gogul: ummmmmmmmmm......I was being facetious.

(V): Just because you don't like the message it doesn't follow that it isn't true. Facts are facts. There's no wiggle room. The UK system is a huge mess. Waiting lists, underserving, poor equiptment, lack of trained professionals, the list goes on. There's not one public service that the Feds run that isn't bankrupt in the US. There's no efficient model anywhere in the world that's based on any government run system.

Übergeek 바둑이: Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source for accurate facts. Anyone can data mine for specifics to support one's position (see Jules post below). It makes no difference if medical care is available to everyone unless the delivery of the medical care isn't substandard. In the US, cancer screening is far superior than to that of the UK. Perhaps that's why our cancer survivor rates are superior to those in the UK.

In the US, medical care is available to everyone, regardless of one's ability to pay. Basic health care is there for everyone. You can't legally turn away a person in need just because they can't pay. And there are many free clinics throughtout the US. Does the system need improving? But certainly not the overhaul that Obama is suggesting. He can't pay for it. All one needs is a quick peek at other government run public service systems. They are ALL bankrupt. The US government can't run anything properly because they get to muddled up in the rules. Then they pile on more administrators and get more rules and along the way, there are cost overruns, fraud, and long waiting lines.

If anything, the UK needs to begin to break away from their government's monopoly of the health care industry. But they employ so many people in this huge bureaucracy they can't afford to close it down. It would put too many out of work. Is it all bad? Probably not. But it's bad enough so that any thinking person would stay away from modeling a new system after the failed UK system.

In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access. They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put, they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out according to strict rules.

Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under the Canadian system). In British Columbia health care costs are is 42% of the government's budget. It's projected to rise to 80 to 90 percent in coming years.

Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising costs with no end in sight. This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice. But practice and theory are very far apart.

Bernice:

> does that mean that Americans are more unhealthy than Canadians or
> does it mean the wages are higher in the USA

In my post I indicated that the statistical data is sketchy. some cancers are better in the US, others in Canada. It is not a reflection of one system being truly better than the other.

The problem with this is that sometimes health factors are not related to the healthcare system, or even to income. The US has a higher incidence of diabetes and heart disease than Canada. That is due to some differences in diet and lifestyle more than the healthcare system. Certain diseases are genetic too, and income is not related to incidence or survival rate of the disease.

In some parts of the US incomes are high, and in others low. Medicaid was meant to equalize some of that income disparity, but so far it has not been enough.

The US spends more on health care than any other country in the world, but the accounting on expenditure includes private insurance costs. Once one looks at the public (government) spending per capita, other countries certainly spend more. Some have slightly better health care systems, others do not. I see no real correlation, other than slightly higher infant and child-before-five mortality rates in the US compared to developed countries with publicly funded health care.

Artful Dodger:

> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now, that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter of common sense.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Another big source of complaints come from rich people who feel that private clinics and hospitals would let them get their procedures done sooner. Rich people get the same treatment as everyone else, so they feel frustrated because they cannot use their money as leverage to get operations sooner. This is where myths such as "Canadians going to the US" comes from. They want to get to the top of the list, and the system couldn't care any less if they are rich or not.

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

The most common form of supplemental coverage is the Blue Cross, which operates in a semi-private form. Many employers offer that supplemental coverage as part of an employee benefits plan.

Low income families get supplemental coverage through the welfare system. A welfare card will allow low income families to get free access to drugs, dental care, etc.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system. However, that complain comes from people who want to see lower taxes. Are the costs out of control? It depends on the state of the economy. During recessions we hear a lot of complaints. During the oil boom, you hardly heard any complaints because the government was running a surplus.

> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same treatment. If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life, and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system. Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

I won't say Canada is perfect. There is no perfect system. Every country is got its problems. Sweden has a very interesting model and it is highly successful. I used to think healthcare here was good until I went to Austria. I was extremely impressed with the quality of service there.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh Boy....I can't wait for Jules to come on...From "god's own Country"..nothing can compare to the UK.
I would love to know where he lives and exactly what his standards are.

If everything is as good as he says, why is it that poor Snoopy doesn't recognise or understand what country he is talking about LOL.....

I can understand he thinks his "country" is the best at everything but he does take it a bit too far.

Übergeek 바둑이:  Many Americans are being brainwashed by the big insurance cos. & their pawns.  They are being fed countless distortions about the systems in Canada, the UK & elsewhere because the insurance cos. have bought off the media, commentators & many of the politicians.  For this reason, you see so much fear & hysteria at town hall meetings that many of them can't be conducted in a civilized manner.

Artful Dodger: ... what facts? Please explain!! As for the MEP... his party do not support him on what he's saying about the NHS. All major parties here support the NHS, David Cameron says it transformed his son's life who was born with cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

Waiting lists... why is it every time some org sets up a clinic in the USA for those waiting for medical treatment, there is a very long queue? And even though the USA does not collect data on waiting times in it's country (which other countries do) from what is collected..

""In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

Paul Krugman - New York Times July 16, 2007........

[N]ot all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.

This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. ''It was only later,'' writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, ''that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments.''

