Is it just me? health insurance related

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    Is it just me? health insurance related


    Sebelius' comments came after disappointing cost estimates for health care legislation by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The Congressional Budget Office released estimates that the bill would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years and only cover about one-third of the nearly 50 million uninsured
    So being a person who understands numbers a little, and realize thats where we're getting ass raped the worst (how our government is spending dollars we dont have) i pulled out the calculator and did the math. This program will cost over $6000 per person. We'd better be getting some goddamn really good healthcare for the equivalent of $24k a year for a family of 4.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far

  2. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    Rodja's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    30
    Posts
    23,071
    Rep Power
    917996

    Good, god. That's higher than the poverty line.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys
  3. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Don't worry.. the unconstitutional federal reserve will print notes to sell to china to pay for it... now what to do when china doesn't buy our worthless bonds?

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    warnerve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    MD
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,939
    Rep Power
    1090

    http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=249

    Here's a good article about why that "nearly 50 million uninsured" number that's thrown around is misleading.
  5. Registered User
    jjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Age
    26
    Posts
    6,539
    Rep Power
    77387

    I love Canada.
  6. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Quote Originally Posted by jjohn View Post
    I love Canada.


    Wait... wrong one... HERE

    The Historic PES Legend
  7. Registered User
    saludable24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    649
    Rep Power
    18353

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    So being a person who understands numbers a little, and realize thats where we're getting ass raped the worst (how our government is spending dollars we dont have) i pulled out the calculator and did the math. This program will cost over $6000 per person. We'd better be getting some goddamn really good healthcare for the equivalent of $24k a year for a family of 4.
    Well, unfortunately, this is just like everything else; the government is just using the "problem" as cover for gaining more control in the lives of citizens.
  8. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Quote Originally Posted by saludable24 View Post
    Well, unfortunately, this is just like everything else; the government is just using the "problem" as cover for gaining more control in the lives of citizens.
    I know, and the irony of all of this is... Government caused the crisis. It wasn't the other way around, it wasn't capitalism. Healthcare has no mystery partner to jack prices way up. Healthcare runs the way they are told, and price is passed on to the consumer from the heaps of regulations, and to pay for people like illegals who know the US will not turn their back on them. Not to mention the millions of dumb ass lawsuits. No where else can you sue a nurse because they clipped your childs nails slightly to short (Seriously, that is why the hospital we delivered at would not clip our daughters nails when she was born).

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  9. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    Quote Originally Posted by jjohn View Post
    I love Canada.
    Hmm sure, what percentage of your hard earned income do you pay to cover loosers who don't work? And how long is the waiting list for a kidney transplant? I think i'll pass, thanks.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  10. Registered User
    Kristofer68SS's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    misery
    Age
    41
    Posts
    5,599
    Rep Power
    13729

    i got one for you.........

    Dirtball drug addict and alcoholic tries to kill himself, nearly succeeds btw.

    Anywho, as they were trying to save his life pumping his stomach they messed up somehow and got into his lungs.................Anyways, hes alive and working, but last i heard he was sueing for 400,000 dollars...........

    WTF?

    EPIC FAIL for Darwinism
  11. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    oh and btw, the new estimates are covering 13 million people (so now 1/4 of the 50 million who are in such desparate need) for a cost of 1.6 trillion over 10 years, or 160 billion a year, or over 10k per person per year.

    total insanity
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  12. Registered User
    bigrobbierob's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ky
    Age
    42
    Posts
    748
    Rep Power
    7806

    I have a question that I will ask here....it's not off topic very much as it pertains to health insurance and money.

    What if we fixed it by getting rid of insurance all together?

    A market can only exist if there are people willing to pay for it right? If I made a widget and tried to sell it for $200 but people thought it was too much, I wouldn't sell any. I would need to drop the price to make it more attractive. If someone else offered a widget and a cheaper price, people may go there unless I lower mine too. It's basic free market competition.

    Now in the instance of healthcare, we pay $50 a week for insurance. Then you have deductables. Then if something major happens the insurance cover only so much and you're still screwed with a huge bill. Some people have more than one insurance just to cover that!

    Maybe the problem isn't that not enough people have insurance or "enough" insurance...maybe insurance IS the problem.

