U.S Health Care System
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Jan 10 2008, 02:29 PM
Actually reading all of your links points out a few things to me.
One is the first line in the "Previous Studies" comparison. I quote:
In other words, this is pretty old data in many cases. Which leads to my first point.
1. Some of the data is ancient (ie, sixteen years old in some cases) so why are we relying on it for a current argument?
2. Numbers without explanation can be made to say just about anything. What about if they investigated rare diseases that require higher levels of education, training, care and specialization? How would Canada do there?
3. Where is the new data? That would seem more pertinent.
4. Some of the comparisons were of two CITIES (not two countries). What's that supposed to prove, exactly? Local care in Detroit may not be nearly as good as local care in Toronto. A national study of major centers would be a lot more accurate.
5. They compared Manitoba to all of the USA for kidney disease. Again, not exactly a valid comparison. Manitoba has fourteen people living in it.
They also compare Ontario (big medical center in Canada) to all of the USA. Again, not exactly a valid comparison.
We have zero information on how or where the data was gathered, by whom it was gathered, and when it was gathered. We have no idea of who provided it, who asked for it, and who analyzed it. We just have some numbers that generally show Canada in a good light. We have virtually no idea if there are numbers that favour the USA but were left out of that report. For all we know, Canada is hugely poor at treating leprosy and athletes foot.
One is the first line in the "Previous Studies" comparison. I quote:
In other words, this is pretty old data in many cases. Which leads to my first point.
1. Some of the data is ancient (ie, sixteen years old in some cases) so why are we relying on it for a current argument?
2. Numbers without explanation can be made to say just about anything. What about if they investigated rare diseases that require higher levels of education, training, care and specialization? How would Canada do there?
3. Where is the new data? That would seem more pertinent.
4. Some of the comparisons were of two CITIES (not two countries). What's that supposed to prove, exactly? Local care in Detroit may not be nearly as good as local care in Toronto. A national study of major centers would be a lot more accurate.
5. They compared Manitoba to all of the USA for kidney disease. Again, not exactly a valid comparison. Manitoba has fourteen people living in it.
They also compare Ontario (big medical center in Canada) to all of the USA. Again, not exactly a valid comparison.We have zero information on how or where the data was gathered, by whom it was gathered, and when it was gathered. We have no idea of who provided it, who asked for it, and who analyzed it. We just have some numbers that generally show Canada in a good light. We have virtually no idea if there are numbers that favour the USA but were left out of that report. For all we know, Canada is hugely poor at treating leprosy and athletes foot.
Let's see your data proving that U.S. medical care is the best. You poo-pooh the many studies that I've presented, but make your claims that the U.S. is the best without presenting anything but bald assertion. I claim that all doctors in the U.S. are from the planet Mongo. It is true because I say it is true. I don't have to present any evidence to support that claim, and any evidence that you present is false. There -- I won that argument. Thanks ever so much for showing me a flawless way of winning arguments. Hey, this is fun! I claim that black is white, because I say it is. I claim that up is down, because I say it is. Don't bother showing me any evidence to the contrary, because I have asserted that it is so. What a wonderful technique!
Zeiss
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by SB2007,Jan 10 2008, 04:43 PM
What exactly does this mean... please elaborate. As a recent medical school graduate, that statement makes zero sense to me. 
Zeiss
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally Posted by zeiss,Jan 11 2008, 06:01 AM
OK, JonBoy, here's something for you to answer. Regarding the point raised, that the presence of Saudi royalty in the US proves the superiority of the American health care system over all other health care systems, does anyone here honestly think that the Sauds would be getting the same health care as the average American? Do you think that they are coming to HMOs, having profit-motivated insurance companies decide how or what treatment is going to be available to them, having to decide if they can afford to pay for treatment on their own, being without insurance and having to line up in charity wards? So, even if America were the only destination chosen by Middle Eastern potentates (which manifestly is not the case), what would this prove? Not a lot.
