PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ugly truth about socialized healthcare


Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 01:57 PM
The Ugly Truth About
Canadian Health Care
by David Gratzer, Summer 2007 City Journal

Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a viable health-care model. There’s no question that American health care, a mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess. Over the last five years, health-insurance premiums have more than doubled, leaving firms like General Motors on the brink of bankruptcy. Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it’s one of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005 (despite a rise in overall labor costs). Health spending has surged past 16 percent of GDP. The number of uninsured Americans has risen, and even the insured seem dissatisfied. So it’s not surprising that some Americans think that solving the nation’s health-care woes may require adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the government finances and provides the care. Canadians, the seductive single-payer tune goes, not only spend less on health care; their health outcomes are better, too—life expectancy is longer, infant mortality lower.

Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes.” Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moore’s new documentary Sicko celebrates the virtues of Canada’s socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health insurance. Some are tempted. Not me.

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately, statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by, and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult, such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too.

My book’s thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus, at a time when Canada’s population was aging and needed more care, not less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment—patients who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only solution, I concluded, was to move away from government command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented system. To capture Canadian health care’s growing crisis, I called my book Code Blue, the term used when a patient’s heart stops and hospital staff must leap into action to save him. Though I had a hard time finding a Canadian publisher, the book eventually came out in 1999 from a small imprint; it struck a nerve, going through five printings.

Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada—they characterized all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed that it was cleaner than anything in his native England. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave—when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity—15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren’t available. And so on.

But single-payer systems—confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting lists, and substandard treatment—are starting to crack. Today my book wouldn’t seem so provocative to Canadians, whose views on public health care are much less rosy than they were even a few years ago. Canadian newspapers are now filled with stories of people frustrated by long delays for care:

vow broken on cancer wait times: most hospitals across canada fail to meet ottawa’s four-week guideline for radiation
patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
back patients waiting years for treatment: study
the doctor is . . . out
As if a taboo had lifted, government statistics on the health-care system’s problems are suddenly available. In fact, government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who’d get a doctor’s appointment.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health-care scene. Standing at about five and a half feet and soft-spoken, he doesn’t seem imposing. But this accidental revolutionary has turned Canadian health care on its head. In the 1990s, recognizing the growing crisis of socialized care, Chaoulli organized a private Quebec practice—patients called him, he made house calls, and then he directly billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal, and so was private insurance.

Chaoulli gave up his private practice but not the fight for private medicine. Trying to draw attention to Canada’s need for an alternative to government care, he began a hunger strike but quit after a month, famished but not famous. He wrote a couple of books on the topic, which sold dismally. He then came up with the idea of challenging the government in court. Because the lawyers whom he consulted dismissed the idea, he decided to make the legal case himself and enrolled in law school. He flunked out after a term. Undeterred, he found a sponsor for his legal fight (his father-in-law, who lives in Japan) and a patient to represent. Chaoulli went to court and lost. He appealed and lost again. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And there—amazingly—he won.

Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent of the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter. The court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that Quebec’s charter did implicitly recognize such a right.

It’s hard to overstate the shock of the ruling. It caught the government completely off guard—officials had considered Chaoulli’s case so weak that they hadn’t bothered to prepare briefing notes for the prime minister in the event of his victory. The ruling wasn’t just shocking, moreover; it was potentially monumental, opening the way to more private medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against private insurance holds in the rest of the country for now, at least two people outside Quebec, armed with Chaoulli’s case as precedent, are taking their demand for private insurance to court.

Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even saves lives. He describes a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied with the opinion—he had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which aren’t usually seen in the disorder—the man requested an MRI. The government told him that the wait would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours—and who, after the test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.

Baker isn’t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He’s a medical broker, one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canada’s government care. Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations, privately and quickly. “I don’t have a medical background. I just have some common sense,” he explains. “I don’t need to be a doctor for what I do. I’m just expediting care.”