He adds, ''I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero.''

...... explain this please!!

Bernice: No... the UK is not perfect. But, due to our openness and to some extent our ability to complain (Something you guys in Australia still carry on from your UK heritage) .. can make a big difference.

We are encouraged to give feedback.

... we can even get laws named after ourselves.

Many Americans are being brainwashed by the big insurance cos. & their pawns.  They are being fed countless distortions about the systems in Canada, the UK & elsewhere because the insurance cos. have bought off the media, commentators & many of the politicians.  For this reason, you see so much fear & hysteria at town hall meetings that many of them can't be conducted in a civilized manner.

Ferris Bueller: it's impossible for one brain to know about everything the elites are trying to hide. Switzerland was confronted with a blackmail from a certain economical attitude. Meanwhile there is no doupt about that the strategies of the past years are MUCH more than a failure. Big corporations are able to blackmail governments, and it serves the biggest theft in history. I'm sorry for every noisy town hall meeting, but the responsable people hide and don't care about the peoples feelings.

It is absolutly clear to me that the promises of the pro globalisators were lies. The global development shows the failure, and the character of the promoters of globalisation show the theft.

One problem in the care is that universities ate bought as well, it's a full partnership in between universities and powerful corporations. Today there is no university in the world willing to explore that 'intellectual property' in lots of medication is a theft as well. I'm sure that lots of patents belong to general knowledge. Historians with access to fine libraries can prove this.

(V): Now that is a sweet post. GB is a orchestred governing. Opposition is completely non-parliamentary. Now a British elitist answers, well that's done like this since ages, sounding much like someone who has never heard about something called real life.

(V): you still talk crap.... ***shakes head***

Ferris Bueller: Instead of brainwash, use *public relations*, PR. It's the job of PR-agencies to work for their clients advantage. They do everything to keep their client. Creating a good reputation, and if the reputation has gotten bad, they find something else to keep on with it. And why shouldn't I call this evil.

Bernice: Really... in what way.. can you be specific???

gogul: I never said opposition is completely non-parliamentary. It's a mix.

(V): Yes. I say that the mix is orchestred.

gogul: No. too many groups and individuals to orchestrate.

Übergeek 바둑이: It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.



I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage, but by access, he is referring to the amount of time it may take to get any specific treatment.

IE, if you are stuck on a long wait for a procedure in Canada, compared to the US, then he would argue that your access is an issue with your health care system, compared with the US

Czuch:

> I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage

I was trying to get to the fact that here in Canada it does not matter if you are rich or not. The coverage AND the waiting list are theoretically the same. In practice there is some disparity between the rich and the poor because no system is perfect; however, the poor do get good coverage and comparable service.

I am curious to know how coverage and waiting lists compare for people who receive Medicaid compared to those that have private insurance. For example, are all procedures covered in a standard private insurance policy covered by Medicaid too? If all procedures are covered the same, is the waiting time the same for Medicaid patients? In many cases the answer has been "no, they are not the same". This puts poor people at a disadvantage, and I think that is where the debate on Medicaid s coming from.

(V): Absolutely not. Even if MPs start a total turmoil among them self, it is to protect priviledges, not only their own ones.

Übergeek 바둑이: I am curious to know how coverage and waiting lists compare for people who receive Medicaid compared to those that have private insurance


It does not matter what type of coverage you have or if you have no coverage, the waiting time is the same for all groups.


This puts poor people at a disadvantage,


Well, if medicare puts poor people at a disadvantage, then why are we being pushed into more government sponsored care?

Medicare sucks compared to private insurance, so the solution is to get everyone into the same crappy system, so at least we all get crappy care together????

gogul: I'm talking in terms of all the various groups and individuals.. Not just MP's. From the tax payers alliance to RNLI, to the rotary club, to the RSPCA, to the small groups, to the people who get laws changed by saying "this needs sorting".

No-one can control a whole population.. if you believe they can.. I'm sorry but that is a fantasy.

Czuch: How do you know it sucks so much Czuch.. where are the stats?

Ahhh there isn't any formal ones. Hmmmmmmm

And if private companies are refusing treatment if they think they can get away with it... well I see certain defenders of your current system going on about "death panels"... I guess the USA invented them??

(V): Of course nobody can control a whole population and much less an awaken population. I write about the government and priviledges. Both, government and priviledges are not for real, outlived. That's why in the chambers of parliaments you don't see politics, but a danse macabre. The troubles in may were ridiculous, were opium for the people. We are talking about trillions and voyaging coffee beans.

I'll repeat till I fall that our elites got slated.

Bernice: makes me wonder sometimes to..lol

but Jules lives in the rich South
while us poor Northerns are the poor relations

my next door neighbour husband died a couple of months ago on route to hospital in an ambulance
the ambulance driver decided en route that he was fed up of doing over time so he went by ambulance depot and clocked off still with patient on board
so there was a delay of over 7 mins whilst the shift change took place and reaching the hospital hence the patient on board died
he may of course have died anyway we will never know for sure but my point is from the top notch doctors to the cleaners of the hospitals
are overworked poorly paid and thousands leave every year to work in the private sector


http://ts18.gazettelive.co.uk/2009/06/medics-speak-out-over-colleagues-detour.html

Approximately 1.3 million people were employed in the NHS in England in
September 2005 on a headcount basis. This represents an increase of 34,300
since 2004 and an average increase of over 38,000 per year since 1997.

