[NeedKarma]

They also ALL (every single one of them without exception) have lower cancer survival rates, lower heart condition survival rates, lower organ transplant survival rates, lower survival rates for any disease you can name, and generally worse medical outcomes for every condition. That has been shown over and over again in every study published by Lancet, AMA, the American Cancer Society, etc.

How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

[excon]

But perhaps you can explain the math to me and tell me how this patient would be served by a single-payer government system.

Hello again, El:

Guy gets sick. Guy gets operation. Government pays bill. Done.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of better systems, another example of the benefits of government health care...

Family told by NHS: Alzheimer's is not a 'health condition'

And closer to home, the VA has issued a directive that "instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices," a Clinton era "planning document" whose use was rightly suspended by the Bush administration.

The Death Book for Veterans

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Guy gets sick. Guy gets operation. Government pays bill. Done.

excon

Guy gets sick. Guy applies to the government for pre-approval of an operation. Guy is denied because the cost is too high and the amount of quality of life improvement isn't justified.

Yeah... he's done all right.

Elliot

[excon]

Guy gets sick. Guy applies to the government for pre-approval of an operation. Guy is denied because the cost is too high and the amount of quality of life improvement isn't justified.

Yeah... he's done alright.

Hello again, El:

Just so we're clear... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

But, what IS happening now, is that every day, insurance adjusters are denying medical care in the name of PROFIT. That's not hype. That's so. Your position that they pay for EVERYTHING, but the government won't, is ridiculous on its face.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Just so we're clear.... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't.... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

Ex, some conclusions are pretty easy to reach. When one of the major provisions of the plan is to have a committee determining what treatments they deem effective, it's only logical to conclude they aren't going to pay for a lot of things. And having a wife that's dealt with Medicare and Medicaid payments for along time, I know first hand how difficult it is to get them to pay anything. Why do you think so many doctors stopped taking such patients? The government doesn't pay enough to cover their costs and it's an extreme hassle to jump through all those hoops to get paid. Do you honestly think the Feds are going to get better about that once they add a couple hundred million more people to the rolls? And how many doctors, nurses and others in the field are going to walk away rather than deal with the government exclusively?

[speechlesstx]

[NeedKarma]

When one of the major provisions of the plan is to have a committee determining what treatments they deem effective, it's only logical to conclude they aren't going to pay for a lot of things.

That's right, it's good to receive a treatment that's effective. Would you rather get a treatment that's ineffective? Where did you make the illogical conclusion that they aren't going to pay for a lot of things?

[excon]

Do you honestly think the Feds are going to get better about that once they add a couple hundred million more people to the rolls? And how many doctors, nurses and others in the field are going to walk away rather than deal with the government exclusively?

Hello Steve:

I have NEVER said that there won't be rationing of health care. All I've ever said, is that insurance companies ration health care too.

It's simple economics. We've got the amount we spend, and we have the result we get. In comparison to other nations, we don't get much bang for our buck. It's MY view, that that's a MANAGEMENT problem, not a rationing problem. It LOOKS solvable. Does that mean I think government WILL solve it? No. But, who knows, I could be surprised. There's certainly NO surprise what's going to happen if we DON'T fix it.

If the government doesn't fix it, they'll ration too. But, will they do it any LESS than the private insurers do now?? NO! Is it to be any more feared than what's happening today? NO! Personally, I don't care WHO the guy works for that won't approve medical services I need.

excon

[ETWolverine]

How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

Life expectancy, as I have previously explained and you obviously have forgotten, is not a just function of medical care. It is also a function of genetics, diet, excersize, lifestyle, environment, stress, job environment, crime, CULTURE, etc.

The USA simply has the WORST DIET ON THE PLANET. (And I'm typing this one-handed as I grab another bunch of chips from the bag next to me.) We also have the highest stress levels, and the longest working hours. Our cost of living is high, and that creates high stress levels about finances. And we have more violent crime (especially murder) than any European country. Those are the factors that are driving our life expectancies.