He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely. She’s now back at school, her hearing partly restored. “The father said, ‘Mr. Baker, my wife and I are in agreement that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,’ ” Baker recalls. “I told that story to a government official. He shrugged. He couldn’t ****ing care less.”

Not everyone has kind words for Baker. A woman from a union-sponsored health coalition, writing in a local paper, denounced him for “profiting from people’s misery.” When I bring up the comment, he snaps: “I’m profiting from relieving misery.” Some of the services that Baker brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law, but governments are loath to stop him. “What I am doing could be construed as civil disobedience,” he says. “There comes a time when people need to lead the government.”

Baker isn’t alone: other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week. Companies like MedCan now offer “corporate medicals” that include an array of diagnostic tests and a referral to Johns Hopkins, if necessary. Insurance firms sell critical-illness insurance, giving policyholders a lump-sum payment in the event of a major diagnosis; since such policyholders could, in theory, spend the money on anything they wanted, medical or not, the system doesn’t count as health insurance and is therefore legal. Testifying to the changing nature of Canadian health care, Baker observes that securing prompt care used to mean a trip south. These days, he says, he’s able to get 80 percent of his clients care in Canada, via the private sector.

Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer.

One often hears variations on Krugman’s argument—that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall, or a car accident. Such factors aren’t academic—homicide rates in the United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.

Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: “In 2002 . . . the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman, and child.” Health-care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of that. Again, the picture isn’t quite as clear as he suggests; because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn’t unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take America’s high spending on research and development. M. D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada does.

That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren’t always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses spiraling up, it will be easy for some—like the zealous legislators in California—to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that like-minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off, and promote: expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or covering all children in Medicaid.

But such initiatives would push the United States further down the path to a government-run system and make things much, much worse. True, government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs—but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment. America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home—in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:09 PM
What's up with the old a** articles?

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:14 PM
Well facts are facts regardless of yesteryear or today. Healthcare is now on Obama's agenda and we need seriously look at it.

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:16 PM
Well facts are facts regardless of yesteryear or today. Healthcare is now on Obama's agenda and we need seriously look at it.

And you think spamming the board with articles you just dug up from 2 or 15 years ago constitutes a "serious" look?

wild1
06-13-2009, 02:17 PM
2007 is an "old ass article"? It's barely 2 years old.

petegz28
06-13-2009, 02:19 PM
Wow banyon...I didn't realize Canadian healthcare has changed so much in 2 years.

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Wow banyon...I didn't realize Canadian healthcare has changed so much in 2 years.

Man you guys are right. What a great thread. What a productive and interesting discussion this has turned into.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 02:30 PM
2007 is an "old ass article"? It's barely 2 years old.

It's also NOT an argument. But a weak attempt at grasping at straws. Usually done when someone's got nuthin' to refute with.

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:35 PM
It's also NOT an argument. But a weak attempt at grasping at straws. Usually done when someone's got nuthin' to refute with.

pretty laughable coming from someone who doesn't even have the maturity to disagree about anything without putting people on fake "ignore".

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:36 PM
Take It From A Patient: Canada's System Works

by Sandy Smith Madsen

"It is unconscionable that we ration health care by the ability to pay.... your heart breaks. Health care should be a given."
-- Kathryn Anastos, U.S. physician

Although I was born and raised in Tennessee, I was served well by Canada¹s universal health-care system during the 13 years that I lived in Canada. As a legal resident, I was entitled to the same high level of health-care benefits enjoyed by all Canadian citizens. I was free to go to any doctor, anywhere, anytime.

Three of my children were born in Canada. The bill for the birth of my youngest Canadian-born daughter was $3.00. This bill covered excellent prenatal care, delivery, and a private hospital room. It included visits to my home by a nurse and by my doctor, visits that were made as follow-up care after a normal, healthy delivery. While home visits by doctors are not standard procedure, in a country that views health care as a public service, it can happen.

There are now 43.6 million Americans without health insurance and another 40 million who are under-insured. U.S. employers are cutting back on health benefits, claiming they can¹t compete as long as the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that expects employers to provide health insurance.