Zeiss
Zeiss
And you've yet to prove that the Saudis (or other wealthy groups of people) go elsewhere more often than the USA for treatment.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
JonBoy wrote:
It would prove that the best potential care is still in the USA. Regardless of how much it costs, it's still the best available. That was his point. The fact that not everyone pays for the best care or can afford the best care doesn't mean it's not the best.
And you've yet to prove that the Saudis (or other wealthy groups of people) go elsewhere more often than the USA for treatment.
And no one has proven that Saudis go to the US more often than other places for treatment. I simply pointed out that this was not a proven fact and observed that they also go to the UK and Singapore, and as support for that, gave evidence that a relative of mine is making a very, very good living arranging such medical trips to Singapore. Where is your evidence that the US is the favoured destination for such trips? This is typical of how you argue, JonBoy. Others are expected to have a burden of evidence that you consistently refuse to provide in any of your arguments, or, to put it more properly, simple assertions.
It would prove that the best potential care is still in the USA. Regardless of how much it costs, it's still the best available. That was his point. The fact that not everyone pays for the best care or can afford the best care doesn't mean it's not the best.
And you've yet to prove that the Saudis (or other wealthy groups of people) go elsewhere more often than the USA for treatment.
And no one has proven that Saudis go to the US more often than other places for treatment. I simply pointed out that this was not a proven fact and observed that they also go to the UK and Singapore, and as support for that, gave evidence that a relative of mine is making a very, very good living arranging such medical trips to Singapore. Where is your evidence that the US is the favoured destination for such trips? This is typical of how you argue, JonBoy. Others are expected to have a burden of evidence that you consistently refuse to provide in any of your arguments, or, to put it more properly, simple assertions.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
JonBoy wrote:
In short, everything you've posted has been very short, concise, and summarized. Your "data" is really just a summary of a few points of data.
Given the constraints of space here, I am not going to post entire studies of hundreds of pages each. I've listed four major studies (well, one of them a meta-study) that indicate that the U.S. health care system is not the best in the world. Your response is to claim that it is, and not provide reference to a single study that supports it. So, we could continue like this forever -- you can say "US is the best" (since simple assertion of this is the only evidence that you can muster) and I say "No it isn't". I really am not interested in that. So, once again, I invite you, JonBoy, refer us to four studies that demonstrate that the American health care system is the best in terms of outcomes for citizens.
Zeiss
In short, everything you've posted has been very short, concise, and summarized. Your "data" is really just a summary of a few points of data.
Given the constraints of space here, I am not going to post entire studies of hundreds of pages each. I've listed four major studies (well, one of them a meta-study) that indicate that the U.S. health care system is not the best in the world. Your response is to claim that it is, and not provide reference to a single study that supports it. So, we could continue like this forever -- you can say "US is the best" (since simple assertion of this is the only evidence that you can muster) and I say "No it isn't". I really am not interested in that. So, once again, I invite you, JonBoy, refer us to four studies that demonstrate that the American health care system is the best in terms of outcomes for citizens.
Zeiss
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally Posted by zeiss,Jan 11 2008, 12:05 PM
Given the constraints of space here, I am not going to post entire studies of hundreds of pages each. I've listed four major studies (well, one of them a meta-study) that indicate that the U.S. health care system is not the best in the world. Your response is to claim that it is, and not provide reference to a single study that supports it. So, we could continue like this forever -- you can say "US is the best" (since simple assertion of this is the only evidence that you can muster) and I say "No it isn't". I really am not interested in that. So, once again, I invite you, JonBoy, refer us to four studies that demonstrate that the American health care system is the best in terms of outcomes for citizens.
Zeiss
Zeiss
I would contend that you don't do it because you don't have access to it or the data to prove your point.
Until that point, really, you've got nothing. I think a few of us have shown that, at best, the data you've used is incomplete or does not give enough information to trust or accept it. Until more is forthcoming, I'd consider this pretty much a waste of our time.
You've completely missed my point that your data does not remotely or conclusively prove your side of things. That's all I need to do is show how your "proof" isn't really proof at all.
You can win, though, if it makes you feel better.
I can even validate your parking for you.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 112,963
Likes: 150
From: Doh!!
