Conservatives are literally killing us

Well according to this article a sizable number of Canadians left Canada in 2013 to seek medical attention elsewhere. A country with a efficient Healthcare System shouldn't experience that.

Jim

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/re...icine-in-2013/ Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I don't think you can honestly call one percent a 'sizable' number in any sense of the word. This is not proof of an inefficient system, I'm sorry.

Well according to this article a sizable number of Canadians left Canada in 2013 to seek medical attention elsewhere. A country with a efficient Healthcare System shouldn't experience that.

Jim

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/re...icine-in-2013/ Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well we were talking about inefficiency.

ONE problem with the canadian system is the wait times. BUT...it depends on where you live. Major cities like Toronto, Montreal etc etc have hospitals and clinics with unbearable waiting times. Stems mostly from a lack of doctors in the country. When the richest in the country have access to the same doctors the poor do, appointments start to fill up pretty quickly. But the same isn't true for the overwhelming majority of cities in Canada.

There are misconceptions about the American healthcare system as well. While we may have a very inefficient and costly healthcare system, the QUALITY is the world's finest. In terms of both technology and quality of doctor/patient care. So, naturally, a rich canadian would much much rather treat his mother's cancer in the U.S rather than Canada.

In terms of efficiency however, the Canadian system far surpasses ours. There's only one insurer: the government. Neither the doctors nor the patients have to go through multiple providers that are hell bent on denying you coverage. Cuts costs and time for both doctors and patients. The administrative costs in Canada are much lower than ours. Doctors often have just one assistant handling everything. You call in, get your appointment set up and that's pretty much where your headache ends.

I don't think you can honestly call one percent a 'sizable' number in any sense of the word. This is not proof of an inefficient system, I'm sorry. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Well I think it is for a country of only 35 million that boasts a good Healthcare system. Why should anyone wait a week or two to see a doctor for a serious condition?


Jim

Well I think it is for a country of only 35 million that boasts a good Healthcare system. Why should anyone wait a week or two to see a doctor for a serious condition?


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Serious or life-threatening conditions are not waiting two weeks. You thinking that one percent is somehow sizable, doesn't make it the truth.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/doctors-...verage-72-days

Well we were talking about inefficiency.

ONE problem with the canadian system is the wait times. BUT...it depends on where you live. Major cities like Toronto, Montreal etc etc have hospitals and clinics with unbearable waiting times. Stems mostly from a lack of doctors in the country. When the richest in the country have access to the same doctors the poor do, appointments start to fill up pretty quickly. But the same isn't true for the overwhelming majority of cities in Canada.

There are misconceptions about the American healthcare system as well. While we may have a very inefficient and costly healthcare system, the QUALITY is the world's finest. In terms of both technology and quality of doctor/patient care. So, naturally, a rich canadian would much much rather treat his mother's cancer in the U.S rather than Canada.

In terms of efficiency however, the Canadian system far surpasses ours. There's only one insurer: the government. Neither the doctors nor the patients have to go through multiple providers that are hell bent on denying you coverage. Cuts costs and time for both doctors and patients. The administrative costs in Canada are much lower than ours. Doctors often have just one assistant handling everything. You call in, get your appointment set up and that's pretty much where your headache ends. Originally Posted by shanm

This is true. Our quality is very good, but our waste is exorbitant. People who can afford it come from all over the world to get treated in the US because the quality is good. That doesn't automatically equate to an overall efficient system, however. Our system shouldn't be measured by how well it works for those of us who can afford to take advantage of it.

I've been to many countries. I'm trying to think which one is better.

I've been to many countries. I'm trying to think which one is better. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Better in what way?

What is the greatest country in the world, then?

Womb, you seem like a fart smeller. I mean, you seem like a smart feller. When you read stuff like this, a little bit of critical thinking comes in handy.

Lets break down the few claims the article really makes.

* The rate of single parenthood is high in the US. According to the article, 1/4 of children in the US live with a single parent. The article doesn't bother to give us an idea of what the rate is in other countries, so we are left to assume it must be lower.

* The US has one of the worst infant mortality rates among industrialized nations.

* Life expectancy has fallen behind other countries.

And this is pretty much the gist of it.

So lets start with single parenthood. The article makes no effort at explaining our high rate of single parenthood. Nor does it really make any attempt at citing any data aside from the one fourth statistic. In 1964, the rate of births to unwed mothers was about 3% for whites, and 29% for non-whites (1). Today the rate is 29% among whites, 72% among blacks, and an overall average of 40% (2).

