills for many things such as medially necessary equipment, prescription drugs, etc. And some medical treatments are not available at all. 

So the upside is lower cost per person. And slightly more universal coverage. The downside is far less access leading to long term suffering and often death. 

Americans pay more for their health care, but they get more. The wait times are 1/10th what they are in canada.  You have more choice in the quality of care you want to get and how fast. Fewer people die waiting for care or because they can't afford care. 

BUT - the coverage isn't as universal, and only 92 percent of people even have insurance, and if you're not covered and you get sick it could bankrupt you.  But - the vast majority don't have that problem. 

 

So.  Back to where we started. Americans pay more and get more, Canadians pay less and get less.  For those who don't have coverage, the question becomes how do you justify giving someone who CAN afford care LESS care or death in order to give someone else coverage they couldn't pay for, which is what happens in Canada. 

You still haven't answered and until you can you're going to go nowhere fast with the public model. 

Now quit jerking your own chain and either make a point or address that question 

 

[Matthew]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Fewer people die waiting for care or because they can't afford care.

Wrong, not affording care is a much larger percentage of people in the US even among those who do have insurance. They never even reach the point of waiting.

You're thinking that people in the US get medical treatment but then are just hit with big bills afterward that they can't pay.

The reality is that if your treatment has a 20% copay and you can't pay it, your treatment isn't happening. If your insurance denies coverage, it's not happening. Or if you can't pay the $5000 deductable, then the next time you show up to the doctor they will just turn you away. These are people with health insurance.

This is the reason that over half of ALL healthcare in the US happens in emergecy rooms.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Wrong, not affording care is a much larger percentage of people in the US even among those who do have insurance. They never even reach the point of waiting.

Not wrong.  I posted the actual numbers.  I posted exactly how many people die due to a lack of coverage. Using official numbers. 

This part isn't a debate.  We know how many die because they could not get access to medicine. And we know how many died in canada because they could not get access to medicine.  And per capita canada is VASTLY higher. 

Lets say that again so you get it -  The actual official numbers state that in CANADA - MORE people will die because they couldn't access health care that they needed when they needed than died in the USA because of lack of access due to cost or lack of insurance. 

Period. Boom.  Mike drop. 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

The reality is that if your treatment has a 20% copay and you can't pay it, your treatment isn't happening.

Same as in canada - if you have a live saving perscription and you can't afford it then you die. 

And even if you HAVE coverage for a life saving surgery if there's nobody to perform it you die, which happens a LOT. 

The study i posted from the US looked at all cases where people die because of insufficient coverage. What you're talking about has been addressed. 

And once again - not a single fact or figure from you. You just magically know without any sources or research and that's that. 

Kid - you have been PROVEN to be wrong. What you are saying is not true. It's disinformatoin. It's fake news.  Call it what you will. 

And still no sign of having a point OR answering the critical underlying question. 

You refuse to make a point, you refuse to address posted facts, you refuse to actually discuss the issue and i've given you plenty of chances.  As everyone knows i have zero respect or tolerance for stupidity so we can move on and try again on another subject some day OR you can continue on this one and i'll just amuse myself by making fun of you and treating you poorly.

And given  your peformance to date i'd worry less about your health system and more about your educational system. 

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I posted the actual numbers.

Your number was just about uninsured people (using 20 year old data btw). Did not include denial of treatment for the insured, or lack of access for the insured due to cost. Unless you can surmount this mental hurdle in comprehending the issue, your just spinning your wheels.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Same as in canada

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Your number was just about uninsured people (using 20 year old data btw). Did not include denial of treatment for the insured, or lack of access for the insured due to cost. Unless you can surmount this mental hurdle in comprehending the issue, your just spinning your wheels.

 

Oh look whos so stupid that they're going to dispute the numbers....  without posting any numbers  

What's the matter little guy, did your mom put a parental lock on google and you can't figure it out?

But i guess if you're a leftist lying your ass off is more convenient than thinking

Quote

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

It literally IS the issue at hand  -  holy shit kid even your local village !diot is looking at you like "Man, you've got to smarten up"