(back)
User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

20. August 2009, 21:18:08
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re:
Modified by Übergeek 바둑이 (20. August 2009, 21:20:30)
Artful Dodger:

> In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within
> the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

I was looking at some statistical data on health care systems. I found a good article in Wikipedia which compares the healthcare systems in Canada and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

There is also an article that compares some healthcare statistics between Cuba and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

There is an article on the National Healthcare System in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

I included Cuba there because Cuba is atypical. It is a poor country with few resources, but they make healthcare their top national priority and it is covered 100% by the state. Canadaand the UK stand one step below. In Canada 70% of the healthcare system being paid from public (government) sources. In the US 49% of healthcare is paid by the government, the rest comes from private sources (mostly private insurance frims).

I find that the statistics show some things being better in Canada, others are better in the US, others are better in Cuba, etc. I see no real statistical differences in some measures like Cancer survival and incidence rates. Some Cancers are better in the US, others are better in Canada. Child and infant moratility rates are slightly better in Cuba than in the US, but just marginally.

I find the one big difference is that US is the only wealthy industrialized nation to have no universal healthcare system. Low income families receive Medicaid, and that is where the complaints seem to be coming from. Medicaid will not cover many services that are covered by private insurance firms, and waiting lists on Medicaid services are very long. Although 47 million people have only Medicaid coverage, the overall health of the population is not statistically different from most countries with good healthcare systems.

I think people can nitpick at details of different healthcare systems. I find that the bottom line is if the lower income people in a country have available healthcare, then the health of the population improves tremendously. I think that healthcare reform in the US might be perceived as socialist, but if Obama succeeds in improving healthcare services for low income families, then long term statistics in the US could be as good as those as Sweden, Norway or Austria. Healthcare in those countries seems to statistically much better than Canada or the US.

20. August 2009, 21:50:19
Mort 
Subject: Re:
Übergeek 바둑이: Th cost of healthcare in the USA is twice the GDP average of ours and other western countries. Yet, along with those who rely on Medicaid and the like, there are man, many millions with inadequate insurance.

Some reform to an more efficient system is needed, I think both camps in the USA agree with that, it's just a matter of how. And from what I've read the Pres is going to get a change in policy. Maybe not as much as he would like, but a step in the right direction.

The division and lack of even a countrywide insurance firm system (as in one that can be taken out by anyone in any state) is crazy. Bupa here is countrywide private insurance, which by the nature cuts costs and is more efficient.

All that admin in all those insurance companies!!!

20. August 2009, 22:16:34
Bernice 
Subject: Re:The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada
Übergeek 바둑이: ??
does that mean that Americans are more unhealthy than Canadians or does it mean the wages are higher in the USA

20. August 2009, 23:56:44
gogul 
Subject: Re:The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada
Bernice: Whose wages? In the US some players seem to earn more as everywhere else, yes: wages are higher in New York. Hmm.

21. August 2009, 00:21:08
Bernice 
Subject: Re:The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada
gogul: ummmmmmmmmm......I was being facetious.

21. August 2009, 00:11:11
gogul 
Subject: Re:The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada
Modified by gogul (21. August 2009, 00:15:22)
Bernice: I mean to say that I see it from the side of who profitates, who earns money from those who need care, and maybe the question if it has gotten out of hand a little..

21. August 2009, 07:53:48
Übergeek 바둑이 
Subject: Re:The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada
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.

21. August 2009, 01:51:51
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re:
Modified by Papa Zoom (21. August 2009, 02:09:45)
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.

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top