And the cost of insurance premiums continues to rise. Just imagine the consequences if a disease such as SARS should strike at some of our uninsured neighbors who are in the habit of taking two aspirins and waiting it out rather than seeking expensive medical care.

Little wonder that Americans are increasingly looking to Canada¹s single-payer system, and looking with envy. Yet opponents of the single-payer system recite a litany of horror stories. They charge that Canadians are "suffering and dying" while waiting for medical care. They claim that the Canadian system is a "disaster," and that it is "socialized medicine." Oddly enough, I knew nothing about these dire circumstances until after I returned to the U.S.

Canada does not have "socialized medicine." The Canadian government does not decide who gets care or when they get it; doctors and patients decide. Doctors are accountable to patients, not to the government. Most doctors are self-employed; they submit claims for payment to their provincial insurance plan. They are highly paid professionals who have considerable influence in determining their fees.

Want to see a doctor in Canada? Simply show up with your health-care card. Many Americans already know this, as they have been caught helping themselves to Canadian health care by means of counterfeit health-care cards.

Canadians are never denied care, or forced to wait for care, for lack of funds or because of a pre-existing condition. Patients requiring urgent care or primary care are never put on waiting lists. While it is sometimes necessary to wait for elective surgeries, or specialist care, if the delay is such that the patient¹s health will be harmed, all expenses are paid for the patient to access care in another location.

The United States spends almost twice the amount per person as Canada spends on health care, yet Canadians enjoy a lower infant mortality rate and a higher life expectancy. Studies in both the U.S. and Canada have found that survival rates are higher in Canada for most types of cancer.

Since Canadian health care follows you from the cradle to the nursing home, the loss of a job is not the disaster it is in the U.S. Unemployed you may be, but if you are unemployed in Canada, you still have your health care. While Canadians receive quality health care in return for their tax dollars, in the U.S we pay only slightly lower taxes and soaring health insurance premiums. With the loss of a job, all our paid premiums go up in smoke. In Canada, a major health problem does not lead to financial ruin.

Doctors seldom know if they are serving the rich or the poor. Perhaps that¹s why I found so many doctors who were genuinely responsive to my needs, rather than to my wallet.

The way my Canadian friends tell it, there are more Canadians who believe that Elvis lives than there are Canadians who want the U.S. health-care system.

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:37 PM
Usually done when someone's got nuthin' to refute with.

Like Progressive Liberals trying to push this socialized healthcare on us. They got NO evidence that it works.:spock:

wild1
06-13-2009, 02:39 PM
Man you guys are right. What a great thread. What a productive and interesting discussion this has turned into.

it never got off the ground due to your diversionary tactics... very successful, to your credit

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:39 PM
Hey guys! I posted an old unlinked article too about how great Canadian Health care is. You aren't addressing it, so you must have "nuthin to refute with".

:rolleyes:

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:40 PM
Like Progressive Liberals trying to push this socialized healthcare on us. They got NO evidence that it works.:spock:

Yeah, let's make this thread about calling people names. How interesting.

You are a poopy pants!

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:40 PM
Take It From A Patient: Canada's System Works

by Sandy Smith Madsen

"It is unconscionable that we ration health care by the ability to pay.... your heart breaks. Health care should be a given."
-- Kathryn Anastos, U.S. physician

Although I was born and raised in Tennessee, I was served well by Canada¹s universal health-care system during the 13 years that I lived in Canada. As a legal resident, I was entitled to the same high level of health-care benefits enjoyed by all Canadian citizens. I was free to go to any doctor, anywhere, anytime.

Three of my children were born in Canada. The bill for the birth of my youngest Canadian-born daughter was $3.00. This bill covered excellent prenatal care, delivery, and a private hospital room. It included visits to my home by a nurse and by my doctor, visits that were made as follow-up care after a normal, healthy delivery. While home visits by doctors are not standard procedure, in a country that views health care as a public service, it can happen.

There are now 43.6 million Americans without health insurance and another 40 million who are under-insured. U.S. employers are cutting back on health benefits, claiming they can¹t compete as long as the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that expects employers to provide health insurance.