And none of them effect MEDICAL OUTCOMES, which are PURELY a factor of medical care.

That is why the country with the best medical care can still have the lowest life expectancies.

However, as more Americans become aware of the need for a better diet, better excersize and a healthier lifestyle, our life expectancies are beginning to catch up with those of other countries. We see it happening. As Steve pointed out in #68.

NK, you really have to get off this "he lied" kick and learn to actually check your facts first. People who disagree with you are not liars. They're just better informed than you.

Oh, one more point. The USA has higher rates of preventive care than anywhere else in the world too. So your argument that "the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives" is just pure BS. More of our women get pap smears and mamograms than in any other country. More of our men get collonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings. More US citizens see their primary doctors at least once a year. More men and women get tested for diabetes. Across the board, we have better preventive medicine than you do. So your argument that you guys get better preventive care than we do and that is why you are "healthier" than us is also a crock of crap.

Source: June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Elliot




Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Life expectancy, as I have previously explained and you obviously have forgotten, is not a just function of medical care. It is also a function of genetics, diet, excersize, lifestyle, environment, stress, job environment, crime, CULTURE, etc.

So you've now chosen to use intangibles as measures of life expectancies? Ok with me. I guess I'd rather live in a country with less crime, less stress, citizens concerned with their diet and exercise, etc and still have universal health care.

The USA has higher rates of preventive care than anywhere else in the world too. So your argument that "the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives" is just pure BS. More of our women get pap smears and mamograms than in any other country. More of our men get collonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings. More US citizens see their primary doctors at least once a year. More men and women get tested for diabetes. Across the board, we have better preventive medicine than you do. So your argument that you guys get better preventive care than we do and that is why you are "healthier" than us is also a crock of crap.

Where do all those millions without insurance go for their preventative care? The ER?

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Just so we're clear... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

I know it because that is EXACTLY what is happening in Europe and Canada under these systems. I don't have to guess at it. I know it because it is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. And in the USA, the VA Medical system is doing it, the Native American Health System is doing it, and the Massachusets state-run system is doing it. We don't have that far to look to find this to be true.

But, what IS happening now, is that every day, insurance adjusters are denying medical care in the name of PROFIT. That's not hype. That's so. Your position that they pay for EVERYTHING, but the government won't, is ridiculous on its face.

Actually, no it's not. The government gets more money for letting people die, especially if they aren't paying into the system anymore. Insurance companies get more money by keeping them alive for as long as possible. This is simple economics.

And you haven't been listening. You are saying that I said things that I haven't said.

1) As I have pointed out to you, if you are willing to pay a high premium, they will cover you for 100% of anything you want.

2) As I have also pointed out to you, for those who are denied coverage and cannot pay a higher premium, they can purchase out of pocket.

3) As I have also said, for those who are denied and cannot pay out of pocket, there are additional alternatives.

4) And as I have also said, in a single payer health plan if you are denied, there is no other option.

You just don't want to hear these simple facts. You can not counter them, except to try to argue that it makes no sense, when it clearly does... nor can you deny the fact that the government is denying coverage to people right now, and other countries are denying health care to their citizens right now... even though those systems are supposed to cover everyone for everything.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Basically ET favours a system that favours the rich.

4) And as I have also said, in a single payer health plan if you are denied, there is no other option.

You repeat that like it's a common occurrence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care. I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

[ETWolverine]

So you've now chosen to use intangibles as measures of life expectancies? Ok with me. I guess I'd rather live in a country with less crime, less stress, citizens concerned with their diet and exercise, etc and still have universal health care.

Actually, these are very tangible variables. And very measurable. In fact, if you eliminate crime as a cause of death, the statistics show that we actually have longer life expectancies than you Canadians with your universal health care. But since crime IS a factor, we can't state that as a fact.