So why, in this age of access to a variety of birth control options, as well as access to safe and legal abortions, has the rate of births to single mothers skyrocketed? Well, we all know that you get what you pay for in life. It is also true, that the more you pay for something, the more of it you get. For the last 50 years, we have been paying women to have children out of wedlock, and women of all ages and races have responded abundantly.

Your article posits that the problems it lists are examples of how conservatives are killing us. I am reasonably certain that the cash for kids enterprise the government has been running for the past 50 years was a liberal idea, not a conservative one.

So lets move on. Your article also claims that the United States has fallen far behind other industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality rates. I don't blame you for believing this one. The statistics showing that the US has an abysmal infant mortality rate have been bandied about for years. The problem is, it just ain't so. Our infant mortality rate is comparable to, or better than, many of the countries we supposedly lag behind. The reason why? Well, sadly, some countries cheat. They fudge the numbers. We don't.

"Infant mortality" is defined as the number of children who die before reaching 12 months old, per 1,000 live births. The critical difference though, is how "live birth" is defined. In the United States, ALL births are recorded as a live birth if the newborn is born with a heart beat. All of them. In a number of industrialized nations, this is not the case. Infants born weighing less than 500 grams are often not recorded as live births, regardless of how long the infant survives. Fudging the numbers in this way keeps the infant mortality rate for these countries significantly lower than it would be if they recorded all births as live births, regardless of birth weight. (3)

Lastly, life expectancy has fallen behind other countries. Well, your article sort of makes that claim. Kind of. At least, it is implied in your article, because it does mention that we used to be ranked #13 for life expectancy for girls, and are now ranked #34. Again, your article is lean on facts, and long on conjecture when it comes to analyzing the how and why our life expectancy has progressed more slowly than in other countries. For instance, does "life expectancy for girls" mean infant girls who survive to childhood? Does it mean girls in general, who live to the ripe age 70, while still remaining girls? The article is not clear.

Nevertheless, the spirit of the article intends for you, dear reader, to assume that our life expectancy is abysmal compared to other countries, so lets just go with that. The article also never specifically states why our life expectancy has progressed slower than other countries, but given that it proceeds into a statement about the "obscene rate of income disparity" which the article claims stems directly from "Reagan's voo-doo economics". So I assume the article intends for me to conclude that life expectancy stagnation is tied to income inequality, even though the article never tells me why.

However, I'm willing to offer two explanations for the disparity in our life expectancy. Our homicide rate, and our obesity rate. According to one study, our homicide rate reduces our overall life expectancy by as much as 2 years (4). Furthermore, one study claims that obesity is responsible for as much as 40% of the gap between our life expectancy, and the life expectancy in countries with significantly lower rates of obesity (5). In other words, if our homicide rate and our obesity rate were comparable to other industrialized nations, our life expectancy would also be comparable, if not higher than, other industrialized nations.

Now, lets talk about homicides. The relationship between life expectancy and gun violence would make a great argument for gun control. Except, it doesn't. Canada has gun ownership rates as high as ours. Yet their homicide rate is a fraction of ours. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, yet their homicide rate is also a fraction of ours. We do have a problem with gun violence in this country. There is no question about it. But it is not gun ownership itself that is the problem. One thing we DO have that neither Canada nor Switzerland have, is a gang problem. So dealing with gangs is probably a better place to start rather than restricting law abiding citizens from owning guns.

Now, lets talk about obesity. There is also an argument to be made that poverty is directly tied to obesity because the cheapest and most affordable foods also tend to be the most fattening. I admit, that until recently, I thought this was true myself. But I am discovering that it is not in fact true.

I've been a diagnosed diabetic for almost 15 years now. Over the past year, I have had more and more difficulty keeping my blood sugars stable. It is extremely frustrating to follow what seems to be a good diet, while taking medications as prescribed, and still find myself unable to control my blood sugar. So I have been looking at food labels more carefully than ever, and many of the foods I *thought* were good choices, I discovered were not. Practically everything you buy in a grocery store is loaded with sugar. Every damned thing.