And the cost of insurance premiums continues to rise. Just imagine the consequences if a disease such as SARS should strike at some of our uninsured neighbors who are in the habit of taking two aspirins and waiting it out rather than seeking expensive medical care.

Little wonder that Americans are increasingly looking to Canada¹s single-payer system, and looking with envy. Yet opponents of the single-payer system recite a litany of horror stories. They charge that Canadians are "suffering and dying" while waiting for medical care. They claim that the Canadian system is a "disaster," and that it is "socialized medicine." Oddly enough, I knew nothing about these dire circumstances until after I returned to the U.S.

Canada does not have "socialized medicine." The Canadian government does not decide who gets care or when they get it; doctors and patients decide. Doctors are accountable to patients, not to the government. Most doctors are self-employed; they submit claims for payment to their provincial insurance plan. They are highly paid professionals who have considerable influence in determining their fees.

Want to see a doctor in Canada? Simply show up with your health-care card. Many Americans already know this, as they have been caught helping themselves to Canadian health care by means of counterfeit health-care cards.

Canadians are never denied care, or forced to wait for care, for lack of funds or because of a pre-existing condition. Patients requiring urgent care or primary care are never put on waiting lists. While it is sometimes necessary to wait for elective surgeries, or specialist care, if the delay is such that the patient¹s health will be harmed, all expenses are paid for the patient to access care in another location.

The United States spends almost twice the amount per person as Canada spends on health care, yet Canadians enjoy a lower infant mortality rate and a higher life expectancy. Studies in both the U.S. and Canada have found that survival rates are higher in Canada for most types of cancer.

Since Canadian health care follows you from the cradle to the nursing home, the loss of a job is not the disaster it is in the U.S. Unemployed you may be, but if you are unemployed in Canada, you still have your health care. While Canadians receive quality health care in return for their tax dollars, in the U.S we pay only slightly lower taxes and soaring health insurance premiums. With the loss of a job, all our paid premiums go up in smoke. In Canada, a major health problem does not lead to financial ruin.

Doctors seldom know if they are serving the rich or the poor. Perhaps that¹s why I found so many doctors who were genuinely responsive to my needs, rather than to my wallet.

The way my Canadian friends tell it, there are more Canadians who believe that Elvis lives than there are Canadians who want the U.S. health-care system.

If you needed a serious operation done where are going ? Canada?

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:41 PM
If you needed a serious operation done where are going ? Canada?

I guess that depends. Do you have a lot of money or not?

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:42 PM
it never got off the ground due to your diversionary tactics... very successful, to your credit

What libs do when the 'substance' ain't quite there.:spock:

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:44 PM
I guess that depends. Do you have a lot of money or not?

As it stands right now and $$ is not an object. Where do you go for your operation?

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:45 PM
2007 is an "old ass article"? It's barely 2 years old.

Precisely!

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:49 PM
What libs do when the 'substance' ain't quite there.:spock:

Why didn't you write an exhaustive refutation of the article I posted?

banyon
06-13-2009, 02:50 PM
As it stands right now and $$ is not an object. Where do you go for your operation?

Why do you want to remove the reality of money from your hypothetical?

KC Dan
06-13-2009, 02:55 PM
Why didn't you write an exhaustive refutation of the article I posted?
I don't need an exhaustive refutation, just this:

Left wing welfare mom writer that spends her time with NOW and the pro-choice crowd writes an article with one fact ($3.00). Pretty fluff piece of crap with hardly any facts... At least the first posted article has some facts and real-world examples that were not just the writer's.

banyon
06-13-2009, 03:00 PM
I don't need an exhaustive refutation, just this:

Left wing welfare mom writer that spends her time with NOW and the pro-choice crowd writes an article with one fact ($3.00). Pretty fluff piece of crap with hardly any facts... At least the first posted article has some facts and real-world examples that were not just the writer's.