(V): This is about 3% more employees every year. Is there somewhere something like a profile of where these new jobs get created? It would be to get an idea in which direction the NHS was heading the past years en passant.

Übergeek 바둑이:
> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now,
that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here
anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a
billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are,
everyone is covered.

No, that is NOT completely wrong.  Access to Canada's health care system IS the biggest problem in their health care system.  You should know this.  It's not that people don't have access, they do.  But they  regularly have to wait and wait and wait for certain procedures.  This information is from a Canadian doctor given during an interview.  There are waiting lists in Canada and a dog can get an MRI faster than a human.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The
system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how
urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation
takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter
of common sense.

Exactly.  Thanks for proving my point here.  Access is a problem.  My doctor and I decide on my degree of importance.  And if I want to see a doctor, I simply make an appointment.  If I need a procedure, I get it.  The "system" has nothing to say about it. 

And it's not as simple as you state it.  It's not about a child needing a heart operation vrs and old person needing care for their bunions.  You've stacked the deck with your example.  In the US, the child needing a heart operation will be served but so will the old fart needing medical care for bunions.  BOTH are important.  Care is care and we can do both.  But in Canada, as you point out, there is rationing because access to care is limited.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are
coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of
certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting
lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Yep, access is a problem

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The
Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few
companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and
certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

A company that offered insurance would be a private insurer.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry
their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental
coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

Except that it's true.  Canada's health care doesn't cover everything and so 70% of the people have supplemented the lack of coverage with private coverage.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This
is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system.

The cost keep rising and demand a great percentage of the budget.  Something has to give.  It can't be sustained so to help control costs, access is limited (via rationing).


> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I
disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a
billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same
treatment.

This fact alone doesn't define the entire system.  As a system, it simply doesn't work well in practice.

If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life,
and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system.
Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

But they don't have a right not to contribute to help pay for the system which is precisely what Obama is proposing.   And don't be fooled, the history of the world is the history of economic discrimination and inequality.  The geek down the street makes twice the money I make.  I probably work twice as hard.  There never has been a world were everyone is equal. 

(V):  I've already explained the facts.  See below.

(V):  Krugman is a far left loon.  He's no expert.  Data mining isn't always accurate.  Anyone can find someone to quote that supports their view. 

Artful Dodger: Facts?? where are they?????

Prove my data wrong then rather then just keep calling people you don't like the views of "loon".

And seeing as you are no expert, what makes you right?

Snoopy: Ooooop north poor relations.

.... incidents of stupidity I thought was a global thing, let alone a regional event.

Artful Dodger: If the Canadian health system is so bad...

... why is the life expectancy longer in Canada, and the infant mortality rate lower then the USA?

(V): Jules, I'm just playing by your rules.  I've stated the facts you just choose to ignore them.

Artful Dodger: You are stating your opinions are facts... back em up them. You ask me to do so.. so I can ask you the same

(V):  Nope.   Not my opinions.  Facts. 

Artful Dodger: oooooo pantomine time....

Ohhhhh no they are not!!

(V):

Artful Dodger: Great post to chew at

.... incidents of stupidity I thought was a global thing, let alone a regional event.

(V): whAt are you saying by this. Lets start your point with regional wealth differences if you want.

U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

If the Canadian health system is so bad..

(V): Its not that bad or is it a total crap. We'd like to know.

This was from Czuch earlier: I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage, but [and etc.] ..

I'm really wondering about the new jobs profile of the NHS. Not only about the professions but also the regional coverage and allocation. It happens that distributions happen to be a game of political intentions ya know?

gogul: 

Artful Dodger: Nice post AD... I never did challenge Vs assertions on this matter, but I always wondered how we could be so low on the list???

This makes a lot more sense to me now

Czuch:  Thanks.  Even if Jules assertion was true, it certainly doesn't follow that the US health care system is the corresponding factor for the higher death rates.   Even so, it's clear that Jules comment is misleading.  It's a conclusion that isn't based on full disclosure.  All factors need to be equal and clearly, other countries have different standards in determining infant mortality.  Like a dentist who claims his patients have fewer cavities but then it's discovered he doesn't count children under 12 or patients over 20.  And he only counts every other tooth. ;)

Artful Dodger: The comparison on births was between USA and Canada. Have you a breakdown on there method of data collection rather then Europe.

And of the CIA World Factbook, produced for your government?

I don't think that GB is on a moral higher ground as Libya (govts that is). Same goes for Switzerland. Just think about the awful foodcapitalism of Nestlé, or the British Gibraltar partyzone to give examples. Stop the hyprocrisy.

GB is sending back home Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and is talking of a humanitarian gesture. Do you believe that? The third world has justified claims toward the "developed" countries. It's about time that our govts get real. I promised to the Swiss people that we will be ashamed to be Swiss. I repeat this promise.