    Maybe insurance with it's paperwork mess and willingness to pay $200 for a band-aid and $500 for aspirin has artificially inflated the prices past a substainable point.

    I know some things ARE more expensive with insurance. There was one pill I was on and it was $144 a bottle, with insurance I paid $20. After a recent layoff I lost my insurance and had my doctor change it....a generic version that was $4. The same thing, just A hell of a lot cheaper. Now if "A" makes the same thing as "B" but "A" charges $20 and "B" charges $4, most consumers would go to "B". "A" would be force to drop the price to get customers back. Yet insurance is willing to pay the $20 to "A" thus "A" is able to sustain.

    If you ask a doctor why office visits are so much...insurance. They have theirs, the staff, malpractice, etc.

    Hospitals...a year or so ago my wife didn't feel well (facial numbness and dizzy)and went to the ER. She laid in the back for FIVE hours and other than a nurse poking her head in evey halr hour or so to ask if she was OK, nobody did anything. We finally just left because my wife decided if she was going to lay around and have a stroke/die she was doing it at home. The bill was over $1000...for NOTHING!

    I had a buddy several years ago break his back. A doctor walked in and grabbed his toe and asked if he felt it...that is all...and charged $600 for wiggling his toe!!!!

    Needless to say, the problem is things are OVERPRICED! Why? Insurance usually pays it and leave you the rest! The market have been sustained due to willingness on behalf of insurance to pay $200 for the $50 widget.

    And because prices went high enough, soon the people who didn't have/want insurance NEEDED it.

    Now, if insurance suddenly went the way of the Dodo, if prices stayed high, the majoity of people would not be able to afford go to the doctor or buy medicine and the market would have to adapt by lowering prices to a level where the product is affordable to the customer and market sustainable.

    Thoughts?
  13. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    that only works if you view healthcare as your responsibility to maintain (say by eating healthy and exercising), rather than some intrinsic right
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  14. Registered User
    bigrobbierob's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ky
    Age
    42
    Posts
    748
    Rep Power
    7806

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    that only works if you view healthcare as your responsibility to maintain (say by eating healthy and exercising), rather than some intrinsic right
    Hey..survival of the fittest! It's fine with me!
  15. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Hmm sure, what percentage of your hard earned income do you pay to cover loosers who don't work? And how long is the waiting list for a kidney transplant? I think i'll pass, thanks.
    Well, that is a gross generalization of the entire system, but you know that already. The fact is, a considerable amount of data has been produced showing that the Universal coverage in Canada in terms of waiting times, quality of care and so forth is entirely comparable to private-sector care in the United States. Then there is the whole issue we have discussed before in terms of being denied for coverage due to preexisting conditions. To use your example, I would rather wait for a kidney transplant than be denied one altogether. Anyway, not wishing to get into this one in particular.
  16. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Well, that is a gross generalization of the entire system, but you know that already. The fact is, a considerable amount of data has been produced showing that the Universal coverage in Canada in terms of waiting times, quality of care and so forth is entirely comparable to private-sector care in the United States. Then there is the whole issue we have discussed before in terms of being denied for coverage due to preexisting conditions. To use your example, I would rather wait for a kidney transplant than be denied one altogether. Anyway, not wishing to get into this one in particular.
    But the "studies" showing that in canada are biased, and also the population groups are different enough in other aspects that the point is moot. in the US having 2x the teen pregnancies and 15-20% higher obesity rates changes things. Also, apparently you don't understand how denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions works - it only is allowed to deny coverage for the length of gap in your insurance, up to 12 months maximum. If you know you had kidney issues, and it was already problematical for you, its up to you to keep insurance, or re-establish as soon as possible after a loss. The viewpoint of canada is quite different as there is a huge difference in how and why the US and canada were formed in the first place.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  17. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Well, that is a gross generalization of the entire system, but you know that already. The fact is, a considerable amount of data has been produced showing that the Universal coverage in Canada in terms of waiting times, quality of care and so forth is entirely comparable to private-sector care in the United States. Then there is the whole issue we have discussed before in terms of being denied for coverage due to preexisting conditions. To use your example, I would rather wait for a kidney transplant than be denied one altogether. Anyway, not wishing to get into this one in particular.
    I must disagree with you on pretty much all accounts. Your care is not up to par with the private sector of the US. Your cancer rates actually fully support that as well. You cannot be denied for a preexisting condition if you go through an employer provided healthcare. If you are poor as hell, without insurance, you cannot be denied an organ transplant. Hell, a worthless piece of trash that used to be one of my fathers friends completely trashed his liver, no insurance, and guess what.... he's got a new liver.