There were a lot of facts in that article that you didn't refute. You must have "nuthin"!11!!11

Stewie
06-13-2009, 03:11 PM
The AMA is a powerful group and has the minds of most everyone. It's all scare tactics and they're complicit in the insurance scam of, "you will die if you don't do/pay/kneel to me" scenario. 95% of all surgeries are "routine." There's nothing unique about medicine in the USA.

Baby Lee
06-13-2009, 03:17 PM
Jeeesus B-yo, you've turned into a regular SHTPRYR of late. Every time an inssue comes up you fear discussing, you start throwing out diversionary shit hoping only to derail it.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Why didn't you write an exhaustive refutation of the article I posted?

LMAO what a control personality you have.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 03:22 PM
Like Progressive Liberals trying to push this socialized healthcare on us. They got NO evidence that it works.:spock:

Comes down to, I don't want to pay for it anymore.

banyon
06-13-2009, 03:28 PM
Jeeesus B-yo, you've turned into a regular SHTPRYR of late. Every time an inssue comes up you fear discussing, you start throwing out diversionary shit hoping only to derail it.

What discussion?

It's "Man I sure hate the gubment!" "Man I hate the idea of socialized health care!" "Here's some article I found that agrees with me, isn't it great?"

What is supposed to be discussed?

"Wow I guess my level of hatred for the government and the idea of socialized health care is less than yours"

Baby Lee
06-13-2009, 03:35 PM
What discussion?

It's "Man I sure hate the gubment!" "Man I hate the idea of socialized health care!" "Here's some article I found that agrees with me, isn't it great?"

What is supposed to be discussed?

"Wow I guess my level of hatred for the government and the idea of socialized health care is less than yours"

I've tried this, and you'll just have to trust me, it works. When I don't want to discuss something, . . . I don't discuss it.

Give it a try.


OTOH, if I don't want anyone to discuss something, why, simply declining to participate won't suffice. What if they decide to discuss it without me. Geez, better put on my SHTSPRYR footiejammies a raise a wail and a ruckus and get the loonies all riled about ancillary stuff. Hopefully they'll tire themselves out before reason or burgeoning concensus rears it's head.

banyon
06-13-2009, 03:37 PM
I've tried this, and you'll just have to trust me, it works. When I don't want to discuss something, . . . I don't discuss it.

Give it a try.


OTOH, if I don't want anyone to discuss something, why, simply declining to participate won't suffice. What if they decide to discuss it without me. Geez, better put on my SHTSPRYR footiejammies a raise a wail and a ruckus and get the loonies all riled about ancillary stuff. Hopefully they'll tire themselves out before reason or burgeoning concensus rears it's head.

No danger of that happening so far in this thread, it appears.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 04:01 PM
anti gov this or that beats ass licking state power.

Baby Lee
06-13-2009, 04:03 PM
anti gov this or that beats ass licking state power.

[banyon]Newt Gingrich is your boyfriend. . . . GOOOOO Gettem Girl!!!![/by]

banyon
06-13-2009, 04:03 PM
anti gov this or that beats ass licking state power.

Yeah, BL, thread was really going somewhere before I got involved, huh?

Truly erudite, it's like William F. Buckley and George Will in a roundtable in here.

***SPRAYER
06-13-2009, 06:49 PM
Yeah, BL, thread was really going somewhere before I got involved, huh?

Truly erudite, it's like William F. Buckley and George Will in a roundtable in here.

Get lost you commie piece of shit.

ILChief
06-13-2009, 08:21 PM
with their crappy govt healthcare they seem to live longer than us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 08:29 PM
with their crappy govt healthcare they seem to live longer than us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
That says nothing about their medical system more of which is lo-tech than ours.

That's their lifestyle, including food and diet which are healthier than ours.
Obesity is a major problem in the US and a cause of many health problems. Not so much there. Even their hips are narrower than Americans.

And as far as infant mortality goes ours is lower due to crack babies.

KC Dan
06-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Need big boobs, gastric bypass surgery? Our soon to come Health system may be your ticket. It works well for British fatties.