So, I have been buying more fresh fruits and vegetables, more meats, and preparing more of my foods rather than buying boxed meals, soups, and other foods I thought were Ok to eat since they were "low fat" or "low calorie". I fully expected that my grocery bill would go up as I transitioned to more whole foods, and less processed foods. However, not only has my grocery bill not gone up, I am actually spending much less at the grocery store than I used to.

So as it turns out, a diet consisting primarily of fresh produce, whole grains, lean meats, and lean dairies actually isn't more expensive after all. So, our obesity problem is not so much about economics, as it is about convenience and preference.

Citations:
1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_015.pdf
2. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...hs-roger-clegg
3. http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e746
4. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/...fe-expectancy/
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62367/

Well we were talking about inefficiency.

ONE problem with the canadian system is the wait times. BUT...it depends on where you live. Major cities like Toronto, Montreal etc etc have hospitals and clinics with unbearable waiting times. Stems mostly from a lack of doctors in the country. When the richest in the country have access to the same doctors the poor do, appointments start to fill up pretty quickly. But the same isn't true for the overwhelming majority of cities in Canada.

There are misconceptions about the American healthcare system as well. While we may have a very inefficient and costly healthcare system, the QUALITY is the world's finest. In terms of both technology and quality of doctor/patient care. So, naturally, a rich canadian would much much rather treat his mother's cancer in the U.S rather than Canada.

In terms of efficiency however, the Canadian system far surpasses ours. There's only one insurer: the government. Neither the doctors nor the patients have to go through multiple providers that are hell bent on denying you coverage. Cuts costs and time for both doctors and patients. The administrative costs in Canada are much lower than ours. Doctors often have just one assistant handling everything. You call in, get your appointment set up and that's pretty much where your headache ends. Originally Posted by shanm

Canadian Healthcare is limited. Lets don't confuse cost with treatment. Furthermore in Canada Prescription medications aren't covered, Home care or long term care isn't covered, eye care and Dental care isn't covered. Care under the Canadian system is cost effective but only at the bare minimum. If you need an ER visit for food poisoning lets say you'll get simple treatment and never be bothered with a bill. But if they send you home with a prescription that's on you if you don't have some sort of supplemental insurance. I am sure there is some good aspects along with the bad in their system But I prefer the total package where everything is covered under the same roof sort to speak. So really in all actuality Canadians still need private insurance to supplement what their Government doesn't provide. Their system to me lacks efficiency and efficacy.


Jim

Womb, you seem like a fart smeller. I mean, you seem like a smart feller. When you read stuff like this, a little bit of critical thinking comes in handy.

Lets break down the few claims the article really makes.

* The rate of single parenthood is high in the US. According to the article, 1/4 of children in the US live with a single parent. The article doesn't bother to give us an idea of what the rate is in other countries, so we are left to assume it must be lower.

* The US has one of the worst infant mortality rates among industrialized nations.

* Life expectancy has fallen behind other countries.

And this is pretty much the gist of it.

So lets start with single parenthood. The article makes no effort at explaining our high rate of single parenthood. Nor does it really make any attempt at citing any data aside from the one fourth statistic. In 1964, the rate of births to unwed mothers was about 3% for whites, and 29% for non-whites (1). Today the rate is 29% among whites, 72% among blacks, and an overall average of 40% (2).

So why, in this age of access to a variety of birth control options, as well as access to safe and legal abortions, has the rate of births to single mothers skyrocketed? Well, we all know that you get what you pay for in life. It is also true, that the more you pay for something, the more of it you get. For the last 50 years, we have been paying women to have children out of wedlock, and women of all ages and races have responded abundantly.

Your article posits that the problems it lists are examples of how conservatives are killing us. I am reasonably certain that the cash for kids enterprise the government has been running for the past 50 years was a liberal idea, not a conservative one.

So lets move on. Your article also claims that the United States has fallen far behind other industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality rates. I don't blame you for believing this one. The statistics showing that the US has an abysmal infant mortality rate have been bandied about for years. The problem is, it just ain't so. Our infant mortality rate is comparable to, or better than, many of the countries we supposedly lag behind. The reason why? Well, sadly, some countries cheat. They fudge the numbers. We don't.

