Ferris Bueller: Both Czuch and I have admitted to the US having its faults. No country is perfect. But to isolate one factor (a flawed one at that) to make a point regarding US health care shows the weakness in one's argument, not a strength.

Pedro Martínez: US's ranking on infant mortality as a direct cooresponding factor to the quality of US health care was the connection that was being made. I have shown that making such an analysis based on that single factor is faulty at best. It should concern all Americans that the infant mortality rate is high. But to conclude that it's the fault of the health care system ignores more likely factors. If all data collecting were equal, then the comparisons would have more meaning.

I wouldn't wonder if inside certain govts some people are thinking about faking a terror attack like the London car bombings 7/7 2007.

So we have now people standing up who want to protect their "right" to violate human rights (if I say human rights it is unqualified, not a juridical term out of my mouth, just human rights like the right of integrity). I think my own fight against terror and sort of fashisms comes forward

Whoooooo!!! :-)

Who's that American sending spam to the Scottish? Who ever he is, the signal he is sending out to people in rage is: look, here I am, here, here hello hehehehe

If you wonder about the fuss about the Lockerbie story, that is the background: Libya knows enough about violation of human rights of the organisation Frontex. Drowned refugees in the mediterranean sea = Frontex. Our govts who love their hypocrisy are in panic just now. It's over the bluff with moral high ground. Oh wait, the machine keeps rolling lol for good measure.

Pedro Martínez: They can't admit that anything is wrong with the US as it is now.  It would be "unpatriotic".  Besides, admitting anything is wrong might lead to (gulp!) socialism.

Czuch, AD: I think it should be noted that only very few of the countries ranked higher than the United States on the infant mortality list use other criteria for the definition of a live birth than those used in the US. I understand, however, that it is hard to put up with the fact that the noble country, or the nation of beautiful babies, is not ranked anywhere close to the top of the list.

(V): No Jules, you have always given some statistic about how the US ranks 30 something in the world in infant mortality rates

but if what AD has shown is true, they are comparing apples to oranges

I grew up in a region where religion didn't play a big role, in a historical context it does, but not in common life. I traveled enough, in regions like this lots of people find the Father and ask by them self, what is this all about, Jesus und church? If you happen to have found the Father, you'd better watch out. It's Ramadan, friendliest greatings to the Muslims.

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.

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.

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?

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: 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

gogul: 

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?

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."

.... 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.

Artful Dodger: Great post to chew at

(V):

Artful Dodger: oooooo pantomine time....

Ohhhhh no they are not!!

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

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

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?

Snoopy: Ooooop north poor relations.

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

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?

(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. 

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

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. 

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.

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

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

(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.

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??

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.

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????

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

(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.

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.

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.