"These days you can easily get a nose and boob job done if you know how to screw the system.
All you have to do is claim that your big conk or large or small breasts are leaving you psychological scarred. "

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/smeato/2476039/Smeato-column.html

banyon
06-14-2009, 09:10 AM
That says nothing about their medical system more of which is lo-tech than ours.

That's their lifestyle, including food and diet which are healthier than ours.
Obesity is a major problem in the US and a cause of many health problems. Not so much there. Even their hips are narrower than Americans.

And as far as infant mortality goes ours is lower due to crack babies.

Our health care system is pretty low tech too for those with inadqeuate insurance.

ILChief
06-14-2009, 09:31 AM
That says nothing about their medical system more of which is lo-tech than ours.

That's their lifestyle, including food and diet which are healthier than ours.
Obesity is a major problem in the US and a cause of many health problems. Not so much there. Even their hips are narrower than Americans.

And as far as infant mortality goes ours is lower due to crack babies.

like the French who eat cheese like it's going out of style, smoke like chimneys, and drink like fish and yet still outlive us?

googlegoogle
06-23-2009, 03:59 PM
Medicare is bankrupt.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2009, 04:10 PM
"It is unconscionable that we ration health care by the ability to pay.... your heart breaks. Health care should be a given."
-- Kathryn Anastos, U.S. physician


Then work for free Kathryn.

Baby Lee
06-23-2009, 04:30 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2221031/?from=rss

Mojo Jojo
06-23-2009, 04:39 PM
like the French who eat cheese like it's going out of style, smoke like chimneys, and drink like fish and yet still outlive us?

Sorry, but you are wrong on two of your three statements. The to the French is that they do it in very low moderation. You may eat cheese ate every meal, but you eat two small pieces. They do drink wine...actually can be very good for you, but it is two glasses a day, and no going out to get drunk on the weekends. In America we put cheese or "cheese food product" on just about everything. We go out to get drunk at ball games or just hanging with out friends.

penchief
06-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Like Progressive Liberals trying to push this socialized healthcare on us. They got NO evidence that it works.:spock:

Where are all the Canadians up in arms about their system? Everything I ever hear from Canadians is that they are very content with their health care. Self-serving interests in this country continue to lie about how Canadians really feel about it.

Face it. Their system is superior when it comes to administering health care. Our system is superior when it comes to generating corporate profits.

Mojo Jojo
06-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Where are all the Canadians up in arms about their system? Everything I ever hear from Canadians is that they are very content with their health care. Self-serving interests in this country continue to lie about how Canadians really feel about it.

Face it. Their system is far superior to our own.

Yet Canadians are coming to the US everyday to get healthcare, so they do have to wait for life threatening conditions to get treatment. The pacific northwest and upstate NY are full of doctors with Canadian patients lined-up out the door. In Canada if you blow out your knee playing a pick up game of basketball you should get your MRI within 6 to 10 months.

penchief
06-23-2009, 05:20 PM
Yet Canadians are coming to the US everyday to get healthcare, so they do have to wait for life threatening conditions to get treatment. The pacific northwest and upstate NY are full of doctors with Canadian patients lined-up out the door. In Canada if you blow out your knee playing a pick up game of basketball you should get your MRI within 6 to 10 months.

I live in upstate NY, my one brother in Buffalo NY, and my other in Rochester NY. Both major cities right on the border. I tend to believe that your claims are exaggerated since I've never heard of this epidemic of Canadians seeking health care in NY.

Can you provide some data? I listen to Canadian radio a lot and they sound pretty content. In fact, they seem to get pretty tired of the lies being spewed about their system. I'm going to believe what I hear from them before I believe propaganda from the right in this country.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2009, 05:27 PM
like the French who eat cheese like it's going out of style, smoke like chimneys, and drink like fish and yet still outlive us?

You're wrong...and I've been to France. The food servings are much smaller than ours. As one French girl who'd been to the states says, your portions are huge. They eat a small piece of cheese. They're cheese is better quality too with some of them not being made from pasteurized milk. That has good things in it for you that help your digestion. And most of your immuity is in your gastro intestinal tract. And the wine has grape seed extract in it which undoes the damage of free radicals.Very potent chemicals.