Originally Posted by zeiss,Jan 11 2008, 10:05 AM
JonBoy wrote:
In short, everything you've posted has been very short, concise, and summarized. Your "data" is really just a summary of a few points of data.
Given the constraints of space here, I am not going to post entire studies of hundreds of pages each. I've listed four major studies (well, one of them a meta-study) that indicate that the U.S. health care system is not the best in the world. Your response is to claim that it is, and not provide reference to a single study that supports it. So, we could continue like this forever -- you can say "US is the best" (since simple assertion of this is the only evidence that you can muster) and I say "No it isn't". I really am not interested in that. So, once again, I invite you, JonBoy, refer us to four studies that demonstrate that the American health care system is the best in terms of outcomes for citizens.
Zeiss
In short, everything you've posted has been very short, concise, and summarized. Your "data" is really just a summary of a few points of data.
Given the constraints of space here, I am not going to post entire studies of hundreds of pages each. I've listed four major studies (well, one of them a meta-study) that indicate that the U.S. health care system is not the best in the world. Your response is to claim that it is, and not provide reference to a single study that supports it. So, we could continue like this forever -- you can say "US is the best" (since simple assertion of this is the only evidence that you can muster) and I say "No it isn't". I really am not interested in that. So, once again, I invite you, JonBoy, refer us to four studies that demonstrate that the American health care system is the best in terms of outcomes for citizens.
Zeiss
Honda is available for the masses but if you want the very best, you fork out the dough to get the very best to get a 3-point star or a prancing horse.
the US system is geared toward capitalism, not socialism. If you want the very best money can buy, come here.
if you want good care but don't want to pay for it, go else where.
However, it's orange/apple. the cost of healthcare in Canada is indirect, ie EVERYONE is taxed so that everyone gets healthcare. Here, you don't have to pay for your neighbor's healthcare, it's his employer.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
hsxxsk wrote:
"Healthcare is a LUXURY not a right. "
This is the crux of the argument. In most industrialized countries, healthcare is a right, not a luxury. Do you honestly believe that vaccinations, treatment for diseases, etc. are luxuries? That 40 million people in the richest country in the world have no right to health -- that they can die for all you care? I find this attitude really deplorable.
Thank goodness that most of the world doesn't feel the way that you do. In Canada, we take care of our fellow citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. The lives of our poorest citizens are as valuable to us as those of our richest. And if people fall prey to catastrophic illnesses, their medical insurance doesn't run out, leaving them no alternative to losing their savings and once they are destitute, ending their treatment.
As for S2020 who claims that if you want the very best money can buy, come to the U.S., that's fine for the monied. Unfortunately, if you don't have the money to pay for the best care that money can buy, you either are completely at the mercy of profit-driven insurance companies or HMOs who override your doctor's decisions about what treatment you can get. That doesn't give you the best treatment money can buy. It gets you the best that profit-motivated companies are willing to spend.
I'm still waiting for any evidence of studies that demonstrates that health care in the U.S. is the best in the world. Anything at all.......
"Healthcare is a LUXURY not a right. "
This is the crux of the argument. In most industrialized countries, healthcare is a right, not a luxury. Do you honestly believe that vaccinations, treatment for diseases, etc. are luxuries? That 40 million people in the richest country in the world have no right to health -- that they can die for all you care? I find this attitude really deplorable.
Thank goodness that most of the world doesn't feel the way that you do. In Canada, we take care of our fellow citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. The lives of our poorest citizens are as valuable to us as those of our richest. And if people fall prey to catastrophic illnesses, their medical insurance doesn't run out, leaving them no alternative to losing their savings and once they are destitute, ending their treatment.
As for S2020 who claims that if you want the very best money can buy, come to the U.S., that's fine for the monied. Unfortunately, if you don't have the money to pay for the best care that money can buy, you either are completely at the mercy of profit-driven insurance companies or HMOs who override your doctor's decisions about what treatment you can get. That doesn't give you the best treatment money can buy. It gets you the best that profit-motivated companies are willing to spend.
I'm still waiting for any evidence of studies that demonstrates that health care in the U.S. is the best in the world. Anything at all.......