    Here is pulled from a Calgary Paper

    Canadians receive poor value for health-care dollars

    The beginning of May marks the end of income tax season in Canada. While the task of completing our personal tax returns and the size of those tax bills slowly fades from our memories, some Canadians may find themselves taking solace in a belief that their taxes (of which income taxes make up about one-third for the average Canadian family) at least purchased a high-quality, universal access health-care program.

    Unfortunately, Canadian taxpayers are not receiving the same sort of value that their counterparts in other nations are when it comes to universally accessible health care, despite the fact nearly 60 per cent of personal income taxes paid in aggregate are required to cover the cost of Canada's taxpayer-funded health-care program.

    First things first: Canadians are funding the developed world's second most expensive universal access health insurance system. On an age-adjusted basis (older people require more care) in the most recent year for which comparable data are available, only Iceland spent more on universal access health insurance system than Canada as a share of GDP, while Switzerland spent as much as Canada. The other 25 developed nations which maintain universal health insurance programs spent less than we did; as much as 38 per cent less as a percentage of GDP in the case of Japan.

    With that level of expenditure, you might expect that Canadians receive world-class access to health care. The evidence finds this is not so.

    Consider the case of waiting lists. In 2008, the median wait time from general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist was 17.3 weeks in Canada. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the last decade or so, that wait time was 45 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997. It was 86 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 9.3 weeks back in 1993.

    Canada's waiting lists are also, according to the available evidence, among the longest in the developed world. For example, a 2007 survey of individuals in seven nations, six of whom maintain universal access health insurance programs, published in the journal Health Affairs found that: - Canadians are more likely to experience waiting times of more than six months for elective surgery than Australians, Germans, the Dutch, and New Zealanders, but slightly less likely than patients in the United Kingdom; and were least likely among the six nations to wait less than one month for elective surgery; - Canadians are most likely to wait six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and are least likely to receive an appointment the same day or next day among the six universal access nations surveyed; and - Canadians are least likely to wait less than one hour and most likely to wait two hours or more for access to an emergency room among the six universal access nations surveyed.

    That is hardly the sort of access you might expect from the developed world's second-most-expensive universal access health insurance system.

    By comparison, seven developed nations--Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, and Switzerland --maintain universal access health insurance programs that deliver access to health care without queues for treatment.

    Access to medical technologies is also relatively poor in Canada. In a recent comparison of age-adjusted inventories of medical technologies, Canada ranked 14th of 25 nations for which data were available in MRI machines per million population, 19th of 26 nations in CT scanners per million population, eighth of 21 in mammographs per million population, and tied for second last among 21 nations in lithotripters per million population. Clearly, Canada's relatively high expenditures are neither buying quick access to care nor are they buying high-tech health-care services for the population.

    Governmental restrictions on medical training, along with a number of other policies affecting the practices of medical practitioners, have also taken their toll on Canadians' access to care. Among 28 developed nations that maintain universal approaches to health insurance, a recent comparison found Canada ranked 26th in the age-adjusted number of physicians per thousand population. It should come as no surprise that Statistics Canada determined that nearly 1.7 million Canadians aged 12 or older could not find a regular physician in 2007.

    While our taxes can and do pay for important and valuable services for all Canadians, we need to critically assess whether we are receiving value for the dollars we are spending.

    In the case of health care, Canadians are paying for a world-class health-care system but are not receiving one in return.

    Hopefully, this knowledge will encourage Canadians to think more carefully about the need for substantial reform of Canada's failing approach to health-care policy.