Ever see the Europeans? They're slim....they have narrower hips. They don't have our obesity. Most of our health issues stem from this one thing alone. They are SHOCKED by what they see here.

Mojo Jojo
06-23-2009, 05:56 PM
I live in upstate NY, my one brother in Buffalo NY, and my other in Rochester NY. Both major cities right on the border. I tend to believe that your claims are exaggerated since I've never heard of this epidemic of Canadians seeking health care in NY.

Can you provide some data? I listen to Canadian radio a lot and they sound pretty content. In fact, they seem to get pretty tired of the lies being spewed about their system. I'm going to believe what I hear from them before I believe propaganda from the right in this country.

As far as upstate NY goes I have a good friend from High School who practices just outside of Buffalo. About half of his patients are Canadian, and he loves to say that he could reject all American patients and just make a living off the Canadians. I don't have any published stats...just the word of a good friend who is living the scenario.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2009, 05:59 PM
As far as upstate NY goes I have a good friend from High School who practices just outside of Buffalo. About half of his patients are Canadian, and he loves to say that he could reject all American patients and just make a living off the Canadians. I don't have any published stats...just the word of a good friend who is living the scenario.

I'm surprised this board is letting you get away with citing a friend or using anecdotal evidence. I believe ya' because I had a Canadian babysitter whose father did the same. I know a Canadian copywriter who uses the American system too.

Mojo Jojo
06-23-2009, 06:10 PM
I'm surprised this board is letting you get away with citing a friend or using anecdotal evidence. I believe ya' because I had a Canadian babysitter whose father did the same. I know a Canadian copywriter who uses the American system too.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you are citing things you hear on Canadian Radio and at the same time site two cases you personally know of that back up my friend. I don't do his books...maybe he is a lying bastard, but I just passed along what I have been told. Just as you did.

banyon
06-23-2009, 06:16 PM
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you are citing things you hear on Canadian Radio and at the same time site two cases you personally know of that back up my friend. I don't do his books...maybe he is a lying bastard, but I just passed along what I have been told. Just as you did.

You didn't draw any broad-based crazy conclusions from your anecdote and weren't in the middle of having a controversial opinion challenged. It's pretty different, and people are certainly free to relate their personal experiences, it's a part of what this board is about. Of course understanding that contextual difference would have been a matter of logic for her to differentiate them, so I guess it's not really a surprise. The persecution complex truly does tend to conflate reality for people (hey I used an anecdote!).

banyon
06-23-2009, 06:27 PM
Yet Canadians are coming to the US everyday to get healthcare, so they do have to wait for life threatening conditions to get treatment. The pacific northwest and upstate NY are full of doctors with Canadian patients lined-up out the door. In Canada if you blow out your knee playing a pick up game of basketball you should get your MRI within 6 to 10 months.

Yeah, and they probably pass people going in the opposite direction every day who are going to get their prescriptions filled.

googlegoogle
06-23-2009, 07:13 PM
Yeah, and they probably pass people going in the opposite direction every day who are going to get their prescriptions filled.

thats not refuting what he said on the bad healthcare.

Canada gets away with low priced prescriptions but so do other countries and 3rd world countries with US drug company approval.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/38/16/6-a

How many drug discoveries come out of Canada?

googlegoogle
06-23-2009, 07:20 PM
The republicans are to blame for some of this mess.

We don't have a true 'FREE MARKET' system in healthcare.

Opening up prices by publicizing them would generate 'lower' prices due to competition.

Stopping the barrier to entry in to the medical field would lower prices too. You don't need an expensive doctor to work on some skin condition or minor cut.

banyon
06-23-2009, 07:28 PM
thats not refuting what he said on the bad healthcare.

Canada gets away with low priced prescriptions but so do other countries and 3rd world countries with US drug company approval.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/38/16/6-a

How many drug discoveries come out of Canada?

Are you the "googlegoogle" guy?