"Infant mortality" is defined as the number of children who die before reaching 12 months old, per 1,000 live births. The critical difference though, is how "live birth" is defined. In the United States, ALL births are recorded as a live birth if the newborn is born with a heart beat. All of them. In a number of industrialized nations, this is not the case. Infants born weighing less than 500 grams are often not recorded as live births, regardless of how long the infant survives. Fudging the numbers in this way keeps the infant mortality rate for these countries significantly lower than it would be if they recorded all births as live births, regardless of birth weight. (3)

Lastly, life expectancy has fallen behind other countries. Well, your article sort of makes that claim. Kind of. At least, it is implied in your article, because it does mention that we used to be ranked #13 for life expectancy for girls, and are now ranked #34. Again, your article is lean on facts, and long on conjecture when it comes to analyzing the how and why our life expectancy has progressed more slowly than in other countries. For instance, does "life expectancy for girls" mean infant girls who survive to childhood? Does it mean girls in general, who live to the ripe age 70, while still remaining girls? The article is not clear.

Nevertheless, the spirit of the article intends for you, dear reader, to assume that our life expectancy is abysmal compared to other countries, so lets just go with that. The article also never specifically states why our life expectancy has progressed slower than other countries, but given that it proceeds into a statement about the "obscene rate of income disparity" which the article claims stems directly from "Reagan's voo-doo economics". So I assume the article intends for me to conclude that life expectancy stagnation is tied to income inequality, even though the article never tells me why.

However, I'm willing to offer two explanations for the disparity in our life expectancy. Our homicide rate, and our obesity rate. According to one study, our homicide rate reduces our overall life expectancy by as much as 2 years (4). Furthermore, one study claims that obesity is responsible for as much as 40% of the gap between our life expectancy, and the life expectancy in countries with significantly lower rates of obesity (5). In other words, if our homicide rate and our obesity rate were comparable to other industrialized nations, our life expectancy would also be comparable, if not higher than, other industrialized nations.

Now, lets talk about homicides. The relationship between life expectancy and gun violence would make a great argument for gun control. Except, it doesn't. Canada has gun ownership rates as high as ours. Yet their homicide rate is a fraction of ours. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, yet their homicide rate is also a fraction of ours. We do have a problem with gun violence in this country. There is no question about it. But it is not gun ownership itself that is the problem. One thing we DO have that neither Canada nor Switzerland have, is a gang problem. So dealing with gangs is probably a better place to start rather than restricting law abiding citizens from owning guns.

Now, lets talk about obesity. There is also an argument to be made that poverty is directly tied to obesity because the cheapest and most affordable foods also tend to be the most fattening. I admit, that until recently, I thought this was true myself. But I am discovering that it is not in fact true.

I've been a diagnosed diabetic for almost 15 years now. Over the past year, I have had more and more difficulty keeping my blood sugars stable. It is extremely frustrating to follow what seems to be a good diet, while taking medications as prescribed, and still find myself unable to control my blood sugar. So I have been looking at food labels more carefully than ever, and many of the foods I *thought* were good choices, I discovered were not. Practically everything you buy in a grocery store is loaded with sugar. Every damned thing.

So, I have been buying more fresh fruits and vegetables, more meats, and preparing more of my foods rather than buying boxed meals, soups, and other foods I thought were Ok to eat since they were "low fat" or "low calorie". I fully expected that my grocery bill would go up as I transitioned to more whole foods, and less processed foods. However, not only has my grocery bill not gone up, I am actually spending much less at the grocery store than I used to.

So as it turns out, a diet consisting primarily of fresh produce, whole grains, lean meats, and lean dairies actually isn't more expensive after all. So, our obesity problem is not so much about economics, as it is about convenience and preference.

Citations:
1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_015.pdf
2. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...hs-roger-clegg
3. http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e746
4. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/...fe-expectancy/
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62367/ Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Gun ownership in Canada is not on par with US. Also, did you not click on the clickable links within the article itself?

I completely agree about food being more about convenience though. With more and more things competing for our time, people don't want to bother cooking and they reach for the easy and convenient thing, which as you correctly state, is usually loaded with sugar.

Your point about homicide and obesity rates being comparable is a huge IF, pardon the pun. You might be right, but the truth of the matter is that our obesity and homicide rates are NOT comparable.