    Nadeem Esmail Is The Director Of Health System Performance Studies At The Fraser Institute.
    Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
    The Historic PES Legend
  18. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    But the "studies" showing that in canada are biased, and also the population groups are different enough in other aspects that the point is moot. in the US having 2x the teen pregnancies and 15-20% higher obesity rates changes things. Also, apparently you don't understand how denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions works - it only is allowed to deny coverage for the length of gap in your insurance, up to 12 months maximum. If you know you had kidney issues, and it was already problematical for you, its up to you to keep insurance, or re-establish as soon as possible after a loss. The viewpoint of canada is quite different as there is a huge difference in how and why the US and canada were formed in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I must disagree with you on pretty much all accounts. Your care is not up to par with the private sector of the US. Your cancer rates actually fully support that as well. You cannot be denied for a preexisting condition if you go through an employer provided healthcare. If you are poor as hell, without insurance, you cannot be denied an organ transplant. Hell, a worthless piece of trash that used to be one of my fathers friends completely trashed his liver, no insurance, and guess what.... he's got a new liver.

    Here is pulled from a Calgary Paper
    Wow, you two are quite defensive about your system. To Adams: that is one perspective, done on other Universal Healthcare systems, so I am confused on how this applies to the U.S., private sector, or the general U.S., health system. In regards to biological markers, you may want to check your infant mortality rates, life expectancy rates, serious-illness death rates and so on, Adams. The U.S., ranks relatively low on all those markers, and below Canada. As well, here are two more pieces, not published in a Calgary paper, that refute your points as well:

    Here is the WHO ranking Canada #30, and the United States #37, in terms of overall quality of care - so yes, it is comparable, or better, than private-sector care.

    http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

    Another, and for Easy:

    Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

    Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.
    http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

    So obviously Easy, a systematic review of case studies showing either superior or equal healthcare is not a "moot point".
  19. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    I seriously cannot believe you quoted the WHO for your reference. The most politically driven organization in the healthcare industry.

    United States Health Care ranking
    June 6th, 2008 | by Brian Schwartz |

    WHO distorted“Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted that the United States invests more on health care than any country, but that its health care system ranks 37th.” - Denver Post, April 29 2008

    A Google search reveals that many people quote this World Health Organization figure on Denver Post blogs. But do any of them know what the rankings mean? John Stossel dissects the criteria:

    In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie “Sicko.” …

    But there’s less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading. …

    The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem. …

    When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

    Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

    Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

    Other good critiques of the WHO study include Glen Whitman, who blogs about it here and published a summary here, which also links a more detailed Cato policy analysis here.
    I don't care to defend our system, i think it needs to be reworked. Repeal the regulations that cause the problems, repeal medicare/caid, and banish the frivolous lawsuits that bank multi millions. The US Health Industry isn't perfect, and the reason it gets a black eye is because people dont want to take control of their own health care, instead they want it handed to them.
    The Historic PES Legend
  20. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I seriously cannot believe you quoted the WHO for your reference. The most politically driven organization in the healthcare industry.
    D, you used a newspaper as a reference, so maybe attacking methodology is not the best suited avenue for this discussion? As to John Stossel there, the WHO rankings consider 37 measures that take into account quality-of-care, and the rankings are generally quite systematic - obviously, Mr. Stossel has a bit of political slant himself. Anyway, the other study I quoted was a systematic review of case studies which more or less concluded with the same point I made above.

    As I said, I really do not care about the U.S., system, but your and Easy's points about the Canadian system are out-and-out false. I have apparently misunderstood coverage denial, but that does nothing to detract from the main point.

    We can trade data all day, but, generally, those are the results I have seen from countless studies.
  21. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    Also left out on the WHO are the fact that the US is the only country with a significant sizable military (again, so young 18-26 year old fatalities are higher, making the average lifespan appear lower) and that infants who are born prematurely in the US and die as infants affect that number hugely as in most of those other countries those children are counted as miscarriages or stillborn, so do NOT affect average life expectancy.

    And please read "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." May. not are, May. given what it costs you in taxation + GDP % and growth, and given the differences in so much of the rest of the population base, theres nothing conclusively showing that universal health care is better for any group other than the non-producing non-useful segment of society, the people living on state provided kraft dinners.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  22. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    D, you used a newspaper as a reference, so maybe attacking methodology is not the best suited avenue for this discussion? As to John Stossel there, the WHO rankings consider 37 measures that take into account quality-of-care, and the rankings are generally quite systematic - obviously, Mr. Stossel has a bit of political slant himself. Anyway, the other study I quoted was a systematic review of case studies which more or less concluded with the same point I made above.