But what we CAN say is that if you see a doctor in the USA for any ailment, you've got a better chance at surviving in the USA than you do in Canada. And THAT is the only statistic that counts when measuring the effectiveness of our medical systems.

Where do all those millions without insurance go for their preventative care? The ER?

The ER in some cases. Also:

• 
  Free clinics.
• Church based charitable health programs. (Darn those evil religious groups.)
• Insurance-company-run health community care events. (Darn those evil insurance companies)
• Free community health care services offered by hospitals. (Darn those evil medical service providers.)

And many more.

Elliot

[excon]

The ER in some cases. Also:

• 
  Free clinics.
• Church based charitable health programs. (Darn those evil religious groups.)
• Insurance-company-run health community care events. (Darn those evil insurance companies)
• Free community health care services offered by hospitals. (Darn those evil medical service providers.)

And many more.

Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Basically ET favours a system that favours the rich.

I'm curious as to why when I say that if you are on government health care and the government denies your claim, you have no other option, you automatically assume that this favors the rich?

I favor a system that allows for choices OTHER THAN the health care system you are in, in case that system doesn't do what it should for you. And a GOVERNMENT SINGLE-PAYER system doesn't allow for any other options.

How is that a case of supporting a system that favors the rich?

You, on the other hand, favor a system that treats everyone like children, gives no options for individual freedom or individual choice, and prevents personal improvement of the human condition.

You repeat that like it's a common occurrence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care.

And therefore it doesn't happen, right?

I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

This last sentence makes no sense.

However, your own government's health care statistics show that people are REGULARLY denied care, forced to wait for care that is urgently needed, and many end up dying before they get the treatment that would have saved their lives. YOU may not know any of these people, but they exist (or they did until they died waiting on lines they should never have been forced to wait on).

I happen not to know anyone who has been denied care here in the USA, but government statistics that say it is happening. Does the fact that I don't know any such people make it less true?

You need to stop thinking that YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is the be-all and end-all of knowledge of the Canadian health care system. Because frankly, you're not that knowledgeable about it.

Here's my personal story: My grandmother, who died in March, had been chronically ill. She was brought to Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, NY just before she died. She was covered by PRIVATE INSURANCE, as well as Medicare. Medicare never paid a dime, but her private insurance covered every penny of her medical costs, which were rather high. The doctors in the hospital were jumping all over themselves to find out what else they could do to help her... they even wanted to trache her. My father and his siblings signed a DNR/DNI so that they would let her go easily without drawing out the inevitable.

The doctors in the hospital were jumping all over themselves to find out what else they could do to help her...

If we had been on government health care, she never would have been in the hospital in the first place. Doctors would be under orders to let her die, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE WANTED. If we had wanted the doctors to perform "heroic measures" to try to save her, we would have been denied that option, because my grandmother's utility had run out.

And I experienced the same thing THREE TIMES in the past 18 months, with three grandparents at two different hospitals. So I know it wasn't an isolated case.

I know which system I prefer. I prefer the one where the doctors are jumping all over themselves to help the patient and have to be told by the family to stop, rather than one where she would not receive care in the first place.

So if you want to compare personal experiences, I'll see your "I don't know anyone" and raise you "two grandmothers and a grandfather in the past 18 months".

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

It beats the hell out of "If you're sick and you're denied coverage by the government, just go and die."

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

You repeat that like it's a common occurence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care. I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

Do you know anyone who has been denied care by a private insurance company? No? It must not have happened then.

[speechlesstx]

That's right, it's good to receive a treatment that's effective. Would you rather get a treatment that's ineffective? Where did you make the illogical conclusion that they aren't going to pay for a lot of things?

Um, a large part of that isn't just "effectiveness" but whether they deem a treatment to be "cost-effective." That's how.

[NeedKarma]

Um, a large part of that isn't just "effectiveness" but whether or not they deem a treatment to be "cost-effective." That's how.

Ok, quote the part of the bill that says that. Link to page number and paragraph would be great.