Canadian Healthcare is limited. Lets don't confuse cost with treatment. Furthermore in Canada Prescription medications aren't covered, Home care or long term care isn't covered, eye care and Dental care isn't covered. Care under the Canadian system is cost effective but only at the bare minimum. If you need an ER visit for food poisoning lets say you'll get simple treatment and never be bothered with a bill. But if they send you home with a prescription that's on you if don't have supplemental insurance. I am sure there is some good aspects along with the bad in their system But I prefer the total package where everything is covered under the same roof sort to speak. So really in all actuality Canadians still need private insurance to supplement what their Government doesn't provide.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The limitation you're talking about is mostly made up propaganda. Refer to above mentioned right wing conspiracy

Yes, you have to pay for your own prescriptions. And yes, most Canadians do need supplemental private insurance for prescriptions. However, there are reasons why this is the way it is, and reasons why this is actually the way it should be.

Firstly, prescriptions are separately insured so that the patients don't abuse the system. Heaven knows what chaos free Xanax scrips would wreak. I hope I don't need to explain this in too much detail.

Secondly, and this is more important, the costs for perscriptions is MUCH less subjective than, let's say, doctor's fees. Zytiga costs this much, and that's the price you'll pay. This relieves the insurance companies from most of the heavy subjective burdens of providing healthcare, the heavy hitters: doctors fees, room fees, ambulance fees, hospital charges etc etc. They're all already paid for. Therefore the premiums are much smaller and are very very affordable. It's not abnormal for insurance companies to charge $75 for covering an entire family. On a side note, I can confidently say that the prices of prescription drugs are much lower in Canada than the U.S. *wink wink*

In Canada, they have cut a healthy balance between necessary healthcare and wasteful spending. Unlike in the U.S, where there is absolutely no difference between the two. Sure, your dentist might require private insurance, but when is the last time you heard of some one going bankrupt from tooth decay?

What the right wingers are so ready to paint as socialism, is actually far from it. You have this basic level of healthcare provided for. If you want to go above and beyond, and have luxuries that the poor don't have, well.....fucking pay for it.

Lets break down the few claims the article really makes.
Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Damn Gollum, you writing a fucking novel over there or what?

The limitation you're talking about is mostly made up propaganda. Refer to above mentioned right wing conspiracy

Yes, you have to pay for your own prescriptions. And yes, most Canadians do need supplemental private insurance for prescriptions. However, there are reasons why this is the way it is, and reasons why this is actually the way it should be.

Firstly, prescriptions are separately insured so that the patients don't abuse the system. Heaven knows what chaos free Xanax scrips would wreak. I hope I don't need to explain this in too much detail.

Secondly, and this is more important, the costs for perscriptions is MUCH less subjective than, let's say, doctor's fees. Zytiga costs this much, and that's the price you'll pay. This relieves the insurance companies from most of the heavy subjective burdens of providing healthcare, the heavy hitters: doctors fees, room fees, ambulance fees, hospital charges etc etc. They're all already paid for. Therefore the premiums are much smaller and are very very affordable. It's not abnormal for insurance companies to charge $75 for covering an entire family. On a side note, I can confidently say that the prices of prescription drugs are much lower in Canada than the U.S. *wink wink*

In Canada, they have cut a healthy balance between necessary healthcare and wasteful spending. Unlike in the U.S, where there is absolutely no difference between the two. Sure, your dentist might require private insurance, but when is the last time you heard of some one going bankrupt from tooth decay?

What the right wingers are so ready to paint as socialism, is actually far from it. You have this basic level of healthcare provided for. If you want to go above and beyond, and have luxuries that the poor don't have, well.....fucking pay for it. Originally Posted by shanm

The limitations I mentioned are not right wing propaganda. It's just the way their system is. I am not really against a Government sponsored Healthcare system as long as I can receive the care that is optimal for my needs in every area of healthcare. The Canadian system on the surface looks great as long as you never need it or your health concerns are never serious.

Jim

The limitations I mentioned are not right wing propaganda. It's just the way their system is. I am not really against a Government sponsored Healthcare system as long as I can receive the care that is optimal for my needs in every area of healthcare. You're confusing needs with wants. Dental appointments are not a need. You won't get your wants satisfied in any corner of the world unless you're willing to pay for itThe Canadian system on the surface looks greatThey certainly have their own problems as long as you never need it or your health concerns are never serious.completely disagree right there. In fact, you're flipping the switch on this one. It's in America that healthcare is considered a privilege available only to the wealthy few. It's in America that an appendicitis emergency could cost you your life savings. You're getting it absolutely utterly wrong here. I would say that the opposite is actually true.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Agree to disagree I guess, although I'd rather let the facts speak for themselves.