    As I said, I really do not care about the U.S., system, but your and Easy's points about the Canadian system are out-and-out false. I have apparently misunderstood coverage denial, but that does nothing to detract from the main point: Canadian Universal coverage is comparable, and in some areas superior, to U.S., private-sector care.

    We can trade data all day, but, generally, those are the results I have seen from countless studies.
    Utilizing the paper because it was there and detailing your problems that you have defended to death. I don't care about other health systems, but your gross misrepresentation of canada's system becomes annoying. You have painted it as all green grass and rainbows, yet the system is becoming bankrupt and foreseen not to be sustainable in the future. I do not want the US to follow suit in a failed(ing) system. You are taking values and facts from completely unrelated areas and applying them to your debate. It is a complete strawman argument.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  23. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    And please read "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." May. not are, May. given what it costs you in taxation + GDP % and growth, and given the differences in so much of the rest of the population base, theres nothing conclusively showing that universal health care is better for any group other than the non-producing non-useful segment of society, the people living on state provided kraft dinners.
    No need for the condescendence Easy: I read it, but did you? The "may" refers to certain situations - i.e., the health outcomes in certain situations are superior in Canada, but this superiority is not consistent across the board. Or in even more other words: in certain situations Canadian healthcare is most certainly superior, but not in every situation. In terms of expenditures, the U.S., expenditure for its system is equal to the amount, or exceeds the amount, that Canada spends as a percentage of GPD, Easy.

    The fact is Canada's system needs reform, as does the United States system. But with a considerable body of data showing that Canada's system is equal to - or in certain situations, superior to - the American system, stating the opposite is simply not true.

    At any rate, I can understand why you both endorse a private-sector system, and, as Easy said, it stems from differences between the countries themselves. No point in continuing to argue what we both "feel" is right.
  24. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Utilizing the paper because it was there and detailing your problems that you have defended to death. I don't care about other health systems, but your gross misrepresentation of canada's system becomes annoying. You have painted it as all green grass and rainbows, yet the system is becoming bankrupt and foreseen not to be sustainable in the future. I do not want the US to follow suit in a failed(ing) system. You are taking values and facts from completely unrelated areas and applying them to your debate. It is a complete strawman argument.

    Adams
    Jesus man, you have to be kidding me. You stated that the Canadian system is inferior to the U.S., system, and then used a comparison of other Universal Healthcare Systems. So, I showed you several studies that refuted your points, showing that the Canadian system is superior to the United States system, or at least equal to it, using an actual comparison between the two nations. Nothing I have said is unrelated. If anything is annoying, it is your back in a tizzy because I called you on your bull****.
  25. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    but your gross misrepresentation of canada's system becomes annoying. You have painted it as all green grass and rainbows
    Right, which is also why I stated it was in need of reform?

    The fact is Canada's system needs reform, as does the United States system.
    No systems is "green grass and rainbows", but I would rather have an honest discussion about something. You said something that I felt was not true, and I provided evidence for why I felt it was not true. The only difference between us is that you are getting your ego in a huff and blown-up over a simple disagreement.
  26. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No need for the condescendence Easy: I read it, but did you? The "may" refers to certain situations - i.e., the health outcomes in certain situations are superior in Canada, but this superiority is not consistent across the board. Or in even more other words: in certain situations Canadian healthcare is most certainly superior, but not in every situation.
    What that means is that if it is only superior in some conditions it is inferior in others. So stating that is superior based on that is valueless as I can just as validly state US healthcare is superior from the same data. So its minimal value data.

    I as well don't think that the US healthcare is without need of changes, but universal health care isn't either the best choice, or realistically affordable by us as a country. When the cost will come to over $10,000 per uninsured person per year, we need to take a far far far closer look at the math as the private industry will cover a family of 4 for less than that.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  27. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Jesus man, you have to be kidding me. You stated that the Canadian system is inferior to the U.S., system, and then used a comparison of other Universal Healthcare Systems. So, I showed you several studies that refuted your points, showing that the Canadian system is superior to the United States system, or at least equal to it, using an actual comparison between the two nations. Nothing I have said is unrelated. If anything is annoying, it is your back in a tizzy because I called you on your bull****.
    For being so high on your logical horse, you can't seem to read. If you read that article, you would have read your precious wait times that you grossly misrepresented. You called me on no bull****, you step in every thread trying to talk down to people spewing nothing but pure bull**** all over every thread. "Socialism is amazing, you just dont understand" "Canada healthcare is better" "You dont have a right to believe in this or that because its not in line with my own beliefs"

