I think first we would need to define what "good" healthcare is.

No long waits?
Affordable fees?
100% insurance coverage?
Top-notch, qualified providers?
Newest technology?

It would be nearly impossible to find all these qualities in 1 place.

 

Evidently, you haven't read these studies, which are largely based on health care outcomes -- infant mortality, survival rates for operations and other medical treatments for specific illnesses, life expectancy, years of life spent with good health. The emphasis is on outcomes, not techniques. So, for example, the U.S. may have shorter waiting times for certain procedures to treat certain illnesses, but more people don't have access to those procedures at all, resulting in higher death rates for those illnesses. In that case, shorter waiting times isn't a plus, if it is only for a select few in the population, because more Americans are dying from non-availability of treatment than they are in other countries. Outcomes are the only reliable measurement of the quality of a health care system -- the one that produces the best health and longest life in a population is the best one.

 

US is #1 in lawsuits (usually by uninsured patients looking for their 40 acres and a mule) = High cost of medical care and high cost of insurance, resulting in fewer people being able to afford insurance and basic medical care = high infant mortality rate, etc.

US has a the BEST medical training in the world = over 3 million medical school applicants from foreign countries and only ~ 500 accepted to ~104 medical schools.

US is #1 in crack usage, meth usage, and McDonald's eating fat slobs (> 25% are obese) = High infant mortality rate

US is #1 in the world for $$$ donated to foreign countries (> $300 million per WEEK) = the improvements in THEIR health care (and they don't sue every time they get a hangnail caused by the doctor, nurses, hospital, etc. so mediacl care is cheap).

US high more vehicles per capita than anywhere in the world = more deaths from automobile accidents (a large number of these caused by drunk/high drivers. Not many people dying in a "head-on mule" collisions).

US is #1 in the world for gang related deaths (and shootings)= high minority mortality rates

US is #1 for the number of illegal guns = high minority mortality rate (when is the last time you heard of a "gallop by stabbing" as opposed to the common "drive by shootiing" in the US)

I have a solution to your problem.

1) Don't waste your hard earned $$$ on US medical insurance and medical care.
2) Fly to Mexico ever time you need to see a doctor.
3) With the $$ you save, you'll be able to retire early and move to Mexico and enjoy all the freedom and luxuries they have to offer. You had better hurry, because I heard Mexico is going to build a high fence along their entire border to keep those pesky US citizens from invading their country and taking advantage of their world class medical facilities (that US taxpayers likely paid for).

 

I'm definitely not stepping up to defend Canada and bash the US, but I have a serious preference for Canadian healthcare. The reason for the lack of delays in the US is that healthcare is only available to those who can afford it (ie. the middle to upper class). The delays in Canada result from the completely open accessibility of care to everyone regardless of social position, income, etc. I'm a huge fan of that.

I believe the quality of care you receive is basically comparable between the two countries, though Canada actually does have some of the highest standards anywhere to ensure the qualifications of doctors and medical staff.

To summarize: US healthcare is good for those with the money to afford sufficient coverage. Canadian healthcare is good for anyone regardless of financial status, as long as you can wait a little longer.

BTW, JonBoy, I don't think it's exactly common for anyone to not get life-saving surgery because of delays. I'm curious to know why you said that.

 

I describe my experiences and personal knowledge. The "socialist" rant is pointless, as the US system uses significant socialist values as well.

In BC- Privatized testing labs take the analysis out of the hospital and induces significant delays in reporting due to physical handling and transport delays.

Broke my thumb, had to wait 2 hours in hospital to get a call doctor to show up at the hospital to get me released. They would not x-ray, because the HOSPITAL's Xray tech was sick.... They would not let me go once I had signed in (and figured out what a freakin' mess it was with no available staff). Good luck in a real accident...

Until recently, Calgary a city of 800k+ has 1 operational CT scanner.

The Canadian blood supply was knowingly contaminated and they gave it for transfusions..anyways.

The SARS issue in Toronto showed the most egregious hospital nosocomial infection problems this side of Haiti.

I can go on, but of course I'm sure it is cheaper to run that kind of system. So, sure I can run the stats any way you want. The US is much more expensive, and I can get an MRI or CT scan in a couple of hours in a small town. I can get a doctor in an ER. I can get the CDC to assess and contain a disease outreak without killing the staff...

The cost per patient/lifetime in the US is really high in comparison to most places because there is a willingness to treat (somtimes overwillingness granted)

 

I happen to know a number of people that waiting months and years to see specialists and get surgery. I said it because I know it to be true.

As I mentioned, try getting a transplant or major surgery done "in a hurry". You can't get it unless you are very lucky. Why? There are waiting lists for each specialist and you rarely have to see just one.

Emergency surgery (ie, you come in on a gurney, completely unconscious, you've had a heart attack, and they can only save you with immediate surgery) is different than life-saving surgery planned ahead of time. You'd be surprised how long it takes to get it in Canada because there are too many "emergencies" that take precedence.

 

And the Canadian system has gone to partial private, with all sorts of additional fees for better service (at least in AB).

Instead of these straw arguments, how about support for a system that emphasizes no cost preventative care?

 

Outcomes? If you blew up all our fast food joints and forced exercise on us our outcomes would improve. We are some of the least healthy people on Earth, as a group. Viewed that way our medical system is doing better than you think.

Non-availability of treatment? Capitalism is not a rant, it is a way of life. You seem to think everyone is entitled to "certain procedures." We disagree. Earn your way in this world or find yourself in the next.

 

Greenlight, thanks for providing another example of the kind of specious reasoning that I was complaining about. I don't have the energy to deal with all of your unsubstantiated allegations, but I'll tackle the few that amused me the most.

1) you claim that the U.S. has the best medical training in the world. Can you cite any studies demonstrating U.S. superiority in terms of training over Canada, France, the UK, etc.? Or do you feel that simply asserting this proves your point? Are you aware that the system of training in the U.S. was patterned after that established by William Osler at Johns Hopkins, based on the system of training that was used in medical schools in Canada? Are you aware that the education programs in the new "Surgeon/Researcher" medical discipline that is in most major medical schools in the U.S. are patterned after the first one that was established about twenty years ago at the University of Toronto? I'm eager to hear you cite studies, statistics, etc. that prove that American medical education is superior, not just popular.

2) You claim that since the U.S. is #1 in the world for the amount of money donated to foreign countries (it isn't per capita), other countries' medical systems use that money. First of all, most U.S. foreign aid is in military hardware. Secondly, do you honestly expect that we will believe that the dozens of industrialized countries with health care systems giving superior outcomes to the U.S. are doing it with U.S. foreign aid? That the French, UK, Canadian, Singaporian, German, etc. medical systems would collapse into third world standards without being propped up by U.S. cash? I'll be chuckling about this one for hours.

3) Why are you comparing the U.S. to Mexico? We were comparing it to Canada, France, the UK and other industrialized countries. Did you look at the first post on this thread containing the study on which this discussion is based? Or the other studies cited? I'm sure that the U.S. also does well in comparison to Burkina Faso and Afghanistan. If you are lowering the bar, why stop at Mexico? And what makes you think that poor Mexicans are streaming over the border to the U.S. for the health care, rather than for jobs that are not available to them in Mexico? Where is your empirical evidence to back your claim? And even if it was true, what relevance would this have to the claim that the U.S. health care system is more expensive and has poorer outcomes than a long list of industrialized countries?

Keep those zingers coming, guys. Your reasoning is hilarious.

 

[QUOTE=zeiss,Jan 10 2008, 11:58 AM]Things are going from bad to worse.