    You constantly preach from high on your rock, and most honestly find it condescending, and annoying. Now please, retort my post with words that only exceed 12 characters long to try and crucify me to my proverbial cross.
    The Historic PES Legend
  28. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    What that means is that if it is only superior in some conditions it is inferior in others. So stating that is superior based on that is valueless as I can just as validly state US healthcare is superior from the same data. So its minimal value data.
    Easy, if you read the entire study, there are very few situations where the Canadian system was found to be inferior. The majority of the case-studies found that either: a) the Canadian system was superior; or b) that the systems were equal, or results were inconsistent. A very small percentage found that the Canadian system was inferior, and I think if we both read and speak about the study honestly, that is what we will find. As you said though, this is valueless as a claim the Canadian system is superior overall.

    I as well don't think that the US healthcare is without need of changes, but universal health care isn't either the best choice, or realistically affordable by us as a country. When the cost will come to over $10,000 per uninsured person per year, we need to take a far far far closer look at the math as the private industry will cover a family of 4 for less than that.
    I completely agree. Something that is feasible in the scope of 30 million may not be on the scope of 300 million. I was never arguing that Universal is superior to private-sector, Easy. We were comparing relative care for the citizens of each country, and you said something I felt was false. So, in the context of care for Canadian Citizens, I defended the system. In no way I am saying the U.S., should adopt this type of system, or that it is viable for every nation.
  29. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Rep Power
    768811

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I completely agree. Something that is feasible in the scope of 30 million may not be on the scope of 300 million. I was never arguing that Universal is superior to private-sector, Easy. We were comparing relative care for the citizens of each country, and you said something I felt was false. So, in the context of care for Canadian Citizens, I defended the system. In no way I am saying the U.S., should adopt this type of system, or that it is viable for every nation.
    Hmm, well i've known enough canadians who maintain US insurance and get care here even though they maintain multiple residences that i'm not so sure about your feelings on quality of care for canadian citizens, but you're right its not entirely relevant anyhow.

    Whats interesting in some ways is that the socialistic system in canada can enjoy a useful life a good bit longer than in most other countries due to canadas "youth" as a country and significant amount of natural resources and space to expand. Socialistic policies work decently at any point where you can continue to pull more natural resources and continue population growth whether by births or by immigration. Its when you reach germany's point of declining population and relatively maximized out resources and space that the socialistic policies show the worst of their weaknesses. If the population isn't growing then you have negative GDP growth yet with longer lifespans you have higher cost of maintaining your non-working population both in terms of food + healthcare. Not a good combo.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  30. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Hmm, well i've known enough canadians who maintain US insurance and get care here even though they maintain multiple residences that i'm not so sure about your feelings on quality of care for canadian citizens, but you're right its not entirely relevant anyhow.

    Whats interesting in some ways is that the socialistic system in canada can enjoy a useful life a good bit longer than in most other countries due to canadas "youth" as a country and significant amount of natural resources and space to expand. Socialistic policies work decently at any point where you can continue to pull more natural resources and continue population growth whether by births or by immigration. Its when you reach germany's point of declining population and relatively maximized out resources and space that the socialistic policies show the worst of their weaknesses. If the population isn't growing then you have negative GDP growth yet with longer lifespans you have higher cost of maintaining your non-working population both in terms of food + healthcare. Not a good combo.
    Pretty much agree here, Easy. As I said, in Canada's case it is feasible, for a wide range of reasons, and that is all I was trying to establish. Not that it is better in all, or even most, circumstances.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. health insurance - I need help choosing one.
    By Mrs. Gimpy! in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 11:02 AM
  2. Free Health Insurance
    By alinestra in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 03:54 PM
  3. Health Insurance need help!
    By Aaliyah in forum General Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-10-2006, 08:31 PM
  4. Health insurance
    By DmitryWI in forum General Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 07:08 AM
  5. Health Insurance!
    By jasser in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 10:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.